Civil War Doomsday Clock

[The Conservative]

That's the thing. Socialism is great on happy feelz, but crushing to the human spirit. Something as simple as potholes can have a detrimental effect on a persons support of the government. It's actually pretty easy to create potholes, and you don't even have to pick up a shovel.

But it helps.

In Mass, all you need to do is put water on a crack and let it freeze, and off you go.

Gasoline.
Disolves asphalt. Do it shortly before the rainy season in CA, no one will really notice, then let nature do its work. You'll have potholes everywhere.

Think about it. If you were trying to knock down the support of government. What better way to do it ?
An enterprising individual could easily figure out how to apply a pint or quart of gasoline on the road without getting out of your car, and without being noticed. Hardly anyone outside of Construction knows what gas does to asphalt.

Check out the hole this guy created by accident.

If you can afford gas under a socialist democracy. The. Sure go for it.

[C-Mag]

If you can afford gas under a socialist democracy. The. Sure go for it.

Good Point.

Point is, that if you live under occupation by globalist forces, you still have a lot of options to push back. Certainly less than if you're in Free America, you just need to be far more discreet.

[Ph64]

If you can afford gas under a socialist democracy. The. Sure go for it.

Good Point.

Point is, that if you live under occupation by globalist forces, you still have a lot of options to push back. Certainly less than if you're in Free America, you just need to be far more discreet.

Hmm. Yeah, or course the roads seem like a bad choice to attack since those are the same roads you're going to need to get around (and escape via) for your next "action".

Saying you want to combat the globalist forces and then blowing up the water treatment plant, leaving hundreds of thousands without water who then are forced to buy globalist forces bottled water... Let's just say "counter-productive"? Blow up the bottled water plant instead?

I see a lot of "protest" that seems counter-productive lately. Smashing up and looting the corner deli doesn't combat the globalists much. Burning cars on the streets with Moltov cocktails just results in more cars being bought. And gives them reason to consolidate more power.

[C-Mag]

If you can afford gas under a socialist democracy. The. Sure go for it.

Good Point.

Point is, that if you live under occupation by globalist forces, you still have a lot of options to push back. Certainly less than if you're in Free America, you just need to be far more discreet.

Hmm. Yeah, or course the roads seem like a bad choice to attack since those are the same roads you're going to need to get around (and escape via) for your next "action".

Saying you want to combat the globalist forces and then blowing up the water treatment plant, leaving hundreds of thousands without water who then are forced to buy globalist forces bottled water... Let's just say "counter-productive"? Blow up the bottled water plant instead?

I see a lot of "protest" that seems counter-productive lately. Smashing up and looting the corner deli doesn't combat the globalists much. Burning cars on the streets with Moltov cocktails just results in more cars being bought. And gives them reason to consolidate more power.

Your point is valid.
But if you truly are in a civil war and in occupied territory, its a valid, low risk way to undermine the government.

[Ph64]

Good Point.

Point is, that if you live under occupation by globalist forces, you still have a lot of options to push back. Certainly less than if you're in Free America, you just need to be far more discreet.

Hmm. Yeah, or course the roads seem like a bad choice to attack since those are the same roads you're going to need to get around (and escape via) for your next "action".

Saying you want to combat the globalist forces and then blowing up the water treatment plant, leaving hundreds of thousands without water who then are forced to buy globalist forces bottled water... Let's just say "counter-productive"? Blow up the bottled water plant instead?

I see a lot of "protest" that seems counter-productive lately. Smashing up and looting the corner deli doesn't combat the globalists much. Burning cars on the streets with Moltov cocktails just results in more cars being bought. And gives them reason to consolidate more power.

Your point is valid.
But if you truly are in a civil war and in occupied territory, its a valid, low risk way to undermine the government.

Perhaps. I'd argue though that to truly win a civil war you need the "hearts and minds" of the people, or at least to crush that in your opponent. Otherwise it's really just replacing one oppressive force with another. That's where the left is starting to lose in the US, it's becoming more and more obvious that if they "win" they'll probably wind up being way more oppressive (with all their PC rules) than what we have now. Hard to win people over with that message.

[C-Mag]

Perhaps. I'd argue though that to truly win a civil war you need the "hearts and minds" of the people, or at least to crush that in your opponent. Otherwise it's really just replacing one oppressive force with another. That's where the left is starting to lose in the US, it's becoming more and more obvious that if they "win" they'll probably wind up being way more oppressive (with all their PC rules) than what we have now. Hard to win people over with that message.

I would argue that reducing the credibility of an enemy occupying government is winning hearts and minds. It's not just saying and showing that were nicer. If the government can't keep roads in good repair it pisses everyone off.

[Okeefenokee]

Perhaps. I'd argue though that to truly win a civil war you need the "hearts and minds" of the people, or at least to crush that in your opponent. Otherwise it's really just replacing one oppressive force with another. That's where the left is starting to lose in the US, it's becoming more and more obvious that if they "win" they'll probably wind up being way more oppressive (with all their PC rules) than what we have now. Hard to win people over with that message.

I would argue that reducing the credibility of an enemy occupying government is winning hearts and minds. It's not just saying and showing that were nicer. If the government can't keep roads in good repair it pisses everyone off.

Messing up the lives of the civilians is a demonstrated path to losing their support.

Talking from experience here.

If it's as bad as you can imagine, you win them over by being the ones that make things better.

If they see your efforts against the bad guy as efforts that make it worse for them, they'll turn on you.

Talking from experience here.

[C-Mag]

Perhaps. I'd argue though that to truly win a civil war you need the "hearts and minds" of the people, or at least to crush that in your opponent. Otherwise it's really just replacing one oppressive force with another. That's where the left is starting to lose in the US, it's becoming more and more obvious that if they "win" they'll probably wind up being way more oppressive (with all their PC rules) than what we have now. Hard to win people over with that message.

I would argue that reducing the credibility of an enemy occupying government is winning hearts and minds. It's not just saying and showing that were nicer. If the government can't keep roads in good repair it pisses everyone off.

Messing up the lives of the civilians is a demonstrated path to losing their support.

Talking from experience here.

If it's as bad as you can imagine, you win them over by being the ones that make things better.

If they see your efforts against the bad guy as efforts that make it worse for them, they'll turn on you.

Talking from experience here.

Fair enough, I bow to your experience.

[Okeefenokee]

I would argue that reducing the credibility of an enemy occupying government is winning hearts and minds. It's not just saying and showing that were nicer. If the government can't keep roads in good repair it pisses everyone off.

Messing up the lives of the civilians is a demonstrated path to losing their support.

Talking from experience here.

If it's as bad as you can imagine, you win them over by being the ones that make things better.

If they see your efforts against the bad guy as efforts that make it worse for them, they'll turn on you.

Talking from experience here.

Fair enough, I bow to your experience.

Remember, you're talking about people.

If you blow up their roads, and blow up their markets, and blow up their homes, they won't care what it does to the people in charge. They will care what it does to them.

If you put men on the streets to secure their neighborhoods, if you provide and secure their schools, if you make sure their markets are stocked and secured, they will support you.

We learned this while fighting cartels who enjoyed public support because they did more than the government to bring a greater quality of life, and we learned this while fighting insurgents who lost support because they blew up markets, and roads, and schools.

The first priority of an insurgency is to maintain the support of the people, and it has to be voluntary. A war of terror against them to maintain their compliance won't work.

We have millions of veterans who have been through this who ought to have learned this.

The majority of the nation doesn't know that we have millions of citizens who saw it first hand and learned how you make it work. These politicians don't have a clue.

There are millions of veterans who learned from the past two decades of war just how you do and don't carry out an insurgency.

You don't make lives worse for the civilians.

It's the economy, stupid.

[Ph64]

Perhaps. I'd argue though that to truly win a civil war you need the "hearts and minds" of the people, or at least to crush that in your opponent. Otherwise it's really just replacing one oppressive force with another. That's where the left is starting to lose in the US, it's becoming more and more obvious that if they "win" they'll probably wind up being way more oppressive (with all their PC rules) than what we have now. Hard to win people over with that message.

I would argue that reducing the credibility of an enemy occupying government is winning hearts and minds. It's not just saying and showing that were nicer. If the government can't keep roads in good repair it pisses everyone off.

Yeah, but there's a difference between the govco not keeping loads in good repair from normal wear and tear - like bridges collapsing from neglect, potholes from weather, etc - and the same from sabotage. People might blame them for not catching the "terrorists" before they blew out the bridge with explosives, but it will be far less blame than if the bridge simply collapsed because of poor maintenance - in fact the former is likely to give more support for govco to get even more restrictive.

If they start catching people "sabotaging" the roads with gasoline to large effect it might well backfire on the attempt.