"Guns cannot be used to defeat government", What about Afghanistan then?

You're assuming that the 50M+ will all be in your camp and that they will be willing and able to coordinate with each other. Otherwise they will be subject to defeat in detail. The US did not leave the ME because of military force there, but due to political pressure here. That would not be the case in the event of some kind of rebellion inside our borders. For one thing, there would be nowhere to which to retreat. Nor are your 50M+ as fit on average as servicemembers. Add to that tactical training and mechanization and you're looking at a decimation of the civilian group.

Beyond that, who will feed, clothe, house, and supply those people? It's no good to throw people into the field if all the opposition has to do is wait for them to starve. The military has all those systems in place. That's what all those desk jockeys are for. You're talking about building an entire military from scratch without the gov't noticing. That's not gonna happen. The Taliban already had that stuff in place when we left. ISIS built it up faster than the Iraqi gov't did when we left there.

Next bit is about aftermath. Revolutions almost always leave the country's average citizens worse off than they were before. At best, they're no worse off. That's been true since the French Revolution. With the people you're talking about I would expect the infighting to begin before the job was done. Were they successful, then the true chaos would begin.

TL;DR: It couldn't happen here. If it did the rebels would lose badly. Even if they won, they wouldn't like the result.

 

You don't know much about asymmetric warfare or the phases of classic guerrilla warfare.

If not all gun owners support the resistance, not all government employees would support the government.

How do the trucks that provide the necessary warfighting materials actually get to those front line troops through "enemy territory"?

 

Phase1 (organization) requires a strong unified leadership and message.. The Taliban had that in Afghanistan. Trump is not a strong leader because he lacks moral courage and is less than realistic about what is possible, e.g. building a border wall and getting Mexico to pay for it. The police and FBI are well set up to stop your potential insurgency at this stage.

Phase 2 (terrorism and guerrilla warfare) again requires a strong leadership willing to ignore public opinion (I don't think Americans like terrorists much, given the reaction to 9/11 or the OK city bombing) and clear objectives. I honestly don't think you're going to get, for example, the religious right, neo nazis, the NRA and the various militia groups to agree on much of anything, certainly not how to coordinate with each other or how/whether they should share assets. your message is fragmented and muddied by all the groups trying to gain the public ear. your action groups are putting the stigma of violence on your movement. Again, the cops and various federal agencies are well equipped to handle this.

Phase 3 (conventional warfare) This is the military phase. Ideally you're ready to face the opposition in the field. Your guys are not. The military is both younger and more fit than the population in general. Add to that superior weapons, training, recent combat experience in Afghanistan and good leadership and your coventional troops are so much chaff.

People tend to support the people who pay them. If not out of loyalty, then simple self interest. While it is true there are probably some who can be boought and others who are true believers in whatever ideology you propose, these are probably not the norm.

First, your question presupposes your ability to take or at least control ground for extended periods of time. Second, the military has its own freight movers by land, sea and air as well as considerable stocks in place. Clearly you are not familiar with your own military.

 

It would need to get to this phase.

This is based on the premise that all of those recent veterans aren't part of whatever resistance there is. There's a whole lot of them, too.

How would they not still be getting paid if they are still working as a government employee but acting as an intel resource?

If there was a tyranny that some portion of the country was revolting against, it would be against the elected party in the majority. How many government employees out there voted for Trump? You don't think they'd sabotage as much as they could to get Biden out of office?

You mean trucks that have to travel on highways full of civilian vehicles? Is the tyranny declaring martial law?

Do you mean rolling stock traveling over vulnerable railroads? When we moved our engineer battalion equipment, it wasn't on military stock or rail.

Air cargo still needs to get from the airfield to the troops in the field. Ask any veteran of the early part of the Second Gulf War how short they were on rations for a bit.

Prestocked supplies still need to get to the field.

And if the military is all in the major cities putting down food riots, they aren't engaging suburban and rural guerillas that they can't even identify

 

I'm going to break my response into pieces for ease of handling and to avoid the Wall of Text.

You're right. The rebellion would be stopped much earlier by federal, state and local cops. Most US factions spend too much time pursuing their own agendas int their own little bubbles to think about this phase and the need to coordinate with each other.

If you'll recall, I said I thought that there would be both venal and ideologically indoctrinated people in gov't employ. I think, however, that the vast majority of people have enough personal integrity to not take a job that they are politically opposed to and that they'll stay loyal to their salt.

 

Here's part 2:

About 7.5% of the US population has served in the military. Cut that by whatever number is unwilling or unable to serve in the rebellion and you don't even really have a cadre to form your resistance around. Ergo they wind up getting used in exactly the same way as the others in their various groups. On the other hand, while the military will use them all more or less the same, their training and leadership is not wasted among the untrained, who are likely to get everybody killed because of that lack.

You think the military doesn't use roads? News to me. They don't have to declare martial law to use the highway system. LOL. The highways were built for the military. Or do you mean you think the highways can be interdicted with near 100% effectiveness? That would be a point in your favor if true. But the Afghans couldn't do it nor could the Iraqis.

Your experience is not the sum total of possibility.

Until the supply chain was built. That's not the case here. The infrastructure is already in place here.

See above.

That's just it. The military won't be used to put down riots. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids it. The military can be used to suppress a rebellion or unlawful conspiracy that obstructs the execution of the laws of the US.

 

Joe Biden has no idea how American's 2nd amendment has kept government control freaks from running roughshod over individuals. That was the intended purpose. They know they must tread much more softly than if they were trying to rule an unarmed populous. "Come and take it".
Although they killed his wife and son, Randy Weaver cost the U.S. Millions and he took a couple of them with them. That was just one man!

 

Tyrants pay a lot of attention to the laws, don't they?

What rebellion or unlawful conspiracy? You can't fight what you can't find, or what only exists in the mind of the government.

What serious rebellion would even declare themselves to the government?

 

The line between food riots and something that can be said to constitute "a rebellion" or "unlawful conspiracy obstructing the execution of the laws" is thinner than you realize.
Just look at everything that is happening already now, with executive decrees based on very questionable interpretations of the law, and these orders are not opposed. Or look how the mob (riot) that stormed the capitol was widely referred to as an "insurrection".
In light of all this you'd have to be very naive to believe that the military couldn't be called in if there were massive food riots.
What the law says doesn't matter so much as how that law can be interpreted by the ones wielding the power.
If an executive can do something and then have the slightest basis to be able to make the claim that they believed their actions to be legal, then they are probably not going to face any repercussions or punishment.

 

I don't think you'll find anyone else to claim the US is a tyranny. If you really think so, take a closer look at Cambodia under Pol Pot (which was a revolution in the manner you are advocating - look at the result). Before you claim that they were a modern state, let me say the Khmer Rouge were backed by the NVA.

Right. This is no rebellion. We're just blowing up gov't offices, kidnapping officials, interdicting supplies to military bases and cities. You know, the usual stuff armed rural and suburban guys do. The fact that someone is opposed to you does not mean they are stupid. Not everything needs to be declared to be understood to be real.

 

Don't confuse rebellion, which is an organized effort with specific milestones and goals, with chaos.

 

What you're doing now is something called "confusing the issue". It's a logical fallacy.

 

People like you are the reason rebellions are successful.

Keep on believing what you falsely believe, and try to get as many others as you can to drink your Kool-Aid®.

They don't need to be fed, clothed or housed.

Why would anyone be "in the field?"

You don't need to be in the field to wage war.

You could probably get rich if you were able to package your short-sightedness and sell it.

Your faith in police and the FBI is misplaced. Worse than that, you inexplicably assume the organization would operate openly rather than clandestinely, and be using email, texts and tweets, plus advertising on TV during prime-time.

They won't.

Thanks for admitting you're not a leader and don't have any leadership traits or skills. Those leaders wouldn't give a damn about public opinion. After all, they're not snowflakes or part of the woke crowd.

How many pilots did bin Laden allegedly have? 18?

Well, gosh, I would have them fly single engine Cessnas loaded with explosives into the 16 oil refineries that produce gasoline in the US.

Your economy would have instantly crashed.

Can you imagine no gasoline? It would take 5-7 years to rebuild those refineries after you put the fires out and after you contained all the environmental damage.

Couldn't you switch some of the other 162 oil refineries over to produce gasoline?

About 94 of them refine intermediate to light oils, but it would take 12-18 months to switch them over from producing petrochemical products to gasoline, and their capacities wouldn't be as high as the 16 you lost. You'd have to switch about 22-26 of them to produce the same amount as those 16 did.

Makes you wonder why bin Laden didn't do that.

Seriously.

If the government didn't order all gas stations to close immediately, the States surely would, because without gasoline, your police can't go anywhere. Fire and EMT and most electric utility vehicles use diesel, so no problem there.

So, there you are, staring at the walls going insane because you ain't got gasoline to go work so you ain't making no money.

Grocery shopping would truly suck. If you ain't on a bus-line, it will be a chore to get to a grocery store, but since store employees ain't got no gas, either, they won't be open.

There's your banking system....not collecting mortgage payments because no one's got any money, because no one can get to work and court employees can't even get to the court house, so you can't file evictions or foreclosures.

That's so 1940s.

Until the roll-up effect starts happening.

Again, that's sooo 1940s.

Not even remotely relevant. I get that you never took college courses and studied civil wars, because if you did, you'd know that most only had the support of 10% of the population and not all 10% were actively involved.

That's because they didn't try.

And the 1st Amendment forbids interfering with Freedom of the Press, but that did not stop the tyrant Lincoln from shutting down newspapers and imprisoning newspaper editors who criticized Lincoln, nor did it keep the tyrant Lincoln from suspending habeas corpus, and to totally debunk your claim, it didn't stop the tyrant Lincoln from sending the federal army to put down protests, demonstrations and rebellions in Northern cities.

You can go to newspapers.com and read about the federal army firing on Abolitionists protesting the war in Cincinnati.

Some people just don't understand that tyrannical governments don't give a damn what their constitutions or laws say.

Correct.

Since the 1970s, I've seen the US government continually redefine "terrorism."

 

There is a difference between a generalized riot for food and one targeting the seat of gov't.

That's pretty much it. We're still a nation of laws. Flouting them on that scale would have repercussions whether there was an excuse or not.

 

I don't think you're being reasonable, and you are trying to draw a simple distinction where one does not actually exist.
You're almost totally wrong. I'm not wasting time arguing with you, since this is not the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss it, start a separate thread and then you can leave the link here.

No, not really. Many people naively think that's the case, but it's actually people running things.

I could of course waste my time giving you a long list of stories about situations where the outcome of government action was more based on individual decisions than it was on "what the law says". Maybe you should read in the Law & Justice section of this forum more often. Unlike what you seem to think, "the law" doesn't tell people in power how to specifically react to all situations very clearly. People in power can try to justify almost anything they do by finding an application to some law.

 

Rucker is positing unconventional warfare. He and I are describing phase two of classic guerrilla tactics. You are actually agreeing with me that any rebellion will never get out of phase one due to a lack of strong leadership and clear goals/objectives.

 

No, 'tyrant' was a waord that was specifically used in the post I was replying to. if Someone is confusing the issue, take it up with that user.

 

Do you understand how you were "confusing the issue"? Yes or no?

I will waste my time explaining it to you if you are not capable of understanding.

 

I think the difference is, our government and military just didn't care enough to do what was necessary to win the war. As I described on this forum a few years ago, the path to victory in Afghanistan would require turning the Afghan-Pakistan border into a kill zone, making sure there could be no rearming and resupply of the Taliban. We decided we could win hearts and minds instead so naturally failed miserably.

However a civil war situation in the US is different. Civil Wars have historically been the most vicious because everything seems so...personal. The atrocities of civil wars are often worse than regular wars because of the vicious hatred that lies at the heart of these national break ups. So When Biden mentions F-15s and nuclear weapons, it's because he would use them, or some equivalent. I've no doubt that any areas like suburbs or small towns that rebelled against the national government would find their homes burned to a crisp by MOABs. The past few years on this forum, reading the enraged hysteria of leftist members convinces me that the national lefty mood has reached the point that, given provocation, they would burn every red county to the ground. I'm not sure your individual right to bear arms will make much difference when you and your family are smoldering skeletons.

 

Yeah, that campaign to "win hearts and minds" didn't end up working so well.

I think we (on both sides of the political aisle) really need to be asking "Why not?"

 

Which part of the statement you are replying to is false? Do you believe that every single gun owner will support a rebellion? If you get 6 Americans in a room, you'll get eight opposing political opinions. Or is it the part about not being forced militarily to leave the ME? Show how the Taliban defeated us by force of arms. Possibly the part about fitness, training and mechanization? How many armored fighting vehicles are in private hands vs. how many are in the military? Jeez, looks like a serious imbalance there.

Now you're claiming that rebels don't need to eat? C'mon, get real. Those things need to happen and if they're fighting a war they won't be able to do it for themselves.

Even in a guerrilla war, the final phase is to take an army into the field. otherwise, all you're doing is terrorism which will not destabilize a country enough to destroy its gov't. Look again at the title of this thread especially the first sentence: "Guns cannot be used to defeat government." What you are describing is a war in progress, not its final (intended) phase.

Always nice to bring an ad hominem into a debate. Insults prove your point nicely.

If, as many on this forum claim, the FBI is competent enough to infiltrate Trump's organisation and its political allies and turn a peaceful protest into a riot, then they are surely competent to stop would-be rebels.

More ad homs, trucking right along with proving your point, I see.

Really? you don't think that keeping people happy is a way to attract more to your side?

When did al Qaeda take over the US? I missed it.

Phase 3 of classic guerrilla warfare is 1940s? You've been following Mo's playbook so far, but can't seem to think about how to win the war. According to you, they would just keep fighting it. That's just a dumb idea.

You have no endgame. there will be no rollup.

Not really. The only way to stop supplies from moving is to interdict them. The only real way to do that is to control ground.

Source? Because there will be 10% on the other end of the spectrum. Why would they not fight your rebels.

Because they knew it was a lost cause.

First, Lincoln imposed martial law in 1863 with Congressional approval. Second, Posse Comitatus wasn't passed until 13 years after the war was passed. Third, you kinda stepped on your previous point there. Far more than ten percent of the nation at large supported the South during the war. They had support in the North, which was why those newspapermen got arrested.

The US is not a tyranny.

 

I don't care what the Taliban did or didn't do.

Comparing the Taliban to Americans is quite absurd, and comparing Afghanistan to America is even more absurd. I'm guessing you've never traveled outside your zip code much less around the world.

I seriously doubt the US was "forced" to do anything, and if the US did withdraw, it's only in preparation to initiate conflict with Iran.

The US has a Geo-Political Strategy. Few countries do, because they don't have the man-power, assets or resources to effect such a strategy. As you might guess, it is very, very costly to implement, maintain and carry out a Geo-Political Strategy. Yes, we're talking $TRILLIONs, not $Millions, in part because they take a very long time to carry out, since the whole purpose is to create a vision of the future then craft a plan to make that vision a reality.

You weren't there, and I forgive you for that and won't give you a pop-quiz, but the US had a former Geo-Political Strategy called the Pacific Rim Plan. When it became crystal clear that the US was going to fail spectacularly, the US abandoned it. It withdrew forces from Southeast Asia and left the Gold Standard in favor of the so-called Petro-Dollar. It did a few other things, too, and now you understand why Nixon went to China. It wasn't to be best-buds with China, rather it was get assurances that China would not exploit the situation militarily after the US abandoned SE Asia, and to protect its allies South Korea and Japan.

The new plan is MECAS (Middle East/Central Asia/Siberia). Think of it as flying to Tripoli, then renting a car and driving from Tripoli to Tel Aviv to Tehran to Tashkent to Vladivostok and seeing nothing but McDonald's and Starsucks along the way.

Central Asia has 5x-7x more oil and natural gas (plus lots of rare earth metals and minerals you need for technology) than the entire Middle East, and eastern Siberia has 2x more oil and natural gas than all of Central Asia. While you don't need the oil and natural gas, you do need to guarantee it is sold on the global market in US Dollars.

To get control of the eastern Russian republics, you need control of Central Asia so's you can smuggle weapons and supplies and funnel money into "pro-Democracy" groups to foment revolution. To control the 5 Central Asian States (Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) you must have control of Iran so that you have air, rail, and highway access to Central Asia from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean. Note that you gained control of Central Asia during the Clinton Administration then lost control precisely because you need Iran to force your hegemony on Central Asia.

To control Iran, you need Iraq and Afghanistan, and you need to drive the Russians out of the Mediterranean. You did that by overthrowing the governments of Tunisia and Libya during the "Arab Spring" so's the Russians can't port ships there are use them as forward operating bases for bombers and other aircraft, and you castrated Yugoslavia to keep the Russians from using the Adriatic Sea and having a place for forward operating bases. Sure, the Russians can certainly put bombers in Serbia, but Serbia is now ringed by NATO allies and wannabes, and dodging surface-to-air missiles on the way out of Serbia won't be very much fun. You would prefer to have Syria under your control if you can, but it isn't necessary.

It won't matter if the President is a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, Green Party, or, hell, you can dig up Mother Teresa's bones and stick them in the Oval Office, because when it's Iran's time, it is Iran's time. Period.

My job was to hold two bridges and two fording locations on the Karun River so's US and British armored units can come from Kuwait. A Marine Expeditionary Brigade sets up shop at the eastern edge of the Zagros Mountains at the junction of Highway 8 and Highway 10, and so long as they have air support, they can sit there for eternity. The 82nd, 101st, and another MEB will deal with the understrength infantry division in Khuzestan Province, while the Air Force and carrier-based aircraft destroys the four bridges over the Karun River as it flows northwest through the Zagros before turning south to the Persian Gulf.

And, it is done. The US just sits back and watches the fireworks. The Iranian government will lose 80% of its oil and natural gas revenues, and the country will be in the dark with no electricity, water, sewage, food, fuel, jobs, etc etc and probably less than 30 days before there's full scale rioting and less than 60 days before there's a new government, which, if I had to guess, will be the MEK.

Watch what happens.

 

I never said they did, but thanks for reinforcing the fact that you have no understanding of the concepts.

I'll try to dumb it down for you in the hope that you might actually come to understand. You have 18 pilots at your disposal willing to die for their cause:

Option #1: Fly 4 planes into 4 buildings.

Option #2: Fly 18 planes into the only 16 refineries that produce gasoline causing massive destruction and environmental damage; the immediate closure of all gas stations in the US; a total melt-down of the US economy because no one has gasoline to drive to work or anywhere else; a total melt-down of your supply chain because nobody has any gasoline to go anywhere; total chaos resulting from no one having any money and no food to buy because all the stores have been stripped empty; mass panic; mass shootings; riots; a total break down of civil order; and all of it lasting for at least 1 year or longer.

Questions for the astute mind:

1) Which Option is the greatest act of terrorism?
2) Which Option has the longest lasting effect?
3) Which Option is the most disruptive to the US?
4) Which Option would result in the most casualties?

HINT: It's Option #2

So, why didn't bin Laden do that?

Inquiring minds wanna know.

 

"You're assuming that the 50M+ will all be in your camp and that they will be willing and able to coordinate with each other. Otherwise they will be subject to defeat in detail."

That part.

Outstanding leaders, strategists and tacticians -- and you don't fall into any of those categories -- don't make assumptions.

I don't need "50M+" in spite of your musings. I need <500 to start. In the end, I might actually have 50M+ but it won't matter if I do or don't and I don't care if I do or don't.

I don't care if they do or don't, because I don't need them. I need less than 500 to start and I don't care if they own guns or not. I don't care if they have or haven't fired a weapon. If they had never seen a weapon up close, I don't even care. Weapons aren't necessary, and if anyone needs one, there'll plenty lying around when the time comes.

That isn't relevant and I don't care if it was.

As a leader of troops in the field, my soldiers didn't vote on anything. I simply gave an order and they followed it, although from time-to-time, I would seek out their opinion on the best approach to solving a problem.

Your understanding is incredibly poor. It's a rebellion, not a round-table discussion. Believe me, if I had 6 Americans in a room, they'd all believe and think as I do, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

I never said or implied that. I simply said I don't have to feed them. They'll feed themselves and they will never be far from home.

Sometimes that is necessary, but other times it isn't. For the US, it is not necessary.

But even if it might possibly be necessary, how do you know National Guard units wouldn't defect to the rebel cause or remain neutral? It's also possible active duty units would take no action or defect. Even if units did defect, armed conflict isn't necessary.

It would probably help if you would stop making baseless assumptions.

It is really in bad form to project your lack of intellect, your lack of foresight, your lack of knowledge and experience, and your own personal limitations on others.

The definition of "terrorism" has changed many times over the last 40 years, so I'm not sure which definition you're using, but I see no point in killing ordinary civilians, since there is no advantage to be gained.

It would be much better to let government kill civilians -- and they will -- and to sit back and watch civilians -- whether gun owners or not -- kill other civilians --whether gun owners or not -- ....and they will be killing each other.....and then fill the vacuum/void created by that. When I say "civilians" I mean civilians and not rebels.

My bad. I made a mistake. You are not 1940s. You are sooo 1860s.

There is no such thing as a "final (intended) phase."

The fact that you would even say that proves your understanding is on par with a 4-year old. It's obvious you've never been in combat and have no military education, training or experience to speak of, and you probably struggle just to plan your morning dump.

The "final (intended) phase" is whatever I say it will be.

Your failure to understand why that is true speaks volumes. I determine exactly what, when and where the final phase will be and I craft a plan to make it so.

What ass-clown would let an enemy tell them what to do and when to do it?

Guns can be used to defeat government.

You have made it crystal clear that you don't know how to go about doing it, and the fact that you are totally incapable of using guns to win doesn't mean others who are competent cannot.

More baseless assumptions. Assuming it would be true, it only proves that those particular Trump supporters are the sharpest tools in the shed.

Truth is never ad hominem.

The goal would be to remove a tyrannical government, not score brownie points. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and trying to please all the people all the time is expensive, time-consuming and totally impossible.

Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge on the subject matter. The majority of successful rebellions and revolutions had less than 10% of the population supporting them.

It's a conflict, not a popularity contest and anyone with half a brain would realize that if you had the majority of people backing you, then you don't need conflict, because you can win at the ballot box, so how stupid is that?

Guerilla warfare is not necessary, in spite of your many protestations.

Your thinking is sooo one-dimensional.

Thanks for proving to the Entire Internet World you're confused.

It's not a "rollup" it is the Roll-Up Effect.

You don't understand that, because you don't know what you're talking about -- and repeatedly proven you don't.

In any civil conflict, this is the cast:

1) The Leader
2) The Cell
3) Hard Support/Soft Support
4) Hard Intel/Soft Intel
5) The Political Wing
6) The Financiers
7) The Active Supporters
The Tacit Supporters
9) The Fence-Sitters
10) The Haters

As sure as death and taxes, government will always over-react. You can bank on it.

It is government's over-reaction that causes the Roll-up Effect. Government kills, injures, imprisons, abuses, harasses, harangues or otherwise injures someone. That someone has people who care about them, and those people "Roll-Up."

The brother/sister/parent/child/friend/spouse/SO or whatever of an Active Supporter is killed, injured, imprisoned, etc etc and now the Active Supporter "rolls-up" in the hierarchy to finance the rebels, or become part of the political wing, or starts providing intel, or support or joins a cell.

If it was a Tacit Supporter -- one who supported you but didn't vocalize it our of fear or other concerns -- rolls-up to be an Active Supporter or somewhere higher up in the hierarchy.

A Fence-Sitter -- one who couldn't decide -- might now become a Tacit or Active Support, or they could become a Hater, but that's okay. Why?

Because if it's a Hater, their stance is now softened a bit and maybe now they're a Fence-Sitter, or a Tacit Support.

How is it you didn't know that?

Maybe someone here can teach you about the helicopter.

Why would I waste valuable resources, man-power, time and energy fussing over the supply lines? I don't really care if they resupply or not.

Finally you admit you've never studied any rebellion or revolution.

Or because they had other priorities.

Not relevant, and Martial Law does not trump the Constitution.

Not relevant, for two reasons. First, government will abuse it if the ends justify the means, and second, sending federal troops to put down protests and demonstrations by Abolitionists in cities which did not request assistance from the federal government was a gross abuse of power.

Um, that's like one of several 1,000 civil wars. I said the majority of civil conflicts, not 100% of them.

No, wrong. None of them supported the South to my knowledge. Everyone of them was either owned by an Abolitionist who criticized Lincoln and the war for not making the end of slavery the primary goal, or even a goal of the war; or had an editorial staff with Abolitionists who levied the same criticisms; or was not owned by an Abolitionist but still criticized the war for not making the end of slavery any goal of the war or for not making any attempt to engage in negotiations or apply international pressure to either prevent the war, or end slavery or both.

Make no mistake about it. The war was never about ending slavery. The fact that slaves were freed is merely incidental, and it should be that you can name even one slave freed by the "Emancipation Proclamation" then you'll make history, because to date, no one has been able to do that, not even the former slaves themselves.

Not yet.

 

Where to begin? This post rambles and raves so much that its difficult to follow. So I'll just throw out some responses in the same way:

Where is there any proof of this BIG BAD EVIL that has a plan to take over the earth? It seems a little paranoid.

I spent a career in the military and saw a lot of things you claim don't exist. We withdrew from South Vietnam because of the petrodollar? Wow. I was in uniform in those days and let me assure you that we withdrew because millions ... yes millions... of Americans opposed the war. I saw them up close and personal on Moratorium Day in 1971 at the Washington Monument when a million Americans went nuts at the Washington Monument. I was one of the guys on the Chain Bridge manning an M60 Machine gun scaring away protesters that were trowing trash cans in front of commuter cars. (They didn't know we had no ammo.)

"Geo-Political Strategy"? "Pacific Rim Plan"? I just love psychobabble! Smuggling weapons? LOL... yeah... if you have to rely on M-16's to make money, you have a mortgage you can't pay and lots of unpaid grocery bills.

And what's your Global Rent-a-Car ramble about? Can you break that down a bit? It seems rather... silly.

By the way, Russia has dreamed of a warm water port with access to the Atlantic since the days of Alexander the Great. Now they have it... in Syria.

If you think Iran is about anything but radical Islamists with nukes... you need your own "reset".

Russian nukes in Serbia? Ok... I saw that movie. It was as stupid then as it is now.

I respect your military experience but being a grunt hardly makes you an expert in international military issues. I was with the FSE of TF Tiger, the Marine Brigade we gave M1 tanks to, since the Marines hadn't received them yet. Were you with us on the way to Kuwait City? I spent a year in Iraq training the NEW Iraqi Army in 2003-4. Were you THERE with us? Were you there in 2005 when I was with the 1,000 American First Responders in Iraq? Have you ever Commanded a nuke capable Field Artillery Battery as I did? (B Btry, 2d Bn, 5th Fa, 41st FA Group, Babenhausen, Germany) Did you go to West Point as I did? ("Courage and Drive! '75!")

Look, I am no expert. And neither are you. And some of your claims about US intentions and practices are... well... silly. Stop thinking you have all the answers... ok?