It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

page: 14
32
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by votan
 


The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) never defeated the US Military. The reason for the US withdrawal was political vice military. The NVA won the war of public opinion but never won a battle. TET was a military disaster but a political victory.



Your assertion is at total odds with history. What about the fall of Saigon?

The USA lost despite an unprecedented assassination targeting civilians (Phoenix) and despite their superior equipment because when you attempt to take over a nation, you make yourself into an enemy of that nation's people.

This "USA didn't lose Nam" revisionism is not credible.


Saigon fell because the US was withdrawing it's forces at that point, leaving the Republic of Vietnam to defend itself against the communists. It's not revisionist, it's fact. The NVA never defeated the US Army, they succeeded in the court of public opinion. US involvement in Vietnam ended in August 1973 and Saigon fell in April 1975. The scenes show the US Embassy being evacuated. Come on, man!

When the citizens of the US turned against the war in Vietnam, the government was forced to withdraw. Read about it. In contrast, when the citizens turned against the war in Iraq, the government ignored it and continued.


Saigon fell because the VC were making headway across the whole nation. We couldn't defend the entirety of Viet Nam all at once without more commitment, which would not be supported by the will of the people anyway.

My point is that, if you don't think that the USA lost Nam, why is there a hammer and sickle on their red flag? Our objective was to prevent that, and we failed. Lesson learned?




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Perhaps no surprise then, that even today, some Americans want to impose their values on everyone else, and would instigate civil war if the majority disagree.


the "pro-gunners" are not the ones imposing their values. The changes that are being imposed are from the anti-gun side.


No, the gun nuts are just trying to encourage a civil war while the "anti-gun"side is trying to think about things rationally.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
You could very well see a situation where the U.N and / or NATO would be used if this was to happen.

The truth of the matter is that threads like these are nothing but a spider web. It's so easy to herd the sheople into their corral. ~$heopleNation


The trick is to be unconcerned with these honeypots. Let the propagandists know that you're not afraid of them, that you won't tolerate their socialist commie bullcrap, and the chips will land where they may.

I am not intimidated, even though it is almost certain that every poster here is identified and flagged. The red list is probably up to 100 million people - far too many to disappear.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
AR variants require very little strength or manual dexterity or overall fitness to operate them. They are perfect for children soldiers, or women to operate in fact as they have little recoil. Fat guys can from the prone position utilize these weapons to provide effective fire against far more fit and active people by the nature of this type of firearm.

I think the gun control push takes aim at effective firearms that can enable children, women, and fat old guys to resist tyranny. Lord knows we need more armed, trained, old, fat and out of shape people to protect this nations freedoms.

This whole gun debate is getting to the ridiculous very quickly. The future looks silly and inane and overall more dangerous to me. Universal armament seems to be preferred to universal disarmament in the US. Everyone armed would lead to social utopia and universal peace.

Civil war in the US would leave us vulnerable for hostile outside forces to intervene. I despise this subject matter but thought I should inject my 2 cents. America is screwed if there is a civil war as the money power behind this push would win the final outcome by design I think. The American people should find common ground with our founding principle of peaceful dialog and cooperative actions. A republic stands on common principles or it can be undone by outside forces or forces within lead by these outside forces.

When the republic no longer has unifying principles holding it together it is only a matter of time until it loses cohesion. If we have no common ground any longer this nation will fail and the new world order will take its place in the world.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by endats01
AR variants require very little strength or manual dexterity or overall fitness to operate them. They are perfect for children soldiers, or women to operate in fact as they have little recoil. Fat guys can from the prone position utilize these weapons to provide effective fire against far more fit and active people by the nature of this type of firearm.

I think the gun control push takes aim at effective firearms that can enable children, women, and fat old guys to resist tyranny. Lord knows we need more armed, trained, old, fat and out of shape people to protect this nations freedoms.

This whole gun debate is getting to the ridiculous very quickly. The future looks silly and inane and overall more dangerous to me. Universal armament seems to be preferred to universal disarmament in the US. Everyone armed would lead to social utopia and universal peace.

Civil war in the US would leave us vulnerable for hostile outside forces to intervene. I despise this subject matter but thought I should inject my 2 cents. America is screwed if there is a civil war as the money power behind this push would win the final outcome by design I think. The American people should find common ground with our founding principle of peaceful dialog and cooperative actions. A republic stands on common principles or it can be undone by outside forces or forces within lead by these outside forces.

When the republic no longer has unifying principles holding it together it is only a matter of time until it loses cohesion. If we have no common ground any longer this nation will fail and the new world order will take its place in the world.


Your points ring true. A bullet cares not how fat the guy was who pulled the trigger, and unlike military units that would be operating behind "enemy" lines on long patrols, your average American revolutionary would be operating directly in his own stomping grounds, possibly from his own porch! I'm no Jesse Owens but I can run to my porch without tiring out.

Universal armament would be wonderful. It would eliminate casual predation by goblin-men, as criminals want victims and not battles. And I do think that the recent backlash against this talk of disarmament has proved that while nobody's shooting yet, they are indeed preparing against the day that they might have to start.

More guns have been sold in the last 2 months than have sold in the last 2 years, and more guns sold in the last 2 years than the last 10 before that. People know the score and they are getting guns while they can.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Just out of curiosity, have you ever served?

I will go ahead and guarantee you havent, and dont know a single person who has. Otherwise your comment , which I wont quote for its ignorance, would have been far different.

I served for 6 years, many others here at ATS have also served, ask any of us and you will get basically this exact answer.

Soldiers are not mindless killers, who are trained to follow any and all orders given to them. In fact your taught the difference between a lawfully given order, and an unlawful one, as you are the one going to jail for following a unlawful order. Soldiers are just like everyone else, it is just a job man, we go to work, we come home, we yell at our kids, kiss the dog, and kick the old lady ( joke btw) just like everyone else. We arent mindless drones, maybe you should meet a few soldiers, we are the ones with the nice haircuts, and the confident stance, that volunteer to sacrifice our time and maybe our lives for all you disgusting rainbow bright color wearing civies ( joke)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by votan
 


The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) never defeated the US Military. The reason for the US withdrawal was political vice military. The NVA won the war of public opinion but never won a battle. TET was a military disaster but a political victory.



Your assertion is at total odds with history. What about the fall of Saigon?

The USA lost despite an unprecedented assassination targeting civilians (Phoenix) and despite their superior equipment because when you attempt to take over a nation, you make yourself into an enemy of that nation's people.

This "USA didn't lose Nam" revisionism is not credible.


A better way to put it is that the US could have won if it was fighting an all out war like WWII. In Vietnam the military fought with its hands tied most of the time. I was there and my Dad was in WWII. I told him about our ''free fire zones" and he laughed " you mean there were places that you couldn't fire on the enemy? I told him about our monthly allocation levels of ammo and flight hours and he said that they may not have had all of the ammo and fuel that they needed in WWII but they damn sure used it when they had it. And, if they were running short God help the enemy because they just needed to get the job done quicker.

If you had been there you would know that we fought it totally restrained.

It was a worthless war fought for political reasons. For me war is a last resort not a political policy. If a war needs to be fought because the USA is at risk Congress should declare it, then we get in, get the job done and get out.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Just out of curiosity, have you ever served?

I will go ahead and guarantee you havent, and dont know a single person who has. Otherwise your comment , which I wont quote for its ignorance, would have been far different.

I served for 6 years, many others here at ATS have also served, ask any of us and you will get basically this exact answer.

Soldiers are not mindless killers, who are trained to follow any and all orders given to them. In fact your taught the difference between a lawfully given order, and an unlawful one, as you are the one going to jail for following a unlawful order. Soldiers are just like everyone else, it is just a job man, we go to work, we come home, we yell at our kids, kiss the dog, and kick the old lady ( joke btw) just like everyone else. We arent mindless drones, maybe you should meet a few soldiers, we are the ones with the nice haircuts, and the confident stance, that volunteer to sacrifice our time and maybe our lives for all you disgusting rainbow bright color wearing civies ( joke)


Claps.

I think another thing that people forget is that when a soldier is done fighting for Uncle Sam, they expect to have the freedoms that they swore an oath to protect preserved intact. The politicians backstabbing veterans are traitors of the highest order.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I never said that soldiers are mindless drones, I simply stated a fact. Soldiers ARE payed to kill people in different uniforms, and ARE trained with the strictest discipline to follow official orders. If a order came from the top(White house), to fire on citizens for some reason, then I have no doubt the majority would. Why would you go against orders you are trained to follow, and assist the side who you signed up to fight.(A designated threat against America, as decided by the Government)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by votan
 


The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) never defeated the US Military. The reason for the US withdrawal was political vice military. The NVA won the war of public opinion but never won a battle. TET was a military disaster but a political victory.



Your assertion is at total odds with history. What about the fall of Saigon?

The USA lost despite an unprecedented assassination targeting civilians (Phoenix) and despite their superior equipment because when you attempt to take over a nation, you make yourself into an enemy of that nation's people.

This "USA didn't lose Nam" revisionism is not credible.


A better way to put it is that the US could have won if it was fighting an all out war like WWII. In Vietnam the military fought with its hands tied most of the time. I was there and my Dad was in WWII. I told him about our ''free fire zones" and he laughed " you mean there were places that you couldn't fire on the enemy? I told him about our monthly allocation levels of ammo and flight hours and he said that they may not have had all of the ammo and fuel that they needed in WWII but they damn sure used it when they had it. And, if they were running short God help the enemy because they just needed to get the job done quicker.

If you had been there you would know that we fought it totally restrained.

It was a worthless war fought for political reasons. For me war is a last resort not a political policy. If a war needs to be fought because the USA is at risk Congress should declare it, then we get in, get the job done and get out.


In Nam we were running assassination programs that never would have flown in WWII. It was a total war, albeit without the use of nuclear weapons.

It was simply a war that was impossible to win, possibly because the S. Vietnamese government was worse than the VC.

Anyway, all wars are simply a continuation of politics by other means. Clausewitz.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


I never said that soldiers are mindless drones, I simply stated a fact. Soldiers ARE payed to kill people in different uniforms, and ARE trained with the strictest discipline to follow official orders. If a order came from the top(White house), to fire on citizens for some reason, then I have no doubt the majority would. Why would you go against orders you are trained to follow, and assist the side who you signed up to fight.(A designated threat against America, as decided by the Government)



Because as you have been told, many soldiers would not believe that a bunch of farmers and Wal-mart employees and truck drivers are the enemy.

A politician who dared to give such an order might find out really quickly who the real enemy is. All he would need is a mirror, which he would be provided shortly before he was given a blindfold and a cigarette.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well.. let's say it did come down to We the People vs the US Government and its military... I would expect "We the People" to quickly adopt guerrilla tactics.

Guess which military has never fared well against guerrillas?

I do not believe that our military would fight on the side of the US Government. It would not be very easy for all of that air and ground power to return to US soil. Most of it is overseas. And whatever is here would assuredly be a high value target for capture. I would have to guess that the government would not use nuclear, even tactical nuclear weapons on US soil. Nor would they use biological agents. Well.. maybe in some areas. But I think if that were the case, it would draw other countries against the US Gov, thus helping the people. So it's not so cut and dry as it may seem.

Of course, We the People would be referred to as "insurgents" from here on out. But I don't believe the "insurgents" would be so quickly wiped out.

Let's just hope it never comes to that.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Well.. let's say it did come down to We the People vs the US Government and its military... I would expect "We the People" to quickly adopt guerrilla tactics.

Guess which military has never fared well against guerrillas?

I do not believe that our military would fight on the side of the US Government. It would not be very easy for all of that air and ground power to return to US soil. Most of it is overseas. And whatever is here would assuredly be a high value target for capture. I would have to guess that the government would not use nuclear, even tactical nuclear weapons on US soil. Nor would they use biological agents. Well.. maybe in some areas. But I think if that were the case, it would draw other countries against the US Gov, thus helping the people. So it's not so cut and dry as it may seem.

Of course, We the People would be referred to as "insurgents" from here on out. But I don't believe the "insurgents" would be so quickly wiped out.

Let's just hope it never comes to that.


National Guard members would hardly drive over to the local depot in order to get a bunch of gear, drive back into their home towns, and shoot their cousins.

More likely they would get the gear, put it in barns, and join up with their family to defend the constitution.

I also have good information that says that motorcycle gangs are going to immediately target these depots and claim the weapons if the government gets too far out of line. They will be at the forefront of any widespread guerrilla war in the USA.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


I would have thought that the soldiers in Vietnam wouldn't have seen peasant villages as threats either, but they still went and burnt entire villages ruing many innocent lives. Let's not forget some of the massacres...orders are orders.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


Let me get this straight, motorcycle gangs are going to lead a civil war against the most powerful military force on the planet?

You couldn't make up the fantasy's on this site, watching too much Death Wish I think..



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


The US did lose the war, but it was not a military loss, it was a political loss. Again, US Military intervention ended in 1973....1973. Saigon fell in 1975! Why do you keep using Saigon? Saigon was lost by the S. Vietnamese Army, not the US Army.

Now, the Vietnam War could be a good example to use as it would be imperative for the revolution to gain the support of the citizens. That would be a political victory vice military victory. Once the population turns on the gov't, then the gov't is doomed to fail.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


The US did lose the war, but it was not a military loss, it was a political loss. Again, US Military intervention ended in 1973....1973. Saigon fell in 1975! Why do you keep using Saigon? Saigon was lost by the S. Vietnamese Army, not the US Army.

Now, the Vietnam War could be a good example to use as it would be imperative for the revolution to gain the support of the citizens. That would be a political victory vice military victory. Once the population turns on the gov't, then the gov't is doomed to fail.



I think you've missed my point. A war that has no support at home is already lost, call it what you will.

However the guerrilla tactics used by the VC were very effective against the US, and Saigon was the culmination of this fact.

If we didn't quit then we'd still be there now.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HattoriHanzou
 


Can't convince me that it was total war, sorry, I saw it firsthand, did you? Not talking in a movie, I mean there. BTW Saigon fell because the US had been in Phase down release for several years by then. In 1975 when Saigon fell there was only a hand full of US troops on the ground. Our combat role ended in 1973. This is well documented by the Vietnam Service Medal. The years of the action are inscribed on it, 1965 - 1973. Look it up
edit on 25-2-2013 by whywhynot because: ref



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Obviously because some are deluded into thinking that somebody won the first one?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Last I checked even the government are Americans and if there is a revolution people will pick their own side.

The OP'S assumption that all the government will be on the same side is incorrect and as one has pointed out here, soldiers will choose their side too. There are people in charge of weapons and technologies that may not choose the assumed side and there are many who took part in that development that are not part of the government.

Personally, I think all the people need is information identifying those in government that truly are working against the people and do our best to get them out with a voting revolution. If that doesn't work use your imagination.

A bloody revolution does not occur until we decide that sacrificing our lives is all that's left. Those that can fight will those that can't might provide you a meal.

I just don't see our government today doing anything that would cause a revolution, it doesn't make sense.
edit on 2/25/13 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
32
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join