ThisIsACoolName
Member
Who said anything about one guy with a shotgun? I'm talking about a massive revolution. One that has the support of the vast majority of citizens. Of course one guy with a shotgun or some farmers with pitchforks couldn't do anything. But millions of people with guns and bombs and all the motivation in the world? They can do anything.
No. Guerilla warfare is extremely difficuly for a formal military to deal with. This is a fact that has proven itself time and time again.
First, thanks for helping to support my point. A hell of a lot more Vietnamese did in the war, but they won. Tons more Iraqui's are dying than Americans, but turn on the news. Who are the ones who are talking about giving up? It's us, not them. Casualties don't mean much when you're fighting for your freedom.
If there were a large amount of supporters in the U.S., sure, it would be a different story. I agree with you there, and I agree that the government could use WMD's at any time- though they would probably only do that if they knew they could not win. Again, I'm talking about a movement with a massive amount of support, but that threatens the government. It's not so much the "glory" of the cause, but the idea that if enough people believe in it, they will be almost impossible to beat. As far as the dictatorships go, if enough people in those countries really, truely want change, they will force it. It isn't even very uncommon, actually. It happens in South America and Africa quite a lot (of course, the revolutionaries just start dictatorships of their own).
Vietnam is a pretty solid example of what I'm talking about, actually. A rebel movement rises up against it's government. The U.S. steps in one the side of the goverment. Goverment loses. The fact that it happened there and not here doesn't mean anything. Both sides had their supporters, but the more popular idealogy won out because it had more people there to fight for it.
This is a ridiculous point. Once again, the weapons and tactics of the military have changed, but so have the resources available to citizens. The key to warfare is to break the will of the enemy. That was the case then, and it is the case now. Technological advances haven't changed that.
I'm not surprised that you don't know about either of these events, given the stance you're taking on this discussion. I'm not going to sit here and type out, in detail, what happened in each case, but I'll give a rough summary:
The French Revoltuion was in the late 1700's. 1789 to 1799, I think. New ideas started to gain popularity in France that made people think differently about their station in life. The citizens were also mistreated by the monarchy. There were assemblies of citizens meant to give the people an official voice, and to keep them happy, but, because of new ideas, it wasn't good enoigh. The peasant class of France took up arms and defeated the military and topple the monarchy. Of course, the revolutionary government eventually became just as (f not more) oppressive than the Monarchy had been, setting the stage for Napoleon.
The Bolshevik Revolution was the communist movement in Russia, which started during WWI. I want to say 1916, but I'm not sure. Once again, the citizens- exposed to a new idealogy- decided they didn't want to live under a Monarchy anymore. So, they organized, overthrew the government, and became the Soviet Union.
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.
I guess this is as good a place as any to stress that I'm not trying to be hostile here. This is, to me, an interesting debate. I'm not going to hold any grudges simply because people disagreed with me. And, yeah, people are probably laughing it this.
Nec said:
At least I have facts to back up my point. You've got nothing but you're own misguided confidence in the goverment.
