Let the pacifist drop the first stone. Government is violence. A bad government is not something you can just turn a blind eye to.
Well, I dont know what definition of a pacifist are you using.
Someone who condemns all violence and refuses to use it even in the defense of one's life or the rights of others.
You assume that civil war would fix government, and that government is bad because its violent.
I made no such assumptions.
Violence against the innocence is bad. Government is defined by the use of violence to enforce laws. When the laws are unjust government is bad because it is unjustly violent. When the laws are inequitably applied it is even worse. When there is no peaceful remedy for correcting unjust government violence then violence against the government is moral and necessary.
The weaponization of the law is just another name for inequitable application. The destruction of election integrity is an attack on democracy finishing the pattern of tyranny.
This government is therefore bad, and since it's a government it's violently bad. That is a fact, not an assumption.
As for the outcome of war, that is famously unpredictable as most phenomenon where chaotic events can snowball are. Chaos is better than tyrannical order. For instance if nobody had stood in the way the fascist in the early 20th century Europe would be very ordered. The real timeline where over a hundred cities were majorly destroyed and 60 million people died is preferable because if you sacrifice human liberty to preserve lives then evil need only to threaten lives and good will never win again.
Well, I dont see how a civil war will produce non-violent government
It produces a chance for a just government.
So you assume that overweight MAGA civilians
Look up Ashli Babbitt. Multiple deployments. Not overweight. Not unusual at all.
are as capable as Talibans
The Taliban are clearly dedicated and experienced fighters. There weren't 50 million of them though.
or Ukrainian military supported by whole world.
It is an absolute fact that the armor defeating weapons provided to the Ukrainian military have had a huge impact. What you may be deluded about is the impossibility of acquiring such weapons without the approval of the deep state. If nothing else, they can be stolen.
Do they need to be stolen to win a civil war? No. If the only areas under deep state control have tanks constantly patrolling them how long do you think that standoff could last?
Do tanks harvest wheat? Can tanks refill fuel depots?
You know I once worked at a place where I was in the position to sabotage defense infrastructure. There are plenty more of me I'm sure.
So you assume that MAGA starting civil war and killing Americans and US soldiers wont make MAGA lose supporters.
Who will blame who has already been decided. They have to shoot first, they're in control of the government. For instance they might shoot Texas National Guard to keep them from building new fence.
I just wonder how many would support your cause after that.
The vast majority will hunker down, try to protect their families, curse anyone who is even remotely involved in starting it, and wait for things to improve. I know that because that is what happens in every civil war.
I also know that a military which requires an extremely complex production chain to stay supplied and superior cannot risk losing transit routes. In an asymmetric war (and that's not guaranteed) in the integrated power-base (the lower 48) the victory will go to the most determined. The guy who is willing to sit in ambush the longest.
In fact you said "overweight", obviously no more true than the generalization of all Americans, but having an extra 50 lb would be a great asset after the supply chains have been disrupted. Another great asset would be not living in densely populated areas where the food runs out very quickly.
So you think its a good idea that US military fights US military?
I think it's preferable to eternal digital fascism (which is where this is heading).
Peace and prosperity is of course preferable in the grand scheme, but when you're getting beaten up that's not one of the options. You can take the beating, beg for it to stop or you can fight back. That's it.
I guess after that, there would really be no USA anymore.
That's a distinct possibility, and still very preferable to a digital fascist state holding hegemony over the human race. It gives other nations a chance.
It would just be war everywhere.
It's already war everywhere and it always has been. War will stop when our knowledge of morality is so perfect and so universal that the motivations for war do not exist.
That day is not today, clearly.
Ah, so you assume that now is same as 300 years ago.
The relevant factors are.
And you assume that there is no guarantee about who will win, but entire NATO and allies vs MAGA kinda tells you the odds.
lol NATO? ~ delusions of grandeur. The deep state would be lucky to have the full loyalty of more than five US army divisions much less bringing in Europeans.
There are plenty of sympathizers for both sides in Europe (just like last time).
I do think that Kim Jong Un is the most skilled politician with supernatural abilities in command, politics and leadership.
Uh huh, well how about this MAGA would just bring him over as a general. Problem solved. <- See this is what happens when you troll.
...basically abolish democracy in USA...
It's already been subverted, doing nothing is allowing it to be abolished.
