Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
well, you all have your notions of we're too weak and limited to face the government and military that the US has, that's fine. A whole lot of people thought the very same thing in the 1770s, but a few stood out as radical.
James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Paine
George Mason
Samuel Adams
I think Dunedan and I are in pretty good company.
|
Only trouble with that argument (aside from what uber's already pointed out) is that back then, it was much easier for the rebels to match military hardware. They had muzzle-loading rifles. So did you. Sure, they had cannons, but then they weren't overly effective considering their reload rate, and they counterbalanced the cannons for you by being stupid and marching around upright while wearing scarlet red coats. Pretty easy for you to run from tree to tree and pick 'em off.
Today, unless you've figured out how to buy missiles, bombers, tanks, howitzers, and all the other advanced and deadly toys the military has, you don't have a prayer of matching their hardware.
And since the military has wised up and figured out how to fight, unlike the Redcoats, you don't have a prayer of having a tactical advantage over them either.
You insist that it's possible for a poorly armed and trained bunch of rebels to defeat the world's most powerful and best trained military, but you never tell us how it can be done. You insist that it's being done in 3rd world countries, without acknowledging that 1) those countries don't have a military anything close to what we have and 2) the rebels are generally being propped up by much more powerful entities.
In short, you're making wild, baseless statements without ever having any intention of backing them up with anything approaching rationality.