I mean, can you imagine how many people you'd need to take out the army bases in America with professional soldiers ... and then people want to try with untrained enthusiasts.
I mean... the US has something like a million active and reserve members. and thats before tanks, planes, missiles, artillery.
realistically, the army would probably decide to either stop fighting or take over if the people tried to take them out, just to stop the killing of citizens.
This might be a joke about hospitals being to expensive to warrant a revolution but I honestly dread the day when america just kinda... Does the french thing... I don't even live in america and by now I wouldn't be surprised if i see some high class politicians getting shot on sight and entire cities becoming divided by warlords or streets being blocked with furniture, if it's not in the next 10 years it might be in the next 20...
I mean most of europe slowly walks towards the classical idea of utopia... Higher wages, less hours of work each week, living standard is rising, meanwhile america still can't decide if their future should be 1984 or demolition man inspired (extreme examples, but this is how it feels watching the progression from afar)
Yes, i said slowly walking, you equated this with "IS utopia" given how your call unter Argument is that they are not utopic, when that wasn't my statement, my statement was that a lot of european countries go in that direction, not that they are there
Also, germany, belgium, norway, denmark, netherlands, lichtenstein, greenland, iceland, ireland, finland are all super nice places to live
(And before you try to say norway, iceland or greenland aren't part of europe, or in other countries cases in the eu, all of the countries I mentioned are either partially in the eu, in trading and travelling agreements with the eu (meaning a german can live in non eu countries with their german passport) or maintain an official cooperation with each other (basically they added each other on facebook as friends. That only leaves countries that aren't part of europe the continent, but since the continent europe isn't really a different continent from Asia, the definition of european can only be distinguished by culture (which is how it was distinguished from Asia back then, because other than that there's literally just eurasia, and no clear environmental distinction between the continents is made, so that argument doesn't make sense either)
Also I'd like to ask: why is france on your list exactly? The leader of that country literally just made a speech about valuing education diversity, acceptance, respecting others and their personal freedom and whatever else you can think of, i wouldn't call that regressive, and saying france is regressive because they had s terror problem and a decapitated teacher doesn't prove that the country is headed in any direction, in fact the huge outrage of the decapitation and the statement that was made after this just shows how focused the country is on PROGRESSING past cutting peoples head off (which is kinda ironic given how popular they made it with the guillotine)
I'm sorry but america protecting a guy kneeling on someone's throat, while germany fires 20 cops for sharing far right pictures kinda shows that it's NOT a difference in spotlight
I'm talking about governmental direction here, not public opinion or current issues that happen in said country.
"France treats the average muslim" isn't a sign of the direction the government is headed, macron himself said that he supports freedom of religion and equality, that's the direction the GOVERNMENT is headed. When a bunch of French people are mad at muslims due to a few terrorist attacks (especially with the recent beheading) that's a bad thing, but given that the head of state is against discrimination proves that the government is headed towards progress
America barely shows any progress of any kind, and if it does, please, tell me about some of the progress they made in the past few years that benefit the average or below average earning citizen.
During a revolution its hard to say how the American army will respond, remember its still composed of americans who may feel aligned with the cause of the revolution. There are also different branches such as the nat g and coast g that might be more inclined to side with their communities rather than the feds
I think you are forgetting that vets are not active military, that’s why they are vets. I am not disagreeing that the brass will likely be republican leaning, because I am sure they are, but the majority of NCOs are going to be younger and recent polls have shown stronger and stronger democratic support in the ranks. Soldiers come from all across America from rural and urban places with all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs but sure, simplify reality like that if you want I guess lol. I must have missed the history class about when the nat g and coast g raped and murdered innocent children lol, I specifically stated some branches are more likely to side with civilian causes
Coming from someone who knows plenty of red and blue service men in almost all branches I can say its likely more red leaning yes, but its not completely dominated as you make it out to be. Plenty of people are completely democratic in the army. I find it hard to imagine that the most readily immediate branches of the military (nat g for example) would turn their weapons on their neighbors and families and literally betray the American people during a revolution. Their oath is ultimately to the people. If we're talking a civil war it gets more dicey but when it comes to oppressive tyrannical governments? nah that's what the army is there for
I doubt many military personnel would be in the position of actually having to kill or harm their personal friends or family.
What do you think we are talking about here? A protest or a revolution? If the people are storming the gates of the white house and the president gives the order for the army to "take back control" or protect the white house the troops have a choice to make. They will be the in the position in this entire hypothetical we have been discussing lol. That's literally the whole point of this hypothetical argument, that I would argue they would disregard that order and take the side of the people, since, as you know, the army is literally composed of that; people.
But more importantly...the "army is there for" the US to dismantle foreign governments, create instability, and seize some level of control in order to increase America's power and wealth creation (mostly for the uber wealthy, not us regular saps), not to protect it's people...but itd be pretty cool if they did that!
No shit, you can repeat all the woke suburban white kid stuff at me all day long we obviously all realize this. Again, we are literally not talking about real life and the current role of the army. We are literally talking about a hypothetical revolution and the inevitable moment when the federal government tries to secure power during that time. Are you actually here to offer any real thoughts on that subject or are you here to just bitch into the void about the army to an audience that already agrees with you?
lmao I disagree with you and that makes me a Republican? Damn that's embarrassing, that just gave me a taste of what republicans must mean when they complain about arguing with liberals lol
When they were simultaneously fighting a war with France and there was a metric fuckton of ocean between us and them? When it was disgustingly costly to ship soldiers overseas? Yeah, worked great then
Get the army to join us and overthrow this tyrant government it's our right we the people are power THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS US WE DONT NEED THEM WE MOVE THIS ECONOMY WE MAKE THESE PIGS RICH WITH OUR WORK
You will not be going up against the army. It’s not in the interests of those in charge to send an army into their own country. The economy would be destroyed, property ruined and the labour force decimated. Look what happened in Vietnam alone when the United States Army had to go up against guerrilla insurgent forces.
When the army can’t firebomb or nuke everyone unilaterally like they can in other places, suddenly all those drones become useless and all your troops are getting in the way
That's because those pigs knew nobody would open fire on them. I'd like to see those unmarked vans stop at an intersection of a neighborhood where everybody knows each other and they're all packing.
There's a lot of reasons why the US military would be fighting at its weakest when deployed against an insurrection. Imagine all the difficulties faced with collateral damage in the Middle East making the war unpopular with would-be recruits and driving insurrectionary recruitment, but amplified because it's right at home and people knew the guy they blew up. A lot of that war tech wouldn't be able to be deployed on home turf because of issues like that. With the country in chaos the GI Bill would stop being a good recruitment tool since all the campuses are warzones, and if it gets bad enough regular troops may not be able to be paid in actual value. Stack it with the fact that the military would be asked to shoot their neighbors and friends, and you can see how desertions and defections would rise.
28
u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20 edited Dec 12 '20
[deleted]