[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
We also had no warships, no transports, and no experience… but we pulled it off.
[/quote]
Well, since 1780, if memory serves my right, the french and spanish have been providing you with arms, ships and what not. Later, the dutch did, too. Can’t remember when, though. So basically, yes, you had those things. Apart maybe from experience, but then I think there was enough former soldiers to organize your army.
[quote]
The same could be said about the Aghanis vs. the Soviets or the Americans, the Southern guerillas against the Union armies, and the Viet Cong against the Americans. These were FAR from wars of equal arms.
Do I really need to list out the guerilla wars that have succeeded in the past 50 years? There are many. [/quote]
No, you don’t need to. I also said there were examples that succeeded. But looking at those examples you brought, the Afghans were supported by the US when the Soviets had their war there. So this wouldn’t apply in the uprising in question.
Viet Cong was at least sponsored by the Soviets, I can’t say if there were other communist troops involoved - frankly, I don’t know.
Southern guerrillas vs Union… Sorry, don’t know what you mean. You don’t mean your secession wars (blue vs grey), do you? If so… the southerns lost that war, AFAIK…
btw- the main indicator of whether a revolution will work is foreign support (with a few exceptions)
the American colonists had the French support- especially seapower, as we had nothing more than a few small ships and nothing that could stand toe to toe with a British Man-of-War.
the Vietnamese had epic amounts of Chinese and Russian support, and the Mujahadeen had U.S. support.
but what these all have in common is that they were insurgencies. the key to winning an insurgency is not to lose. that is how the US won independence, how the Vietnamese did it, how the Afghanis did it with Russia- make it too costly for the counter insurgents to stay- not by meeting in huge force on force action. In fact, in fore on force battles in those 3 examples, the insurgent groups usually got their asses beat.
What you’re referring to follows the same concept the US and the USSR were following in their nuclear arms programs. Now, thankfully, there was no nuclear war, anyhow, that’s mainly due to the fact that those decisions aren’t made by (propably drugged, over-emotional) individuals.
[/quote]
Ahh, yea. And it worked. Way better than the USSR having the weapons and us not would have.
And why would you think that those in government are any different than the people on the street? That is a massive amount of elitism you are showing- giving lying, thieving, drunk, scheming politicans control over the fate of the world, but not letting one person control their own fate if a conflict arises by carrying a gun?
Were we born into these castes? Or did you just make them up?[/quote]
Come on, there’s no castes in what I said. There’s just so many more people involved in such an important decision (like starting a nuclear war and stuff), so there’s not one emotional guy but a bunch of discussing people. After all, that’s what made democracy the superior (?) form of government, right? Communication, discussion and a common consensus to actions. That’s what makes democracy so different from, say, a dictatorship. One person alone doesn’t wield that much power in a democracy. Even if (in some cases such as the US) the president has very much power (the concept of a president is somewhat different here), there’s more factors for him to consider and more people he needs to rely on.
[/quote]
The President does have very much power. But there are plenty of people in very powerful positions that are very emotional and can have a lot of influence- and if you have a President that likes “going with his gut” like ole W did, nothing is going to dissuade them. That’s not even considering the “groupthink” that can go on pointing towards moving a certain way. So no, I disagree.
Fuck that. If I come home and someone is banging my wife, I’m going to beat him to death with my own hands.
If anything, he’s got a better chance of me shooting him once as far as living instead of me beating him with a bat.
Don’t act like “tragedy” only happens when a gun is involved.
Absolutely untrue. You’re in as much trouble if someone comes at you with a knife- hell, I’d rather have some jerkoff who holds his gun sideways like a G and doesn’t know how to aim come after then a guy who I don’t see coming who’s got a knife.
Now you’re just talking situations- and in some, a gun is a very good tool, in others, not so much.
Look up the Tueller study.
Never said it would.
First of all, home invasions happen here plenty, so I don’t really care what happens in Austria. I’m going by my experiences in this country.
And a hunting rifle? For self defense? No. I’d rather have a shotgun or a handgun, and a handgun is way easier to handle with less of a chance of spraying slugs all over.
And that shit about “oh, when you have kids, you’ll think twice” is crybaby shit. If you didn’t like guns before, you won’t like them when you have kids. If you did like them before, the only way you’re getting rid of them is if you can’t shut your wife up about how “dangerous” they are to have in the house.
[quote]
What we don’t allow (and I don’t approve of) is handguns and everything you can carry with you. That’s where trouble starts, bigtime.[/quote]
You truly don’t understand the American way of thinking.
Go live in Wyoming or Montana, where it could take the cops literally forever to get to your house, or where the possibility of wolves or grizzly bears attacking is high if you’re stranded.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
We also had no warships, no transports, and no experience… but we pulled it off.
[/quote]
Well, since 1780, if memory serves my right, the french and spanish have been providing you with arms, ships and what not. Later, the dutch did, too. Can’t remember when, though. So basically, yes, you had those things. Apart maybe from experience, but then I think there was enough former soldiers to organize your army.
[/quote]
Well, if my memory serves me right, the war was damn near over by 1780. That was five years of fighting that the colonies did all on their own, making do with what they had. And the Dutch did not help us.
And it took years, literally, to train the American army into a fighting force. Foreign officers helped, yes, but the Americans learned the hard way.
So there would be NO foreign support for an uprising? How do you know? You’re talking hypotheticals. There might be three countries interested in whatever the aim was, and more than willing to supply rebels with arms. You’ve got no idea about that, so that’s another false statement.
Troops, no. But they did not have tanks like we did, an air force like we did, etc. It was a severe mismatch, and your attempts to make it seem otherwise are pathetic.
[quote]
Southern guerrillas vs Union… Sorry, don’t know what you mean. You don’t mean your secession wars (blue vs grey), do you? If so… the southerns lost that war, AFAIK…[/quote]
Don’t talk about American history if you don’t know it.
The South used guerilla war exclusively in some areas, and did damn well with it. The fault, actually, was that they had standing armies in the field that they placed all their hopes on. Had they fought a war similar to the Viet Cong, they probably would have won.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Interesting. Not bad for an MMA fighter who’s talking on self-defense.
I think his idea of a housewife militia bearing down on an attacker is ridiculous though. [/quote]
His basic point was that attackers will be much more cautious if they know little housewives are armed with firearms. For my part, I’d prefer it if my wife were allowed to carry a gun in certain situations when I’m not with her.
Thank you for understanding the point of this thread though. [/quote]
I know what his point was. But aside from the rare woman that really invests a lot of time and energy into learning how to use a pistol, qualifying with it, and keeps up with it, guns in the hands of housewives would be a bad, bad idea.[/quote]
Sick of hearing about this. Give me a 10 year old kid, 5 minute to teach him, and a loaded gun, and I’ll show you a 10 year old u’d just assume avoid.
Yes marksmanship is tough but really hitting someone at point blank range with a loaded weapon is a fairly big deterrent even to a martial arts master. Seeing a 10 year old with 2 barrels in your face, while hes scared *hitless and his trigger finger quivering on the hair trigger…
I’m not gonna ask what his marksmanship rating is. Sorry.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
btw- the main indicator of whether a revolution will work is foreign support (with a few exceptions)
the American colonists had the French support- especially seapower, as we had nothing more than a few small ships and nothing that could stand toe to toe with a British Man-of-War.
the Vietnamese had epic amounts of Chinese and Russian support, and the Mujahadeen had U.S. support.
[/quote]
[quote]Valor wrote:
The bottom line is that guns are a really bad idea in the hands of the public, whether obtained legally or otherwise (save in respect of those who use them for legitimate sporting pursuits with training e.g. target shooting, clay pigeons etc.).
…
Thats just fucking stupid. More people will be killed by cars and McDonalds this year then by guns in the next 20.[/quote]
It’s not stupid but it does show very little imagination or thought. A gun in hands of an untrained individual, is asking for trouble. You just don’t go around handing guns to those that have never used one. A vast majority of the public would be capable of safely carrying a gun with a little training. They are not that complicated.
For most situations pepper spray or a stun gun would probably be just as effective as a gun, yet very few people carry them. Probably for same reason most chose not to carry a gun. No training or education.
There are also non-lethal rounds that could be used in some guns, but people will not adopt that which they are not familiar with. With a non-lethal round, you still have the intimidation factor. Your potential assailant doesn’t know it’s non-lethal.
If I were a single man, I might take my chances with a non-lethal defence. I imagine I would be less tentative in my own defence with a non-lethal round. With a wife and three young children, I chose not to fuck around. Someone enters my home and I feel my family is threatened, they die. This is not likely to happen where I live, but it would be irresponsible of me not to take simple steps to protect my family from the remote possibility. To me, this would be as silly as not putting outlet covers on or a gate in front of the steps with very young children. They probably wonâ??t electrocute themselves, but why take the chance.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
btw- the main indicator of whether a revolution will work is foreign support (with a few exceptions)
the American colonists had the French support- especially seapower, as we had nothing more than a few small ships and nothing that could stand toe to toe with a British Man-of-War.
the Vietnamese had epic amounts of Chinese and Russian support, and the Mujahadeen had U.S. support.
[/quote]
[quote]Therizza wrote:
What would be alarming about this little tidbit? And why would it matter if I was serious or not?
Anyways, you’re from Austria, and so are Glocks. You see, I don’t really like Glocks. They are too light in my opinion, especially when firing anything above 9mm.
[/quote]
It’d be alarming because you’d be serving a certain stereotype that’s predominant in the world when it comes to the USA. So it’d matter if you were serious, because if you were, you’d be a racist and an idiot.
By the way, sorry for the Glocks, I didn’t construct them. Neither did I design the Steyr, before you ask. Not involved in the constructio of land mines, either. Yes, we do all that stuff. All world is using our guns. Still, we choose not to let just everyone own one right here in Austria.
[/quote]
Your opinion will count…will matter… when it is your sons and daughters spilling thier own blood in the name of freedom and peace. Your cute little nation has not even begun to pay the debt it owes the world for WWII. So, how about you just stfu and say thank you.[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about?
Maybe you’re brainwashed by the propaganda of the Bush administration, but can you explain to me what you mean by “spilling their own blood in the name of freedom and peace”? To my knowledge you have started the war in Iraq claiming that Saddam had nuclear weapons, which for some reason were never found. Saddam was only a threat for his own nation, but there are many corrupt dictators out there. You, on the other hand, have started a war that has cost more innocent lives than Saddam has ever taken, just to get to Iraq’s oil ressources.
WWII was over 64 years ago, however in the present the USA torture prisoners, many of them innocent, in Guantanamo Bay.
Your opinion will count…will matter… when you stop being an ignorant fuck and get a clue.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Well, if my memory serves me right, the war was damn near over by 1780. That was five years of fighting that the colonies did all on their own, making do with what they had. And the Dutch did not help us.
[/quote]
Hm. NMot exactly true. See Wikipedia on this one:
“The Dutch Republic, nominally neutral, had been trading with the Americans, exchanging Dutch arms and munitions for American colonial wares (in contravention of the British Navigation Acts), primarily through activity based in St. Eustatius, before the French formally entered the war.[43] The British considered this trade to include contraband military supplies and had attempted to stop it, at first diplomatically by appealing to previous treaty obligations, interpretation of whose terms the two nations disagreed on, and then by searching and seizing Dutch merchant ships. The situation escalated when the British seized a Dutch merchant convoy sailing under Dutch naval escort in December 1779, prompting the Dutch to join the League of Armed Neutrality. Britain responded to this decision by declaring war on the Dutch in December 1780, sparking the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War.[44]”
So, basically, the Dutch were helping you by supplying you weapons. This even led to a war of their own against the british (which they quickly lost).
Not a false one, but unsure. Not false until you disprove it. Also, if those three countries would be supporting rebels with arms anyways… then you’d have them in times of war. No need to carry them in times of peace. You see, my argumentation was actually more benefiting your point of view than this…
Did I make such attempts? I think not. Just pointing out (not only me, as you can see) that foreign support plays a huge role when it comes to a revolutions chances on success.
But then I think I know it. Nothing I’ve said was wrong to this point. The Dutch helped you and the sourtherns have lost the war.
[quote]FirestormWarrior wrote:
Hmm… Quite frankly, usually you seem to be a reasonable guy. Please look that thing about “taking away the guns from the people” up again. Living in Austria (Hitler’s birthplace) and having lots of polish family (biggest victim of that terrible war) basically had me learn every detail from the time, from more than one point of view. That’s why I can’t approve phrases like that one.
Also, criticizing the Germans today for what Hitler did is heavy. Think about the political landscape here in Europe around that time - times were different. I guess you wouldn’t want me to critizise “the americans” (generalization sucks so much) for the genocide they commited against the native americans or the crimes they did to african slaves.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not German, so I could just ignore that, it’s just I’m not used to reading that kind of stuff from you.[/quote]
Your people had the opportunity to side with Germany in WW2 and tossed away that chance in one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of all time. Not only did your country pay dearly for it, but so did many others, as the entire war was started as a consequence of those actions.
Recent events show that you have not learned anything from your colossal blunder since your current leaders are still taking an isolationist stance rather than making ties with your Teutonic neighbors.
At some point you will have to make bridges with Russia or Germany or you will continue to fall further behind until you get wiped out for good during the next war. That’s the truth of the matter.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Your people had the opportunity to side with Germany in WW2 and tossed away that chance in one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of all time. Not only did your country pay dearly for it, but so did many others, as the entire war was started as a consequence of those actions.
[/quote]
What the fuck are you talking about? The fuck?
Austria (if you mean that country) unfortunately did side with Germany, something I could never approve with. If you mean my second country, Poland… why would they side with those NAZI fucks? Are you actually suggesting here that supporting Germany back then would have been a good idea?
Such as?
[quote]
At some point you will have to make bridges with Russia or Germany or you will continue to fall further behind until you get wiped out for good during the next war. That’s the truth of the matter.[/quote]
Uhm, the fuck? Bridges with Germany? You know, the European Union is, like, a Union of (far behind?) countries such as Germany, France, England, … and about the rest of western and central europe.
