Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Windflier

The one assumption you’re making is that they’d fight a conflict against an armed US resistance in the same handcuffed manner employed against the Iraqi jihadis. They won’t.

As this resistance would be a direct impact to their power, the Gov’t would respond with absolutely overwhelming force. They can play tit-for-tat against Iraq because it costs them little. They can’t play tit-for-tat when an armed resistance takes over, say, Denver.

I’m not saying don’t fight if it comes to that - I’m saying if it comes to that, prepare properly.


156 posted on 08/26/2014 8:48:53 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /S tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Personal Responsibility
The one assumption you’re making is that they’d fight a conflict against an armed US resistance in the same handcuffed manner employed against the Iraqi jihadis. They won’t.

You presume to know what I assume, though I never made mention of it.

Now that you mention it, though, it's entirely probably that they'd try to level that sort of force against the people in the case of armed revolution. They'd try, but they'd fail, because the majority of our armed military personnel would mutiny against such treason.

160 posted on 08/26/2014 9:39:09 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson