Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Even when the government just had a couple cannons, Shay’s Rebellion didn’t exactly go great.
That being said, guns aren’t just used for open rebellion. The Panthers sure made it tough for a cop to feel like a big man just because he had a gun. If we want to examine when things get really bad, simply look at partisan resistance to the Nazis all throughout WWII.
Yes, an AR-15 won’t beat an F-16. But F-16s aren’t the ones goosestepping brown people into camps right now.
I never understood this dumb argument from anti-2a people. We, the strongest military to have ever existed in the history of the world...lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.
Planes can't patrol street corners. You need boots and they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and be doing it for a paycheck.
But we're not talking about Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
In many of these cases, the people in these countries had experience living under unimaginably harsh colonial rule, and understood that that was what was in store for them if they lost. Guerilla warfare is hell, especially for the side of the guerillas. It's very rare that anyone chooses that route unless they have no other choice. Also, there was generally a more unified culture and a clarity of vision for what they were fighting for.
You take a random sample of 100 Americans, at least a third will actively support the enemy side and sell you out. Of those who aren't opposed, a lot will be able to just keep their heads down and go about their lives, coming home to play video games and jerk off for as long as they have that option. Of those willing to get involved, many will limit their opposition to nonviolence and whatever form of protest the state permits. So now you've got, like, three people who are actually willing to fight and not just go home at the first sign of danger, and those three people probably hate each other for subscribing to slightly different ideologies which have different takes on events from 100 years ago.
Contrast that with a random sample of 100 Vietnamese at the time of the war. There's no comparison.
Sure, but tanks/armored vehicles can, and police absolutely use those
Yes because that worked so well in Afghanistan...or Iraq
We “lost” those wars because of morale. Like especially in Vietnam we were destroying them in terms of kill death ratios and the Vietcong had been mostly eliminated by 1969. Also Vietnam wasn’t just a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles the NVA was being funded and trained by the USSR and China. By the end of the war Vietnam lost around 20x the people and their population had been poisoned with agent orange.
We also didn’t use our nukes, if the military through enough brainwashing and propaganda could be convinced that these protesters are an insider threat we could easily be looking at the deaths of 10-100s of thousands
No we lost those wars because you can't occupy a group of people who are armed and don't want to be occupied.
All 4 of those wars, the people didn't speak our language, look like us or dress like us. The fuck you think is gonna happen when the military starts shooting civs here who look like them, talk like them and basically are them. You will get a fractured military and probably a coup. You will get gorilla cells popping up supporting the sides the align with.
The worlds greatest military can't fight it's own people. Period.
Gaza had/has weapons and doesn’t want to be occupied how is that working out for them?
In Cambodia the people looked like them, dressed like them, and were them. They were still put into some of the worst torture camps in history and approximately 1/4 of their population was killed…
That’s why they don’t start by attacking everyone they start by dehumanizing people, like they have been with “the illegals”, then you make them a scapegoat for all your problems. Then a radical terrorist network appears who is helping the undesirables that has loose ties so just about anyone can be labeled a terrorist (in this case it’s Antifa). Then you start provoking violence against this group, that’s where we are today in the United states.
Then either real violence happens or a frame job happens and the military has to intervene and a group of protesters get killed. Then special missions have to happen to take out the so called leaders of this terrorist group that somehow happen to involve a bunch of politicians and people critical of the party, then you can make a special task force whose job is it to deal with these troublemakers that you recruit for on a volunteer basis so you get only the most extreme and loyal soldiers and use them to continue further oppressing.
I could keep going but honestly choose any history textbook and it could summarize it, the point is they don’t tell the military to shoot unarmed protesters on day one and by the time they do the military will not just do it but they will go even further than directed as can be seen in Nazi germany, pol pots Cambodia, and is in progress in Gaza
Gaza was not armed at all, no clue where you got that from hamas has weapons but the citizens are banned from owning firearms.
Pol pot and Cambodia...banned and confiscated civilian arms. Not hard to commit genocide when literally no one but your side is armed.
Nazi Germany with the jewish population...disarmed and sent to camps to be slaughtered.
Seeing any...links here?
And republicans would never attempt to take guns away from liberals
So your suggestion is to disarm yourself for them?
When did I say that?
I think the opposite should be true the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to fight tyranny which is what we are seeing by marching soldiers into cities
You're entire argument is that guns are bad and haven't helped anyone fight off the oppressor. It's why you called out gaza and Cambodia...
Please find the quote where I said guns are bad.
Your whole point has been to say that privately owned arms are going to be worthless against a military. That's basically saying guns are pointless and civs have no reason to own them.
Yeah, that's how every war is lost. A war is won when the other side is no longer willing and able to take up arms against you, to achieve victory, you can remove their ability to take up arms (killing or imprisoning, for example), but the bulk of warfare is about removing the enemy's willingness to keep fighting.
Like, if you occupy an enemy trench, chances are you didn't kill everyone in the trench, you just removed the enemy's willingness to keep holding that position, convincing them to retreat or surrender. Virtually every war that has ever been lost in history has been "lost because of morale."
Putting "lost" in quotes regarding Vietnam is absolutely fucking insane. "Kill death ratios" don't matter, this isn't fucking Call of Duty. Murdering all those civilians helped convince the Vietnamese that there was no future for them if they lost or surrendered, it put their backs against the wall and ensured that breaking their willingness to fight was virtually impossible. If the US deployed nukes, then it would become even more clear that there was no future for them as a colony, and the US would have to exterminate the entire country. And if they tried to exterminate the entire country with nukes (not that they were at all restrained as it was), they would have faced even more backlash, domestically and internationally, which, guess what, are also valid theaters of war.
I stg the hoops people will jump through to maintain this chauvinism and be like "America never loses" is absolutely insane. People have such ridiculous brainworms over Vietnam. You lost. No quotes, you just lost. Get over it.
Kill death ratios absolutely matter… you had one country that was essentially unphased economically, manpower wise, and their territory was untouched and another that lost a sizable portion of their male population, had their citizens with long term genetic injuries, and a bunch of their land made unusable.
The NVA got nothing from the United states and their long term goal of spreading communism failed.
The way a war is won is by achieving your military goals the NVA was unable to defeat the U.S. military. In a Pyrrhic victory one side wins at a great expense, that’s still not what happened
the U.S. was up by 10 and took their ball and went home because the other team wanted to keep playing late into the night
The U.S. isn’t the good guy that people want to win it’s acknowledging that the professional sports team beat a group of 15 year olds. Nobody is bragging how great the U.S. is, if anything it’s more evidence for how much of a dick the U.S. was (and still is)
What utter nonsense.
The NVA got the entire territory of Vietnam from the US, they won the freedom of their people, which is the whole thing they were fighting for. The idea that they wanted to militarily expand and take over the world was always just American propaganda, like every conflict ever, they needed to evoke the Hitler comparison and pretend that "if we don't fight them now, they'll keep expanding until we have to fight them." They've said this about virtually everyone they've fought or opposed since WWII and it's basically never been true.
Vietnam has done, and is still doing much better than they would have if they had surrendered and remained a colony.
I don't even know how it's possible to reason with someone who thinks war operates on some kind of point based-system like a fucking video game. Jesus Christ. How are Americans still like this over Vietnam? Will people ever be normal about it?
They weren’t an American colony they had won their independence in 1945. The U.S. vs north Vietnamese conflict ended with the Vietnamese getting nothing, after the U.S. left the north Vietnamese were able to defeat the South Vietnamese but South Vietnam wasn’t owned by America…
I’m not sure where you learned anything about world history but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened
From Vietnam being a colony To any concern about Vietnam taking over the world
You do realize video games use things that exist in the real world right? Like if I talk about how important goals are in soccer you do know that is because that’s how soccer works and it’s not just because that’s how you win in fifa?
South Vietnam was an American puppet regime. The puppet regime was entirely dependent on the US military and the leaders were picked by the US and ousted whenever they did something the US didn't like. You are plainly speaking in bad faith and attempting to use technicalities to avoid facing the truth of the US defeat. "Mhm, see, technically, Japan didn't lose that territory because Manchuko was an independent blah blah blah." It's an obviously stupid line if you apply it in any other context, but your chauvinism blinds you. Just like the line about "We only 'lost' because of morale" or the line about kill death ratios mattering, apply it anywhere but Vietnam and you'll see how fucking stupid it is.
Nazi Germany killed a hell of a lot of Russians in WWII. I don't actually know if they killed more than they lost, I believe so but I'd have to check. Does that mean Nazi Germany won WWII? Does that mean I don't know who won WWII, because I don't know the KDRs? Do you see how ridiculous it is to say that? And yet, that's exactly what you're saying about Vietnam!
You literally just said they "failed in their goal to spread communism." As in, to spread communism beyond their borders. As in, Domino Theory. As in, the idea that the communists fighting in Vietnam were aiming to take over the world and turn it communist. You're straight up contradicting yourself.
Christ Jesus in heaven.
We lost those wars because there were political chains holding us back from being able to commit fully to the theater. Vietnam especially. It was a bunch of rules and laws we knew would make it incredibly difficult to win, and we did it anyway because of capitalism.