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

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Well, I think we missed each other's points. I agree that the NVA waged an effective guerrilla war against the US, but they did not win militarily. They won by turning the citizens against the war and thus forcing the government to withdraw it's troops. The S. Vietnamese were no match for the NVA and thus Saigon fell. It was not a military loss, but a political victory for the North.

Originally posted by Feltrick
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Well, I think we missed each other's points. I agree that the NVA waged an effective guerrilla war against the US, but they did not win militarily. They won by turning the citizens against the war and thus forcing the government to withdraw it's troops. The S. Vietnamese were no match for the NVA and thus Saigon fell. It was not a military loss, but a political victory for the North.

The NVA didn't turn the citizens of the USA against the war. The Johnson administration did that without help from the VC.

But, yeah, you're right in your own way. My point is that a guerrilla war of attrition against an invader is a difficult thing to endure, and once it starts the clock is running.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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.

So exactly what was this very effective guerrilla tactic that they used against us?

Bioweapon release by the pentagon pretty much wipes out millions and initiates martial feudalism law. They then spin it as a "terror" event to
the sheeple.

Mouse pox
Small pox
Weaponized Rabies
Weaponized E Bola
Weaponized flu strains
Hyper resistant plague
anthrax

mosquito,insect,mice carriers.

Not counting HAARP, the destroyer ray, and dirty bombs.

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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.

So exactly what was this very effective guerrilla tactic that they used against us?

I'm afraid that this subject requires a book-length dissertation. There are plenty of examples of the particular tactics used by the VC in the Wikipedia article, and War of the Flea is an excellent book to get you started on the subject as well.

I hope you don't mean to imply that the VC were inept at guerrilla war, because that's just laughable. They are among the most capable adversaries we ever fought.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Bioweapon release by the pentagon pretty much wipes us out. They then spin it as a "terror" event to
the sheeple.

Mouse pox
Small pox
Weaponized Rabies
Weaponized E Bola
Weaponized flu strains
Hyper resistant plague
anthrax

mosquito,insect,mice carriers.

Not counting HAARP, the destroyer ray, and dirty bombs.

The Pentagon would not engage in full bore bio-war against the people of the USA to control insurgency. That is laughable.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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.

So exactly what was this very effective guerrilla tactic that they used against us?

I'm afraid that this subject requires a book-length dissertation. There are plenty of examples of the particular tactics used by the VC in the Wikipedia article, and War of the Flea is an excellent book to get you started on the subject as well.

I hope you don't mean to imply that the VC were inept at guerrilla war, because that's just laughable. They are among the most capable adversaries we ever fought.

You have no more idea what you are talking about than the liberal professors that taught you from books that were written by people that were not there. It is a real shame too, that is how we keep finding ourselves in wars, no real time memory.

Not engaging you further since all you know is what you have read. You can read in some places that fire isn't all that hot but you know it is hot after you have touched it and no one can change your mind when you have that personal experience.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Not full bore.

Full wind false flag.

like usual.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Wow you use the word "sheeple", you are clearly enlightened and far more intelligent than all us other idiots. You clearly know what your talking about, please continue.

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by whywhynot

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

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.

So exactly what was this very effective guerrilla tactic that they used against us?

I'm afraid that this subject requires a book-length dissertation. There are plenty of examples of the particular tactics used by the VC in the Wikipedia article, and War of the Flea is an excellent book to get you started on the subject as well.

I hope you don't mean to imply that the VC were inept at guerrilla war, because that's just laughable. They are among the most capable adversaries we ever fought.

You have no more idea what you are talking about than the liberal professors that taught you from books that were written by people that were not there. It is a real shame too, that is how we keep finding ourselves in wars, no real time memory.

Not engaging you further since all you know is what you have read. You can read in some places that fire isn't all that hot but you know it is hot after you have touched it and no one can change your mind when you have that personal experience.

Ah, I see that, as I suspected, you had no honest intentions in your question to me, but it was just a shallow attempt to discredit my assertion that the VC's guerrilla was was fought capably.

I hope you keep your promise not to engage with me further, because while you may be right in that I know what I have read, it's clear that you haven't read anything at all.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Wow you use the word "sheeple", you are clearly enlightened and far more intelligent than all us other idiots. You clearly know what your talking about, please continue.

Sheeple is a useful term for describing people who believe the official narrative without question, and whom have no desire to actually research a topic for themselves.

It's very apt, and slightly insulting, which is a good thing, as sheeple do not deserve respect.

reply to post by sajuek


well, i guess to answer your question, american revolution and american civil war.



1 and while you bring up very good points, they are useless. this would be an internal war, so unless they are going to move all the "military" families out of the country , the simple solution is to go after their families.

2 when the enemy "patriots" are already past enemy lines aka they live here, its pretty simple to win, just go from house to house, town to town, BURNING IT ALL TO THE GROUND. in the end there wont be anything for anyone, military or civilian, but at least well all be on the same page heh?

who wants to fight a war when there is nothing left to fight for?

not to mention just a look at vietnam would show that military strength is not always the outcome of a winner, or the numerous wars over time when imperial might LOST!

reply to post by sajuek


So your entire argument boils down to: I don't think I can win, so I'll just get on the train quietly?

There are huge risks in any undertaking. Now, people could stupidly replay picketts charge, which I'm sure the TPTB is trying to provoke, OR they can cleverly devise strategies that evade or counteract the opponents strengths.

These "people" you talk about with their drones, dirty bombs, and bio, they are human beings right? That usually entails that they have to SLEEP somewhere. They have to EAT something. They have to BREATH something. And they have friends and families who do likewise? The biggest problem is finding out the RIGHT someones, and WHERE they are. Once you have that, NOTHING on earth will save them.

Honestly. Did you just write this post to get a reaction or were you paid to do it?

Originally posted by robobbob
reply to post by sajuek

 

so your entire arguement boils down to: I don't think I can win, so I'll just get on the train quietly?

I think that some people believe they'll be the ones herding the rest of us onto the trains.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Exactly, Only the title is 'Sheople' not 'Sheeple'.

I have repeatedly explained why this is the case, yet many misled robots refuse to listen. You could ask William Milton Cooper, but he's deceased.

So, If you or anyone else wants to know why the spelling is so important, just ask my friends.

Back to the subject of the thread. The talk of revolution is mostly talk, cause most of the folks who have the ability to revolt have way too much blood (families) and possessions to put at risk and take any kind of stand.

I am not preaching against anything, I am just calling it like I see it. We (not saying myself) have become a weak people, who are dependent on a massive industry that feeds us all. Most folks can't live off the land, that's just a fact. Let's not bs anyone here.

Yes, There are many who could revolt and live off the land, but you would be occupied with feeding yourself and finding fresh water instead of fighting. Then you have the stupid, who are just as dangerous as the evil ones. Stupidity is a serious danger to us all. Those would be the androids who switch sides for anything that their masters would provide. Then you got the internationalist mercenaries who will gladly make a buck off of the fall of America.

In no way am I saying that the people of this Nation can't change what has happened to our once beloved Republic, I am just being honest about my belief that selfishness, hunger, and the concern of one's family will play a heavy role in determining whether or not everyday Americans are willing to put their livelihoods on the line for an outcome that is hard for anyone to determine.

They will demolish your homes, confiscate your land and take into custody or even worse, your families in order to break you down. Without the backing of The U.S Military, it would be a long road and a lot of broken hearted Freedom Fighters. Just saying my friends. God I wish I had the answer to solving the problem of the International occupation of The United States of America. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Exactly, Only the title is 'Sheople' not 'Sheeple'.

I have repeatedly explained why this is the case, yet many misled robots refuse to listen. You could ask William Milton Cooper, but he's deceased.

So, If you or anyone else wants to know why the spelling is so important, just ask my friends.

Back to the subject of the thread. The talk of revolution is mostly talk, cause most of the folks who have the ability to revolt have way too much blood (families) and possessions to put at risk and take any kind of stand. ~$heopleNation

edit on 25-2-2013 by SheopleNation because: (no reason given)

Well you're right at this point, the future is a difficult thing to pin down. Once the NDAA killings begin in earnest here at home, people will re-evaluate what is important to them.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


I hear yuh. I edited my post cause I had more to say. Feel free to comment on the addition. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Exactly, Only the title is 'Sheople' not 'Sheeple'.

I have repeatedly explained why this is the case, yet many misled robots refuse to listen. You could ask William Milton Cooper, but he's deceased.

So, If you or anyone else wants to know why the spelling is so important, just ask my friends.

Back to the subject of the thread. The talk of revolution is mostly talk, cause most of the folks who have the ability to revolt have way too much blood (families) and possessions to put at risk and take any kind of stand.

I am not preaching against anything, I am just calling it like I see it. We (not saying myself) have become a weak people, who are dependent on a massive industry that feeds us all. Most folks can't live off the land, that's just a fact. Let's not bs anyone here.

Yes, There are many who could revolt and live off the land, but you would be occupied with feeding yourself and finding fresh water instead of fighting. Then you have the stupid, who are just as dangerous as the evil ones. Stupidity is a serious danger to us all. Those would be the androids who switch sides for anything that their masters would provide. Then you got the internationalist mercenaries who will gladly make a buck off of the fall of America.

In no way am I saying that the people of this Nation can't change what has happened to our once beloved Republic, I am just being honest about my belief that selfishness, hunger, and the concern of one's family will play a heavy role in determining whether or not everyday Americans are willing to put their livelihoods on the line for an outcome that is hard for anyone to determine.

They will demolish your homes, confiscate your land and take into custody or even worse, your families in order to break you down. Without the backing of The U.S Military, it would be a long road and a lot of broken hearted Freedom Fighters. Just saying my friends. God I wish I had the answer to solving the problem of the International occupation of The United States of America. ~$heopleNation

edit on 25-2-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

While I agree in principle with all that you have said, I must take exception to the idea that there is no line beyond which the mass of people called America can be pushed. People are already pushing back, by arming at an unprecedented rate. This is just the calm before the storm, if the current Commie administration doesn't torn the screws back a notch or two.

Who knows what event will set off a poopstorm of biblical proportions? It seems that the elite are determined to find what that line is and push a bit beyond it. Brinksmanship, they call it.

The military would only operate at 1/3 capacity WHILE maintaining a global presence. 1/3 military would stay and hold orders, 1/3 would rebel, 1/3 would be on the fence with some staying in and questioning authority and the rest leaving.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
The military would only operate at 1/3 capacity WHILE maintaining a global presence. 1/3 military would stay and hold orders, 1/3 would rebel, 1/3 would be on the fence with some staying in and questioning authority and the rest leaving.

The reality is that a full-scale insurrection at home would require the US to withdraw its entire military from the rest of the world in order to even have a slight chance of quelling it. So, the question becomes - is the anti-gun agenda worth pursuing over overseas objectives? The power vacuum left by a full-scale flight home would be filled quicker than you could say "treason" and it would be a very long fight to regain what was lost.