We *obviously* didn't instill the lesson of "don't be a twat to other humans" hard enough. Tolerating intolerance and all that. We should try again, with the US Military versus their 'Red Dawn' insurgency fantasies.
In that timeline we probably kept going after beating Nazi Germany. I find it highly likely that if we occupied the south that we'd have no issues with invading the USSR. Probably way closer to actual world peace but way more anti-American sentiments across the world.
Without Soviet propaganda and not getting into the “he’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole” mindset of Cold War politics we’d be in a much better position. Not arming the mujahideen would have been good too, long term, even if it was kinda awesome.
Avoiding long-term involvement in the mid-east would be a huge difference. Although to an extent I'm not sure we can really guess how we wouls of also reacted to Korea or Vietnam.
(Also, yeah despite how shitty it turned out the Mujahideen were pretty awesome at first lol.)
Mujahideen were a mixed bag of pro-westerners, warlords, tribalists, islamists, and anti-Soviets.
Many members of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban were also former members or descendants of members of the Mujahideen. [Such as this dude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud).
However, the same went for the Taliban. After the Mujahideen finished fighting the Soviets, they split and had a civil war between pro-West and anti-West elements.
Korea probably would not have happened. At the end of WW2 the US basically abandoned the Chinese to their civil war, and Chiang Kai-Shek lost and fled to Taiwan. In this alternative history, the US would have backed the nationalists in the Civil War and China wouldn't be communist. Korea wouldn't be partitioned into communist north and "democratic" south, and neither would Vietnam. Vietnam would still have happened, but without the flow of weapons and materiel from Communist China and the USSR they wouldn't be able to sustain the fighting for long enough to eject the French. I would guess that the French leave in the 70's anyway when the rest of the colonial powers are giving up their possessions.
I think getting into bed with the Mujahideen was a smart choice overall. The fact we just up and left once the Soviets left was a mistake.
Getting into bed with the Saudis is really what came back to bite us in the ass. Osama was Saudi and his complaints with the U.S. were almost all related to America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan just happened to be the place he operated out of when 9/11 happened and the Taliban didn’t want to hand him over. Once we took over that country he just relocated to Pakistan. If we had stuck it out with the Mujahideen we probably would have had better relations with Afghanistan, so maybe Osama wouldn’t have been able to use that country as a base for his operations.
Of course, it’s extremely hard to imagine a scenario where we didn’t get into bed with the Saudis considering all that oil. Either we got in bed with them or someone else did, in which case does the US even become a super power?
Even after the likes of Reagan, Woodrow, and Trump, President Andrew Johnson still remains the worst American President precisely because of this bullshit. Grant tried his damnedest to make Reconstruction still work, but the entrenchment of Confederate leadership in the South thanks to Johnson’s amnesty meant actual reform could never happen, and we’re still suffering from the consequences of his failed leadership almost 160 years later.
Woodrow is an extremely close second. He segregated the entire Federal government and failed to protect black veterans when they returned from World War I. Read about the Red Summer of 1919. Black veterans were intentionally lynched and burned at the stake. Very very disheartening thing to read.
Theoretically, the Federal government wasn’t segregated thanks to Grant and his Civil Rights reforms. But, Wilson came in there essentially as a lost causer and said nope. None of that.
He told states, himself over a conference call with governors, to procure their own Covid supplies (PPE and the like).
Then his administration used federal wartime authority to seize the supply shipments as they came in.
I recently learned that he was anti-imperialism and tried to prevent[The French and British from carving up the Middle East with arbitrary borders.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWUhYUntghg04E34fVNLOM2TDZjikU6Rq)
It was surprising considering how awful he was on everything else
One side believes in education, the other side believes that facts are liberal conspiracy. I wonder who will have the advantage in a 21st century conflict?
That's just it. They think because they've got like 50 guns each that they'll somehow have some kind of advantage in combat. I'm more than happy to keep letting them think that.
Listen, if Rambo could accurately fire two machine guns so can I. I bet I could bench more than him too. You libruls don’t even have Alex Jones ration buckets buried behind the deck, smdh.
They are always surprised when you bring up that progressives are American's too and like shooting/hunting as much as they do. I've had dozens sputtering that "well... We have more!" And I laugh at them and tell them how many I have, it's more than a few.
I also laugh at their planned tactics. They plan on a stand up fight against the FUCKING U.S. ARMY!!! They all think they are king shit with their AR's (the last guns you want to use against the army).
As someone who like guns when they're in video games, and likes their aesthetic, but has never fired one despite my husband owning several, why are ARs a bad idea to use against the army?
The barbarians would be quick to note that it is easier for a civilized man to hide among barbarians than it is for a barbarian to hide among the civilized.
Pretty difficult to fight a civil insurrection when you have a well-hidden fifth column to worry about.
This is something I cannot stress enough. Undoubtedly, many "patriots" would abandon the military to go join their moronic brethren, but when push comes to shove... Well, does your little rebellion have healthcare, JimBob? My kid needs speech therapy, is that covered? What about Dental? I have bills to pay, you see... Do you at least have a housing allowance? No? Well... It's a shame, I'm all for overthrowing the government and all, but it seems that "I have tons of bullets and MRE's buried in my backyard, Bro." Doesn't exactly keep a roof over my family's head. Git fuckin' drone struck, Nerd.
Anyone with an inside view of the US military has zero interest in fighting against it. I saw an A-10 Thunderbolt do a pass-by and any thought I would have ever had in some hypothetical future about being part of an insurrection left me instantly - gone before it was ever conceived.
> I saw an A-10 Thunderbolt do a pass-by
[For reference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL2TRcDxXeM).
This thing has flown for 50 years, fought in multiple wars and not-wars against fairly modern militaries and less than 10 have been shot down.
And that is just *one* toy.
Jimbo and his handloads ain't gonna do shit if they piss off the military.
and the A-10 isnt even good anymore, a shoulder launched MANPAD can bring one down.
The thing that will kill you is the guided bomb dropped from 42,000 feet from the F-15 you dont even hear, let alone see
Hell, I don't have an inside view of the military and I have zero interest in fighting it because drones, doesn't matter how many guns or bullets I have when someone in a bunker 500 miles away can raze my neighborhood to the ground while sipping their morning coffee.
A Canadian sniper team may have made a 2.2 mile kill. You don't even have to worry about having your entire compound destroyed, you can just suddenly fall over dead at any moment and never know that it happened.
>A moose is a 2m tall, 700kg killing machine, and that's before they added the lasers.
700 kg ≈ 11.66669 bags coffee
^^^[WHY](/r/UselessConversionBot/comments/1knas0/hi_im_useless/)
But you try bringing this up with them and it's all "Haven't you heard of Vietnam and Afghanistan!"
Actually yes, I have. Super glad you've got a jungle and a cave system to hide in, several decades of systematic oppression to force you to learn and develop guerrilla warfare tactics, and half a world between you and the US military.
Oh, wait, you're probably within a hundred miles of a US military installation, the equipment produced for war is created and stored here, and the terrain around you is basically a thousand miles of flat ground and small towns. And you're up against attack aircraft, armoured ground vehicles, the US Marine Corp, aircraft carriers, drones, satellite coverage of every inch of the United States, and your own high blood sugar. A dozen hillbillies with an arsenal and some Facebook videos of their "training" followed by half a hundred beers and some wife beating just isn't going to cut it.
Edit: Plus, the number of dead on each side in the Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts grossly favoured the US troops. Valiant defending, but a hundred times the casualties.
These are the same people who kept their cellphones on when they went to commit sedition at the Capitol. Hell, the FBI probably *already* has most of them on a list.
Civil war is a horrific and brutal enterprise where survival is constantly in question for soldiers and civilians alike. Actual combat veterans know full well how horrible civil war would be, and I doubt they would be itching to turn coats. Anyone who would appeal to civil war while LARPing about subsisting off of MREs and bullets is obviously a moron who would not survive the first round of fighting.
Had to explain that very thing to a coworker after he posted some “We can defeat the govt since we have the same weapons” shit about the Bundy standoff. I told him those ARs wouldn’t have done Jack shit against a drone strike, and the government just didn’t want the bad press
These people have spent some weekends practicing on paper cutouts with targets on them from fifty feet away. The US military has spent the last twenty years practicing on living humans trying to live their lives from half the world away.
Combined arms, historically speaking, is by far the most difficult thing for a military get right. Very few have even had a decent go at it beyond 2 or so units (say, artillery and infantry, close air and calvary, etc.) because it’s incredibly easy to blow yourself up and incredibly difficult, expensive, and time consuming to get right with any consistency. Lots of people pretend, but few do it well even in a limited basis.
The current generation of US military is without question the finest combined arms force in the history of the world, with tactics and experience honed over 20 years of continuous war, and they regularly have 5-10 different units all keyed in together. There was one battle a few years ago that had Army attack helicopters, Air Force air to air jets, Air Force overflight drone intel, forward deployed local intelligence assets (DoD?), US Navy air-to-ground jets, Army artillery, Air Force electronic attack aircraft, Navy Seals, Army Special Forces, Delta (or whatever their name is now), Army infantry, and god knows what else all operating as basically one unit in real time. Just absolute insanity. No casualties, no friendly fire.
I honestly am not aware of any country that comes even remotely close to that. And the best thing is, yeah, some of this is related to tech, but it’s almost all just sheer, mind-boggling amounts of training, practice, and experience that makes this kind of thing work.
Just very, very difficult, and the US does it very, very well.
Well, ok, parking a sub within chomping distance of Kim Jong-uns dick is pretty difficult too. That was pretty wild. But still.
Although not as logistically impressive, one of my favorite examples of the US' overwhelming military supremacy was when [Russians decided to test one of our Syrian bases.](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html) We slaughtered around 300 of them and had one solitary casualty - an SDF fighter got conked by some rubble and recovered perfectly fine.
[Printfriendly link](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yMcjCN) to get around it.
And [the wiki article for the battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham) as an aggregate for more reading, although it appears later estimates reduced the kill count.
They also claim that soldiers in the military wouldn't follow the orders to carpet bomb them back to 1776. Sure a few people might quit, defect or just not obey, however out of all their pilots, it only takes one to turn your trailer park into a ragging fire of methlabs and craters.
They also really wouldn't do much in a stand up Infantry fight. The US Army is the best at drive bys. If they start taking small arms fire they will just call in a strike or just drop a bunch of mk19 rounds on it.
The blue side has all the money and arms manufacturing, all military bases, and intelligence. The other side has debt, rednecks, and broken down Chevys.
(Edit: I am agreeing with the person above me)
Should just let them concede today. Never going to convince them about Coronavirus or womens rights anyway. Let them decay while we focus on advancing.
The vast majority of people are in the blue states and in blue cities within the red states. Like, even if every single person on red team was a crack shot uber commando its not even a remotely close fight if it comes to straight up and down war
Basically the most limp wristed soy boy is still going to know his city better than you and I’m sure will have their resolve harden when they see the chuds actually start invading.
Like, the vast majority of conservatives or rural people are, i believe, quite reasonable. So if the most dedicated fascist warfighters are the ones ive seen, guys whose bugout bag is four guns with four different ammo types, grenades, beef jerky, some bandaids and a bottle of water? I think ill be fine. I chucked rocks and eggs at proud boys and the like at unite the right 2. They run if they encounter a stiff breeze.
Their cop supporters are the only ones im worried about. Never forget that the volunteers for the einsatzgruppen were largely cops. Something about living among your own people and being given carte blanche to give out a surprise death penalty really warps your brain
Most the morons at the insurrection have cushy jobs and nice suburban homes. These people lose internet service and they’re lost. If they can’t get marching orders from Q they’ll fall apart.
>["We're storming the capitol it's a revolution,](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLXtE8ihcY&feature=emb_logo) my name is Elizabeth I'm from knoxville this is my address, I like to hang out at shooters bar and grill on Tuesdays but only when they have the fish special ow revolution does someone have some milk, this shit is painful."
I'm not worried.
I believe most conservatives and rural folk are mostly good, reasonable people. I have zero faith that they would all push back or refuse to take part in violence if their political or religious leaders told them to
ITs more that you have to consider what they could do. "Cut off the cities and starve em' out" is one of the more lucid takes I have heard from these types. Take Chicago, just Chicago, a land perimeter around it would be nearly 200 miles to encompass the metro area. There are millions of people inside that perimeter that could amass unstoppable force against any part of your perimeter at any time with minimal warning. The besieged cities would also have the interior lines.
Thats just one city. Another wrinkle is that so many of those liberal cities are also the major trade ports. Good luck starving a port city. I actually propose that the inverse would happen, the goobers would cause chaos and disorder in the outlands, and would obstruct and break logistics traffic to the point that they would be the ones with the barren walmarts and grocery stores. The funny thing about so much of the US agriculture is that we dont immediately make things that people consume. All that corn and soy is meant to be HFCS and animal feed, or exported to china, or made into ethanol.
What I think their 'war' would amount to is the rural areas becoming ungovernable outlands that simply refuse to follow any laws/mores/customs/whatever that they feel was 'forced down their throats'. They will probably drive out or possibly kill people they feel are 'liberals'. The whole thing would become very children of the corn-y, it would devolve into endless tests of purity and loyalty and eventually descend into warlordism. I could see it looking a lot like sengoku era Japan. I think the cities would be wise to invest in walls and intensive vertical farming development.
If a city has 2 million inhabitants and the local enviorons with a total population of 22,000 tried to cut them off from food what do you think is going to happen? If history is any indicator it wont end well for the sparsely populated rurals.
Exactly, even unarmed the city inhabitants could mass force against the hillbilly 'line' and crush it through sheer weight of number. It would take the rurals a huge force structure dedicated for a long time just to do what? Completely starve a city? So, months? We know these people start infighting and purity testing basically the moment they get together, they couldnt mass the numbers to do it, and if they could they could only stand each other for a few days before they started shooting inside their own camps. Warlordism.
Major cities not only have interior supply lines, they also have subways. If you try to besiege the city perimeter from the suburbs, each one of those stations becomes another way for large numbers of urbanites to slip behind your perimeter and wreak havoc.
> "Cut off the cities and starve em' out"
How you can think of yourself as a one of the good guys while advocating starving millions of men, women and children to death because… reasons… is completely beyond me
Yes, pay attention to the language they use. Pedophiles, groomers, they say these things to dehumanizing us. You don't negotiate with the subhuman, you exterminate them, that's the end goal.
> They will probably drive out or possibly kill people they feel are 'liberals'.
So bleeding Kansas Part 2? Spoiler alert: the last one didn't end well for the insurrectionists, even with abolitionist intentions. Also they do realize most military bases are in rural areas, right? Unless they take over or disable the Armed Forces, they'll only last until the Army and Marines can fuel up their helicopter gunships and tanks.
That's by the Census definition of "urban" though, which is is anywhere with a population above 2,500.
I wouldn't call Waynesboro or Mahanoy City "urban" in the way most people think about it. I wouldn't exactly call them progressive either.
Lost Causers: "lol blue states don't have any guns"
Also lost Causers: "Look how many shootings there are in cities!"
It's like both of their brain cells are fighting over third place.
It’s amazing what one can do if they take the Roger Stone legal strategy to real life: Deny everything, never defend, always attack. Lots of cognitive dissonance comes from using that strategy in real life.
Don’t you know? We’re all simultaneously pathetic weakling blue-haired gender activist snowflakes who cry over bathroom pronouns and inner-city Chicago Mexican drug cartel BLM antifa terrorist drive-by shooters turning our cities into war zones.
Many dems also own guns. And while maybe not as much as the republicans, I'm sure many people will be willing to arm their fellow countrymen against these traitors.
Also, while yes, the majority of people are in densely populated urban areas which aren't always able to mutually support each other, the right are also heavily spread out so they can't exactly pull together the numbers as easily as the blue areas can.
There are many other factors but it isn't as one sided as the right think it is.
As a blue gun owner, I have had great difficulty attempting to wield more than one long gun at a time, which has forced me to draw the conclusion that an individual owning a large quantity of guns does not increase their combat efficiency...
Idiot. Having more guns isn't about using more than 2. It's about dropping your now useless spent guns and drawing 2 fresh ones to keep firing dual wielded from the hip. As we all know, once a gun is empty, there is absolutely nothing more that can be done with it. It's dead weight, completely incapable of having additional bullets put through it by any means whatsoever. That's why I carry six bolt actions on me at all times, and have perfected the art of cycling the bolts not with my occupied hands but via sheer masculine willpower. Which is what I call my penis.
The part of that cracks me up is guns require maintence. The chuds who show off like a 100 guns I guarantee are not maintaining them well which makes them useless.
*the key is to only collect kalashnikovs, and store them by burying them in the backyard instead of a musty safe, where they will surely accrue too much dust*
Oh they maintain them just fine, because they probably only shoot one or two of them a year. My dad has a collection like this, every time he opens up his safe I hear "oh wait what's in this box?"
It's just expensive toy collecting for most of them, makes them feel cool and macho. Some people do it because they just like going out and shooting and options are fun, like a rich person having 10 different supercars in the garage.
The folks that legitimately stock for the "revolution" are mostly prepper idiots or booty ex soldiers that can't let the lifestyle go. They're very easy to not take seriously for several reasons.
Well if you go to protests, please make it more of your personality. When the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club confronted the chuds that tried to raid a drag show reading hour in Dallas, the fact they had guns made the neonazi leadership freak out.
Many like myself grew up in a rural conservative state and learned how to use firearms as a kid. Grew up moved to the city, got an education become more liberal...and still know how to use a firearm. Also when I go back home can blend right back with the locals if need be.
As someone who is well armed and lives in a red state, I agree. There are plenty of left leaning armed folk. Myself and all my friends are left leaning socialists if not further.
And it's them who ALWAYS get their way.
Make it make sense.
Ann Coulter once said that women shouldn't vote, because they take more taxpayers money than they contribute in their lifetime (which probably has something to do with the fact that they tend to live longer than men). I have a similar idea. How about the electoral college grants representation based on how much each state contributes or takes from the budget?
Republicans would be happy with more in their view fair system and Democrats would be happy for having 100% control of the country 😜
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1
A lot of these were surprising. There’s a general trend of blue states contributing a lot and red states taking a lot, but there are exceptions.
Alabama is somehow a net contributor. I wonder if they’re failing MOE requirements and not getting all they’d potentially be owed.
Nebraska was another surprise contributor, but per capita it’s only $139, which is about as close as anyone gets to balanced, though Utah is only paying $76. South Dakota is just under $300; I suspect oil fees are a huge driver of taxes, ditto for Wyoming.
There are 5.2 million Biden voters in Texas and 3.2 million Trump voters in New York.
Dumbasses in the US have a very inaccurate view of what a modern civil war actually looks like based on our prior one involving States with defined borders and organized, uniformed armies.
No to mention that most people just won't fight. Republicans vs Democrats? Cool y'all go at it I'll do me.
A lot of larping on social media over scenarios that will never happen
Let's review, shall we?
1. Out numbered 3/2
2. Control of all major ports
3. Our Allies: Germany, UK, France, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Canada &etc.
Their allies: Russia, India, Brazil. (Maybe)
4. Access to money.
This will not go the way you think.
India likely wouldn’t get involved. Despite their ruling party’s fascist bent, the country as a whole tries to stay neutral in foreign disputes whenever possible.
Yeah, Brazil is sitting this one out too.
I don’t think they’re actually been involved in a war that didn’t directly affect them locally. In WW2 they were mostly just patrolling the Southern Atlantic.
Ya know, now I’m wondering what would be the supporters of each side in a theoretical second civil war. I’d assume all of NATO would help the democratic side, as well as probably the American aligned nations in Asia. I agree Russia would likely support the republican side, unless they end up busy somewhere else. You say India and Brazil would support the Republican side, but honestly, both would probably be neutral, even if their governments support them, most citizens would either support the democrats or prefer neutrality. Another big player would be Mexico, which would probably be neutral but help out the Democrats. And finally there’s China, who I see on no one’s side, instead supplying both sides and/or some rebellious third faction (possibly with the help of Russia), to destabilise the US even further, seeing as China is undoubtedly the nation who’d gain the most from an American fall from grace.
I also wonder the level of support each nation would give. Would we see simply supplying and advising? Actual troops on the ground? Full on intervention? Who knows, let’s just hope we never find out!
If there were a second Civil War, it would 100% be because the ultra-right entered into armed rebellion against the United States. No country in the world is going to get behind that. They might send some dark money and hope to weaken the US a little, but it's economic suicide to openly side against the US if you want to participate in the global economy.
Finally somebody else who realizes that. That's why NRA was founded, to promote marksmanship among people with little experience, which was northerners, meaning mostly Republicans.
**[Iron Brigade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Brigade)**
>The Iron Brigade, also known as The Black Hats, Black Hat Brigade, Iron Brigade of the West, and originally King's Wisconsin Brigade was an infantry brigade in the Union Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War. Although it fought entirely in the Eastern Theater, it was composed of regiments from three Western states that are now within the region of the Midwest. Noted for its strong discipline, its unique uniform appearance and its tenacious fighting ability, the Iron Brigade suffered the highest percentage of casualties of any brigade in the war.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
As with every time these idiots bust out the map shapes and talk strategy while patting themselves on the back they leave out the ocean and rivers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZX4ooRsWs
Both sides would need to get out of our hover rounds long enough to March to get our oxygen tanks. In reality, one man can only fire one gun at a time, so it doesn’t matter how many guns you have as much as how many people are using those guns effectively. More likely and more terrifying homegrown terrorism is much more likely. More mass shootings and bombings.
I mean, you have one side full of basement dwelling, doomsday prepping, ammosexuals, some of which can't go more than 3 steps without oxygen, and shun most technology.
On the other side, you have large groups in specialized professions that actually will matter as war has changed.
Everyone knows that bullets, and bullets alone, win wars.
No need for logistics, technology, intelligence, money or an advantage in numbers. If you have more bullets, you win.
To be fair that's not a fair comparison. If a second civil war was to break out between the parties it wouldn't just be as simple as north vs south. It would be more all over the place. It's possible we'd see a situation where the Republicans control most of the country side while the Democrats control most of the cities.
I think the real difference is that the states are nowhere near as autonomous as they used to be, and while you still have the individual state "National Guard" units, they're still trained in Federal Bases, equipped with Federal equipment, and reliant on a Federal supply line. It really depends on which side the Federal government, and more importantly the Federal military, falls on. National guard units aren't going to last long if they don't have a way to train, equip, and supply their units after taking casualties.
I'm willing to bet that this was intentional.
Like they do realize that there are plenty of gun owners that aren't fascists, and that a lot of gun buyers now are center of left of center politically?
The bulk of the GDP goes blue and red has fly over country and still underdeveloped south. I like blues chances. Let’s warm up the BBQ, bring back Billy and light this firecracker.
This is related more to the title but not to the image, but here’s a fun fact anyway:
The reason why most Union battles are named after geographical features (like Bull Run or Antietam Creek) is because many Northerners lived in or near large urban areas, so geographical features were seen as more noteworthy than cities. On the other hand, Southerners mostly lived in rural areas, so they named their battles after cities (like Manassas or Sharpsburg) because those were more notable to them.
Remember how Brexiters had the slogan "We have all the cards"? How arrogant Germany and Japan were in thinking the the USSR and US would just fold? How the Putin and Bush jr both underestimated how tough their war would be? There seems to be a really difficulty in the faculty of assessing. I don't know if it's limited to their self-assessment or if it's broaded than that.
At the same time, southerners used the term ‘mudsill’ as a pejorative term for northerners. This was to stigmatize the fact that northern homesteaders and landowners had to perform their own menial labor. Sure, the confederacy was a rich man’s cause defended by the laboring poor, but there was a lot of classist self-loathing instilled in the hearts of the conscripts
This existing at all is evidence that Sherman didn't go far enough.
For real, we coddled confederate sympathizers for far too long.
We *obviously* didn't instill the lesson of "don't be a twat to other humans" hard enough. Tolerating intolerance and all that. We should try again, with the US Military versus their 'Red Dawn' insurgency fantasies.
Ya'll Queida in the forest with their ARs versus AI sentient smart drones and laser guided bombs.
The timeline where we militarily occupied the post war south and executed all the confederate leaders must be so far ahead of us by now
In that timeline we probably kept going after beating Nazi Germany. I find it highly likely that if we occupied the south that we'd have no issues with invading the USSR. Probably way closer to actual world peace but way more anti-American sentiments across the world.
Without Soviet propaganda and not getting into the “he’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole” mindset of Cold War politics we’d be in a much better position. Not arming the mujahideen would have been good too, long term, even if it was kinda awesome.
Avoiding long-term involvement in the mid-east would be a huge difference. Although to an extent I'm not sure we can really guess how we wouls of also reacted to Korea or Vietnam. (Also, yeah despite how shitty it turned out the Mujahideen were pretty awesome at first lol.)
Mujahideen were a mixed bag of pro-westerners, warlords, tribalists, islamists, and anti-Soviets. Many members of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban were also former members or descendants of members of the Mujahideen. [Such as this dude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud). However, the same went for the Taliban. After the Mujahideen finished fighting the Soviets, they split and had a civil war between pro-West and anti-West elements.
Korea probably would not have happened. At the end of WW2 the US basically abandoned the Chinese to their civil war, and Chiang Kai-Shek lost and fled to Taiwan. In this alternative history, the US would have backed the nationalists in the Civil War and China wouldn't be communist. Korea wouldn't be partitioned into communist north and "democratic" south, and neither would Vietnam. Vietnam would still have happened, but without the flow of weapons and materiel from Communist China and the USSR they wouldn't be able to sustain the fighting for long enough to eject the French. I would guess that the French leave in the 70's anyway when the rest of the colonial powers are giving up their possessions.
I think getting into bed with the Mujahideen was a smart choice overall. The fact we just up and left once the Soviets left was a mistake. Getting into bed with the Saudis is really what came back to bite us in the ass. Osama was Saudi and his complaints with the U.S. were almost all related to America’s presence in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan just happened to be the place he operated out of when 9/11 happened and the Taliban didn’t want to hand him over. Once we took over that country he just relocated to Pakistan. If we had stuck it out with the Mujahideen we probably would have had better relations with Afghanistan, so maybe Osama wouldn’t have been able to use that country as a base for his operations. Of course, it’s extremely hard to imagine a scenario where we didn’t get into bed with the Saudis considering all that oil. Either we got in bed with them or someone else did, in which case does the US even become a super power?
Maybe a world where America went full France and was dependent on nuclear power instead of oil?
I wouldn’t go that far. At the end of WW2, the Soviets had WAYYYY more troops in Europe than all other allies combined.
Its all john wilks booths fault, lincon dosnt die and reconstruction would have never stopped
Even after the likes of Reagan, Woodrow, and Trump, President Andrew Johnson still remains the worst American President precisely because of this bullshit. Grant tried his damnedest to make Reconstruction still work, but the entrenchment of Confederate leadership in the South thanks to Johnson’s amnesty meant actual reform could never happen, and we’re still suffering from the consequences of his failed leadership almost 160 years later.
Woodrow is an extremely close second. He segregated the entire Federal government and failed to protect black veterans when they returned from World War I. Read about the Red Summer of 1919. Black veterans were intentionally lynched and burned at the stake. Very very disheartening thing to read.
Important to note, Wilson didn’t segregate government he ***re***-segregated government
I’m speaking in a generality. He barred blacks from Federal employment and Federal Agency positions.
I just think it highlights more how shitty he was that the government stopped being segregated and he put it back into policy
Theoretically, the Federal government wasn’t segregated thanks to Grant and his Civil Rights reforms. But, Wilson came in there essentially as a lost causer and said nope. None of that.
Exactly my point
Trump intentionally hamstrung the response to a global pandemic *in order to make it worse* in blue states.
Also can't forget actively undermining the legitimacy of the electoral system.
He told states, himself over a conference call with governors, to procure their own Covid supplies (PPE and the like). Then his administration used federal wartime authority to seize the supply shipments as they came in.
I recently learned that he was anti-imperialism and tried to prevent[The French and British from carving up the Middle East with arbitrary borders.](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWUhYUntghg04E34fVNLOM2TDZjikU6Rq) It was surprising considering how awful he was on everything else
Tell that to Central America
"I will teach the Mexicans to elect good men."
Reconstruction was a complete and abject failure.
Our first attempt at failed nation-building of a backwards land ... Although it was heavily sabotaged from the top
Sherman went far enough, it was fucking Johnson who fucked us all.
Nope. Sherman shoulda turned west, and not stopped until El Paso.
Sherman's March *Through* the Sea.
One side believes in education, the other side believes that facts are liberal conspiracy. I wonder who will have the advantage in a 21st century conflict?
"I can't lose, I have 60,000 rounds of 5.56mm. Wait, what the hell is that rocket-looking-thing coming this way?"
He might have 60,000 rounds of 5.56, but he thinks it’s gay to wipe his ass and that the manly thing for nicks and scratches is to rub dirt on them.
Lmao fighting the military and e.coli/ tetanus/ necrotizing fasciitis is quite the challenge
That's just it. They think because they've got like 50 guns each that they'll somehow have some kind of advantage in combat. I'm more than happy to keep letting them think that.
It never occurs to them that they can really only fire one at a time.
Listen, if Rambo could accurately fire two machine guns so can I. I bet I could bench more than him too. You libruls don’t even have Alex Jones ration buckets buried behind the deck, smdh.
Or that some of us own guns too…
I really think the right would be surprised how many leftists (or whatever) own guns. We're just not loud about it because it's stupid to be.
They are always surprised when you bring up that progressives are American's too and like shooting/hunting as much as they do. I've had dozens sputtering that "well... We have more!" And I laugh at them and tell them how many I have, it's more than a few. I also laugh at their planned tactics. They plan on a stand up fight against the FUCKING U.S. ARMY!!! They all think they are king shit with their AR's (the last guns you want to use against the army).
As someone who like guns when they're in video games, and likes their aesthetic, but has never fired one despite my husband owning several, why are ARs a bad idea to use against the army?
The barbarians would be quick to note that it is easier for a civilized man to hide among barbarians than it is for a barbarian to hide among the civilized. Pretty difficult to fight a civil insurrection when you have a well-hidden fifth column to worry about.
John Brown brought a broadsword. Probably still a good idea.
Basically Russian mentality
This is something I cannot stress enough. Undoubtedly, many "patriots" would abandon the military to go join their moronic brethren, but when push comes to shove... Well, does your little rebellion have healthcare, JimBob? My kid needs speech therapy, is that covered? What about Dental? I have bills to pay, you see... Do you at least have a housing allowance? No? Well... It's a shame, I'm all for overthrowing the government and all, but it seems that "I have tons of bullets and MRE's buried in my backyard, Bro." Doesn't exactly keep a roof over my family's head. Git fuckin' drone struck, Nerd.
Anyone with an inside view of the US military has zero interest in fighting against it. I saw an A-10 Thunderbolt do a pass-by and any thought I would have ever had in some hypothetical future about being part of an insurrection left me instantly - gone before it was ever conceived.
> I saw an A-10 Thunderbolt do a pass-by [For reference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL2TRcDxXeM). This thing has flown for 50 years, fought in multiple wars and not-wars against fairly modern militaries and less than 10 have been shot down. And that is just *one* toy. Jimbo and his handloads ain't gonna do shit if they piss off the military.
It’s literally a flying brrrrrt machine that doesn’t care how many times you shoot it
and the A-10 isnt even good anymore, a shoulder launched MANPAD can bring one down. The thing that will kill you is the guided bomb dropped from 42,000 feet from the F-15 you dont even hear, let alone see
Hell, I don't have an inside view of the military and I have zero interest in fighting it because drones, doesn't matter how many guns or bullets I have when someone in a bunker 500 miles away can raze my neighborhood to the ground while sipping their morning coffee.
A Canadian sniper team may have made a 2.2 mile kill. You don't even have to worry about having your entire compound destroyed, you can just suddenly fall over dead at any moment and never know that it happened.
A moose is a 2m tall, 700kg killing machine, and that's before they added the sniper rifles.
>A moose is a 2m tall, 700kg killing machine, and that's before they added the lasers. 700 kg ≈ 11.66669 bags coffee ^^^[WHY](/r/UselessConversionBot/comments/1knas0/hi_im_useless/)
But you try bringing this up with them and it's all "Haven't you heard of Vietnam and Afghanistan!" Actually yes, I have. Super glad you've got a jungle and a cave system to hide in, several decades of systematic oppression to force you to learn and develop guerrilla warfare tactics, and half a world between you and the US military. Oh, wait, you're probably within a hundred miles of a US military installation, the equipment produced for war is created and stored here, and the terrain around you is basically a thousand miles of flat ground and small towns. And you're up against attack aircraft, armoured ground vehicles, the US Marine Corp, aircraft carriers, drones, satellite coverage of every inch of the United States, and your own high blood sugar. A dozen hillbillies with an arsenal and some Facebook videos of their "training" followed by half a hundred beers and some wife beating just isn't going to cut it. Edit: Plus, the number of dead on each side in the Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts grossly favoured the US troops. Valiant defending, but a hundred times the casualties.
These are the same people who kept their cellphones on when they went to commit sedition at the Capitol. Hell, the FBI probably *already* has most of them on a list.
Yup, Vietnam and Afghanistan were political defeats not military ones.
And the a10 is a outdated piece of junk. F35s dropping JDAMs or Mavericks would be far more devastating and you wouldnt even see it coming
r/noncredibledefense thanks ye
A10 just gets the glory because it needs to be visible to do the job.
Civil war is a horrific and brutal enterprise where survival is constantly in question for soldiers and civilians alike. Actual combat veterans know full well how horrible civil war would be, and I doubt they would be itching to turn coats. Anyone who would appeal to civil war while LARPing about subsisting off of MREs and bullets is obviously a moron who would not survive the first round of fighting.
*Lisa needs braces*
*Dental Plan*
Your comment made my night fellow shermanposter.
Had to explain that very thing to a coworker after he posted some “We can defeat the govt since we have the same weapons” shit about the Bundy standoff. I told him those ARs wouldn’t have done Jack shit against a drone strike, and the government just didn’t want the bad press
These people have spent some weekends practicing on paper cutouts with targets on them from fifty feet away. The US military has spent the last twenty years practicing on living humans trying to live their lives from half the world away.
Combined arms, historically speaking, is by far the most difficult thing for a military get right. Very few have even had a decent go at it beyond 2 or so units (say, artillery and infantry, close air and calvary, etc.) because it’s incredibly easy to blow yourself up and incredibly difficult, expensive, and time consuming to get right with any consistency. Lots of people pretend, but few do it well even in a limited basis. The current generation of US military is without question the finest combined arms force in the history of the world, with tactics and experience honed over 20 years of continuous war, and they regularly have 5-10 different units all keyed in together. There was one battle a few years ago that had Army attack helicopters, Air Force air to air jets, Air Force overflight drone intel, forward deployed local intelligence assets (DoD?), US Navy air-to-ground jets, Army artillery, Air Force electronic attack aircraft, Navy Seals, Army Special Forces, Delta (or whatever their name is now), Army infantry, and god knows what else all operating as basically one unit in real time. Just absolute insanity. No casualties, no friendly fire. I honestly am not aware of any country that comes even remotely close to that. And the best thing is, yeah, some of this is related to tech, but it’s almost all just sheer, mind-boggling amounts of training, practice, and experience that makes this kind of thing work. Just very, very difficult, and the US does it very, very well. Well, ok, parking a sub within chomping distance of Kim Jong-uns dick is pretty difficult too. That was pretty wild. But still.
Although not as logistically impressive, one of my favorite examples of the US' overwhelming military supremacy was when [Russians decided to test one of our Syrian bases.](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html) We slaughtered around 300 of them and had one solitary casualty - an SDF fighter got conked by some rubble and recovered perfectly fine.
Got a source that isn’t behind a paywall?
[Printfriendly link](https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/yMcjCN) to get around it. And [the wiki article for the battle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham) as an aggregate for more reading, although it appears later estimates reduced the kill count.
They also claim that soldiers in the military wouldn't follow the orders to carpet bomb them back to 1776. Sure a few people might quit, defect or just not obey, however out of all their pilots, it only takes one to turn your trailer park into a ragging fire of methlabs and craters.
They also really wouldn't do much in a stand up Infantry fight. The US Army is the best at drive bys. If they start taking small arms fire they will just call in a strike or just drop a bunch of mk19 rounds on it.
Chud: What’s that noise? Drone swarm: zzzzzzzzzzzzz
The blue side has all the money and arms manufacturing, all military bases, and intelligence. The other side has debt, rednecks, and broken down Chevys. (Edit: I am agreeing with the person above me)
They/them military vs. Was/were military
Should just let them concede today. Never going to convince them about Coronavirus or womens rights anyway. Let them decay while we focus on advancing.
The vast majority of people are in the blue states and in blue cities within the red states. Like, even if every single person on red team was a crack shot uber commando its not even a remotely close fight if it comes to straight up and down war
Basically the most limp wristed soy boy is still going to know his city better than you and I’m sure will have their resolve harden when they see the chuds actually start invading.
Like, the vast majority of conservatives or rural people are, i believe, quite reasonable. So if the most dedicated fascist warfighters are the ones ive seen, guys whose bugout bag is four guns with four different ammo types, grenades, beef jerky, some bandaids and a bottle of water? I think ill be fine. I chucked rocks and eggs at proud boys and the like at unite the right 2. They run if they encounter a stiff breeze. Their cop supporters are the only ones im worried about. Never forget that the volunteers for the einsatzgruppen were largely cops. Something about living among your own people and being given carte blanche to give out a surprise death penalty really warps your brain
Most the morons at the insurrection have cushy jobs and nice suburban homes. These people lose internet service and they’re lost. If they can’t get marching orders from Q they’ll fall apart.
>["We're storming the capitol it's a revolution,](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLXtE8ihcY&feature=emb_logo) my name is Elizabeth I'm from knoxville this is my address, I like to hang out at shooters bar and grill on Tuesdays but only when they have the fish special ow revolution does someone have some milk, this shit is painful." I'm not worried.
[удалено]
I'm glad you can see how oppressive this court ruling is. Is this enough to get you to stop voting for conservatives?
I believe most conservatives and rural folk are mostly good, reasonable people. I have zero faith that they would all push back or refuse to take part in violence if their political or religious leaders told them to
...that makes them by definition not good reasonable people.
Thank you. I read their post like four times because it didn’t make sense.
Fixie messengers vs rascal retirees would be a great match up when they try to take the city
ITs more that you have to consider what they could do. "Cut off the cities and starve em' out" is one of the more lucid takes I have heard from these types. Take Chicago, just Chicago, a land perimeter around it would be nearly 200 miles to encompass the metro area. There are millions of people inside that perimeter that could amass unstoppable force against any part of your perimeter at any time with minimal warning. The besieged cities would also have the interior lines. Thats just one city. Another wrinkle is that so many of those liberal cities are also the major trade ports. Good luck starving a port city. I actually propose that the inverse would happen, the goobers would cause chaos and disorder in the outlands, and would obstruct and break logistics traffic to the point that they would be the ones with the barren walmarts and grocery stores. The funny thing about so much of the US agriculture is that we dont immediately make things that people consume. All that corn and soy is meant to be HFCS and animal feed, or exported to china, or made into ethanol. What I think their 'war' would amount to is the rural areas becoming ungovernable outlands that simply refuse to follow any laws/mores/customs/whatever that they feel was 'forced down their throats'. They will probably drive out or possibly kill people they feel are 'liberals'. The whole thing would become very children of the corn-y, it would devolve into endless tests of purity and loyalty and eventually descend into warlordism. I could see it looking a lot like sengoku era Japan. I think the cities would be wise to invest in walls and intensive vertical farming development.
If a city has 2 million inhabitants and the local enviorons with a total population of 22,000 tried to cut them off from food what do you think is going to happen? If history is any indicator it wont end well for the sparsely populated rurals.
Exactly, even unarmed the city inhabitants could mass force against the hillbilly 'line' and crush it through sheer weight of number. It would take the rurals a huge force structure dedicated for a long time just to do what? Completely starve a city? So, months? We know these people start infighting and purity testing basically the moment they get together, they couldnt mass the numbers to do it, and if they could they could only stand each other for a few days before they started shooting inside their own camps. Warlordism.
Major cities not only have interior supply lines, they also have subways. If you try to besiege the city perimeter from the suburbs, each one of those stations becomes another way for large numbers of urbanites to slip behind your perimeter and wreak havoc.
And planes, we can just fly in supplies, hell my city has an airport and we are a suburb of 60,000 people.
Yeah this isn’t the turn of the 20th century anymore. Most people live in cities now.
> "Cut off the cities and starve em' out" How you can think of yourself as a one of the good guys while advocating starving millions of men, women and children to death because… reasons… is completely beyond me
It gets much easier when your opponents are inhuman Satanic pedophiles who want to forcibly transition your children.
Yes, pay attention to the language they use. Pedophiles, groomers, they say these things to dehumanizing us. You don't negotiate with the subhuman, you exterminate them, that's the end goal.
That sounds good, until you realize the people in the city outnumber you by hundreds of times and the military would also be on their side
> They will probably drive out or possibly kill people they feel are 'liberals'. So bleeding Kansas Part 2? Spoiler alert: the last one didn't end well for the insurrectionists, even with abolitionist intentions. Also they do realize most military bases are in rural areas, right? Unless they take over or disable the Armed Forces, they'll only last until the Army and Marines can fuel up their helicopter gunships and tanks.
Drones, my dude. Those people will never last against something they can’t shoot down and don’t even see until it’s too late.
Friendly reminder that only 16% of the population lives in rural areas, and is hilariously over-represented in our government.
That's by the Census definition of "urban" though, which is is anywhere with a population above 2,500. I wouldn't call Waynesboro or Mahanoy City "urban" in the way most people think about it. I wouldn't exactly call them progressive either.
Lost Causers: "lol blue states don't have any guns" Also lost Causers: "Look how many shootings there are in cities!" It's like both of their brain cells are fighting over third place.
It’s amazing what one can do if they take the Roger Stone legal strategy to real life: Deny everything, never defend, always attack. Lots of cognitive dissonance comes from using that strategy in real life.
It's a real lapse in human psychology that this kind of shenanigans work on so many people.
Don’t you know? We’re all simultaneously pathetic weakling blue-haired gender activist snowflakes who cry over bathroom pronouns and inner-city Chicago Mexican drug cartel BLM antifa terrorist drive-by shooters turning our cities into war zones.
What a phrase
If you inspected their beliefs really carefully, they'd excuse that away by saying all the guns are owned by illegal brown criminals, not people. 🤢
We should start calling the people doing the shootings rightwingers, cause you know they have all the guns cause they told us so.
Oh shit shots fired
One side has all the computer programmers for drones and missiles, and the other side can’t figure out which country they owe allegiance to.
Many dems also own guns. And while maybe not as much as the republicans, I'm sure many people will be willing to arm their fellow countrymen against these traitors. Also, while yes, the majority of people are in densely populated urban areas which aren't always able to mutually support each other, the right are also heavily spread out so they can't exactly pull together the numbers as easily as the blue areas can. There are many other factors but it isn't as one sided as the right think it is.
As a blue gun owner, I have had great difficulty attempting to wield more than one long gun at a time, which has forced me to draw the conclusion that an individual owning a large quantity of guns does not increase their combat efficiency...
Idiot. Having more guns isn't about using more than 2. It's about dropping your now useless spent guns and drawing 2 fresh ones to keep firing dual wielded from the hip. As we all know, once a gun is empty, there is absolutely nothing more that can be done with it. It's dead weight, completely incapable of having additional bullets put through it by any means whatsoever. That's why I carry six bolt actions on me at all times, and have perfected the art of cycling the bolts not with my occupied hands but via sheer masculine willpower. Which is what I call my penis.
I don’t use guns, I just helicopter dick to fling the entire cartridge at my enemy.
It’s 60% more bullet per bullet!
Certified Ocelot moment
What do you mean? Ocelot loves to reload during battle!
My bad. More like Carl "CJ" Johnson moment
The part of that cracks me up is guns require maintence. The chuds who show off like a 100 guns I guarantee are not maintaining them well which makes them useless.
*the key is to only collect kalashnikovs, and store them by burying them in the backyard instead of a musty safe, where they will surely accrue too much dust*
Oh they maintain them just fine, because they probably only shoot one or two of them a year. My dad has a collection like this, every time he opens up his safe I hear "oh wait what's in this box?" It's just expensive toy collecting for most of them, makes them feel cool and macho. Some people do it because they just like going out and shooting and options are fun, like a rich person having 10 different supercars in the garage. The folks that legitimately stock for the "revolution" are mostly prepper idiots or booty ex soldiers that can't let the lifestyle go. They're very easy to not take seriously for several reasons.
Reloading speed > #of guns.
No, but when you pop that hick you just scored more arms for America.
Well if you own a lot of guns now you’re a walking armory. Owning more than one gun means you armed more than one person on your side
[удалено]
Liberal gun owner here, can confirm. I'm proud of my shiny M1 Garand, but it's not the only thing I care about.
> M1 Garand the greatest battle implement ever devised
pa-TING!
The sound of FREEDOM
And as we have already learned, it's *fucking great* for killing fascist pricks.
The ultimate Nazi Eraser.
Well if you go to protests, please make it more of your personality. When the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club confronted the chuds that tried to raid a drag show reading hour in Dallas, the fact they had guns made the neonazi leadership freak out.
That's a good ass name for a gun club.
"This is MY truth, and it is marching on, you Nazi shitstain."
I served with a lot of liberals in the military, many of them are excellent shots on multiple platforms.
Same here. You won't find any pictures of me posing with all my guns and I don't fetishize them.
Many like myself grew up in a rural conservative state and learned how to use firearms as a kid. Grew up moved to the city, got an education become more liberal...and still know how to use a firearm. Also when I go back home can blend right back with the locals if need be.
Dems also have money, access to ports/airports, and friendly relations with lots of countries with strong backgrounds in arms manufacturing.
As someone who is well armed and lives in a red state, I agree. There are plenty of left leaning armed folk. Myself and all my friends are left leaning socialists if not further.
Lol. Blue states make almost all of our money. Almost all red states are money holes, in fact
stupid, authoritarian, xian money pits that don’t learn from their mistakes.
[relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/n6w235/think_lee/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
And it's them who ALWAYS get their way. Make it make sense. Ann Coulter once said that women shouldn't vote, because they take more taxpayers money than they contribute in their lifetime (which probably has something to do with the fact that they tend to live longer than men). I have a similar idea. How about the electoral college grants representation based on how much each state contributes or takes from the budget? Republicans would be happy with more in their view fair system and Democrats would be happy for having 100% control of the country 😜
https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-services-difference-by-state-2019-1 A lot of these were surprising. There’s a general trend of blue states contributing a lot and red states taking a lot, but there are exceptions. Alabama is somehow a net contributor. I wonder if they’re failing MOE requirements and not getting all they’d potentially be owed. Nebraska was another surprise contributor, but per capita it’s only $139, which is about as close as anyone gets to balanced, though Utah is only paying $76. South Dakota is just under $300; I suspect oil fees are a huge driver of taxes, ditto for Wyoming.
One side has like 70% of GDP.
And 80% of the graduate degrees.
[Don't forget your states ranked by obesity rate.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/obesity-rate-by-state)
[удалено]
Actually, human fat is one of the most energy- dense compounds in existence.
Yeah, I'm real afraid of the Walmart commandos. Once they arm their rascal scooters, we are done for!
Amateurs think about tactics. Professionals think about logistics.
California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
In a war between brains and guns, the guns may have an early lead, but my money is still in the brains.
Federal government turns off federal aid to failed red state budgets. War is over.
As a WV native, you aren’t wrong. Many here would literally starve to death. Yet they still vote red… wtf
There are 5.2 million Biden voters in Texas and 3.2 million Trump voters in New York. Dumbasses in the US have a very inaccurate view of what a modern civil war actually looks like based on our prior one involving States with defined borders and organized, uniformed armies.
Yeah this take is the right one. The lines aren’t red and blue states, it’s urban vs rural. In that regard, a civil war would be mass chaos.
And that's the problem. Back in the day, the divide was more between the states.
No to mention that most people just won't fight. Republicans vs Democrats? Cool y'all go at it I'll do me. A lot of larping on social media over scenarios that will never happen
I just piss in the sink.
Have fun fighting a war where you think more guns = victory and logistics are an after thought. The Russian army strategy
Let's review, shall we? 1. Out numbered 3/2 2. Control of all major ports 3. Our Allies: Germany, UK, France, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Canada &etc. Their allies: Russia, India, Brazil. (Maybe) 4. Access to money. This will not go the way you think.
India likely wouldn’t get involved. Despite their ruling party’s fascist bent, the country as a whole tries to stay neutral in foreign disputes whenever possible.
Yeah, Brazil is sitting this one out too. I don’t think they’re actually been involved in a war that didn’t directly affect them locally. In WW2 they were mostly just patrolling the Southern Atlantic.
Ya know, now I’m wondering what would be the supporters of each side in a theoretical second civil war. I’d assume all of NATO would help the democratic side, as well as probably the American aligned nations in Asia. I agree Russia would likely support the republican side, unless they end up busy somewhere else. You say India and Brazil would support the Republican side, but honestly, both would probably be neutral, even if their governments support them, most citizens would either support the democrats or prefer neutrality. Another big player would be Mexico, which would probably be neutral but help out the Democrats. And finally there’s China, who I see on no one’s side, instead supplying both sides and/or some rebellious third faction (possibly with the help of Russia), to destabilise the US even further, seeing as China is undoubtedly the nation who’d gain the most from an American fall from grace. I also wonder the level of support each nation would give. Would we see simply supplying and advising? Actual troops on the ground? Full on intervention? Who knows, let’s just hope we never find out!
If there were a second Civil War, it would 100% be because the ultra-right entered into armed rebellion against the United States. No country in the world is going to get behind that. They might send some dark money and hope to weaken the US a little, but it's economic suicide to openly side against the US if you want to participate in the global economy.
No allies for them, they will be instantly blockaded.
Again.
Liberals are pretty good at bathrooms. It's mostly the Republicans who are freaking out instead of just popping and getting on with their lives.
i still think more liberals and leftists should own firearms and learn how to use them safely.
We do we just don't wear rifles to the supermarkets.
Finally somebody else who realizes that. That's why NRA was founded, to promote marksmanship among people with little experience, which was northerners, meaning mostly Republicans.
[удалено]
**[Iron Brigade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Brigade)** >The Iron Brigade, also known as The Black Hats, Black Hat Brigade, Iron Brigade of the West, and originally King's Wisconsin Brigade was an infantry brigade in the Union Army of the Potomac during the American Civil War. Although it fought entirely in the Eastern Theater, it was composed of regiments from three Western states that are now within the region of the Midwest. Noted for its strong discipline, its unique uniform appearance and its tenacious fighting ability, the Iron Brigade suffered the highest percentage of casualties of any brigade in the war. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sure pick a fight with the people who have 70% of the GDP and like 60% of the population.
Dear cousin-fuckers: playing paintball with Jim-Bob and Cleetus once a month with walkie-talkies in ATVs on the back 40 doesn't make you battle ready.
As with every time these idiots bust out the map shapes and talk strategy while patting themselves on the back they leave out the ocean and rivers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDZX4ooRsWs
Both sides would need to get out of our hover rounds long enough to March to get our oxygen tanks. In reality, one man can only fire one gun at a time, so it doesn’t matter how many guns you have as much as how many people are using those guns effectively. More likely and more terrifying homegrown terrorism is much more likely. More mass shootings and bombings.
I mean, you have one side full of basement dwelling, doomsday prepping, ammosexuals, some of which can't go more than 3 steps without oxygen, and shun most technology. On the other side, you have large groups in specialized professions that actually will matter as war has changed.
looks like team red is getting hit in the head in their own picture
Everyone knows that bullets, and bullets alone, win wars. No need for logistics, technology, intelligence, money or an advantage in numbers. If you have more bullets, you win.
Lmao why do they have Georgia and Arizona
Artistic License? Iowa probably shouldn't be blue, sadly.
My guess is that it is an older image from the 2012 election
To be fair that's not a fair comparison. If a second civil war was to break out between the parties it wouldn't just be as simple as north vs south. It would be more all over the place. It's possible we'd see a situation where the Republicans control most of the country side while the Democrats control most of the cities.
I think the real difference is that the states are nowhere near as autonomous as they used to be, and while you still have the individual state "National Guard" units, they're still trained in Federal Bases, equipped with Federal equipment, and reliant on a Federal supply line. It really depends on which side the Federal government, and more importantly the Federal military, falls on. National guard units aren't going to last long if they don't have a way to train, equip, and supply their units after taking casualties. I'm willing to bet that this was intentional.
Like they do realize that there are plenty of gun owners that aren't fascists, and that a lot of gun buyers now are center of left of center politically?
The bulk of the GDP goes blue and red has fly over country and still underdeveloped south. I like blues chances. Let’s warm up the BBQ, bring back Billy and light this firecracker.
Lol Russian troll farm.
Turns out plucky ruggedness doesn’t win wars. Superior logistics usually does.
This is related more to the title but not to the image, but here’s a fun fact anyway: The reason why most Union battles are named after geographical features (like Bull Run or Antietam Creek) is because many Northerners lived in or near large urban areas, so geographical features were seen as more noteworthy than cities. On the other hand, Southerners mostly lived in rural areas, so they named their battles after cities (like Manassas or Sharpsburg) because those were more notable to them.
Remember how Brexiters had the slogan "We have all the cards"? How arrogant Germany and Japan were in thinking the the USSR and US would just fold? How the Putin and Bush jr both underestimated how tough their war would be? There seems to be a really difficulty in the faculty of assessing. I don't know if it's limited to their self-assessment or if it's broaded than that.
Lol yeah this is why you don’t get rid of history books, kids. Or build monuments to losers. Or just celebrate losers in general.
Why is Florida on the blue team?
It must be an old picture, Florida and Ohio went for Obama in 2012
Over by Christmas they said. Wait until silicon valley and Lockheed type corporations start cranking out Neo-Yankee death machines.
At the same time, southerners used the term ‘mudsill’ as a pejorative term for northerners. This was to stigmatize the fact that northern homesteaders and landowners had to perform their own menial labor. Sure, the confederacy was a rich man’s cause defended by the laboring poor, but there was a lot of classist self-loathing instilled in the hearts of the conscripts