China represents a billion people. Tibet represents a few million. Surely you’re not suggesting that has no bearing. But if the billion citizens of China stood up against their own government that presents an entirely different dynamic. It’s also a different dynamic if half the citizens of China rise up against the other half. that’s an evenly matched civil war.
If we’re still discussing the Taliban you’ll have to explain how billions of dollars and an overwhelmingly superior force have accomplished very little in 10 years.
No, you have to explain how the Taliban managed to maintain control over an armed populace with relatively little outside support. You keep trying to dodge the question.
Also, how about answering my other questions rather than ignoring them.
Magiver, just to go back a few steps, this is the specific statement I and I think others are taking issue with. This is patently false. There are many examples of countries putting down armed rebellions by their own citizens. Two are the Confederacy and the Taliban maintaining control in Afghanistan until the invasion that drove them out of power.
That armed rebellions have sometimes succeeded does not make it true that there’s “virtually no way a country could stop its own armed citizens.” There are plenty of examples of successful and unsuccessful armed rebellions.
So, take the situation in Syria. Is it guaranteed then that the rebels will win? That the dictator’s situation is hopeless?
Rebellions happen in some countries. Sometimes the rebellions succeed, either in toppling the government, or achieving independence from the government, or negotiating more favorable terms from the government. But rebellions often fail, in fact they usually fail. If rebellions always succeeded then there would be no such thing as governments.
I posed the original thought. You can answer my question on not. I’m not plussed either way. Obviously you think the United States Government capable of overriding it’s own citizens when it can’t deal with an almost non-existent force in Afghanistan or for that matter it’s “war on drugs”.
We differ on opinion and while I can’t imagine something like this coming to pass I never thought anything like 911 was possible. The power of government, any government, is an illusion.
I take it from your reply that you are unable to substantiate it in any factual way. Fine.
Right back at yah.
If you think the US government could stop it’s own people then it should easily be able to deal with situation in Afghanistan.
I would say yes if the country as a whole wishes it. Absolutely. Egypt is an example of a country we gave billions and billions to and that was not enough to support the government. The same can be said of many South American countries.
Totally different situations. Afghanistan isn’t worth all that much to the US. Vietnam also had no intrinsic value to the US. Afghanistan wasn’t worth anything much to Russia either. And we’re compelled to work with the existing Afghan government, which limits what can be done.
But it’s really not worth arguing with you. As I said, you’ve failed to substantiate your statement. It’s your own personal opinion, and not based on any actual facts.
It’s not totally different situations. I’ve given multiple examples of how people can rise up against their own country. When it’s unified then the government will fall. And while I can’t give a precise percentage of the populace required to make that happen it is safe to say it’s not 100% but that a reasonable majority is required. You can see it over and over again in history.
You can destroy a people but you cannot rule them against their will if they chose to rise up. You are the one who has failed in your statement.
And then you’ve backed off and said that it doesn’t apply to the American Civil War, because those were governments fighting, nor to China and Tibet, because the population difference is too large.
You aren’t exactly moving the goalposts, but you are approaching “True Scotsman” territory; every time we point to an exception, you introduce a new rule that spares it from being a counterexample.
clearly the civil war is half the country versus the other half and doesn’t apply to what we’re discussing. Clearly China and Tibet are not the same scenario of what we’re discussing.
The op talks about the possibility of a government enacting martial law which would then invalidate all other laws. It is not comparable to china/Tibet or a civil war.
The op posed a question about marshal law and that’s what I addressed. It can’t happen if the general populace rises up. I gave examples such as the Arab Spring starting that are the closest real world examples relative to this thread. Regardless of US money spent on Egypt the government fell.
Can’t agree with this. There are too many ways for tyranny to exert control. They isolate regions, attract collaborators, perform vengeance and retribution, etc. All the favorites in Hell’s own nine-volume playbook. A big uprising simply gives them targets for their big guns; a small uprising brings out the Gestapo.
Historically, partisan groups like Tito’s or the Mujeheddin can work, only when an outside force is supporting them, shipping them arms. That’s why I mentioned Stinger missiles when you mentioned Afghanistan. I don’t think North Vietnam would have been very successful against the U.S. had not the USSR been sending them equipment. Those SAMs don’t grow on trees.
I would agree that a full-scale, total, general uprising can ruin a country. It could turn any country, even the U.S., into Sudan or Zimbabwe. It doesn’t take that much effort to knock out the electricity, water, oil, and food. But when the very last can of spam is eaten, it will be eaten by one of the tyrant’s storm-troopers, not by a freedom fighter.
(FWIW, I do not propose to defend my theories empirically!) :eek:
I’m not disagreeing with this. There is certainly examples of brute force used against a conquered national spirit.
realistically, any country can succumb to a death of a thousand cuts. we’re having what we took for granted as freedoms whittled down over time. When I was a child the idea of regular road blocks to look for drunks didn’t exist. The concept of imminent domain was limited to direct public use of land. We weren’t strip searched when getting on an airplane. Ordering a large soda wasn’t a crime. These are small cuts and somebody could probably write a book on them. And they’re not necessarily constitutional cuts, but intrusions into our lives not mandated but not illegal.
I’m not so sure the storm-trooper will be eating the last can of spam. If you drill down to the lowest level of soldier in a war you will find the meek are often the stuff that legends are made from. Before they were soldiers they were the the average guy eeking out a living. And Spam is worth fighting for.
Sure, you can resist like the Afghanis. And in the end, you may get your freedom - the freedom to live in a blasted wasteland ruled by bloodthirsty tribes, just like Afghanistan. The reason the Afghanis are so good at rebelling is that they have nothing left to lose.
Did you live in fantasyland as a child, too, or only as an adult? :dubious:
The fate of the Confederacy proves that this is absolutely not true. Making the excuse that it was “two governments fighting” is absurd, and demonstrates that you can’t defend your statement factually.
Hm? I thought those were correct and accurate. I don’t think they’re relevant; I don’t find them convincing. For every new regulation, there are a dozen old ones that have gone away. When we were kids, gay sex was illegal in several states. Overall, we’ve made progress.
But, really, he’s right. When I was a kid, I could ride a bicycle without having to wear a helmet. There are regulations enforced today that weren’t in the past, and it is not entirely invalid for people to consider this a bad thing. I disagree very strongly with them, but I won’t just sneer them down as if they were delusional.
the civil war is a division roughly down the middle. It literally pitted half the country against the other until the destruction was so great one side caved.
How is this even remotely comparable to a popular uprising against a government?