chang50 wrote:Of course well organised,well armed revolutions can succeed but that means acting pre-emptively usually its too late already when the govt. has embarked on genocide.There seems to be an absurd idea popular among quite a few Americans that they could resist the FULL power of the armed forces of the US
'might as well just give them my lunch money every day, at least I won't get punched'
the idea isn't absurd, nor is the issue as one dimensional as you seem to suggest it is.
Liberty or Death....think about it
Last edited by Phatscotty on Fri May 16, 2014 2:36 am, edited 5 times in total.
chang50 wrote:Of course well organised,well armed revolutions can succeed but that means acting pre-emptively usually its too late already when the govt. has embarked on genocide.There seems to be an absurd idea popular among quite a few Americans that they could resist the FULL power of the armed forces of the US
So, now you've scaled back your claim to some vague timeline (acting pre-emptively). If a revolution fails, you'll say it wasn't organized and well-armed enough and didn't start at the right time. That's true, but it's too vague to be useful.
Re: your new claim about that idea, it's a straw man, so let's steelman it by adding conditions: e.g. resistance need not counter the "FULL power of the armed forces"--e.g. blowing up buildings has been effective in getting the US to dump trillions in 'defense', encouraging it to further militarize its police, etc. Such attacks don't have to resist the entire armed forces because they can single out targets and cause the US to overreact--which it well has been doing. Another condition is that in a highly unlikely scenario where there's a civil war in the US, there's chances of military units defecting or turning on each other, so you need not fight the "full power." And again, one need not resist the entire US armed forces--e.g. when cops know people have guns, then I'd imagine that cops are less likely to take advantage of them.
US citizens should fear the police more instead of the military. It's the police that will come and kick your door down and throw you in the cell or worse....kill you in self-defense, wink-wink.
chang50 wrote:Of course well organised,well armed revolutions can succeed but that means acting pre-emptively usually its too late already when the govt. has embarked on genocide.There seems to be an absurd idea popular among quite a few Americans that they could resist the FULL power of the armed forces of the US
So, now you've scaled back your claim to some vague timeline (acting pre-emptively). If a revolution fails, you'll say it wasn't organized and well-armed enough and didn't start at the right time. That's true, but it's too vague to be useful.
Re: your new claim about that idea, it's a straw man, so let's steelman it by adding conditions: e.g. resistance need not counter the "FULL power of the armed forces"--e.g. blowing up buildings has been effective in getting the US to dump trillions in 'defense', encouraging it to further militarize its police, etc. Such attacks don't have to resist the entire armed forces because they can single out targets and cause the US to overreact--which it well has been doing. Another condition is that in a highly unlikely scenario where there's a civil war in the US, there's chances of military units defecting or turning on each other, so you need not fight the "full power." And again, one need not resist the entire US armed forces--e.g. when cops know people have guns, then I'd imagine that cops are less likely to take advantage of them.
US citizens should fear the police more instead of the military. It's the police that will come and kick your door down and throw you in the cell or worse....kill you in self-defense, wink-wink.
I believe the French were the imperial masters in Vietnam, not the ally of the militias. Unless you are implying that the French were helping the Viet Cong.
