Posted on 10/11/2017 8:33:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“First of all, because nobody has as much firepower as the US military and whatever side they come down on will probably win.”
The US military had the most firepower in Korea and we didn’t win.
The US military had the most firepower in Vietnam and we didn’t win.
The U.S. military had the most firepower in Lebanon and we didn’t win. And so forth and so on.
When Marshal Tito bucked the Soviet Union he was asked, “What good will your old rifles be when Stalin rolls his new tanks into Yugoslavia?
Tito reportedly said, “We will wait until the soldiers climb out of their new tanks and then shoot them with our old rifles.”
We didn't have the most manpower, so there was a stalemate.
If you can get millions of Chinese willing to die to defeat the US on your side, you might well win.
That may actually be your strategy, but I doubt the Chinese people would go along with it now.
The US military had the most firepower in Vietnam and we didn’t win.
Did we really want to win?
I guess if somebody fighting against the US military wants to live like the Vietnamese Communists did 50 years ago and bear the sacrifices they did, they might be able to win.
Are you willing to do that?
The U.S. military had the most firepower in Lebanon and we didn’t win. And so forth and so on.
Not really comparable. We were trying to keep the peace and weren't 100% committed to winning the war.
When Marshal Tito bucked the Soviet Union he was asked, “What good will your old rifles be when Stalin rolls his new tanks into Yugoslavia?
Tito reportedly said, “We will wait until the soldiers climb out of their new tanks and then shoot them with our old rifles.”
Ask the Czechs and Hungarians about that, Tito.
Bottom line: Americans are richer than most other countries and happy. We don't want a civil war. Get together everybody who wants a civil war that could take years and cost millions of lives and go up against the US military and you will lose.
And: if Robert E. Lee had taken the North Vietnamese way of fighting -- or George Washington's for that matter -- he might have won and we'd be living in different countries now. But even then, he didn't want to go to those lengths. How much less willing are people to go that far now?
The current 500,000 man standing army is irrelevant in a general civil war between US factions. In a country of 300+ million the USA army isn't even a speed bump. Plus half would desert to join the resistance or seceding states army.
It sounds like you are saying the North began the fight, at first, because they thought it was in their best economic and political self-interest to fight.
Then as the casualties soared past 100,000 - then it seemed like collecting import taxes was an insufficient reason for a possible million casualties. A new, higher, moral ground was needed: “freeing the slaves.”
What you say makes sense.
Like the old bumper sticker said: "What if they gave a war and nobody came." Americans don't want a civil war and aren't going to join in. If the government is half-way competent (which is quite an assumption) there won't be a full scale Civil War II.
I think, in away, Lincoln repackaged the Civil War for himself as much as for any other reason. He had to justify “preserving the union” for a greater cause. He knew the war was immoral and unpopular so he did it(the EO ending slavery) to assuage his own demons and conscience.
I believe if CA were to secede then NOTHING would happen. No intervention, no march to the sea. No slashing and burning across CA.
The Soviets calculated they could easily run over the Czechs and Hungarians and they did.
The Soviets calculated they could not easily run over Tito and they didn't.
Like today - the liberals know they can steamroller McConnell and Graham and Corker and McCain and they do.
But they are learning they can't steamroller Trump.
It all depends on what you are dealing with. The same fire that melts the butter, hardens the steel.
Wow. I think that needs an "Ah Grasshopper" in front of it.
If it doesn't even use the word, it's hard to say that slavery was "enshrined" in the Constitution.
If you want to see what a pro-slavery document looks like, take a look at the Confederate constitution, which can't stop talking about slavery.
It's not going to come to that. But if it did, you'd see armed factions fighting each other for turf and US troops trying to secure their bases and the surrounding territory.
You probably would be able to get people to fight in the streets. Some people live for that. They do that in LA every 20 or 30 years anyway.
Whether you'd get a "California Army" is a lot less likely. You might be able to get some people willing to fight in a "Texas Army" if that state seceded, but a lot fewer than you'd like to think.
For most Americans, what you're saying is "crazy talk," and good for them for recognizing that.
You are war a oriented person(monger) with zero imagination. Small minded in so many ways.
Let me 'splain it: secession does not mean war.
You are war a = You are a war....
You are a secession monger.
And this is all pretty bizarre.
You said "The current 500,000 man standing army is irrelevant in a general civil war between US factions. In a country of 300+ million the USA army isn't even a speed bump. Plus half would desert to join the resistance or seceding states army."
That looks a lot like you're foreseeing or encouraging "a general civil war between factions."
I said there wouldn't be because the US military could take care of revolutionaries.
Now all of a sudden, you're saying there would be no war, and somehow, I'm the war monger?
Are you off your meds or are you just drunk again?
If I actually cared, I'd tell you to make your mind, if you have one, and decide if you think there will be a civil war or there won't, but by this point it's doubtful your contribution will have any value.
I was using an example of a general Civil War between say the red and blue states to show that the 500,000 man standing army is not relevant. Turkey has a bigger standing army(400,000) per capita than the USA.
When it comes to the Civil War, there is no shortage of pro-north sympathy. The north was good, freeing the slaves. The South was bad, fighting to keep them.
“History is written by the victor” and never was that phrase more true than in the case of the civil war.
I’m not expecting to change any minds here but everyone knows the story would be told differently if the South had won and since they didn’t win, their version of history is simply not taught.
I turned 21 in 1973 and the history of Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement, Watergate, etc. had not yet solidified - had not yet been carved in stone. There were two sides to most issues as I recall and strong disagreement. Back then the Left made up what we now call fake news, just as they do today. Forty some years later it seems like the historical accounts of these issues are simplified, dumbed down, agenda drivin. Blame is assigned, there is now a good guy and a bad guy in every story - usually the bad guy is a white male republican.
I imagine the actual Civil War was far, far more complex than the historical accounts available today. I don’t trust them.
Lincoln did let the confederates secede. But the slavers insisted on making war and got one they couldn't win.
“If it doesn’t even use the word, it’s hard to say that slavery was “enshrined” in the Constitution.”
Careful. You don’t really want to get caught making that argument.
What is the purpose of even starting down that path?
Will you next say that the constitution didn’t require a census because the word “census” is not in the constitution (until the sixteenth amendment)?
As a friend, I ask you to step away from that ledge.
You're trying to put words in PaulZe's mouth (and doing very poorly at that). He didn't say that. Stop it.
Do you care to explain your contention the North was fighting to “free the slaves?”
Another distortion on your part. The north wasn't fighting to free the slaves. It was fighting renegades who had gone to war against them.
And mythology is taught by the losers. I find it interesting to hear that false axiom on a thread where a dozen armchair historians are busy reinventing the War Between The States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.