You're both going on about how revolution is impossible because the military makes leaps and bounds in technology and training, but you completley fucking ignore the fact that, as the weapons used by the military advance, so do the weapons at the hands of the civillians. What the fuck, do you think that people would still be using black powder muskets? Open you're fucking eyes- any motivated activist can get his hands on some seriously destructive shit. Ever here of little things called IED's? Dirty bombs? Ever hear of a thing called Terrorism? You think todays military can't handle a bunch of middle-easterners with AK's? Kill a terrorist or a rebel and the cause lives on. The man dies but not the idealogy, so another one takes his place, and another one. It's happened again, and again and again. The fight being on U.S. soil only makes it more difficult for the government to win because such a large portion of the military would join the revolution, and they would sure as shit brings some of their new technology with them. That's not even mentioning how much assistance for the revolution would come in from other countries!
Holy fuck, you're right man! It doesn't
matter whether it's peasants with pitchforks charging a line of rifles. The cause lives on! Gee, I think I'll go grab a shotgun, walk up to the doors of the Capitol right now, and start demanding my rights.
This is the same argument you've made before, just with more uses of the word "fuck" thrown in to make it sound like you're more sure of yourself. Allow me to peel back your rhetoric and show you the basic point you're trying to make. Feel free to correct me if I misrepresent you.
Thesis: Guerilla warfare is intrinsically superior to a formal military.
It may be a pain in the ass for a military to take on guerilla fighters, but it's still doable. If you go to Wikipedia and look up the casualty rates for the Iraq war, you'll find that insurgent deaths far outnumber coalition deaths. You may view similar statistics for the Vietnam war if you wish. I think this is a pretty good argument in favor of superior military technology, not to mention organization. I'm guessing it would take at least twice as many militia to take on the military if we were to have a civil war. I'm not going to say that a technologically-superior military can win when it's vastly outnumbered. (If it were desperate, however, it could still employ weapons of mass destruction.) I'm pretty sure, though, that if we're talking about an oppressive regime that actually has a significant fraction of supporters in the U.S., they wouldn't have much trouble stomping the rest of us. It all gets down to how desperate the ones in control of the military are, and whether they have a decent number of supporters. The "glory of the cause" is not the winning factor here. If it were, there'd be a lot less dictatorships out there.
Gari, you are the one oversimplfying. Saying the U.S. lost in Vietnam because we had "other shit to do" is a pretty juvenile explanation. The U.S. lost in Vietnam because of politics. Once again, killing a person, or a few people, or thousands of them won't make the idealogy go away. The U.S. lost in Vietnam because- surprise surprise- Americans coming in and killing Vietnamese actally DIDN'T make them want to adopt our way of life. You're argument against this point is made even more invalid because you seem to think that the U.S. military would be more willing to kill American people than they were to kill Vietnamese.
I'm getting tired of this retarded analogy. It
wasn't our goddamn country. If the U.S. has another civil war, there are going to be adamant supporters on both sides. There also isn't going to be anyone pulling out. How are you so sure that a fascist minority in control of the military isn't going to be sure of its cause anyway? They could be a group of Christian fundamentalists for all we know.
Writing off historical precedents because they happened a long time ago is the most retarded fucking thing I've ever heard. Just because the guns shoot faster doesn't mean human nature has changed.
Maybe if you were to actually explain how 18th/19th century warfare is anything like 21st century warfare, I wouldn't be so quick to write this off. All you seem to be doing, though, is getting pissed off and waving the 'revolution conquers all!' flag.
Since Necurtal is so sure that a population couldn't take on a massive, powerful military, and since Gari doesn't want to hear about things from 150 years ago, I've got an example for both of you: The Bolshevik Revolution. And, even though you will both write it off as an invalid example (which is fucking absurd), I'll also cite the French Revolution as a perfect example of a civillian population toppling their own government.
I'm not really familiar with either of these scenarios, but if you actually think they'll help your argument, feel free to explain what makes these scenarios different from the American civil war and revolution. Just naming them doesn't cut it.
Note: I'll probably be going to sleep soon, so my next reply won't be so timely. I'm fine with continuing the argument though, if you want. I'm sure everyone else on the forum is laughing at how long this has gone on, but that doesn't mean it's not a fun topic to debate.
uke: 
