Poll: Will there be a large-scale US civil conflict in the future?

I was recently discussing the increase in right-wing terrorism with a friend of mine. He is a history major, but is not a political junkie like many on here.

I started talking about how the right-wing of the US is showing a fundamental shift towards radicalism. Violent outbursts, violent threats, polarizing comments, etc. I told him that I feared for the safety of many of our political leaders and the general population that advertises a left-leaning political view.

And with out myself making any suggestion of large-scale conflicts, he said that he is kind of scared that the US may have another civil war. I know that a lot of far-left individuals believe that we may see a dramatic increase in violence. But that was the first time I've heard a moderate-liberal express such a fear.

So what do you guys think? Will the violence increase? Are we facing a potentially explosive situation?

we haven't seen all the "lone wolves" yet, but on the large, the most dangerous time has passed. As the months and years roll by and nothing bad happens, most of the wackaloons will be wondering why they spent all that money on guns and ammo. Some may even come to understand how they were emotionally manipulated to drive up gun show sales.

There will probably not be a United States in 100 years, but some kind of trade area/confederation (which will include Mexico, Central America, and, of course, Canada). This may seem bigger, but it will also be smaller, with culturally identifiable "states," but not on the territorial state model (i.e., not Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, etc., but an amalgamation of "southern states").

And yes, of course there will be violence and civil disruption to get there. The nation state is really a holdover of a feudal social formation; capitalism has no time for it or interest in it, except so far as it's had to put up with it. What will become evident long after we're dead is that the last 350 years were a transition from feudalism to capitalism, with each stage seeing the shedding of features of the feudal social formation.

Civil wars in this day and age do not have men in grey uniforms lining up across a field facing men in blue uniforms firing muzzle loading weapons at each other.
The current civil war is based on assymetrical warfare tactics like those used in Nicaragua,Iraq,ColumbiaThe Phillipines and the former Yugoslavia.

is the equivalent of Nicaragua, Columbia, the Phillipines or Yugoslavia?

The melodrama and delusion marches on.



Edited to add: Contemporary civil wars inevitably contain violent acts against the government and widespread attacks against civilian populations. And no, that's not happening. They also have a strong element of organization, and we don't see that either.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While much is made of Red states vs. Blue states, too many places are in reality purple states. Despite the advertised differences, we have far more culturally in common with one another than at any point in American history. Television and radio did for the centralization of culture what the Civil War did for the centralization of government.

The problem is one of political marketing. We treat conservatives vs. liberals, Democrats vs. Republicans as deep, abiding differences, deficiencies of character, fundamentally different people and easy designation of "the other".

But much of this is artificial. In our countless media, enough people discovered that politics often behave like sports teams. Democrats vs. Republicans often resemble Michigan vs. Ohio fans. Hatred, ridicule, suspicion of not-quite-rightness. People like their sides, and the more the illusion is created that there are vast, unbridgeable differences, the more vigorously and loyally people will support their team.

Not coincidentally, there is a lot of money to be had in catering to this attitude. The more those differences are ramped up, the more worked up the fans get, the more media people consume, the higher the ratings go, the more cash goes flying into a profession where pundits and reporters who don't seem to know terribly much about anything at all make millions of dollars.

In a land of 300 million people, there are going to be a lot of nutters. Unavoidable. I think we're going to see more violence in the future, but I tend to peg it down to economic difficulties. The more powerless people are, the more desperate they become, and the more willing some of them are going to be to commit violence.

If I had to guess based on what I know of history, in the next few decades there is a very slight chance of a form of revolution. More bloodless coup than armed conflict. And I think a lot of the people who are at each others' throats right now, like working-class Democrats and poor, socially conservative Republicans, will find in each other the unlikeliest of allies. Again, slight chance. But the culture wars cannot hold forever. I think they only have another two or so decades left. Then it will be an economic war, and that'll certainly be interesting.

But for now, we turn on cable news and root for the home team. It's all just a digital colosseum.

option?

many attempts to unify it, and will remain ineffective, although it may be the greatest domestic violence we have seen since the Civil War. I am surprised there has not been more already, and at the lack of measures taken by federal law enforcement to at least keep an eye on the RW/Fundamentalist groups who are inciting the violence.

And, yes, to answer your comic question, I do own some of my guns specifically for such events, and I carry a handgun daily.

markO8)

Either the shit is becoming more frequent or it's getting reported more.