.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Boozegood.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Boozegood:1339558"][quote] I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted? [/quote] Sorry for misquoting you, replace what I put in-between '' with what you actually said and it still stands. I don't know on what planet this: [img]http://www.cannonsuperstore.com/New_Folder7/DSC00003.JPG[/img] Is "not much more powerful" than this: [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lVAf8KNRDpQ/UA4LBUfXWFI/AAAAAAAAAzk/TeXTlpXuEyk/s1600/charleville_musket.gif[/img] though. [quote] Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right? [/quote] No, you said "[...] the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment[...]" which in the context of your whole argument means just what you said. Unless it doesn't; in which case it goes against your entire argument so I assume you mean what you say. [quote] Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles [/quote] You mean like this: [img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2009/01/21/20090122AFGHAN/26587969.JPG[/img] [img]http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1333/1237612136_2b730d5fd9.jpg[/img] And this: [img]http://cityphotos.info/cms/photos/8146%20iraq%20baghdad%20baghdad%20thumbnails.jpg[/img] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Baghdad_Red_zone.jpg/250px-Baghdad_Red_zone.jpg[/img] [quote] 2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain.[/quote] Revolutionary War, Balkans, Vietnam, etc. etc. would show you are wrong. [quote]That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us.[/QUOTE] If you think you are actually correct on this; I commend you. Many, many peer-reviewed Generals, strategists, etc. that have been published in Journals would completely disagree, though. Feel free to submit your theory to their critique. http://smallwarsjournal.com/ http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/ http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fsst20/current http://afs.sagepub.com/ http://www.pmsaronline.org/ http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/jmh.html If you succeed in convincing people that your point of view is correct I will commend you; as you have just revolutionized military/strategic thinking. I suggest you start with this bibliography: http://www.academicroom.com/bibliography/counterinsurgency-bibliography (I also suggest anyone interested in COIN warfare/military history/strategy/etc. in general check out that bibliography). [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][