Under what conditions we need a revolution/civil war?

When you can explain how my argument is in error, let me know.
Until them it stands.

 

so you are calling for a violent revolution....now?

 

If the alt left wants a revolution, BRING IT!

 

Edited out of quote.

"oops, sorry, I didn't notice it was a @Ronstar thread.

"




Why?
Witness the above. So @Ronstar.
Editing, paraphrasing, baiting.
Discuss or don't discuss.
You are not Socrates. I am not your socratean bait.
Comprende?





How about we start by States under Federal Occupation
band together and take it to the Supreme Court.


And if the occupation continues regardless of proper court challenges . . .
YOU tell Moi @Ronstar DEAR

 

ok, so you don't think the conditions exist that warrant a violent civil war?

good to know

 

Meh, they are looking around like a bunch of jokers, they have no discipline, they wouldn't last long...

 

You bring the popcorn and I'll bring the beer; lets sit back and watch them do battle.

 

You Know nothing JonStar.

 

Personally, I think the best weapon would be the one you can't see. Many wouldn't even know it was doing any harm until it was too late.

 

Or in my case, there is simply no one else to fight alongside with. If there were others like myself, I'd gladly risk my life for a chance to see every nation (and the current normative of humanity) overthrown.

 

I guess the only thing to say is thank god; no one truly wins in a war. Ask any war vet; war is hell.

 

How would you define yourself? Anarchist? Something else?

 

Something else entirely. I would say I'm a syncretic authoritarian. I could give a more detailed explaination if you wish.

 

They've definately told me something very similar. But for many, the cause these veterans fought for was worth what they had to endure. Such as those who fought in World War II, for example. For them the reward was freedom. For myself it would be unhindered joy and peace of mind.

 

There was going to be a revolution but they scheduled it for 7am so the millennial's overslept.

 

Already did. You can't say you won a war when you failed your objective even if you won 100% of the battles. The goal of war isn't to win battles just for the sake of killing people and having a better kill:death ratio (unless your goal is genocide, I suppose), it's to obtain your objective. In the end, we did not do what we went there to do. This isn't the fault of our soldiers or even our generals, but rather a bad mission.

 

The US achieved its objective.

 

The objective was to get North Vietnam to pretend to stop the war and then unify the South under socialist rule? No. The goal was to prevent the North from making the South socialist. That objective was failed, and it was the only objective.

 

That's what Hitler thought about WWI. Did Germany not lose WWI then because the politicians surrendered even though the military was doing fine?

 

The US forced the North to accept a peace treaty and end the war with the South. Mission accomplished.

 

That's not the mission. The mission was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming socialist. That was the purpose of going there in the first place. While possibly unobtainable unless we stayed there (or returned) and enforced it and sacrificed hundreds of thousands more American lives and millions more Vietnamese lives, the objective was failed. War isn't just about winning battles, it is also about political will. Though this is a war we should lose, since it wasn't worth it to begin with and certainly wouldn't have been worth doubling down again.

 

When the war ended, South Vietnam was not socialist. Objective met.

 

Nope. Spending lives and massive resources without achieving the objective is not a victory. The end result was that we did not meet our objective.

https://thevietnamwar.info/who-won-the-vietnam-war/
https://socratic.org/questions/did-the-united-states-win-or-lose-the-vietnam-war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
https://www.rewire.org/pbs/win-battle-lose-war/

Specifically searching for the assertion that we won that war, I came across one source that basically said that we won because ultimately capitalism won the cold war and Vietnam later had to abandon socialism. https://townhall.com/columnists/marknuckols/2015/05/01/the-us-won-the-vietnam-war-n1993200

Of course since we were right about pure socialism all along, that would have happened without us killing millions of people and wasting billions.

 

We forced the north to the table, forced to sighn a peace treaty, and left the South, free from socialism.
Objective met.

 

They won. They wanted us out to make it easier for them to conquer the South. And then they did.