Assuming that the military would consider taking American lives, I would remind you all the last Civil War split the Marine Corps, some went North and some went south.
This is fucking stupid. Our military completely dominated the vietcong military. They retreated into neighboring countries constantly and had to only sneak attack and hide among civilians and put bombs on their own children who then beg for food and still the kill ratio was 1/100 in our favor. Seriously people need to learn real history and not the bs school teaches them. We left because the government we were there to support capitulated so legally there was no longer a way we could stay. It was not a war we were fighting to win as their was no clear enemy to fight we were trying to prevent the country from going communist and when the government said they would go commie we left not beaten in battle but betrayed by those we were there to help.
Totally not the point. I wouldn't expect to win, I wouldn't even expect to survive but I can guarantee I would give more that I get. I'm willing to pick a hill.
Man, this is as backwards as it gets. The vietcong were armed terribly, had zero training, and were severely outnumbered, hence the loss. That is not the case in the US at all. There are few situations where an actual armed resistance of the people vs the military ends with the military winning. It's a numbers game, and the military just doesn't have enough people. That's why they have to keep everyone away from proper equipment and demoralize everyone into thinking resistance will be instant defeat.
That, and there really wasnt much emotional investment in taking the land by soldiers. Definitely investment in protecting the guy next to you, but that puts you on a different footing.
Defending your home property, city, state.... a thousand shadowy Murder Inc's would emerge.
The VietCong outlasted the US military in a battle of attrition by embedding in the jungle. Also it wasn't only the VC the army was fighting, it was also ChiComs.
It would be a different story in rural Montana with rolling plains with little cover.
I think these clowns think that in the event of an armed revolt, dudes are just going to march up to the white house by the thousand.
It's like don't they understand that 99% of the dudes that have been in non-stop asymmetrical conflict for the last 20 years are all on the same team? Maybe they learned a thing or two of how to do a lot with a little?
Bad example. No matter how messy Vietnam was, it was an unequivocal win by any and all metrics until the US pulled out and defaulted on our treaty to arm the south. The idea that we lost was marxist hippie propoganda from the 60's that has become mainstream, just the way gender and critical race theory will if you keep repeating things without looking into them.
I never got this argument. If Bedouin tribal's could beat the italians for twenty years, Viet Minh fought France/Japan/France/USA+Australia+several other nations hell the Boers who were mostly farmers trounced the British army in the First Boer War, a british army got slaughtered by the Zulu-literal tribal's. Anything is possible.
12,000,000 deer hunters in the US: All of them can his a basketball at 400 yards with the rifles that they own 440 yards = 1/4 mile
Assuming that the military would consider taking American lives, I would remind you all the last Civil War split the Marine Corps, some went North and some went south.
Then there is that "lawful order" detail
This is fucking stupid. Our military completely dominated the vietcong military. They retreated into neighboring countries constantly and had to only sneak attack and hide among civilians and put bombs on their own children who then beg for food and still the kill ratio was 1/100 in our favor. Seriously people need to learn real history and not the bs school teaches them. We left because the government we were there to support capitulated so legally there was no longer a way we could stay. It was not a war we were fighting to win as their was no clear enemy to fight we were trying to prevent the country from going communist and when the government said they would go commie we left not beaten in battle but betrayed by those we were there to help.
Totally not the point. I wouldn't expect to win, I wouldn't even expect to survive but I can guarantee I would give more that I get. I'm willing to pick a hill.
Man, this is as backwards as it gets. The vietcong were armed terribly, had zero training, and were severely outnumbered, hence the loss. That is not the case in the US at all. There are few situations where an actual armed resistance of the people vs the military ends with the military winning. It's a numbers game, and the military just doesn't have enough people. That's why they have to keep everyone away from proper equipment and demoralize everyone into thinking resistance will be instant defeat.
I appreciate this comment. Thanks.
Welcome to the rice paddy, motherfucker.
I like how he's wearing a hat under his hat
They shot down our helicopters with bows and arrows. Just saying...
its not about the weapons as my granddad said they loved there country more then we loved there country
That, and there really wasnt much emotional investment in taking the land by soldiers. Definitely investment in protecting the guy next to you, but that puts you on a different footing.
Defending your home property, city, state.... a thousand shadowy Murder Inc's would emerge.
What Warhammer 40K Ork magic is this?
Da red onez us faster!
The VietCong outlasted the US military in a battle of attrition by embedding in the jungle. Also it wasn't only the VC the army was fighting, it was also ChiComs.
It would be a different story in rural Montana with rolling plains with little cover.
Society is still semi-functional at this point. At the point of full breakdown, expect allegiances to shift.
I think these clowns think that in the event of an armed revolt, dudes are just going to march up to the white house by the thousand.
It's like don't they understand that 99% of the dudes that have been in non-stop asymmetrical conflict for the last 20 years are all on the same team? Maybe they learned a thing or two of how to do a lot with a little?
Vietnam. And AFG. And IRQ.
Bad example. No matter how messy Vietnam was, it was an unequivocal win by any and all metrics until the US pulled out and defaulted on our treaty to arm the south. The idea that we lost was marxist hippie propoganda from the 60's that has become mainstream, just the way gender and critical race theory will if you keep repeating things without looking into them.
I never got this argument. If Bedouin tribal's could beat the italians for twenty years, Viet Minh fought France/Japan/France/USA+Australia+several other nations hell the Boers who were mostly farmers trounced the British army in the First Boer War, a british army got slaughtered by the Zulu-literal tribal's. Anything is possible.
Double hatting
Vietnam (Golden Triangle) was just an earlier Afghanistan - all about the CIA and their drugs operations with the US military doing the control job.
(Insert every indigenous insurgent force since WWII)
Irony alert! Those Vietnamese citizens were COMMUNISTS!