Rev. Manning Is Predicting Civil War And Worse....

[mriddick]

And I expect the military to at least split. the Q is who's argument are they going to believe. The conservatives or the liberals?

I think the way our military is setup it would be either all or nothing and if that's the standard then I bet they would be more then content to set it out. I really do not believe the military is eager to get involved in internal issues.

[arcangel]

Those dependent on the boob in section 8 housing already loot from each other and don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Let them rot, they would be the first to start any kind of problem. Since the current government depends mostly on the votes from these people, who is the government going to take their problems and anger out on? Those who are honest and hard working. I believe a civil war is possible and maybe likely. But regional if anything, maybe wars in the cities while the people in the country areas aren't affected. The race, religion, and class cards are ripping us apart everyday. I think the government wants that for reason to enact control if a problem were to occur. I think military that are loyal to the gov may stick around, maybe if they feel like their check isn't in jeopardy. But no one knows for sure how, when, or where on what could happen.

[weevil]

I think the way our military is setup it would be either all or nothing and if that's the standard then I bet they would be more then content to set it out. I really do not believe the military is eager to get involved in internal issues.

I dunno with all the rivalries between the branches it's not inconceivable that army might take one side, the navy the other, and then there's the air force, and of course all the various states and their national guard units.

In a real nation ripping apart civil-war situation I tend to doubt an unpopular govt that has gotten to the point of calling out the troops against the people, would be able to hold the military together and count on all the governors and their state militias to remain loyal.


Look at the last civil war.

The navy remained loyal and mounted a very succesful blockade of the rebels, but nearly all the top army generals joined the confedracy and were quite successful early in the war. At least until they ran out of supplies because of the naval blockade.

[mriddick]

I dunno with all the rivalries between the branches it's not inconceivable that army might take one side, the navy the other, and then there's the air force, and of course all the various states and their national guard units.

In a real nation ripping apart civil-war situation I tend to doubt an unpopular govt that has gotten to the point of calling out the troops against the people, would be able to hold the military together and count on all the governors and their state militias to remain loyal.


Look at the last civil war.

The navy remained loyal and mounted a very succesful blockade of the rebels, but nearly all the top army generals joined the confedracy and were quite successful early in the war. At least until they ran out of supplies because of the naval blockade.

Without money though how much are they going to be able to fight, we are talking about a situation where there is no money and I doubt the military would be top priority for what money there is (seems like every time they talk cuts they are first to be mentioned). I think if the collapse happens as most think it will this case will be very different since basically there will be little money to go around. Will the military fight amongst themselves and the civilian population or stand by the borders and keep others out while we solve our own problems. I'm of the opinion the military is not all that eager to get involved in a civil war.

[Warthogg]

Oh I'm sure the early stages will be a slaughter as the "loyalists" massacre the protesters.


Then comes the reaction from the rest of the populous and most importantly the elements of the military who don't support the govt as fanatically.


Will they standly idly by as their fellow citizens are murdered or join them?


There have been more than a few instances in the history of the world where the troops sent out to shoot the protesters joined them instead.


Sure our troops have always obeyed their orders, the Bonus Marchers, Ludlow, Kent State, but then there was no question as of the rule of the govt or the validity of their orders.


Nowadays we're talikng about a corrupt and bankrupt govt that has lost the faith of the people and has violated the Constitution, sending them out to kill those protesting,.


Will the troops of today show it the same loyalty as they have past govts???

Yup....most recently during the fall of the Soviet Union.


Wart

[Warthogg]

Without money though how much are they going to be able to fight, we are talking about a situation where there is no money and I doubt the military would be top priority for what money there is (seems like every time they talk cuts they are first to be mentioned).

I think if the collapse happens as most think it will this case will be very different since basically there will be little money to go around. I'm of the opinion the military is not all that eager to get involved in a civil war.

I'm of the opinion the military is not all that eager to get involved in a civil war.

I guess I should first ask if you were ever in the military ??


Wart

[weevil]

Without money though how much are they going to be able to fight, we are talking about a situation where there is no money and I doubt the military would be top priority for what money there is (seems like every time they talk cuts they are first to be mentioned). I think if the collapse happens as most think it will this case will be very different since basically there will be little money to go around. Will the military fight amongst themselves and the civilian population or stand by the borders and keep others out while we solve our own problems. I'm of the opinion the military is not all that eager to get involved in a civil war.

Well that maybe an advantage for the rebels.


If those fighting for the govt are just mercenaries in it for the money, they'll walk away when there's no pay. If on the other hand the rebels are true to their cause they will fight without pay because of what they believe in.

Besides I don't think money to pay the troops will be that hard to come by for either side. I don't think countries like Russia or China or the Euros will remain neutral and not provide aid to one side or the other. Then there's Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and the other muzzies, and what will Mexico and Canada do? What about the drug cartels?



I think if it ever comes to it there'll be plenty of money and other supplies being funneled in to pay Americans to kill Americans.


Perhaps even foriegn troops and advisers.



I don't think anyone in their right mind should be too eager to get in a civil war.

[Warthogg]

Well that maybe an advantage for the rebels.


If those fighting for the govt are just mercenaries in it for the money, they'll walk away when there's no pay. If on the other hand the rebels are true to their cause they will fight without pay because of what they believe in.

Besides I don't think money to pay the troops will be that hard to come by for either side. I don't think countries like Russia or China or the Euros will remain neutral and not provide aid to one side or the other. Then there's Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and the other muzzies, and what will Mexico and Canada do? What about the drug cartels?



I think if it ever comes to it there'll be plenty of money and other supplies being funneled in to pay Americans to kill Americans.


Perhaps even foriegn troops and advisers.



I don't think anyone in their right mind should be too eager to get in a civil war.

If protracted horror unimaginable.


Wart

[mriddick]

Well that maybe an advantage for the rebels.


If those fighting for the govt are just mercenaries in it for the money, they'll walk away when there's no pay. If on the other hand the rebels are true to their cause they will fight without pay because of what they believe in.

Besides I don't think money to pay the troops will be that hard to come by for either side. I don't think countries like Russia or China or the Euros will remain neutral and not provide aid to one side or the other. Then there's Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and the other muzzies, and what will Mexico and Canada do? What about the drug cartels?



I think if it ever comes to it there'll be plenty of money and other supplies being funneled in to pay Americans to kill Americans.


Perhaps even foriegn troops and advisers.



I don't think anyone in their right mind should be too eager to get in a civil war.

In a situation where America is broke and people stop getting their checks I would think some riots would break out VS a civil war. I've been saying all along the idea that a large enough segment of the military/government are eager for a civil war is sort of silly, no one wants that, no one is going to push one.

I guess my problem with all the civil war talk is I don't see an issue that's splitting the nation like there was in 1860. The only thing big enough on the horizon would be the debt but even that I'm not sure how that would work as a mechanism for civil war. Even around here we can't agree on the best fixes for that, there is no black and white issue splitting the nation, it's more like shades of gray.

[dishman]

they are also the same congresscritters who've screamed "blame whitey" for generations

And that's just how it will go down. Seems to me I recall some diversities declaring that the next time they had a riot it would be in whitey's neighborhood. But we shall see.

it is ironic that those that created this mess may be the ones that possibly suffer the most..lol..talk about biting the hand that fed you ,now that would be justice.
it is simply put,that alot of these libs have for years ("blame whitey")and made a generation of dependants to mostly get the "oppressed" votes.
turnabout is fairplay,
as another poster noted,they will be screaming for gun control,as they will know whats coming when the till runs dry.

[weevil]

In a situation where America is broke and people stop getting their checks I would think some riots would break out VS a civil war. I've been saying all along the idea that a large enough segment of the military/government are eager for a civil war is sort of silly, no one wants that, no one is going to push one.

I guess my problem with all the civil war talk is I don't see an issue that's splitting the nation like there was in 1860. The only thing big enough on the horizon would be the debt but even that I'm not sure how that would work as a mechanism for civil war. Even around here we can't agree on the best fixes for that, there is no black and white issue splitting the nation, it's more like shades of gray.

Yes I agree with that.

Rioting and civil unrest perhaps even some low level insurgency if it gets really bad, yeah maybe.

But an all out tanks and airplanes in a pitched battles of armies and sieges of cities, not likely.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

I don't see how any civilian army could go against a modern US one? The only thing we'd have available are domestic acts of terrorism... strike and run.

Thats all any resistance movement has. Works pretty well too. Name a long term conflictwe've "won" since the 40's.