Things Not Going Well in Venezuela, 2.0

[David Dennison 18854]

3 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I didn’t say it was a socialist policy. 

Americans will always be able to own guns. It’s in our culture and it’s one thing we have gotten right. 

Without any means to defend themselves, overthrowing an authoritarian is more difficult. Thus they remain under the yoke. 

Even with all the guns the world, Americans could not overthrow the government.

[hpslugga 4058]

8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Without any means to defend themselves, overthrowing an authoritarian is more difficult. Thus they remain under the yoke. 

You're assuming the population wants to overthrow him. There’s a reason Guaido can’t organize a meaningfully sized demonstration against Maduro, and it’s not because the civilian population doesn’t own guns.

[MissingInAction 25037]

The only way the US government gets overthrown is by it's own military.

Fucking cracks me up when people act like they are some kind of crack paramilitary force just because they own a bunch of small arms they have never fired at another human before. Much less while  under fire themselves.

Delusional tards.

Edited May 6, 2019 by MissingInAction

[hpslugga 4058]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Even with all the guns the world, Americans could not overthrow the government.

This also. They have shit that we will never get our hands on and if some American dictator wanted to kick our asses with them, he would.

[Enchubben 5510]

19 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

This also. They have shit that we will never get our hands on 

Thanks to democrats 

[elfenix 34230]

23 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The only way the US government gets overthrown is by it's own military.

Fucking cracks me up when people act like they are some kind of crack paramilitary force just because they own a bunch of small arms they have never fired at another human before. Much less while  under fire themselves.

Delusional tards.

you're telling me colonel hamburgers here isn't a badass?

Edited May 6, 2019 by elfenix

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Even with all the guns the world, Americans could not overthrow the government.

So the military would be lock step with the gov't ?

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

You're assuming the population wants to overthrow him. There’s a reason Guaido can’t organize a meaningfully sized demonstration against Maduro, and it’s not because the civilian population doesn’t own guns.

Ok, fair enough. I’m going off reports on Reuters etc that Maduro’s military squashed demonstrators in the streets. It didn’t quantify numbers.

At the same time, we have no way of knowing how many more would’ve felt emboldened to join them had they had a stronger means of defending themselves or attacking. How many are at home scared thinking, shit they’re just gonna fuck us up?

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

The only way the US government gets overthrown is by it's own military.

Fucking cracks me up when people act like they are some kind of crack paramilitary force just because they own a bunch of small arms they have never fired at another human before. Much less while  under fire themselves.

Delusional tards.

 

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

This also. They have shit that we will never get our hands on and if some American dictator wanted to kick our asses with them, he would.

Would you admit that it changes the calculus when large groups of citizens are armed? They will be harder to pacify than people with bottles and rocks. 

When they’re harder to pacify, it takes more conviction and effort from the military against their fellow citizens. Then you’re more likely to have defectors who decide against following a potential dictator’s orders. And so on. 

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So the military would be lock step with the gov't ?

Exactly. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by GRHorn

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

you're telling me colonel hamburgers here isn't a badass?

This is the ideal male body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

[Brisketexan 105095]

you're telling me colonel hamburgers here isn't a badass?

Yeah, I’ll have the Tactical Triple Cheeseburger with Freedom Fries and a Constituitonalist Cola - and Tactical-Size that, will ya? Also, add an I Love America Fried Apple Pie, and a Second Amendment Shake in white chocolate (tastes more pure that way).

[David Dennison 18854]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Would you admit that it changes the calculus when large groups of citizens are armed? They will be harder to pacify than people with bottles and rocks. 

Not when those large groups are contending with the United States military, no.

[MissingInAction 25037]

That tactical FUPA is his secret weapon.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

you're telling me colonel hamburgers here isn't a badass?

I like that he tagged himself with his blood-type, 'B'uc-ees 'Neg'-ative dick length

[GRHorn 105]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not when those large groups are contending with the United States military, no.

Agree to disagree. 

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Agree to disagree. 

Maybe the open carry crowd can get their hands on some sweet SAMs.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 5/5/2019 at 7:31 PM, GRHorn said:

So I know y’all are all debating about how much socialism Venezuela has enacted, but can we agree that outlawing private gun ownership has put the average Venezuelans here in a tough spot? 

Lulz. They banned guns because they had 18,000 murders in a single year. That's more than our total in a typical year and we have 10 times their population.  Actual gun ownership was and is still widespread there.  And their gun culture was and is more ingrained than ours. How many US shop owners have you seen sitting at the front of their store openly with a gun?  I was there way before the shit hit the fan, and probably 50 percent of stores had owners and employees who brandished weapons.

Private gun owners are never going to overthrow a modern military.  That's always a conservative's wet dream, but it will never happen. You will sit there quietly and "defend" your home while tyrants rule.  Meanwhile, we sit here with the highest murder rate of any advanced industrialized nation, only bested by developing and undeveloped countries. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

46 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Agree to disagree. 

Lol. What are you gonna do against a drone strike?  You won't even see it coming. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

39 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not when those large groups are contending with the United States military, no.

The US military could not pacify Iraq, a country smaller than Texas, and with a much smaller population than Texas.  

Half our active-duty military is tied up in the Navy and Air Force, so they are pretty useless.   Your left with 650,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel, and a shitload of them are tied up in logistics and infrastructure.  A huge chunk of the US military’s “boots on the ground” capability (and their support units) is tied up overseas as well.  Recalling all of those would fuck with our overseas power projection  

The US military is much smaller these days than in times past, and relies too much on Reserve and state National Guard units for logistical and infrastructure support (and you know many those state units are not going to be loyal to the US government if ordered to attack civilians).  

 US military bases here in the US are way too intertwined with local/civilian infrastructure these days as well   Way too easy to cripple things like fuel supplies.

The country is just too big population-wise, and geographically.  

And that’s a big assumption that active-duty troops would be 100% loyal to the President and willing to march on American civilians at a moment’s notice.  When I was in the Army in the 90s, I was surprised at how many anti-government types were in the military.  It wasn’t just because Clinton was President.   They gave no real fucks about the top of the Chain-of-Command. It was “get paid, get laid, and get your shit done so you can drink when you’re off-duty.”   

 

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US military could not pacify Iraq, a country smaller than Texas, and with a much smaller population than Texas.  

Half our active-duty military is tied up in the Navy and Air Force, so they are pretty useless.   Your left with 650,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel, and a shitload of them are tied up in logistics and infrastructure.  A huge chunk of the US military’s “boots on the ground” capability (and their support units) is tied up overseas as well.  Recalling all of those would fuck with our overseas power projection  

The US military is much smaller these days than in times past, and relies too much on Reserve and state National Guard units for logistical and infrastructure support (and you know many those state units are not going to be loyal to the US government if ordered to attack civilians).  

 US military bases here in the US are way too intertwined with local/civilian infrastructure these days as well   Way too easy to cripple things like fuel supplies.

The country is just too big population-wise, and geographically.  

And that’s a big assumption that active-duty troops would be 100% loyal to the President and willing to march on American civilians at a moment’s notice.  When I was in the Army in the 90s, I was surprised at how many anti-government types were in the military.  It wasn’t just because Clinton was President.   They gave no real fucks about the top of the Chain-of-Command. It was “get paid, get laid, and get your shit done so you can drink when you’re off-duty.”   

 

Yeah, I don't think we'd half ass it like Iraq.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US military could not pacify Iraq, a country smaller than Texas, and with a much smaller population than Texas.  

Half our active-duty military is tied up in the Navy and Air Force, so they are pretty useless.   Your left with 650,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel, and a shitload of them are tied up in logistics and infrastructure.  A huge chunk of the US military’s “boots on the ground” capability (and their support units) is tied up overseas as well.  Recalling all of those would fuck with our overseas power projection  

The US military is much smaller these days than in times past, and relies too much on Reserve and state National Guard units for logistical and infrastructure support (and you know many those state units are not going to be loyal to the US government if ordered to attack civilians).  

 US military bases here in the US are way too intertwined with local/civilian infrastructure these days as well   Way too easy to cripple things like fuel supplies.

The country is just too big population-wise, and geographically.  

And that’s a big assumption that active-duty troops would be 100% loyal to the President and willing to march on American civilians at a moment’s notice.  When I was in the Army in the 90s, I was surprised at how many anti-government types were in the military.  It wasn’t just because Clinton was President.   They gave no real fucks about the top of the Chain-of-Command. It was “get paid, get laid, and get your shit done so you can drink when you’re off-duty.”   

 

Sure, the military can't be everywhere at once. I guess you can use your guns to be ISIS and terrorize your town until they come back around. You won't be able to actually hold anything when the military turns back to you though. But your biggest problem is going to be other groups of people who don't want whatever it is you're selling. 

As far as I can tell, most open US gun owners are more likely to support fascism than fight it. Especially, if there is an old white guy trying to make himself king.  They'll be the ones doing the military's dirty work for them.  The "silent majority" of gun owners aren't going to do shit except maintain a low profile and defend themselves if needed. Just like now. The best way to avoid that drone strike is to sit tight rather than band with 10 or 15 guys and declare your town independent. 

Also, Iraqis have lived violent existences for generations now. They're hardened. We are soft as marshmallows. Much easier to pacify us. Just make a new Game of Thrones or American Idol, and call for fake patriotism at sporting events and youre done.  In Iraq, you actually have to kill half of them to pacify them. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[atomheartbevo 89648]

47 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Maybe the open carry crowd can get their hands on some sweet SAMs.

 

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol. What are you gonna do against a drone strike?  You won't even see it coming. 

Those drones gotta land somewhere.   And they aren’t armored like A-10s   And they make mighty fine targets sitting on the runway or near a hangar   

And you don’t need a SAM when many runways are near large population centers - a decent hunting rifle can disable many an Air Force jet that isn’t an A-10.    My uncle was in the Air Force, stationed in Vietnam, and it was stunning how a few VC outside the perimeter could wreak havoc on air operations   

Theres a reason why our airbases in Iraq and Afghanistan are as far away from populated and mountainous areas as feasibly possible    And the Air Force can’t just pick up and move their American bases,

And let’s pretend in Tom Clancy Fantasy Land  that the drones and jets are all based out of remote areas of Nevada and California And North Dakota, and magically have all the fuel and weapons at hand they need.  Every time they do a strike and kill innocent civilians, they create more and more “enemy” fighters, but that’s not convenient for your Tom Clancy fantasies, is it?

And let’s conveniently pretend in Tom Clancy Fantasy Land that 100% of American active-duty personnel do not have any family members staying with them, and that those non-existent family members do not require food, etc. and do not need to be protected from nearby folks with high-powered rifles whose own families were killed by these fantasy government forces.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, have all shown how easy it is to bog down American troops in countries smaller than the state of Texas.  

 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, I don't think we'd half ass it like Iraq.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, have all shown how easy it is to bog down American troops in countries smaller than the state of Texas.  

And those American troops didn’t have to worry about their families who were living with them.

We built our military to project power overseas and take out tanks and air bases and conventional  troop concentrations, not hold onto Bumfuck, New Hampshire, population 20,000.

 Or the other 90,000 cities and towns in the US.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, have all shown how easy it is to bog down American troops in countries smaller than the state of Texas.  

And those American troops didn’t have to worry about their families who were living with them.

We built our military to project power overseas and take out tanks and air bases and conventional  troop concentrations, not hold onto Bumfuck, New Hampshire, population 20,000.

 Or the other 90,000 cities and towns in the US.  

Right, so bumfuck New Hampshire is going to end up with a power struggle between the Christian taliban, the high school football team, and a bunch of people that just want to be left alone. Other civilians are always gonna be the problem. The military would only come in if some faction wins and starts executing people. 

Except the most possible US fascist scenario has the Christian taliban running the gov't. So the local chapter will just be doing the gov'ts dirty work for them. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

24 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US military could not pacify Iraq, a country smaller than Texas, and with a much smaller population than Texas.  

Half our active-duty military is tied up in the Navy and Air Force, so they are pretty useless.   Your left with 650,000 Army and Marine Corps personnel, and a shitload of them are tied up in logistics and infrastructure.  A huge chunk of the US military’s “boots on the ground” capability (and their support units) is tied up overseas as well.  Recalling all of those would fuck with our overseas power projection  

The US military is much smaller these days than in times past, and relies too much on Reserve and state National Guard units for logistical and infrastructure support (and you know many those state units are not going to be loyal to the US government if ordered to attack civilians).  

 US military bases here in the US are way too intertwined with local/civilian infrastructure these days as well   Way too easy to cripple things like fuel supplies.

The country is just too big population-wise, and geographically.  

And that’s a big assumption that active-duty troops would be 100% loyal to the President and willing to march on American civilians at a moment’s notice.  When I was in the Army in the 90s, I was surprised at how many anti-government types were in the military.  It wasn’t just because Clinton was President.   They gave no real fucks about the top of the Chain-of-Command. It was “get paid, get laid, and get your shit done so you can drink when you’re off-duty.”   

 

I was going to go into force generation and tactical capabilities and Combat vs Combat Service and all that but I didn't want to accidentally disclose anything classified. You did a good job. 

Two million total active duty versus the population? Again, I won't tell stories, but no, just no. The same reason Japan couldn't invade, and China can't invade, is because they'd experience 100% casualty rate. 

People talking out of their asses on the internet. 

[hpslugga 4058]

4 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Thanks to democrats 

No, Democrats are not the reason that you can’t have an AH-64E Apache Guardian. There isn’t a Republican in the fucking country that would support that shit

[Brisketexan 105095]

Those drones gotta land somewhere.   And they aren’t armored like A-10s   And they make mighty fine targets sitting on the runway or near a hangar   
And you don’t need a SAM when many runways are near large population centers - a decent hunting rifle can disable many an Air Force jet that isn’t an A-10.    My uncle was in the Air Force, stationed in Vietnam, and it was stunning how a few VC outside the perimeter could wreak havoc on air operations   
Theres a reason why our airbases in Iraq and Afghanistan are as far away from populated and mountainous areas as feasibly possible    And the Air Force can’t just pick up and move their American bases,
And let’s pretend in Tom Clancy Fantasy Land  that the drones and jets are all based out of remote areas of Nevada and California And North Dakota, and magically have all the fuel and weapons at hand they need.  Every time they do a strike and kill innocent civilians, they create more and more “enemy” fighters, but that’s not convenient for your Tom Clancy fantasies, is it?
And let’s conveniently pretend in Tom Clancy Fantasy Land that 100% of American active-duty personnel do not have any family members staying with them, and that those non-existent family members do not require food, etc. and do not need to be protected from nearby folks with high-powered rifles whose own families were killed by these fantasy government forces.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, have all shown how easy it is to bog down American troops in countries smaller than the state of Texas.  
 

You morons think that it would be the govt vs the people. It wouldn’t be. It would be the govt and its loyalists versus the other half of the population. Is your neighbor on your side? Or the other side? Is he going to turn you in to the govt forces? Or vice versa?

When the Trumpists decide to take up arms against my country, with the support of large segments of the government - but not all - I’ll do my best to make sure that in the civil war that these dumbasses so desire, they fucking meet the proper fate. And I will be far from alone. Stupid toy soldiers and their dumbass fantasies. Dumb enough to think they get to be heroes. Nope. Not that easy.

But no worries, they’ll succeed in killing the republic. They’ve made tremendous headway so far.

[berlinerbaer 678]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

As far as I can tell, most open US gun owners are more likely to support fascism than fight it. Especially, if there is an old white guy trying to make himself king.  They'll be the ones doing the military's dirty work for them.  The "silent majority" of gun owners aren't going to do shit except maintain a low profile and defend themselves if needed. Just like now. The best way to avoid that drone strike is to sit tight rather than band with 10 or 15 guys and declare your town independent. 

An armed population is antithetical to an authoritarian government. Period. A dictatorship with the available resources will eliminate all threats to its rule, eventually from present-day sympathizers.

The gun nuts will hoot and holler as The Others are rounded up, but how long is that sustainable? Will the old angry white men simply be content to shoot at the dark faces they see on TV for all eternity?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

I was going to go into force generation and tactical capabilities and Combat vs Combat Service and all that but I didn't want to accidentally disclose anything classified. You did a good job. 

Two million total active duty versus the population? Again, I won't tell stories, but no, just no. The same reason Japan couldn't invade, and China can't invade, is because they'd experience 100% casualty rate. 

People talking out of their asses on the internet. 

Assuming China cripples the US military enough to actually invade, they'd have none of the reservations our military would have operating on their own soil. If they wanted to exterminate us, they wouldn't go street to street. Japan would have absolutely wrecked us had they had the same capability too. They had no reservations about extermination. Neither did the Germans. 

There is a reason to own guns. It's cuz you're a crazy fuck who would try to establish a white only enclave where homosexuality is punishable by death. We need guns to fight off people like you, not the US military. Even a fascist state is going to rely on you manning the local militia to accomplish anything, and as far as I can tell, you have already signed up. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I was going to go into force generation and tactical capabilities and Combat vs Combat Service and all that but I didn't want to accidentally disclose anything classified. You did a good job. 

Two million total active duty versus the population? Again, I won't tell stories, but no, just no. The same reason Japan couldn't invade, and China can't invade, is because they'd experience 100% casualty rate. 

People talking out of their asses on the internet. 

It's always interesting how some people freak out at the idea of the military coming down on the civilian population.  I remember many years ago Alex Jones ranting about how posts like Fort Hood were built near population areas so they could rapidly mobilize and put down a civilian uprising.  I always found that interesting that he believed troops from a place like Fort Hood could occupy a place like Austin or Dallas.

Fort Hood has 215,000 acres, and it's pretty fucking open in places.  It's got around 45,000 soldiers, and 20,000 or so dependents (and 5,000 or so civilian employees).  In fantasy land, maybe you could put 30,000 of those soldiers onto some kind of combat duty (maybe commandeer civilian trucks?) with 15,000 handling all of the non-combat stuff (being generous here).  To start with, for perspective, 30,000 soldiers is a drop in a bucket compared to the traffic that Mopac handles in a single day.

But you won't have that 30,000 soldiers to patrol Austin.  You'll need to really beef up base security, and those soldiers can't operate 24/7 so you'll have at least two-shifts a day, so you could easily find yourself with 5,000 (or more) tied up patrolling the massive perimeter, and they will be tying up plenty of vehicles.  And you'll need to really push out away from the airfield to keep civilians with deer rifles from taking potshots at potential supply aircraft from the Air Force.  But wait, there's more.  With those 75,000 or so soldiers and civilians living on-post (if shit goes down, half of Copperas Cove and much of Killeen is going to end up on base), that's a shitload of food and other necessities.  

Now you're going to have to be making supply runs somewhere, and supply trucks make for lovely targets, so you're going to be tying up many thousands more on supply convoys, probably to Houston - maybe the Navy is able to bring in supplies by sea.  That's a good 12-hour round trip (or much more) depending on road conditions, and hoping that civilians haven't fucked up the roads around Fort Hood, and potentially created chokepoints.  But wait, you're going to have to setup a perimeter around resupply operations at the Houston Ship Channel, and that's a massive area, and there are no nearby military installations to draw troops from, so hopefully the Navy brought some Marines.  And because those trucks are thirsty, you're going to have to convince soldiers to drive unarmored 18-wheelers full of fuel back and forth, and you'll have to have somebody protecting them.

All of the sudden, that potential 30,000 soldiers who could conduct patrol operations is probably down to well under 10,000, and many of their vehicles are going to be tied up on convoy duty of some sorts.

Putting a boot on the neck of some libtard in Austin burning an American flag becomes a really fucking low priority when your wife is losing her shit because she can't get formula on the base for your baby.   That's assuming you can get fuel for driving to and from Austin.  They damn won't be flying Blackhawks over major population centers.

And the kind of scenario that sees American troops in the streets, is a scenario where things like the banking system, interstate trucking, telecommunications, refineries, etc. start going downhill, because people stop showing up for work.

When the lower ranks stop getting paid because nobody is working at the Fort Hood National Bank, and the telecommunications infrastructure the bank relied on is down, and when their spouses and kids start having to skip meals, their loyalty to the American government is going to evaporate pretty damn fast, and they'll be thinking about how to get their family to some relative's farm or ranch.

You can have a nice big number of soldiers, but once you take out the support folks, and the folks guarding the base, and the surrounding roads, and running convoys, and scrounging for supplies, and that number shrinks really fast.

[Anastasis 23469]

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

When the Trumpists decide to take up arms against my country, with the support of large segments of the government - but not all - I’ll do my best to make sure that in the civil war that these dumbasses so desire, they fucking meet the proper fate. And I will be far from alone. Stupid toy soldiers and their dumbass fantasies.

Unintentional humor is the best humor. 

[Rimbo 25919]

On 5/3/2019 at 2:19 PM, Johnny Sack said:

In this thread surly libs blame the US for the failures of socialism.  

Yeah, I tell ya... after being accused of being a "libtard" because I'm not braindead enough to think Trump is anything other than a horrifying error that needs to be rectified as quickly as possible, it's nice to return to this thread and watch folks who agree with me on Trump absolutely lose their minds on Venezuela.

Folks, Venezuela is like that guy with a drug problem that's finally trying to get help. He got himself into that position on his own. You have to use tough love so that you don't continue to enable the bad behavior. Then when he asks for intervention, you fucking intervene.

[Rimbo 25919]

On 5/5/2019 at 6:53 PM, hpslugga said:

Why would we agree with that?

Because it's sensible? Because it would give the citizens something to defend themselves with, without the need for foreign aid?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20395]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The US military could not pacify Iraq, a country smaller than Texas, and with a much smaller population than Texas.  

 

 

Just want to point out that Iraq's population is considerably larger than Texas'.

Carry on.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, have all shown how easy it is to bog down American troops in countries smaller than the state of Texas.  

Every one of your examples were supplied and trained by foreign militaries.  The fighters didn’t fit out their arsenals from Academy’s Easter Gun Sale.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Do we get to pretend in your Red Dawn fantasy land that the average citizen all of a sudden gained the training and skill level of a SEAL or Ranger?

[atomheartbevo 89648]

6 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Just want to point out that Iraq's population is considerably larger than Texas'.

Carry on.

Don’t have the numbers for the 2003 invasion, but in 2000 , they were under 25 million (they didn’t have all of the Syrian refugees from later on), and I was taking into account Kurds running into the millions, so they were under the current Texas population.

[atomheartbevo 89648]

59 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Every one of your examples were supplied and trained by foreign militaries.  The fighters didn’t fit out their arsenals from Academy’s Easter Gun Sale.

And every one of those examples didn’t have US troops having to look out for their numerous dependents.  And every one of those examples had US troops receiving their paychecks through a working financial system, and their families could pop over to the AAFES or venture off-post to the local Walmart to get formula for their babies and Goldfish for the toddlers without needing a large armed escort.  And their families could easily get the necessary medications if one of them got sick. 

If shit goes down and the US military is somehow obeying orders to act against American civilians, that is going to lead to a collapse of a lot of systems due to people not showing up for work and/or sabotage, and all of the sudden those soldiers aren’t going to be curbstomping some libtard in Austin, they are going to taking care of their families or bases    

 

[Parliament 14255]

13 hours ago, elfenix said:

 

I have the same outfit, btw.

[atomheartbevo 89648]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Do we get to pretend in your Red Dawn fantasy land that the average citizen all of a sudden gained the training and skill level of a SEAL or Ranger?

And the average soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman do not have that training or those skills. Actually, there are probably more ex-military in the civilian population who have the training and skills of Rangers, SEALs, etc. than those currently are serving on active duty.

It’s a moot point though - the folks you describe are an incredibly small part of our military and you don’t send a SEAL team to man a checkpoint on North Lamar in Austin, or Wall Street in New York, or Lombard in San Francisco.

[Enchubben 5510]

Wtf is going on in here? 

[Brisketexan 105095]

Just now, Enchubben said:

Wtf is going on in here? 

Bill Joe Badasses are arguing that the REAL reason Venezuela is in the shit is because they don't have an armed populace, like these guys, who would TOTALLY save America from totalitarianism*

 

* Except, of course, they are most likely to align themselves with a totalitarian government here in the US.

[ChickenSandwich 9832]

On 5/5/2019 at 4:53 PM, JimmyJames said:

Sack is an “I got mine” type of guy, except when he’s helping out black orphans, then he’s a “they now got a little of mine” kind of guy.

He also prefers to rent out his slums to the browns instead of the blacks, but the law may sometimes prevent that from happening. Fucking commies. 

Sack is Bernie Sanders?

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And the average soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman do not have that training or those skills. Actually, there are probably more ex-military in the civilian population who have the training and skills of Rangers, SEALs, etc. than those currently are serving on active duty.

It’s a moot point though - the folks you describe are an incredibly small part of our military and you don’t send a SEAL team to man a checkpoint on North Lamar in Austin, or Wall Street in New York, or Lombard in San Francisco.

Rephrased...

"Do we get to pretend in your Red Dawn fantasy land that the average citizen all of a sudden gained the training and skill level of a regular soldier?" 

99% of these Billy Badasses would be sitting ducks for even the most average soldier.  At least I hope that would be the case considering the trillions of dollars that have been sunk into the military over the years.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And every one of those examples didn’t have US troops having to look out for their numerous dependents.  And every one of those examples had US troops receiving their paychecks through a working financial system, and their families could pop over to the AAFES or venture off-post to the local Walmart to get formula for their babies and Goldfish for the toddlers without needing a large armed escort.  And their families could easily get the necessary medications if one of them got sick. 

If shit goes down and the US military is somehow obeying orders to act against American civilians, that is going to lead to a collapse of a lot of systems due to people not showing up for work and/or sabotage, and all of the sudden those soldiers aren’t going to be curbstomping some libtard in Austin, they are going to taking care of their families or bases    

 

So lack of services only affects the military personnel and not the general citizenry?  Ok, got it.

[Armybrat 40832]

You people should get a job.

[woohorn 1131]

Just want to point out that Iraq's population is considerably larger than Texas'.

Bullshit. You driven in Austin lately?

[Zonahorn 8079]

Oh boy, another "comfortable first worlders are gonna get off their asses and fight the government." Argument, how wonderful.

[Chooky 13307]

2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

You people should get a job.

Something productive like joining a border militia and wearing tactical gear. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So lack of services only affects the military personnel and not the general citizenry?  Ok, got it.

The thing about the services is not sinking in with you though - Billy Badass doesn't have to fire a shot to affect the military.   Billy Badass just has to stop showing up for work at the refinery, at the bank, at the Walmart, at the trucking company.   Pipelines don't magically work.   Food doesn't cook, package, and ship itself.

If soldiers stop getting their paychecks, and stop having places to spend those paychecks, and their families stop getting food, well, their loyalty to GEOTUS Trump will quickly evaporate.

You think the average soldier is going to watch his family go hungry and would prefer to curb stomp libtards for GEOTUS Trump?  Or do you think he will say "fuck it, Emma grab the kids, we are making a run for Cousin Jimmy's farm!"

[atomheartbevo 89648]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

99% of these Billy Badasses would be sitting ducks for even the most average soldier.  At least I hope that would be the case considering the trillions of dollars that have been sunk into the military over the years.

You want to know where those trillions of dollars are being sunk into the military?  It ain't your average PFC carrying a rifle.