4 ms·

Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news outlets

by pm90 7y ago

Their incentive would be a manufactured one, painting the citizenry as part of some conspiracy/extreme party etc. Just look at how many Republican news outlets continuously portray the other side as extreme and crazy and dangerous. Just having possession of armed weapons makes absolutely no difference to a modern, well equipped American military force. We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. The arms may make it hard for the occupying force as there will be more shootouts but retributions will keep most of the populace under control. The dynamic of Armed militias being a deterrent to a military occupation made sense in the 18th century but don’t make much sense today.

rayiner 7y ago
> We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. Assad literally used tanks against the civil uprising, and wasn’t able to stop it. (And doing so caused part of the army to defect.) Gaddafi was killed by the National Liberation Army, which initially armed itself by capturing tanks and weapons from military stockpiles.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
  I think Ghaddafi's soldiers defected because he ordered them to shoot up a non-violent protest in Benghazi, killing at least 500 unarmed civillians. That's when the protests turned into an armed insurgency, and Ghaddafi's supporters began leaving to join said insurgency.
- pm90 7y ago
  Was either the Libyan or Syrian populace armed to the teeth? Did the availability of weapons (or the lack thereof) have any impact on what happened? Comparing Syrian and Libyan military forces to American ones is also a stretch. We’re talking about orders of magnitudes of difference in armaments and intelligence.
pnako 7y ago
Look at what happened in Afghanistan. A bunch of Toyota pickup trucks and AK-47s collected on the cold bodies of soviet soldiers is all it took for mujahideens to win the war, despite 20 years of war and trillions of dollars spent. The main difference in the US would be that militias are even better equipped and better trained. Your tanks and APCs are completely irrelevant; they're useful to capture land, but by definition the US government has no land to capture in the US.

by pm90 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> We’re talking about Armored Personal Carriers and Tanks rolling through cities, all communications being monitored or cut off. Assad literally used tanks against the civil uprising, and wasn’t able to stop it. (And doing so caused part of the army to defect.) Gaddafi was killed by the National Liberation Army, which initially armed itself by capturing tanks and weapons from military stockpiles.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
I think Ghaddafi's soldiers defected because he ordered them to shoot up a non-violent protest in Benghazi, killing at least 500 unarmed civillians. That's when the protests turned into an armed insurgency, and Ghaddafi's supporters began leaving to join said insurgency.
pm90 7y ago
Was either the Libyan or Syrian populace armed to the teeth? Did the availability of weapons (or the lack thereof) have any impact on what happened? Comparing Syrian and Libyan military forces to American ones is also a stretch. We’re talking about orders of magnitudes of difference in armaments and intelligence.

pnako 7y ago

Look at what happened in Afghanistan. A bunch of Toyota pickup trucks and AK-47s collected on the cold bodies of soviet soldiers is all it took for mujahideens to win the war, despite 20 years of war and trillions of dollars spent. The main difference in the US would be that militias are even better equipped and better trained. Your tanks and APCs are completely irrelevant; they're useful to capture land, but by definition the US government has no land to capture in the US.