Nobody is more sensible on this topic than Aesop:
No one sane on our side (and everyone isn’t, sadly) wants armed open conflict, or is sanguine about it, least of all this author. Having been there first hand, the guy least enthusiastic about jingoistic saber-rattling is the guy riding the landing ship towards the beach. But ultimately, that’s a bilateral deal, and the Left isn’t even that sane. They don’t just want it and fantasize about it frequently and publicly, they brag and gloat about unleashing it. Our side understands that sort of posturing as a precursor to it actually breaking out, because we, unlike they, understand human nature and the behavior of flawed human beings.
As one of my drill instructors cautioned my group: “I see a baby, I’ma throw a grenade at dat baby. If da baby blow up twice, da baby was booby-trapped.”
It was hilarious, and totally contrary to the letter and spirit of the Marquess of Queensbury Rules concept of “The Laws Of Land Warfare” amidst a rather grim period of basic training, but the lesson that sometimes even babies can be lethal, and what happens after that is just tough nails, was nonetheless one of the grimmest reality impressed upon us about the truth of war: you get the conflict you get, not the one you imagine, and then you do what has to be done to survive and win it.
Our would-be, now disdained and mostly discarded “leadership” of milquetoasts is the reason the Left is such a problem in the first place, and also the reason Trump is the president now. Had they manfully opposed utter socialist nonsense when it was far cheaper and easier to do so, they would not now find themselves in the role of political appendix, and about to be removed like a wayward and infected organ.
It is in the nature of wildfires to get away from people, and a cultural society-wide civil (it will, in truth, be anything but) war of absolute survival will not stay a well-tended backyard trash fire, but sparks will fly, winds will swirl, and pretty soon, the whole damned forest will be gloriously and fearfully ablaze, and the only thing that controls it then will be what’s left to burn, and when a merciful heaven sends a rainstorm.
Wrap your heads around that.
People thinking in terms of a limited conflict, or any sort of happy, civilized divorce and secession, are whistling past the graveyard, and about as bright as those who talked about waging “limited” nuclear warfare. I’m here to tell you they’re stupidly misinformed at best, and deranged at worst.
Poll the city fathers of Carthage, Jerusalem, Atlanta, Warsaw, Nanking, Hiroshima, Saigon, and Fallujah about the idea of “limited” conflagrations.
You might think that after Lexington, Bull Run, 1914, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, and countless other ball-openers, folks would learn that conflict at the civilizational survival level isn’t “one quick volley, a whiff of grapeshot, and then glory”, with brandy and cigars afterwards in the drawing room, nor are the “troops home by Christmas”. Ever.
Once it opens, people in that sort of struggle will not fight until they can’t, but rather until you can’t. And usually because your bloody charred remnants can no longer pull themselves together to attempt another blow.
I’ve tried to get these same sentiments across many times here, and never did half as well as he just did; you definitely want to read all of it. The salient point:
The Left won’t stop; they’ll have to BE stopped. Nobody should be at all happy about that.