Did "Big Brother" Zap it??
What's up with the disappearance of it?
Lynn  [heavy]

I was asking about the thread about the MSNBC show tonite. It was there and I clicked on it and went back to the "All Forums" page!!!
Very strange!
Tin Foil Hats ON!!![:D]
Lynn

Iam here to help you! [uzi]

You are all a bunch of militia joining, gun toting, beer drinking, cat killers.  

Let me get this straight:

First I was an "uncaring Republican"
Then I was a "dangerous right-winger"
after that I was "a vast right wing conspirator"
then a "selfish undertaxed conservative"
also a "gun nut"
possibly a "fascist"
and now I'm supposed to be "militia joining, gun toting, beer drinking, cat killer"

Will someone please put me on the appropriate mailing list. I need to make sure to be whatever the current lable that's been applied to me says I am?  Thanks.

To be honest with you guys, if the citizen militias happened to tangle with the US government, the earlier would be wiped out from the face of this earth within a few days at the most.

Do you really think that citizens armed with rifles can actually tangle with US Armed Forces?  Nobody ever defeated US military in warfare.  EVER.  The enemies had RPGs, belt fed machine guns, artillery, SAMs, tanks, mortars, etc, etc, and they still could not defeat US ARMY in battle.  What makes you think that citizen militias armed with rifles can beat our military?  

The Wermacht and the Waffen SS had the best trained soldiers and officers on earth, period!  Yet, US ARMY obliterated them.  Do you really believe that the citizen militia have the level of training and discipline like the Germans did?  The Japanese imperial army and marines had the bravest soldiers on the face of this earth, but yet, they lost big time against our marines.

Remember Khe Sanh?  100,000 NVA regulars with heavy artillery and mortars, AA guns, SAMs, surrounded the Marines.  Guess who got the bloody nose and withdrew?  Hint: it wasn't the marines who run away with their tails between their legs.  

What about this one: Seoul changed hand 5x during the Korean war.  The Chinese had massive army with hardened soldiers who had no sense of self peril, supported with batteries of artillery and tanks, and all they could get was a stalemate.  Remember what we did to the Iraqis?  Not a pretty sight.

The battle that must be fought is at the voting booths.  Educate and recruit the fence sitters.  Write and call your government officials. That is the only chance we have of winning.  If you fight a shooting war, you will definitely loose.  Just ask all of the dead Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cubans, and Iraqis who ever tangled with the mighty US ARMY and Marines.

Johannes

Maybe the NVA wasn't much of a match for the U.S. military, but the Viet Cong sure as hell was. Regular armies fight regular wars. Guerilla warfare rips em apart. Why do you think so many Vietnamese civilians died? It was because U.S. soldiers couldn't tell the Viet Cong from the civilians.

You can't win with guerilla warfare, but you sure as hell can make the other guy lose. [x]

I do not think it will ever come to it, but there is one big difference in the US Military fighting and defeating the Germans, Japanese, N. Vietnamese, etc; and that is that if a confrontation with Militia groups and the US Military ever did happen, the  Military would be opposing US citizens. You may say it happenened in the Civil War, it happenened in the 60s with Kent State, etc, but that was in a completely different climate. There are many, many soldiers in our Military which are, if not supportive of, then understanding of the freedom loving Militia groups in this country. Let us all just pray it never comes to that.

micro segregation-
You're leaving something out-none of those wars were fought here, in none of those examples did any sizeable numbers of U.S. soldiers turn on their commanders. There was also no well armed police force in place doing the same (probably in larger numbers). The only comparison that would be close would be the civil war sans mason/dixon line. The decider would be whether the "war" consisted of a few pockets of redneck militia groups or a nation-wide rebellion made up of 3-5 percent of the population. If the latter, then the outcome would depend on how the rebels picked their fights. If they banded together it would be short-lived. If they resorted to hit and run terrorist strikes on key locations, it could drag on indefinitely. This would hold even more true if they had help from sympathizers within the government, which is a given.

Everyone that brings up "you militias can't win" ALWAYS ignore the fact that this conflict would be taking place ON American soil not some faraway country where it won't matter if the indigenous population is "accidently" killed, like in Panama. How much collateral damage do you think people would put up with when the air force gets the order to carpet bomb downtown Phoenix just to kill 3 snipers?  Are the families of the soldiers and other JBT going to be relocated in secure facilities?

 Nobody's gone any where BD.  The major bedia stopped covering the topic, they are the best recruiters.  texas is paricularly active, just look around.

The winners would not be the US Govt.  Analyze this situation very carefully...  Include the guerilla warfare, include the fact that we can't bomb our own people, include the fact that we would have mass numbers (some estimate half) of deserters from the military.  All it takes is one major messup with some media outlet and the media would start to revolt.  

New report - Day 1
"This is Dan Rather, live in the streets on a Thursday evening, reporting on the right wing extremists who think they can take on the government.  Violence has erupted in these protests, and gun toting maniacs have taken to the streets.  These protests are in regards to a raid on a militia members home in Kentucky, where he was dealing cocaine, conducting arms deals, and raping 12 year old girls."  (and the report goes on)

New report - Day 2
"Dan Rather was killed last night during an attempt by the US Army to quell unrest of common people who were merely protesting the latest actions by the government.  As many know now, these protests started peacefully yesterday, after the Wednesday death of a pastor in Kentucky who neighbors say was a pillar of the community.  National Guard troops moved in, and started opening fire on women and children, and our beloved... Dan ... Rather...  I can't continue... let's go to commercial..."

Don't forget that the media loves their puppets, and honor them every chance they get.  The spin doctors will have one last chance, and they will use it to their benefit.  It wouldn't take long before we had a "national media outlet" that replaced even them.  Probably would consist of just 2 or 3 anchors with guns leveled at their heads.

I put it up and then saw it was duplicated with another MSNBC post about the Militia program and then deleted it.

Sorry, no foil needed [:p]

You stupid f-ck,

Remember the War for Southern Secession?  The Civil War?  The U.S. forces are only successful when it is made up of US forces.  We killed more of each other than any world power ever dreamed of.  We are the military dip shit.  I don’t think the military would ever fire on their brothers and sisters.  Remember the V.C.  It would be like that times a million.

There are many historical facts you have forgotten.

Look at the Swiss during World War II. Despite the Germans having all of the technological advantages, they were afraid to attack the Swiss. Why? If the Swiss were only to engage units they definately could overwhelm, they could acquire their "high tech" tools. It is conceivable that the Swiss would  have had great losses but so would the Germans.

The examples you use are of "organized" or "standing" armies. Small units of armed citizens are more mobile making it difficult to identify a "army" to engage.

How could the U.S. Govt fight effectively when it can use its high tech weapons. Can they identify a "base/camp" to bombard? Could they do so without killing many non-combatants? Are they certain they know who they are fighting, like trying to identify the V.C. from the "people".

Groups could easily gather and overtake certain military installations, the would not only cripple the U.S. Govt but also further arm rebels with the weapons of the installation.

There is much, much more....

How many marines/soldiers/pilots would fire upon their fellow Americans? How many of them would defect?  

Groups like this could cause great distruction to the infrastructure needed by the Govt as well as creat many, many logistics problems. Disrupt the equipment/supplies needed by Govt contractors and military installations.

Need ammo, attack the manufacturer or the means of delivery, etc...

There is so much!

I've never been in a fight that I was sure I could win before it started. The fights just had to be fought regardless of the out come. If I had to take an ass whippin so be it. If I lost I still hurt em. I never had to fight them twice. Every combat infantryman from Korea or Vietnam I've talked to has respect for the enemies they fought most are'nt anxious to do it again. You can fight a tyrant, lose and still change his ways.

I doubt it. Remember our forefather, just a "crazed" unorganized bunch of farmers, lawyers, and businessmen went against the most powerful army in the world at that time. It took seven years, but we still won.


Couple of things wrong with this paragraph. First, we lost vietnam and korea. 2nd, we could easily get our hands on tanks, mg's, mortars, and really anything the military had. Why? Some, if not most, of us have military experience. (remember that guy who stole the tank? he had military experience in tanks, that's how he could drive it.) So we could steal it from them in battle or in raids. Plus, some of the current military personal our loyal to us. They'd either smuggle it to us, or us it with us. It then be only a matter of time before we wore out the politicians patience because we were putting of such resistence, and they weren't winning the war. We'd have to fight a war of attrition, since we could never directly take on the military. That's how we won the 1st revolution.



We were very close to losing WWII. We won only because hitler made some very bad battle decisions. The japs gave up only because we nuked em twice.

There was a war in Afghanastan where a group of organized rebels poorly armed with black powder rifles took on at the time one of the most heavily armed and well trained army of that era. As the war progressed and more Soviet military hardware was captured, the tides of war shifted and the rebels forced the invaders out of the country.



Although it shames me to state this but didn't the U.S military evacuate Vietnam without achieving any of the goals it had originaly set it's sights on?  


These are classical examples of conventional warfare. If there ever were another civil war in the U.S., it would be fought as a urban guerrella war with many battles being fought with snipers and ambushes.


I agree with you 100% that this should be the way to fight government oppression but I ust feel that your perception of historical facts is biased and tainted, yes the United States has won many wars and battles, but that does not guarantee future victories.

To micro segregation:
Were you there to see what was happening in Nam. I was along with countless others, and the great American military force had to walk away leaving so many of our brothers dead for what, the  citizens of that country won. Don't look at what side, just to the fact that they fought on their home land.

Don't be suckered into believing that those of us who value freedom and liberty could not accomplish what we set out to. Remember that in an internal conflict where there are no visual differences in individuals, who do you look to as being the enemy.

Although a movie, review Red Dawn to see what a small determined group can do. Imagine that group translated that into millions who are fighting for their homes and freedom.

Review the twenty nine palms survey of the marines there, and see how many of them were willing to openly gun down their fellow citizens if ordered by the government. Then do a search on the web and see how many training exercises are being conducted in major cities by these same military groups.

God forbid that the time ever comes, but if it does you will have to make the decision as to whether you are a sheep, or as was described hundreds of years ago, a citizen of the militia.

After WWII the US Gov't, a.k.a. your elected Representatives decided that we needed to maintain a professional standing Army.  We decided as a nation, that we didn't want to send troops into combat that had only trained on wooden mock-ups and dummy weapons.  A few years later, the Air Force became a separate branch as well.  These new forces needed supplies and weapons to fight the Cold War, and the Military Industrial-Congressional Complex was born.  Then the Gov't needed an enemy to shoot these new expensive weapons at, and people to drop bombs on, so we created a few wars to help get rid of the stockpiled weapons.  Once we were out of bullets, we needed more, and the MICC was happy to get those soldiers the supplies they needed, so we ordered more.  But this time the weapons cost more, and were more advanced...so we needed soldiers that were active duty 24-7-365 to train on the weapons and use them if some "bad-guy" ever came along...(because we didn't have the Russians anymore, having spent their butts into the ground with our shiny new toys).  Thus, one day Saddam poked his head out of the sand and felt the full brunt of our MICC Checkbook.  

Today, instead of bigger and better, like the Abrams tank, we need smaller and lighter, like the LAV and wired digital battlefields, which admittedly cost more and don't work any better...but require fully trained soldiers and civilian technicians working hard to keep them shiny.  Welcome to the 21st Century Military Welfare State!!!  (Really, its true...most of our soldiers are on welfare...but we should really be concerned with the poor companies like Raytheon, Lockheed, and General Dynamics which can only charge $315 million per plane and that darned Congress will only order a few hundred!)  Yes, I am mocking the companies, but not the soldiers who are getting the big BOHICA.

Thank you all for the interesting discussion.  

If I may, I would like to rebut a couple of points that some of you made.  First, of all, "world wolf" contended that the VCs were a good match against our soldiers and marines in Vietnam.  The fact is, however, that ever since Tet, the VC seized to exist as a power to be rekconed with.  The ARVN and US Military obliterated them during Tet.  The VC suffered over 80,000 casualties.  The NVA had to fight the rest of the war.  Our military did not loose Vietnam, it was the sheeple, cowardly, traiterous bastards protesting on the streets and calling our GIs baby killers who lost the war for us.  Our military kicked the living crap out of any opponents it ever faced on the field.

To Ronie Stephens:
I am far from being an expert historian regarding the Vietnam war, but if I recall correctly, our GIs never loose any major battless against the VCs or the NVAs.  We lost engagememnts occuring in those battles, and yes, "Broken Arrow" codes were called a few times.  Let us look at the body counts.  We lost 58000 men, the NVA and the VC lost close to 3,000,000 KIA.  So who lost?  Not our military.  And remember, these NVAs were determined fighters armed with the best weaponry the Soviets and the Chinese could provide.

Imbroglio:
About people not putting up with the carpet bombing done on Phoenix (or any other cities)to kill three snipers, you brought up a good point, but what can these people do?  They were sheeples in the first place, which means, they would be unarmed.  Protest they will, but will the fascists listen to them?  

T rex:
Since you were there, I am not gonna argue with you.  Thank you for your service.  ALWAYS!  You and other veterans will always be my hero.

Can you also tell me the result of that survey on the marines?  How many of them are willing to fire on their own (i.e., US citizens).  I tried to find the results before, but could not get a firm answer.

"jomeokee" and "mother":
I agree that most military personnels will not fire upon us and will even turn against their own commanders / defect.  That is, however, only true for NOW.  But what about 20 years in the future?  More and more Americans are being brainwashed that guns, gun owners, and militia members are evil.  These same people are the ones who are going to join the military for college money, technical training, etc.  Unless more and more conservative, second amendment supporters join the military, I am affraid that our future soldiers will fire upon us willingly.  Not because they are evil, blood thirsty people, but they have been constantly brainwashed by the media and the liberal educational institutions that guns are bad and gun owners / militia members are nothing but a bunch of treasenous terrorists.

So: like I said, the only option we have right now is to vote, write your reps, educate and recruit the fence sitters.  If you are a gun owner in good physical health, join the military for a few years and educate the new recruits there about our second amendment rights.

Thank you all for the cool discussion!

Johannes

US troops won't fire on US citizens, but they will fire on domestic terrorists. The lawmakers will pass laws making gun ownership illegal. The media will then run every piece of propoganda to link guns to terrorism and the full brunt of law enforcement at the local, state and federal level will hunt us down as terrorists.

The biggest brainwasher of mankind is the televison, most people believe and trust what they see and hear on the idiot box.

He who controls the information controls the minds of the people.

It's like were living in the Matrix. Which pill do you choose...the red pill or the blue one?

MS,
you forget for everyone that cries wolf isn't always telling the truth.  And for that fact, the ones who cry sheep are wolf.  get it?  There are alot more than you think.  Alot.

NSF

Wait, let me put on my flame retardant underwear.  Yes, we won every major encounter of the Vietnam war, but without the political will to win, we left.  So, we didn't win that war, IMHO.  We could have, but coulda, woulda, shoulda never did anything.  Are we forgetting Somalia?  The best soldiers can be made to beat feet by 3rd string troops under the right conditions.  Under AVERAGE conditions, regular troops will beat militia troops, but not every action will be average, and militia don't traditional go toe-to-toe with line troops (it's suicidal!).  Every engagement will not see the regular troops having supreme armor and air support.  I'm a former active duty Sgt so I also have military experience.  I don't believe US troops would set out to fire on civilians but if you're taking fire and your buddy gets taken out, you're more than likely going to return fire, regardless of who it is and what your/their political ideology happens to be at the time.  Hoefully our troops would not allow themselves to be put in that situation. Just a few thoughts.
jd1  

The number I heard was just around half.  Of course, that is presuming that they haven't been conned into doing it.  And when they start with the first couple, and they get fired upon, they'll start shooting some more, I bet.   Remember that pressure, and someone shooting at you, tends to change your mind real quick.

There probably would be ALOT of nations willing to help on the promise that the U.S. stopped meddling in "foreign entanglements".

The Irish Republican Army (which I personally think is a bunch of thugs) has kept the British bogged down in Northern Ireland since 1969 (thirty two years).

They are estimated to never have numbered more than a core of [b]700[/b] terrorists, with their chief sympathizers, the Northern Ireland Catholics, numbering about 40% of the population, and their opponents, the Northern Ireland Protestants, bitterly hating them.

They are an unpleasant example, but they show that it does not take much to bog down the government and make it search for non-military means out of a guerilla war.  In a guerilla war, if the government is not winning, it is losing.

More examples of irregular armed resistance to professional military forces that resulted in a final political victory:

The French in Indochina/Vietnam, 1954.
The French in Algeria, in the '60s.
The US in Vietnam in the '70s.
The Ian Smith government in Rhodesia in the '70s.
The Soviets in Afghanistan, in the '80s.

I didn't not read all the posts.
I do believe if major civil disobedience happens on our soil a large enough scale. Any Anti-American Country or group will try to capitalize on the situation. They even might try to arm the anti-government groups. I will be interesting to see if the militias will accept this aide. It’s a dilemma to figure out which is a greater evil. Anti-USA or anti-Constitution. Even if the pro-Constitution Militia refuse help from these groups. The anti-American groups will no daub start their Champaign on the US.

I agree strongly that we must first try to use peaceful political means to restore liberty in the U.S.A. before starting up any messy wars where a whole bunch of us are going to get killed. If nothing else, we want to be able to say later on that we made such a good-faith effort for propaganda purposes.

But I also agree with those who say there is at least a fair chance of winning an overall victory despite taking frequent localized butt whoopings.

To me, the Second Amendment is functioning properly as long as there is a price that government must pay when they try to trample on our rights. They must not be able to bust into our houses at night without substantial fear. They must not be able to make their critics quietly disappear, as has often happened in other countries. It might be easy to cover up the sudden disappearance of some nutty radical living out in the sticks somewhere. But it will be a lot harder to neatly cover up 2 days of gunfire and explain why 4 Gestapo agents disappeared along with him. The Second Amendment makes noise and buys us time.

Remember the Alamo? Every single man who stood there died. Yet they held up the entire Mexican army for days, and inspired many others to join in the fight. Mexico lost the war.