|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 30 2018 12:40 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that. Here are examples of posts from this thread that either directly state it or allude to it: + Show Spoiler +The thing is, it's been argued many times that the types of guns people buy for self defense are useless for fighting tyranny. It's also been refuted many times.
Yes, small arms and other lower-tech tools can help you fight a guerilla war against a more technologically advanced force, whether it's an invader or your own government, but anyone living in a western liberal democracy who thinks their government is going to go Assad on them is a paranoid fool who probably should not have access to weapons. Canadians and Norweigans are not at a greater risk than Americans of having big brother kick their doors down and take their rights just because there are fewer guns floating around. And yes, your AR-15 won't do very much against tanks, drones, rockets, etc. In a guerilla war, it would of course be more effective to do stuff like sabotage, espionage, stealth raids and the like rather than try to go toe-to-toe with the US military with your AR-15.
The Iraqi insurgents fighting the Americans learned this the hard way it seems. A friend of mine [**anecdote time**] who did three tours in Iraq as a U.S. Marine said that in his first tour, he had frequent firefights, in which the casualty rate was unsurprisingly heavily skewed towards the insurgent side. The enemies could sometimes get a lucky shot off and kill one of my friend's war buddies, but generally speaking it was a wasted effort on the insurgent side. By the third tour, he rarely ever saw gunfights, because by then the enemy realized it made more sense to just plant tons of IEDs and engage in other kinds of more covert warfare (or just wait until the US finally leaves and go form ISIS). So even in a guerilla war, guns are only one tool at your disposal and you probably won't get too much use out of them against a superior fighting force.
As for the situation in Syria, the myriad of groups fighting Assad aren't just dudes who had handguns and rifles in their cupboards. They're all funded and armed by various loaded international backers (including the U.S.). Same with the Taliban, the Viet Cong and pretty much any major fighting force in the modern world. And it's not like everyone and their grandma is taking sides in these conflicts; the vast majority of civilian populations are much more willing to seek asylum or hide in their homes as non-combatants than to fight for any of these sides, so having more guns during peacetime would not really benefit them in times of war, guerilla warfare or not.
|
On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot.
And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology?
This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point.
I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument?
|
On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army.
And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument?
Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be.
|
On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses.
When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be.
I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point.
Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force".
Edit: Okay, and maybe micronesia's laundry list of thread links.
|
On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue).
We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it.
So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces.
You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright.
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force".
What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)?
|
On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses.
When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be.
If you literally just pit a completely civilian-based resistance force against the full power of the US military, then yes, the bunch of rednecks with shotguns and AR-15s would have no hope. But that's of course never the case in any civil war or guerilla war. In the highly unlikely event the U.S. military is ordered to attack its own civilians en masse there would undoubtedly be plenty of people in the U.S. military who would side with the civilians and thus give that side a massive arsenal of military weaponry, making the civilians' privately owned guns pretty redundant. Also, as I alluded to in my previous post, guns would only play a relatively small role in an underground war of resistance against a tyrannical regime, perhaps for suicide mission assassinations or sporadic raids on supply depots, etc.
If you can provide a modern historical example of some civilian fighting force that wasn't fighting in conjunction with regular armies or trained, armed, funded by some regular military or other large-scale weapons dealers (or armed to the teeth from earlier conflicts involving regular armies) then I might be swayed by the argument that civilian guns can be used effectively enough in a resistance war to justify their stockpiling during peacetime.
|
On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with.
Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically.
And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force.
[quote]
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population.
The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)?
How did this get pulled back down to some bizarre thought experiment of US citizens vs US military? That's like a 2nd amendment wonk's version of Dracula vs The Wolfman.
Which I suppose is close enough to the points about guerrilla warfare. You have to strip away a lot of context and information away before "people with guns" becomes the important data point.
|
On July 30 2018 18:26 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue).
We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it.
So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces.
You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright.
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. If you literally just pit a completely civilian-based resistance force against the full power of the US military, then yes, the bunch of rednecks with shotguns and AR-15s would be have no hope. But that's of course never the case in any civil war or guerilla war. In the highly unlikely event the U.S. military is ordered to attack its own civilians en masse there would undoubtedly be plenty of people in the U.S. military who would side with the civilians and thus give that side a massive arsenal of military weaponry, making the civilians' privately owned guns pretty redundant. Also, like I alluded to in the previous post, guns would only play a relatively small role in an underground war of resistance against a tyrannical regime, perhaps for suicide mission assassinations or sporadic raids on supply depots, etc.
A slightly different argument than the last 20+ times it's been used but still critically flawed. Conceding the viability citizens resisting the US military to start is helpful though.
As to the concept of "redundant guns" even if that were the case (which it's not, though they could be better distributed), the experience people develop as a result of ownership, maintenance, and use is invaluable. Having millions of people familiar with using guns (outside of active and former military/police) is useful and a material benefit. To your point about unconventional arms, everything has a use. Surely elongated gun fights aren't effective for guerrilla fighters. However, small arms, as small as .22's can and are effective weapons. The more guns scattered throughout the country the better (as far as the admittedly minuscule, though troublingly more possible chance of such events transpiring, goes.)
But the argument that it's "not worth it" is far more reasonable than the loling at people for thinking the US military couldn't just steamroll the population into unyielding submission.
To that note I'm not entirely opposed to that argument. You probably don't know this (probably didn't participate in the thread when I've said it) but I actually support a massive internationally funded gun buyback with no questions asked as the most viable way to remove a bunch of guns from the population if that was something someone actually wanted to do.
On July 30 2018 18:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics.
You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)? How did this get pulled back down to some bizarre thought experiment of US citizens vs US military? That's like a 2nd amendment wonk's version of Dracula vs The Wolfman. Which I suppose is close enough to the points about guerrilla warfare. You have to strip away a lot of context and information away before "people with guns" becomes the important data point.
Could you just clearly express your point? Unless the bold was it?
|
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation.
|
On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation.
Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed.
That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. Throwing out this some variation of the "rednecks with guns don't stand a chance against the US military" is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws.
|
On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws.
That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with.
|
On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with.
Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though.
|
On July 30 2018 11:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 10:30 Godwrath wrote:On July 30 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Like I said, I don't disagree with the premise we should be limiting weapons/guns in general, but when people say stupid things like 'an armed civilian population will never stand a chance against nuclear warheads/tanks/fighter jets/bombs/etc.' it's ridiculous. Not even North Korea is stupid enough to use such advanced weaponry against their own people, there's better ways to do it. Syria tried it, and look at the shit hole they are in. Sure, some people might try to make that point, most do it in jest. But i don't think that's the argument at all, it's that plenty of people feel like having the weaponry is not necessary and the chances of what is happening on Syria to happen in a western country are so slim that the avoidable death's caused by lax gun control laws outweights it. If by "in jest" you mean in an attempt to belittle the person who points out that particular reason. Otherwise I disagree, you can go through this thread and see that point made seriously probably a dozen times. You can even find some creative explanations of how why they are so seriously sure they are and obvious it is that the military would always win. Erhm yes, to belittle them. As i said, at this point they find it an irrational fear that doesn't belong to the policy making process of gun control.
|
On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though.
I know, I should have clarified that I wasn't arguing with the post directly above mine. In a way I was elaborating on what the posts linked by micro were trying to convey, which is that the scenario of an armed population being the deciding factor that prevents a country from becoming despotic is too unlikely to for it to be a legitimate reason why people need guns. A lot of those comments are reductions to absurdity rather than genuinely entertaining the idea of the American military going all out on the population.
|
On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright.
You're going to have to explain what you mean by collaborator here. I'm probably misunderstanding you, as "collaborate" in my head means "working with" (in this case the enemy), which I absolutely do not condone.
I should probably also point out where my standpoint comes from, as I'm in a little bit different position from the regular Joe considering I am actively involved with the Norwegian Home Guard (I have absolute no idea what the US equivalent is. National Guard?). If Russia attacks, I will be the first in line to fight them (and I will be well and truly fucked pretty much immediately). But that is my job. I'm doing it exactly so my friends and family doesn't have to (Ignoring the fact that It's mandatory, as I would have joined anyways... I have a small fetish for military stuff), and if I don't want them to fight to begin with, I certainly don't want them all to own their own rifles just so they can go on and die behind me. If that was the case then what I'm doing would be a complete waste of time, people and resources.
I can absolutely understand the frustration of not being able to fight in case of an invasion, but there is something you can do in those cases: sign up. Wars generally don't happen over night, and you will have time if one happens to take place. You're going to do a hellofaton more good by joining an actual unit and fighting properly than to try to run some kind of backyard poor mans guerrilla warfare with zero training. And like I said, it's a great way of ensuring a complete economic and infrastructural collapse.
|
On July 30 2018 18:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 18:26 reincremate wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with.
Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically.
And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force.
[quote]
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population.
The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. If you literally just pit a completely civilian-based resistance force against the full power of the US military, then yes, the bunch of rednecks with shotguns and AR-15s would be have no hope. But that's of course never the case in any civil war or guerilla war. In the highly unlikely event the U.S. military is ordered to attack its own civilians en masse there would undoubtedly be plenty of people in the U.S. military who would side with the civilians and thus give that side a massive arsenal of military weaponry, making the civilians' privately owned guns pretty redundant. Also, like I alluded to in the previous post, guns would only play a relatively small role in an underground war of resistance against a tyrannical regime, perhaps for suicide mission assassinations or sporadic raids on supply depots, etc. A slightly different argument than the last 20+ times it's been used but still critically flawed. Conceding the viability citizens resisting the US military to start is helpful though. As to the concept of "redundant guns" even if that were the case (which it's not, though they could be better distributed), the experience people develop as a result of ownership, maintenance, and use is invaluable. Having millions of people familiar with using guns (outside of active and former military/police) is useful and a material benefit. To your point about unconventional arms, everything has a use. Surely elongated gun fights aren't effective for guerrilla fighters. However, small arms, as small as .22's can and are effective weapons. The more guns scattered throughout the country the better (as far as the admittedly minuscule, though troublingly more possible chance of such events transpiring, goes.) But the argument that it's "not worth it" is far more reasonable than the loling at people for thinking the US military couldn't just steamroll the population into unyielding submission. To that note I'm not entirely opposed to that argument. You probably don't know this (probably didn't participate in the thread when I've said it) but I actually support a massive internationally funded gun buyback with no questions asked as the most viable way to remove a bunch of guns from the population if that was something someone actually wanted to do. Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 18:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".
Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)? How did this get pulled back down to some bizarre thought experiment of US citizens vs US military? That's like a 2nd amendment wonk's version of Dracula vs The Wolfman. Which I suppose is close enough to the points about guerrilla warfare. You have to strip away a lot of context and information away before "people with guns" becomes the important data point. Could you just clearly express your point? Unless the bold was it?
Uhm, not to cherry pick your post here, but why would that massive buybackprogram you are talking about be internationally funded? Murica is special and needs to solve this by themselves. Regarding the argument on the last pages, if you believe that the american (or western society) population is as able to form a guerrilla army as the tribes of Afghanistan are, then please explain to me how high bodyfat is useful in a combat situation. Let's face it, we are armchair warriors and just because some of you have a hobby in being ready to be a militia does not mean you would be ready to do that if need be. But some ten thousand Americans might actually be willing to fight...for the tyrannical government.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On July 30 2018 23:44 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 18:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 18:26 reincremate wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics.
You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. If you literally just pit a completely civilian-based resistance force against the full power of the US military, then yes, the bunch of rednecks with shotguns and AR-15s would be have no hope. But that's of course never the case in any civil war or guerilla war. In the highly unlikely event the U.S. military is ordered to attack its own civilians en masse there would undoubtedly be plenty of people in the U.S. military who would side with the civilians and thus give that side a massive arsenal of military weaponry, making the civilians' privately owned guns pretty redundant. Also, like I alluded to in the previous post, guns would only play a relatively small role in an underground war of resistance against a tyrannical regime, perhaps for suicide mission assassinations or sporadic raids on supply depots, etc. A slightly different argument than the last 20+ times it's been used but still critically flawed. Conceding the viability citizens resisting the US military to start is helpful though. As to the concept of "redundant guns" even if that were the case (which it's not, though they could be better distributed), the experience people develop as a result of ownership, maintenance, and use is invaluable. Having millions of people familiar with using guns (outside of active and former military/police) is useful and a material benefit. To your point about unconventional arms, everything has a use. Surely elongated gun fights aren't effective for guerrilla fighters. However, small arms, as small as .22's can and are effective weapons. The more guns scattered throughout the country the better (as far as the admittedly minuscule, though troublingly more possible chance of such events transpiring, goes.) But the argument that it's "not worth it" is far more reasonable than the loling at people for thinking the US military couldn't just steamroll the population into unyielding submission. To that note I'm not entirely opposed to that argument. You probably don't know this (probably didn't participate in the thread when I've said it) but I actually support a massive internationally funded gun buyback with no questions asked as the most viable way to remove a bunch of guns from the population if that was something someone actually wanted to do. On July 30 2018 18:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning.
You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer.
It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)? How did this get pulled back down to some bizarre thought experiment of US citizens vs US military? That's like a 2nd amendment wonk's version of Dracula vs The Wolfman. Which I suppose is close enough to the points about guerrilla warfare. You have to strip away a lot of context and information away before "people with guns" becomes the important data point. Could you just clearly express your point? Unless the bold was it? Uhm, not to cherry pick your post here, but why would that massive buybackprogram you are talking about be internationally funded? Murica is special and needs to solve this by themselves. Regarding the argument on the last pages, if you believe that the american (or western society) population is as able to form a guerrilla army as the tribes of Afghanistan are, then please explain to me how high bodyfat is useful in a combat situation. Let's face it, we are armchair warriors and just because some of you have a hobby in being ready to be a militia does not mean you would be ready to do that if need be. But some ten thousand Americans might actually be willing to fight...for the tyrannical government.
your posting in this thread has been historically poor and prone to generalisations and bad assumptions. this post of yours is particularly shit. if you're going to debate, try and do so in good faith and at least try to hide your bigoted views on american culture and society
|
On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with.
Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically.
And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force.
[quote]
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population.
The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)?
The problem as I see it isn't that having an armed militia vs the US government wouldn't work (although I personally think it wouldn't), or that its not worth all the damage that guns cause in the meantime (which it isn't).
The main argument that I have is that as society is today, an armed militia would be more tyrannical, dangerous and difficult to control than a dictatorship with a military.
Mind you, I suppose you could just have another militia to combat the first militia if they got out of control. THen if the second militia got out of control, you could just have a third one.
|
On July 31 2018 00:01 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 23:44 Broetchenholer wrote:On July 30 2018 18:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 18:26 reincremate wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".
Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. If you literally just pit a completely civilian-based resistance force against the full power of the US military, then yes, the bunch of rednecks with shotguns and AR-15s would be have no hope. But that's of course never the case in any civil war or guerilla war. In the highly unlikely event the U.S. military is ordered to attack its own civilians en masse there would undoubtedly be plenty of people in the U.S. military who would side with the civilians and thus give that side a massive arsenal of military weaponry, making the civilians' privately owned guns pretty redundant. Also, like I alluded to in the previous post, guns would only play a relatively small role in an underground war of resistance against a tyrannical regime, perhaps for suicide mission assassinations or sporadic raids on supply depots, etc. A slightly different argument than the last 20+ times it's been used but still critically flawed. Conceding the viability citizens resisting the US military to start is helpful though. As to the concept of "redundant guns" even if that were the case (which it's not, though they could be better distributed), the experience people develop as a result of ownership, maintenance, and use is invaluable. Having millions of people familiar with using guns (outside of active and former military/police) is useful and a material benefit. To your point about unconventional arms, everything has a use. Surely elongated gun fights aren't effective for guerrilla fighters. However, small arms, as small as .22's can and are effective weapons. The more guns scattered throughout the country the better (as far as the admittedly minuscule, though troublingly more possible chance of such events transpiring, goes.) But the argument that it's "not worth it" is far more reasonable than the loling at people for thinking the US military couldn't just steamroll the population into unyielding submission. To that note I'm not entirely opposed to that argument. You probably don't know this (probably didn't participate in the thread when I've said it) but I actually support a massive internationally funded gun buyback with no questions asked as the most viable way to remove a bunch of guns from the population if that was something someone actually wanted to do. On July 30 2018 18:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 18:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 17:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 17:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 16:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory.
Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military. Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point. I mean, basically you were agreeing with all of my posts yet posing it as an argument? Because of what I perceived as the implied conclusion that for your mostly unnamed differences a US resistance force would be hopeless against a superior US military. If instead you agree that they wouldn't be then I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be. I honestly have no idea what you're arguing against or if you're even reading the preceding discussion at this point. Aside from Excludos intentional strawman, no one's arguments (let alone mine) on the last page even came remotely close "hopeless US resistance force". What exactly is your point then if not about the futility of US citizens using currently legal guns to stave off their own military if for some reason they turned against the population (like at the command of a dictator or something)? How did this get pulled back down to some bizarre thought experiment of US citizens vs US military? That's like a 2nd amendment wonk's version of Dracula vs The Wolfman. Which I suppose is close enough to the points about guerrilla warfare. You have to strip away a lot of context and information away before "people with guns" becomes the important data point. Could you just clearly express your point? Unless the bold was it? Uhm, not to cherry pick your post here, but why would that massive buybackprogram you are talking about be internationally funded? Murica is special and needs to solve this by themselves. Regarding the argument on the last pages, if you believe that the american (or western society) population is as able to form a guerrilla army as the tribes of Afghanistan are, then please explain to me how high bodyfat is useful in a combat situation. Let's face it, we are armchair warriors and just because some of you have a hobby in being ready to be a militia does not mean you would be ready to do that if need be. But some ten thousand Americans might actually be willing to fight...for the tyrannical government. your posting in this thread has been historically poor and prone to generalisations and bad assumptions. this post of yours is particularly shit. if you're going to debate, try and do so in good faith and at least try to hide your bigoted views on american culture and society
Thanks for grading my post in quality, it is always good to know who the referee is and what the objective worth of the post is. YOu are providing a valuable service with your post and i wouldn't want to not hear your valuable input.
Now, please tell me where i am wrong. People have pointed to Afghanistan as an example of a guerilla force resisting a suprepower and i have pointed out that the average american population has very little in common with them. I then proceeded to talk about the western society as a whole having become quite soft in the last 50 years and that the ones that would actually want to fight are far less then those that proclaim that they would die fr freedom. And that the despotic government that would potentially take over the States would probably have their powerbase in those that yell the loudest about their 2nd amendment rights. So, where am i wrong?
|
On July 30 2018 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 19:14 Dan HH wrote:On July 30 2018 19:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 19:02 Dan HH wrote:
Why are you assuming that armed civilians would be on the 'good guys' side? A tyrannical government won't just pop into existence without support. Also, in many cases of guerrilla warfare in recent history the 'resistance' were religious fundamentalists, drug cartels, there's always the possibility that the resistance are the bigger assholes.
Then there's revolutions against dictatorial regimes that happened with no bloodshed, where any idiot with a gun could have escalated it into something else. Or revolutions like in my country where the regime lost support of the army precisely because they asked them to shoot unarmed protesters.
There are too many variables for you to be shaping your gun policy around a fantastical scenario of good guys with guns fighting for liberty against the evil government that may never happen, instead of basing it on the current situation. Which is why no one (here anyway) would argue to shape gun policy around it. The point I was raising (to meet my own expectations for others) was merely that the use of the argument micro showed us has been repeated excessively here to belittle people who don't want stupid gun control laws is critically flawed. That said, I don't disagree that gun policy shouldn't be shaped by preparing for such circumstances. I don't think anyone here was arguing as much. It is (as has been shown) a popular rhetorical move to undermine legitimate opposition to bad laws. That's what this whole discussion started from, KR saying people should have access to weapons they can fight armies with. Not sure they confirmed they were serious, but point taken because they probably were. I was responding to the dialogue/points that superstar put forth and were contested by Wolf and others though.
I mean, if you were trying to respond to superstar's discussion chain, then please start doing so. Plenty of people want to keep arguing that guns are viable against military dictatorship, but not many people want to delve into the logistics of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
