Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you think that this would not be the case, simply because whatever units loyal to the dictatorship would be fighting closer to home?
feel free to find historical examples to back that up. .
Both Napoleon and Hitler unable to maintain logistical penetration into Russia.
Nobody ever was able to support their invading troops in Afghanistan. It's much much harder to fight a war if it is a constant battle in itself to supply and communicate with your troops in an unfamiliar theater among hostile civilians.
The Filipinos were fighting against a force of regulars who had the attendant problems of logistics on a hostile front. That would not be the case of US federals fighting on their home soil. So your comparison is not relevant. Colorful arguments do not trump rational ones.
It was not just Filipinos who were fighting. It was also Americans Brits Aussies Dutch etc who were not captured at the beginning of the occupation. Snide tones and attempts to show my' arguments' to be irrelevant do not make your counter any more rational in their own right. Tin does bring up some very good points as well, and added to these comparisons and taken at face value, makes a very strong case for the points being made.
Both Napoleon and Hitler unable to maintain logistical penetration into Russia.
Nobody ever was able to support their invading troops in Afghanistan. It's much much harder to fight a war if it is a constant battle in itself to supply and communicate with your troops in an unfamiliar theater among hostile civilians.
Wait a minute here....first you say that small units of resistance, armed with little more than small arms, would be ineffective against a large, well equipped, technologically superior force, and then spin it 180 degrees the other way? Which is it then? Or is it just American citizens who would be ineffective as a resistance force? Your position is becoming rather unclear and your arguments are all over the place. Hitler and Napoleon's penetrations into Russia are irrelevant, as you are talking about two large standing army's going head to head, not citizen resistance forces.
Both Napoleon and Hitler unable to maintain logistical penetration into Russia.
Nobody ever was able to support their invading troops in Afghanistan. It's much much harder to fight a war if it is a constant battle in itself to supply and communicate with your troops in an unfamiliar theater among hostile civilians.
i agree with nvplumber; what side are you arguing?
for one, you seem to have some details confused. if the feds (or what remained of them after the disillusioned left the ranks) tried to bring totalitarian rule to the states, it would not be the civilians that would be invading (notice my highlights in your quoted statement).
the feds would be the invaders.
i don't see how you don't understand this--though i admit that there is a possibility that you agree and are arguing something entirely different. if so, please help me out here.
if the feds came to my small town (foreign theater to them) in order to arrest all able-bodied men and send them to the gulag (hostile civilians), they would not be the home-turf resistance force; they would be the invaders. does that not make sense?
small resistance forces historically take a lot of casualties and have a hell of a rotten time fighting their battles. but they are often what makes or breaks the "acceptable loss" quota that invading armies come to battle with. it is these small resistance forces that cause large armies to run themselves ragged, that cause powerful governments to spend themselves into bankruptcy, and that cause the citizens of the invading nation to lose heart and hate the war.
if iraq is not coming to mind, then i am not sure we are communicating in the same language. vietnam ring a bell? revolutionary war?
anyway, thanks for finally siding with us; the government would be committing absolute suicide if it attempted to go to war with americans that rebelled against its policies. even with their tanks, bombs, and jet fighters.
It was not just Filipinos who were fighting. It was also Americans Brits Aussies Dutch etc who were not captured at the beginning of the occupation. Snide tones and attempts to show my' arguments' to be irrelevant do not make your counter any more rational in their own right. Tin does bring up some very good points as well, and added to these comparisons and taken at face value, makes a very strong case for the points being made.
I apologize, I did not intend for it to be taken as a snide comment. But rather, as caution that an anecdote that is worded in a catchy, dramatic or entertaining manner does not make it any more true than a simple statement of fact.
A penny saved is still just a penny saved. All work and no play does not make Jack any duller than anybody else. Cats don't have nine lives.
I don't know why you are having such a hard time with such a simple proposition. The US armed forces would be well equipped with maps of their own country, a familiarity with the customs and the way transport lines and accesses are set up. They would know where supplies can be found, they would know what foods would be in season, they would know how to use civilian devices and tools that they commandeer. They would be accustomed to drinking the water, they know the language. The first ones to show up would be local guardsmen and reserves, all thoroughly trained in military science and tactics, and well equipped, state of the art, who know your town and county as well as you do.
The feds would not be the invaders, they would be setting up defenses and control centers in their own country, against a rag-tag bunch of people who call themselves a "well regulated militia". But who trained the militia, and what is their chain of command, and who knows who has weapons and who doesn't and how many different kinds of ammo do they need and where are their supplies located, and what vehicles do they have access to and how well have they been maintained, and how do they communicate securely with each other?
You guys are thinking like your local high school football team, expecting the visiting team to be European soccer players who have never seen a football, but get ready. It's gonna be the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I don't know why you are having such a hard time with such a simple proposition. The US armed forces would be well equipped with maps of their own country, a familiarity with the customs and the way transport lines and accesses are set up. They would know where supplies can be found, they would know what foods would be in season, they would know how to use civilian devices and tools that they commandeer. They would be accustomed to drinking the water, they know the language. The first ones to show up would be local guardsmen and reserves, all thoroughly trained in military science and tactics, and well equipped, state of the art, who know your town and county as well as you do.
The feds would not be the invaders, they would be setting up defenses and control centers in their own country, against a rag-tag bunch of people who call themselves a "well regulated militia". But who trained the militia, and what is their chain of command, and who knows who has weapons and who doesn't and how many different kinds of ammo do they need and where are their supplies located, and what vehicles do they have access to and how well have they been maintained, and how do they communicate securely with each other?
You guys are thinking like your local high school football team, expecting the visiting team to be European soccer players who have never seen a football, but get ready. It's gonna be the Pittsburgh Steelers.
OK then since we have a clear subject matter, I can form a counter hypothesis. Any federal force that would be sent to 'pacify' the area I live in, may very well have maps, sat photos, all kinds of intelligence on the area and the people here. But, we live here. We know this country backward and forward. These professionals that would be coming to spank us into submission would do well to remember that this is our home, our families, our lives that we would be defending. Nothing is so dangerous as a man with nothing to lose. If, by not fighting, or by losing a fight, it means that our families would be slaves, or dead, or worse, what would be to lose by making a fight? On our own ground, on our own terms. Win lose or draw. I don't subscribe to "better to live on your knees than die on your feet". In the end, the invading force may, indeed, be the victor, but, not at an inexpensive cost. The "Pittsburg Steelers" may win the game, but they would know that they had played that game to be sure.
I don't know why you are having such a hard time with such a simple proposition. The US armed forces would be well equipped with maps of their own country, a familiarity with the customs and the way transport lines and accesses are set up. They would know where supplies can be found, they would know what foods would be in season, they would know how to use civilian devices and tools that they commandeer. They would be accustomed to drinking the water, they know the language. The first ones to show up would be local guardsmen and reserves, all thoroughly trained in military science and tactics, and well equipped, state of the art, who know your town and county as well as you do.
Bull. Nobody knows a town or area like the people that grew up and live there. Nobody.
They have maps? So what. Go tell the commanders in Afghanistan that they should be doing a better job - they have maps, too, you know. They know how to use civilian devices? Was that even a serious comment?
It's been demonstrated time and time again that insurgent groups are extremely difficult to defeat. Your supposition that it would be different just because the invading force (and yes, when the government of the people, for the people and BY the people goes against the people, there can be no doubt that they are the invaders) originated in the same country is ignorant, at best.
And the one thing that people on your side of this debate always seem to ignore - and it's been mentioned more than once in this thread - is the rate of attrition the military would see if it ordered its troops to fire on U.S. citizens - on their own soil. Yeah, they'd have lots of tanks and jets, but nobody to operate them.
The British tried by banning firearms - and enjoyed rampant growth of knife crimes as the result. Last I heard, their boy scouts stopped allowing pocket knives.
And the most vulnerable citizens enjoyed vastly increased personal crimes. That consists of home invasions on the elderly, beatings, rape, etc. and the citizen can and often is charged if he attempts to defend himself.
I believe it's even illegal to yell "Help!" if you're attacked on the street. You're supposed to yell "Fire!"
WWII Brits would be appalled. Wonder how Churchill would encourage citizens to "fight in the hills" today? Sticks?
All other things being equal, a regular well-trained well-equipped army has a better chance of success fighting on its own soil, than in a foreign land. The reasons are obvious. Is that simple enough for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
