What if a liberal vs conservative civil war broke out in USA

[The Lone Alliance]

Here is another question:

How are the conservative wargods going to lead their onslaught against the liberal nancy boys when the globalists control are fossil fuel resources? What are the right wing death squads going to do, make tanks that run on corn?

Considering the imaginations that overwhelm right wing radicals, there should be a lot more of them in our entertainment business. I've never seen fantasies that are so grand and magnificent.

The Abrams can actually run on corn BTW, it was built to take basically anything combustible. Biofuel from corn would work just fine.

But just so you know, the US does actually have a lot of oil and natural gas. If a war started it would have to be rationed though.

And the vast majority of the refineries and Oil and natural gas reserves are located in conservative parts of the US. Really Lorkhan did not do the research.

Also, anyone insinuating that a city would capitulate within a week, especially a large city, forgets about perhaps the longest siege in modern warfare, the Siege of Leningrad. This involved, mind you, two professional armies during the greatest war in human history. Some untrained, inexperienced farmboys aren't going to succeed in one week what the Wehrmacht failed at in three years.

People were a lot harder back then.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Also, anyone insinuating that a city would capitulate within a week, especially a large city, forgets about perhaps the longest siege in modern warfare, the Siege of Leningrad. This involved, mind you, two professional armies during the greatest war in human history. Some untrained, inexperienced farmboys aren't going to succeed in one week what the Wehrmacht failed at in three years.

Leningrad didn't have its supply lines cut off, the northern flank of the city would still have been under Russian control, still most of the citizens fled the city during the fighting.

[Torrocca]

Also, anyone insinuating that a city would capitulate within a week, especially a large city, forgets about perhaps the longest siege in modern warfare, the Siege of Leningrad. This involved, mind you, two professional armies during the greatest war in human history. Some untrained, inexperienced farmboys aren't going to succeed in one week what the Wehrmacht failed at in three years.

Leningrad didn't have its supply lines cut off, the northern flank of the city would still have been under Russian control, still most of the citizens fled the city during the fighting.

Quote from the first paragraph: "The siege started on 8 September 1941, when the last road to the city was severed. Although the Soviets managed to open a narrow land corridor to the city on 18 January 1943, the siege was only lifted on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began."

[Torrocca]

The Abrams can actually run on corn BTW, it was built to take basically anything combustible. Biofuel from corn would work just fine.

But just so you know, the US does actually have a lot of oil and natural gas. If a war started it would have to be rationed though.

And the vast majority of the refineries and Oil and natural gas reserves are located in conservative parts of the US. Really Lorkhan did not do the research.

Also, anyone insinuating that a city would capitulate within a week, especially a large city, forgets about perhaps the longest siege in modern warfare, the Siege of Leningrad. This involved, mind you, two professional armies during the greatest war in human history. Some untrained, inexperienced farmboys aren't going to succeed in one week what the Wehrmacht failed at in three years.

People were a lot harder back then.

As much as you might enjoy entertaining yourself with the idea that today's generations are weak, humans don't just "get softer" as generations progress, nor will they.

[The East Marches II]

And the vast majority of the refineries and Oil and natural gas reserves are located in conservative parts of the US. Really Lorkhan did not do the research.


People were a lot harder back then.

As much as you might enjoy entertaining yourself with the idea that today's generations are weak, humans don't just "get softer" as generations progress, nor will they.

That was pretty amateur hour tier tbh. 3/10 for execution and humanitarian crisis.

Leningrad didn't have its supply lines cut off, the northern flank of the city would still have been under Russian control, still most of the citizens fled the city during the fighting.

Quote from the first paragraph: "The siege started on 8 September 1941, when the last road to the city was severed. Although the Soviets managed to open a narrow land corridor to the city on 18 January 1943, the siege was only lifted on 27 January 1944, 872 days after it began."

This ignores the lake supply route :^)))

[Torrocca]

As much as you might enjoy entertaining yourself with the idea that today's generations are weak, humans don't just "get softer" as generations progress, nor will they.

That was pretty amateur hour tier tbh. 3/10 for execution and humanitarian crisis.

Oh, shut up. People died. Have some empathy.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

That was pretty amateur hour tier tbh. 3/10 for execution and humanitarian crisis.

Oh, shut up. People died. Have some empathy.

War is war, people die.

[Tekeristan]

It's inane to proclaim that humans were 'tougher' back then.

People in 1913 are real softies tbh. The roman wars were where it was. /s

We're still built with the same blueprints. From back then to today.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Oh, shut up. People died. Have some empathy.

War is war, people die.

What if I told you that death is always shitty and terrible?

[Torrocca]

Oh, shut up. People died. Have some empathy.

War is war, people die.

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

[Tekeristan]

War is war, people die.

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

There is no humanity, only glory : whatever that is in our lifespan of 80 sum years, on a world of billions of years of age, with human history of tens of thousands of years.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

War is war, people die.

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

If people focused on death in war there would be no war.

[Genivaria]

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

If people focused on death in war there would be no war.

You say that like there's a downside.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

If people focused on death in war there would be no war.

Yeah exactly. War sucks, death sucks it all fucking sucks

[Torrocca]

So we shouldn't have any empathy for the dead, nor any mourning for them? How about for the living, those that survived and loved those that died? Should we not weep for them? Should we not give them the faintest display of sympathies? Where is your humanity?

If people focused on death in war there would be no war.

You're truly, harshly mistaken if you believe people don't focus on death in war. Many soldiers going into war don't go fighting in search for glory, they do it because they believe what they're doing is right. People don't naturally want to kill each other, but they do want to protect those they care about. This is very evident in the reports of Medal of Honor recipients: these men, these soldiers, they didn't get hundreds of kills or do something in the search of glory. They did it because they were protecting those they cared about: their brothers in arms. They didn't want to kill the people they killed, but they also didn't want the people they loved, the people they bonded with, to die. People do focus on death in war all the time, just not how you think they would.

[The East Marches II]

That was pretty amateur hour tier tbh. 3/10 for execution and humanitarian crisis.

Oh, shut up. People died. Have some empathy.

"You're destroying my point, be quiet".

You should read "Fry the Brain", it covers the siege and tactics in detail.

[Dechen]

While conservatives are obviously the most well armed and would probably be more successful at first. I think liberals would be far superior at gurilla warfare.
Also take into consideration a lot of steadfast conservatives are older, while steadfast liberals make up a much younger poplus.
As well as international involvement. Liberals would be better funded internationally simply because they don't have a nationalist mindset, making their victory preferable to other nations.

The war would be bloody, and it wouldn't be short at all. The most bloodshed on American soil in history.
I believe the Liberals would win, narrowly mind you. The Left holds out better historically the worse things get. While conservatives would do well until government breakdown.

Thoughts?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

If people focused on death in war there would be no war.

You're truly, harshly mistaken if you believe people don't focus on death in war. Many soldiers going into war don't go fighting in search for glory, they do it because they believe what they're doing is right. People don't naturally want to kill each other, but they do want to protect those they care about. This is very evident in the reports of Medal of Honor recipients: these men, these soldiers, they didn't get hundreds of kills or do something in the search of glory. They did it because they were protecting those they cared about: their brothers in arms. They didn't want to kill the people they killed, but they also didn't want the people they loved, the people they bonded with, to die. People do focus on death in war all the time, just not how you think they would.

Not the point, Generals, specifically Soviet generals simply sent thousands of young boys to their deaths to save a city that was named after their leader. It was pointless, but that doesn't make them any less dead. People die and it sucks.

That is war.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

While conservatives are obviously the most well armed and would probably be more successful at first. I think liberals would be far superior at gurilla warfare.
Also take into consideration a lot of steadfast conservatives are older, while steadfast liberals make up a much younger poplus.
As well as international involvement. Liberals would be better funded internationally simply because they don't have a nationalist mindset, making their victory preferable to other nations.

The war would be bloody, and it wouldn't be short at all. The most bloodshed on American soil in history.
I believe the Liberals would win, narrowly mind you. The Left holds out better historically the worse things get. While conservatives would do well until government breakdown.

Thoughts?

I doubt most liberals have ever shit in a hole without toilet paper, drunk from a lake, or killed an animal and eaten it.

I also doubt the majority even know how to handle a rifle.

Liberals would be the worst gorillas in history.

[Torrocca]

You're truly, harshly mistaken if you believe people don't focus on death in war. Many soldiers going into war don't go fighting in search for glory, they do it because they believe what they're doing is right. People don't naturally want to kill each other, but they do want to protect those they care about. This is very evident in the reports of Medal of Honor recipients: these men, these soldiers, they didn't get hundreds of kills or do something in the search of glory. They did it because they were protecting those they cared about: their brothers in arms. They didn't want to kill the people they killed, but they also didn't want the people they loved, the people they bonded with, to die. People do focus on death in war all the time, just not how you think they would.

Not the point, Generals, specifically Soviet generals simply sent thousands of young boys to their deaths to save a city that was named after their leader. It was pointless, but that doesn't make them any less dead. People die and it sucks.

That is war.

It wasn't pointless - Stalingrad's capture would have given the Nazis an opening to the Caucasus oil fields, which would've given the Nazi forces the power needed to push deeper into Russia and potentially defeat the Soviets. It wasn't a pointless fight over a city with Stalin's namesake - it was one of the many fights for the survival of the Slavic peoples. Up until Stalingrad's end, the Soviets were waging a defensive war. Would it have been better for them to not protect their lands and roll over to the Nazi advance?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Not the point, Generals, specifically Soviet generals simply sent thousands of young boys to their deaths to save a city that was named after their leader. It was pointless, but that doesn't make them any less dead. People die and it sucks.

That is war.

It wasn't pointless - Stalingrad's capture would have given the Nazis an opening to the Caucasus oil fields, which would've given the Nazi forces the power needed to push deeper into Russia and potentially defeat the Soviets. It wasn't a pointless fight over a city with Stalin's namesake - it was one of the many fights for the survival of the Slavic peoples. Up until Stalingrad's end, the Soviets were waging a defensive war. Would it have been better for them to not protect their lands and roll over to the Nazi advance?

Napoleonic war says yes.

[Torrocca]

It wasn't pointless - Stalingrad's capture would have given the Nazis an opening to the Caucasus oil fields, which would've given the Nazi forces the power needed to push deeper into Russia and potentially defeat the Soviets. It wasn't a pointless fight over a city with Stalin's namesake - it was one of the many fights for the survival of the Slavic peoples. Up until Stalingrad's end, the Soviets were waging a defensive war. Would it have been better for them to not protect their lands and roll over to the Nazi advance?

Napoleonic war says yes.

And the outcome of WWII disagrees. The Soviets by and large defeated Hitler's brutalized hordes and their aggressive war of extermination; it was their most costly war, but they won, and they survived. Their lands, their peoples, and their very ways of life were all at stake with the Nazis around. The freedom of the world was at stake - there wasn't any retreating from the Nazi forces. For the Soviets, it very literally was fight or die. The Nazis would've killed them all otherwise.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Napoleonic war says yes.

And the outcome of WWII disagrees. The Soviets by and large defeated Hitler's brutalized hordes and their aggressive war of extermination; it was their most costly war, but they won, and they survived. Their lands, their peoples, and their very ways of life were all at stake with the Nazis around. The freedom of the world was at stake - there wasn't any retreating from the Nazi forces. For the Soviets, it very literally was fight or die. The Nazis would've killed them all otherwise.

The soviets had the lowest K/D of the war, hell the Americans had to bail them out with a massive amount of supplies on the lend lease program.

[Dechen]

I doubt most liberals have ever shit in a hole without toilet paper, drunk from a lake, or killed an animal and eaten it.

I also doubt the majority even know how to handle a rifle.

Liberals would be the worst gorillas in history.

Liberals (at least where I live) all spend days in the mountains camping.

If we go by stereotypes, conservatives would run out of gas within weeks because of their massive lifted 8/mpg trucks. But then applying that logic, vegans would be the easiest to maintain. Beans and bread. Check. XD

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

I doubt most liberals have ever shit in a hole without toilet paper, drunk from a lake, or killed an animal and eaten it.

I also doubt the majority even know how to handle a rifle.

Liberals would be the worst gorillas in history.

Liberals (at least where I live) all spend days in the mountains camping.

If we go by stereotypes, conservatives would run out of gas within weeks because of their massive lifted 8/mpg trucks. But then applying that logic, vegans would be the easiest to maintain. Beans and bread. Check. XD

The vast majority of the conversation thus far has focused on the libs in the cities vs the reps in the country side.

And I drive a hybrid.