If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
But what we're talking about here would be a civil war.That's not true. You can cite examples to support your point, but the history of warfare shows that when there is a great disparity in equipment and arms, the better armed forces usually win.
It's OK for him to make shit up and threaten anyone who doesn't buy into the bullshit- his constituents will lap it up.
Absolute insanity to continue to ignore the real problems while antagonizing patriots who care about their country. I was kinda counting on these asswipes to screw up the country bad enough to get flushed over the next election cycle or two, before the damage is insufferable. Just sit back and let them implode could have a chance, but they seem hellbent on poking the bear. It's like the libtards are daring a war to start. Obviously the radical left has already invaded and taken ground in leftist toilet cities. God help our country.
Direct image (duped from the Funny Pictures thread):get your commemorative lowers starting @ 430... just saw this on arfcom...
New Lower!! - AR15.COM
I don't need to do any research to tell you that most revolutions and guerilla wars end in failure for the revolutionaries.
Define "failure". Define "victory".I don't need to do any research to tell you that most revolutions and guerilla wars end in failure for the revolutionaries.
We lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam because what "winning" meant was never defined politically to get us out. The North Vietnamese admitted this after the war- they were on the ropes, and wondered why our politicians back home let off the gas.
Afghanistan went from "bringing bin Laden to justice" into some nebulous horseshit about Afghani "safety".
The men at the front never gave up. We simply let the politicians surrender. Neither conflict should have ever been about hearts and minds, but pure offensive body stacking until the opposition said "we surrender" or was dead. That's our fault back here.
it is not an 'if' - it is a fact. stalin relocated what was left of factories and workforce behind ural mountains into siberia - but the fuel, resources, steel, coil - the entire european infrastructure that was supporting the industry was all destroyed an could not be rebuilt during the war.If the US hadn't given the Soviet Union lend lease aid - the Germans would have had a pretty good chance of winning
I've said it before, give me an F-16 or an A-10 and I know enough people that know how to crew it. Pretty sure they could 'wing it' with at least an F-15. The 22's and 35's came online after they left the service, so I'd need manuals or more recent former guys.Interesting intellectual exercise. I've occasionally pondered. One the one hand, an armored division with attachments could realistically defeat anything civilians could throw at it, in open combat. But if the entire population was against the government they would obtain better weapons incrementally and eventually win, guerilla warfare style.
Yours is a false analogy as the U.S. military would also be on its own territory. In Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, they were an occupying force that did not have to win. The recent Syrian war is a better analogy. The Alawites and their allies could not afford to lose as they would not have survived, so they didn't lose, and were never going to.I've said it before, give me an F-16 or an A-10 and I know enough people that know how to crew it. Pretty sure they could 'wing it' with at least an F-15. The 22's and 35's came online after they left the service, so I'd need manuals or more recent former guys.
The US military had a hard enough time dealing with 10-20k people in the mountains of Afghanistan. If the people really got riled up, what could the US military possibly do against a million people in their own back yards? A whole lot of them are as well trained as the guys the military would send after them.
And if you read my full post I agree that a revolution in this country would work if the vast majority of the people were against the government. Which they aren't.Yours is a false analogy as the U.S. military would also be on its own territory. In Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, they were an occupying force that did not have to win. The recent Syrian war is a better analogy. The Alawites and their allies could not afford to lose as they would not have survived, so they didn't lose, and were never going to.
An important litmus test is how much fear that the ruling party displaysAnd if you read my full post I agree that a revolution in this country would work if the vast majority of the people were against the government. Which they aren't.
What is your point? I am honestly not sure. Are you suggesting that a government/military fearing for the safety of their families are gonna fight less hard or quit earlier? Quite the opposite. See Syrian war.But what we're talking about here would be a civil war.
Your not talking about fighting someone five thousand mile away .
No one fighting in places like the middle east went to bed at night wondering if some of the people whom they were killing might show up to have a word with wife and kids , or parents while they were gone.
The politicians giving the orders didn't have to worry about living the life of a hunted animal either.
Totally different animal .
We're not in Syria .What is your point? I am honestly not sure. Are you suggesting that a government/military fearing for the safety of their families are gonna fight less hard or quit earlier? Quite the opposite. See Syrian war.
If I had to bet, most are probably in the younger then 40 group.The poll appears to be behind a paywall but.....
Most Americans Say 2nd Amendment Exists to Keep Government in Check
President Biden warned in a speech last week that Americans would “need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons” to “take on the government.”www.breitbart.com
I'd love to see how thatt 54% break down according to age.....