reply to post by Majestic23
No war is hardly glorious, nor do I think it romantic.
I am speaking in terms of cold effectiveness.
Sure, many revolutions put in people just as bad, sometimes worse, then the ones ousted. that isn't the point. The point is, guerrilla warfare is
effective. It drove the American forces out of Vietnam. It drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. it played a role in both the revolutionary and Civil
The point is, it was effective, because it slowly and surely wears down the larger force, demoralizes them, breaks resolve. it doesn't win individual
battles, but often wins the war.
Sure, the wars that were mentioned were fought in secret by the powers that be. But I assure you, their intent was to stay longer, to reap more, but
unfortunately, they had to move on to other things because they couldn't sustain things.
The difference being, many guerrillas were communist or other extreme ideologically driven. The real issue is who drives the revolt? What is the
agenda/ultimate goal of the people revolting and fighting? the uprisings?
No one said it is a pretty thing, it is very hideous in its activity. However, breaking of eggs is required for making an omelet, and ultimately,
there comes a time when talking, reasoning, civil disobedience, voting, protests simply no longer work.
As much as I dislike the idea and it's implications, the world is moving more and more towards that point when more drastic, violent measures are
going to be the only options left.
Voting one goon out of office only brings in another.