Trump Lambasting Diverse Congress People

[Admiral X]

The point remains the 2nd Amendment won't help you if the government wants to go full-blown totalitarian police state to the same levels of Nazi Germany or the USSR, or even worse.

Again, you think it won't help, so we might as well make sure? The Maquis and other such groups shouldn't have bothered fighting the Nazis?

[Admiral X]

Bow-and-arrow fire could still theoretically hit a Spanish conquistador in the neck or some other part not covered by armor, and IIRC some of the slings had sufficient power to strike effectively through helmets.

Compared to today, when a truly tyrannical government intent on crushing all dissent wouldn't even have to expose its agents to your rifle fire if they wanted you dead. All the rifles in the world wouldn't save you from a UCAV firing a Hellfire missile through your bedroom window.

Iraq and Afghanistan are both examples of what a resistance movement would be like and how effective it would be. As others have mentioned, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that it would be a stand-up fight. It wouldn't. The point wouldn't even be to try to win so much as to avoid completely losing, and to make any victory by the traitors who continued to serve a military that turned on its own people Pyrrhic - to continue to harass them so they are always on edge and paranoid.

[TGLS]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home. Iraq had the additional complication of the Iraqis asking the Americans to leave. If an insurgency were to develop in the United States (doubtful at best), the Americans have no choice but to stay. Besides that, in order for the regime to fall to insurgents, and not just annoy them, America would need to be much weaker than it currently is. The success rates of insurgencies around the world speaks to this.

[Admiral X]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home.

Exactly. The Soviets eventually left Afghanistan themselves for much the same reason, and they were no where near as kind as the Americans have been.

[clearspira]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home. Iraq had the additional complication of the Iraqis asking the Americans to leave. If an insurgency were to develop in the United States (doubtful at best), the Americans have no choice but to stay. Besides that, in order for the regime to fall to insurgents, and not just annoy them, America would need to be much weaker than it currently is. The success rates of insurgencies around the world speaks to this.

America ''got tired'' which is why you lost Vietnam?



No word for the massive political pressure then? That wasn't fatigue, that was the nationwide realisation that you were the bad guys.

[LittleRaven]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home.

But why were we getting tired? Were we just lazy?

Of course not. We were getting tired because we weren't making any progress. We had been there for years, and everything just kept getting worse. We killed bad guys by the thousands....but every single one of them had a brother, or an uncle, or a son....and it was only a matter of time until THEY picked up a gun and started shooting at us too. We couldn't establish any kind of stable economy or government, because it's a hell of a lot easier to blow a generator up than it is to build one, and there were always enough civilians that shared the sentiments of the militants that they were willing to shelter them. For all of our military power....there was nothing we could do to stop this cycle.

In the extremely unlikely event that enough Americans ever get motivated enough to start shooting at their fellow citizens, the same problem applies, except it's much, MUCH worse, because everytime the regime blows something up, they are damaging their own economy and society. Leaving Iraq a wasteland doesn't really do much to our GDP. Leveling Florida costs us something like a trillion dollars a year. And remember, the insurgents don't have to win. All they have to do is degrade the efficiency of our society by, say, 20%....and it all falls apart. Civilization is a remarkably delicate thing.

Mind you, this does not result in a situation where the good guys win. At best, the bad guys (the government, in this case) lose....but so does everyone else. We're left like Syria...a balkanized collection of militias squabbling over the ruins. So this isn't anything anyone should ever desire...and most people are smart enough to see this, which is why wealthy, stable societies rarely have successful insurgencies. Things would have to be unimaginably bad before this ever become possible.

[Darth Wedgius]

If soldiers start blowing up citizens with Hellfire missiles then rifles can be really successful. Those soldiers go home sometime. The people making the Hellfire missiles go home. The people driving the trucks go home. If an insurgent's home is a target, a soldier's home is a target.

How many soldiers does it take to guard every truck moving vital parts for those missiles? Or delivering food to those bases? Or guarding every mile of electrical line?

The U.S. war machine is very powerful, but it's also very complex. One advantage we had over Germany in WW2 is that we weren't subject to strategic bombing. Our factories were untouched. And our soldiers got occasional time off in areas where they could reasonable expect to be safe.

[Madner Kami]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home.

Exactly. The Soviets eventually left Afghanistan themselves for much the same reason, and they were no where near as kind as the Americans have been.

Two words: Mỹ Lai.
Two more words: Agent Orange.

Fun fact 1) The US dropped almost 4 times as many explosive ordnance onto Vietnam then everyone in World War 2 combined.
Fun fact 2) About 800,000 tons of explosives of all kinds (unexploded bombs, mines) remain inside Vietnam's soil.
Fun fact 3) More than 42,000 people have died from these explosives since the war ended, with another 62,000 injured by these. Those are the low numbers of post-war explosives victims, because the officials in Vietnam have a hard time of keeping track of such incidents in the less developed regions of the country.
Fun fact 4) The Viet Cong and Northern Vietnam lost about 850,000 soldiers and up to 182,000 civilians, with a further 600,000 wounded. Southern Vietnam lost another 200,000-430,000 civilian lives and it's kinda up to debate who killed which portion of those.

Do you want to know, how many people were killed by the Soviets in Afghanistan? 57,000 Mujahideen, with up to 90,000 casualties total. I suggest some deep soul searching on the matter of who were the kinder guys, because you are declaring victory in a race that only knows loosers.

[clearspira]

Just for argument's sake, the only reason why America "lost" in Vietnam and Iraq (the jury's still out on Afghanistan) is largely because they got tired and decided to go home.

Exactly. The Soviets eventually left Afghanistan themselves for much the same reason, and they were no where near as kind as the Americans have been.

Two words: Mỹ Lai.
Two more words: Agent Orange.

Fun fact 1) The US dropped almost 4 times as many explosive ordnance onto Vietnam then everyone in World War 2 combined.
Fun fact 2) About 800,000 tons of explosives of all kinds (unexploded bombs, mines) remain inside Vietnam's soil.
Fun fact 3) More than 42,000 people have died from these explosives since the war ended, with another 62,000 injured by these. Those are the low numbers of post-war explosives victims, because the officials in Vietnam have a hard time of keeping track of such incidents in the less developed regions of the country.
Fun fact 4) The Viet Cong and Northern Vietnam lost about 850,000 soldiers and up to 182,000 civilians, with a further 600,000 wounded. Southern Vietnam lost another 200,000-430,000 civilian lives and it's kinda up to debate who killed which portion of those.

Do you want to know, how many people were killed by the Soviets in Afghanistan? 57,000 Mujahideen, with up to 90,000 casualties total. I suggest some deep soul searching on the matter of who were the kinder guys, because you are declaring victory in a race that only knows loosers.

America, fuck yeah!
Coming to save the motherfucking day yeah!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah America kinda blows.