Under what conditions we need a revolution/civil war?

Many folks here talk about the eventual need for a revolution or civil war.

So under what circumstances would such a thing be neccessary?

Personally I believe a violent revolution or civil war can NEVER be justified as long as peaceful means of change are still possible.

What say you?

 

It's interesting I've never seen this topic come up in my 84 years of life until we had trump as a president. He is very cleverly doing what he can to seperate our country but I still believe he will be out of office before the next presidential election an the damage he's done and the damage Pence will do can be pretty easily corrected and talk of civil war will diminish with time.

 

There is not, repeat, not going to be a civil war. One side has 300 million weapons and over a trillion rounds of ammo. The other side can't figure out which bathroom to use.

The only side that would want to start a civil war would be the left. I'm sure they are up set that they cannot win power by cheating at the ballot box so they just might to start a civil war. It would be a very short war. As for the right, if those with the 300 million weapon and a trillion rounds of ammo were the problem, I would think we would know it.

 

I cannot recall having ever agreed with you on any topic... until now.

As long as we have the soap box, the ballot box, and peaceful transition of power, we will not ever need to resort to the ammo box. The founders were amazing.

 

Ive seen RWers in this forum talk about revolution/civil war many times

 

Only if there was some kind of attempted take over of the government that suspended the Constitution.

 

A revolution or civil war would only be needed if the means to change it through peace means was taken away. However the means of peaceful change has become increasingly strained in the last several years, with the idea of peaceful protest slipping and local governments allowing it to happen. If the people on this path continue further down the path the ability to peacefully change may be put in jeopardy.

There has been talk from both sides of the isle, since Trump has taken office to be fair.

 

Trump may not be helping to unify the United States, but Obama started the ball rolling. There is blame to be laid at the feet of 2 Presidents.

 

No the down turn started with Bush 41 and every President since. With Trump we have a chance of righting the ship of state.

 

Currently in the US there is a large divide between some on the left and some on the right, based upon political points of view and perceived social injustices. Sciences are being rewritten or at least in the main stream of information, which is causing a reaction from others on the opposite side.

We are becoming increasing isolated in our bubbles and information from any source is seen as suspect unless it's YOUR source for information. The ability to have calm and rational discussion in a public setting is becoming increasing difficult to have. Rational debate with facts among many, devolve into name calling when they factual information presented can't be disputed. One group persists on presenting a picture of the other side as evil and compares them constantly to past historical figures that are guilty of horrible atrocities. Most media "news" DO NOT provide a factual based report of people and events, but instead provide a story from a particular narrative, much like a pundit.

Unit the name calling stops, news reporting becomes at least close to factual news with a well rounded report, an actual conversation can happen, and the hysterics stop, there will be little movement away from a more violent solution. If these things continue to progress as they have been I believe conflict on a larger scale is possible. We have already seen conflict on a local scale in many cities. Do I want it.....no, but it is what it is.

I believe the middle, or the more rational people are a larger group than either of the 2 radical sides (especially the right), and if they can organize they can put an end to the radicals or at least allow commonsense to regain some control again. We'll see what happens.

 

"I believe the middle, or the more rational people are a larger group than either of the 2 radical sides (especially the right), and if they can organize they can put an end to the radicals or at least allow commonsense to regain some control again. We'll see what happens."

And in that one comment you become part of the problem vice part of the solution.

 

Amazing what happens when liberals lose an election, eh?

Why do you believe 18-20 GOP senators will vote to remove him from office?

 

Thats a sophomoric comment.

Civil wars only happen when there are no peaceful means to effect change. When people have a voice in the government and can effect change through their representatives, then there is no need or desire for violent revolution.

And that's your answer, when a group of people are ostracized from the system and are grossly abused by the system, then they turn to violence and civil war.

 

There is no need now or in the foreseeable future for an American civil war.

 

Hey stranger

Fiveby five was taken here so I'm 5. 5 here

 

When states hold a referendum to leave. Win it. And then the other states won't allow it.

Consider, the rich states all secede.
The poor states need their money. They can't allow it.

Pre-cursor conditions?
Loss of investor confidence in the US government to repay it's debts.
Lending ends.

Soviet Union style economic collapse. Government cannot pay it's people.
Cannot pay it's militaries.

 

Revolution is justified when it can be won. Or more accurately, revolution can only be won when it is justified in the opinion of enough people for it to succeed. Civil war is never moral or ethical. Any attempt to justify violent overthrow of govt fails that test. There are always too many innocent casualties. It is, in essence, the ultimate expression of pure democracy- a majority creating the governance they desire by force.

Peaceful change is always possible. It just isn't always plausible. The only people who can meaningfully decide the difference are those who are willing to risk their own death by trying. Not enough- and it fails and the defeated are traitors. Enough- and it succeeds and the victorious are patriots.

 

I don't really see any circumstance under which we need a civil war, barring a suspension or abolishment of the Constitution.

I could imagine civil unrest under certain circumstances, but not a civil war.

Besides, most Americans are far too self-absorbed, materialistic, and frankly, unwilling to risk their lives over some issue.

Our country survived the Great Depression without a civil war.

We had a civil war once, and no one wants a repeat of that.

 

When both sides think the other is definitionally evil and treasonous.

If white supremacists and Antifa ever became the two dominant wings there would be a civil war. They could not reconcile their differences.

Heck, if Antifa and anyone right of Stalin became the two dominant wings there would probably be a civil war.

 

I don't see AntiFa starting a 'war.' They can barely keep a riot going.

 

LOL Why would the left ever start a civil war?? They have no weapons.

 

sure we do

 

According to some in this forum leftists don't own any weapons; nonetheless it looks like a pretty formidable militia group to me.

 

As soon as the first couple rounds blow through their plastic barrel riot shields, they'll scatter like liberals being exposed to the truth.

 

Wait, didn't you call for violence to overthrow Trump after he got in???