Stalins murdered millions

[Seth]

Seth

Your examples are not appropriate to the discussion.

...in your opinion and only because they blow your silly pacifist argument clean out of the water.

We were talking of a people resisting an oppressive government.

We were talking about an armed citizenry being capable of securing their liberty against tyrannical, murderous despots. Your attempts to goalpost shift are rejected.

Situations where a major third party, like another nation, charges in, do not fit the disucssion.

Because actually discussing situations where a citizenry which has been disarmed by a tyrant has been decimated and murdered wholesale, whereas armed citizens have repeatedly, throughout history, succeeded in putting down tyrants and securing their freedom is inconvenient to your ridiculous thesis.

So France in supporting the American colonists against Britain makes the example inappropriate.

Nope.

Ditto the Pol Pot example.

Nope.

Stick to the subject,

I am, it's you who is trying to evade and dodge the truth by dismissing proof that your pacifist notions are, on occasion, deadly idiocy.

which is an oppressed people resisting an oppressing government. Like Tunisia. Myanmar. India with the Mahatma. Mandela opposing apartheid. Etc.

As I've said many times, diplomacy is a good thing, until it isn't. The success of non-violent resistance to tyranny in some cases does not mean that it has been or will be effective in all cases. Moreover, the discussion here is about whether an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent to the rise of tyranny in the first place and whether it is a necessary solution to tyranny when diplomacy fails. The answers to those questions are unequivocally in the affirmative. But that does not mean, as you consistently falsely imply, that the existence of an armed citizenry faced with tyranny will always resort to force before diplomacy.

In almost every case, to achieve success without paying a massive cost in blood and misery, the resistance is peaceful.

Until it isn't because the despot simply rounds up the dissenters and ships them off to Siberia's Road of Bones or the killing fields of Cambodia.

As soon as people take up guns, the cost rises to include massive human misery and death.

No, not as soon as they "take up guns," but only when they are actually forced into using them because diplomacy has failed and the threat to the citizenry and its members becomes unacceptable and revolution becomes the only security to free the people from murderous tyrants.

You see, possessing a gun is not the same thing at all as operating a gun for it's intended purpose of defending liberty or security. That's why your arguments are ignorant and stupid, because you are either unable to comprehend this fact or are simply ignoring it because it destroys your ideological idiocy.

And the actual fact is that an armed citizenry is absolutely the best deterrent defense against the rise of tyranny that is possible, which is why every tyrant on earth, throughout history has disarmed the citizenry as his first act of tyranny.

Not gonna happen here. What happens to you I could not possibly care less about. Die on your knees pissing and shitting yourself in fear if that's what your pacifist ideology demands, but don't dare to try to impose that on anyone else.

[Blind groper]

Seth

There is no doubt that overwhelming force always wins. That is why the American colonists rising against Britain did not have a dog's show till France intervened. When such overwhelming force is a factor, it matters not a damn how well the citizenry are armed. They are breakfast!

However, when the citizenry are dealing only with their own government, and they rise up with arms, the end result is civil war. The lessons of civil war are apparent in history. Much of sub-Saharan Africa has been suffering from a series of civil wars, and the people suffer, and suffer, and suffer.

Then you see a Nelson Mandela, who effectively opposes using peaceful means. No suffering, and great success. Nor were the people of South Africa armed. Nor were the people of Myanmar. Nor were the people of India under the British Raj.

Guns were not needed. Peaceful means sufficed, and achieved far more than guns ever could, without the suffering.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...as the Afghans did the Soviets, by attrition and unswerving dedication to freedom....

Freedom to practice their barbarous religion and assist in plans to attack NY, a freedom assisted by US support during their conflict with the Soviets...

Well, yes, but that's beside the point. At the time they were under attack by the Soviets and they successfully repelled that invasion using arms in part supplied by the United States. That things turned around politically later is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the need for and efficacy of an armed citizenry to deter or overthrow tyranny.

Very much to the point of BG's OP. They weren't "under attack by the Soviets", they were rebelling against a communist government backed by the Soviets, mostly because they resented their fundamentalist culture being modernised (sure, the government of the day had major faults and was fairly dictatorial). Armed uprisings may appear heroic, but they can often lead to unintended and dangerous consequences down the track. If the Afghans had put up with rule by their soviet-backed government for a few years (and most of the Afghan deaths involved a Russian response to attacks by the muhajedeen, rather than atrocities out of the blue), the collapse of the Soviet Union would have possibly lead to a withdrawal of Russian troops, and a transition to be more normal civilian government without the ferocious fundamentalism of the Taliban...

[Seth]

Seth

There is no doubt that overwhelming force always wins.

Which explains Vietnam and Afghanistan how, exactly?

That is why the American colonists rising against Britain did not have a dog's show till France intervened.

Primarily France provided gunpowder, along with uniforms, boots and other equipment along with naval support. French military ground forces were indeed critical to success at places like Yorktown, but in reality France's participation in our Revolutionary War was intended to harass and distract England and obtain revenge for the French and Indian War and the losses in Canada to the Brits. At the same time the Revolution was going on France was at war with England in Europe, known as the Seven Years War, and France took advantage of the North American theater to weaken Brit forces by dividing them.

But the French hardly provided "overwhelming force" all by themselves, it was the coalition of French and American forces that won the war.

Not that any of this supports your silly thesis. It merely proves that arms superiority is an important part of winning any war.

When such overwhelming force is a factor, it matters not a damn how well the citizenry are armed. They are breakfast!

Even if true, so the hell what? If they choose to be "breakfast" that is of course their sovereign right. The argument that because an armed citizenry will always be defeated (which is false) does not support the notion of disarming the citizenry. All that does is ensure the longevity of tyrann

y.

However, when the citizenry are dealing only with their own government, and they rise up with arms, the end result is civil war.

Maybe. Maybe it's limited to killing the despot and seeing the military abandon its loyalty to the now-dead tyrant and come over to the side of the people. But if civil war is what it takes, because diplomacy has failed, then civil war is what it takes and those who engage in civil war in order to secure the liberty of all citizens need weapons with which to do so, and an armed citizenry is very difficult for any despot to overcome with a standing army because any standing army comprises only a fraction of the people of the nation and the citizenry, who are armed, always grossly outnumber the standing army and therefor have the force advantage...if they choose to exercise it. An unarmed citizenry however, has no chance at all, which is why despots and tyrants disarm the citizenry as the first order of business when taking power.

The lessons of civil war are apparent in history. Much of sub-Saharan Africa has been suffering from a series of civil wars, and the people suffer, and suffer, and suffer.

Primarily because THE PEOPLE are unarmed. Give every Hutu an AK and the Tutsis would not have been able to slaughter them with machetes. More guns, less tyranny.

Then you see a Nelson Mandela, who effectively opposes using peaceful means. No suffering, and great success. Nor were the people of South Africa armed. Nor were the people of Myanmar. Nor were the people of India under the British Raj.

Which is why they suffered under despotism for decades upon decades when an armed citizenry (for example in India) would not have allowed the British to take power in the first place, thereby avoiding all that suffering for decades.

Guns were not needed.

Sometimes they aren't, sometimes they are. Since it is impossible to predict when they are and when they aren't, it's prudent for the citizenry of any nation to be universally and perpetually armed, as the Swiss recognize, so that when guns are needed, they are available.

Peaceful means sufficed, and achieved far more than guns ever could, without the suffering.

Except of course for those 100 million victims of despotism that you simply ignore and dismiss in your evil and reprehensible attempt to whitewash and support tyranny and genocide.

Here's an illustrative suggestion: How do you think YOU would have fared in California when the Islamic killers kicked open the doors and started shooting? Here's my take:

"Please don't shoot, let us reason togethe.....urk!"

Shooting people is never necessary until it is, and when it is there's no time to go and get a gun. If you don't have it right there, right then, you die and your assailant does not.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...as the Afghans did the Soviets, by attrition and unswerving dedication to freedom....

Freedom to practice their barbarous religion and assist in plans to attack NY, a freedom assisted by US support during their conflict with the Soviets...

Well, yes, but that's beside the point. At the time they were under attack by the Soviets and they successfully repelled that invasion using arms in part supplied by the United States. That things turned around politically later is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the need for and efficacy of an armed citizenry to deter or overthrow tyranny.

Very much to the point of BG's OP. They weren't "under attack by the Soviets", they were rebelling against a communist government backed by the Soviets,

Revisionist horseshit. The Mujhadeen were fighting against Soviet troops, helicopters, tanks and everything else, including explosives disguised as toys intended to maim and kill curious children who were sent there by the Soviet Union. The puppet government had next to nothing to do with the military actions in Afghanistan.

mostly because they resented their fundamentalist culture being modernised (sure, the government of the day had major faults and was fairly dictatorial). Armed uprisings may appear heroic, but they can often lead to unintended and dangerous consequences down the track. If the Afghans had put up with rule by their soviet-backed government for a few years (and most of the Afghan deaths involved a Russian response to attacks by the muhajedeen, rather than atrocities out of the blue), the collapse of the Soviet Union would have possibly lead to a withdrawal of Russian troops, and a transition to be more normal civilian government without the ferocious fundamentalism of the Taliban...

Your's is the Chamberlainesque attitude of the rapist-supporter who says "you might as well lay back and enjoy it." The truth is there was no way of predicting what Osama bin Laden would do after the Soviets were driven out because at the time he was an ally who asked for American help. That he later took umbrage at the US having soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia (he was a Saudi) and became a fundamentalist enemy of America is not relevant to the issue because we certainly did not know he was going to turn on the US when we were helping him defeat the Soviets. You see, unlike the Soviets, we did not invade Afghanistan and garrison it with American troops intent on making it a satellite state, we provided materials and training and some advisers but left the Afghans to rule themselves, only participating in their politics when specifically asked to do so by the leaders of Afghanistan who were elected by the people of Afghanistan.

We did not commit troops to Afghanistan until Bin Laden attacked us and took refuge there and the Taliban overthrew (largely) the legitimate government of Afghanistan, which asked us to help put down the Taliban and restore order and democracy, which we did to the best of our ability. And when that effort ended, we removed our troops, we did not seek to colonize Afghanistan as the Soviets did.

Speculating about what might have happened is a fruitless waste of time when it comes to the benefits of an armed citizenry being able to resist tyranny. The reason the Taliban came to power is precisely because those who did not want the Taliban were unarmed and unable to fight them off.

[rainbow]

The Soviets did not colonise Afghanistan. They sent in their troops to prop up their puppet regime.
The only difference is that the US invaded first and then set up their puppet regime.

Same thing really.

[JimC]

The Soviets did not colonise Afghanistan. They sent in their troops to prop up their puppet regime.
The only difference is that the US invaded first and then set up their puppet regime.

Same thing really.

And the Soviet's puppet regime wanted to build schools that girls could go to as well, give freedom to women, and stop rule via a fundamentalist theocracy...

Disgraceful!

[Seth]

The Soviets did not colonise Afghanistan.

They sure as hell tried and had every intention of doing so.

They sent in their troops to prop up their puppet regime.

And that's not a prelude to colonization how, exactly?

The only difference is that the US invaded first and then set up their puppet regime.

Same thing really.

Except we didn't set up a puppet regime, we facilitated democratic elections and then we left them to govern themselves, and when they couldn't control the fractious Taliban, who were harboring Osama, they asked us for help again, which we provided, and then left again.

[Jason]

The Soviets did not colonise Afghanistan. They sent in their troops to prop up their puppet regime.
The only difference is that the US invaded first and then set up their puppet regime.

Same thing really.

Yup.

[rainbow]

Except we didn't set up a puppet regime, we facilitated democratic elections and then we left them to govern themselves...

Your naïveté is so touching.

[Seth]

Except we didn't set up a puppet regime, we facilitated democratic elections and then we left them to govern themselves...

Your naïveté is so touching.

Your mendacious stupidity is alarming.

[Blind groper]

The whole military adventure by the USA in Afghanistan is and was idiotic.

Certainly, Dubya was under strong pressure to "do something" after 9/11. But that does not necessarily mean going to war. There are and were many alternatives. However, idiocy prevailed, and the USA has spent billions of dollars, and thousands of human lives pursuing something that both Britain and the Soviet Union had already proved was not worth pursuing.

The war is now 15 years going, and shows no sign of letting up. Duh!

[Seth]

The whole military adventure by the USA in Afghanistan is and was idiotic.

I couldn't agree more. We should have never agreed to take out the Taliban, we should have simply covertly tracked down Osama and dropped a daisy-cutter on any place he was reported to be from 30,000 feet and never put troops in there.

Certainly, Dubya was under strong pressure to "do something" after 9/11. But that does not necessarily mean going to war.

Yes it does, but the problem is that no national leader since Alexander the Great has known how to go to war. When you go to war you unleash the dogs of war and tell them to destroy the enemy utterly, and as quickly and efficiently as possible with a minimum of casualties to themselves and you give them any weapon or tool they need to do so. You destroy the enemy's troops, infrastructure, supply lines, dams, power stations, sewer plants, water plants and anything else the enemy can use. You bring them to their knees so they surrender and then you tell them they'd better behave or you'll bomb them right back into the stone age again and again and again, as many times as it takes, without mercy or quarter.

And you most certainly do NOT spend your own treasure rebuilding them or trying to install any sort of government at all. You go home and watch them carefully for signs of aggression, and if you see even one, you go in and do it all over again.

There are and were many alternatives.

Indeed, like the one I relate above.

However, idiocy prevailed, and the USA has spent billions of dollars, and thousands of human lives pursuing something that both Britain and the Soviet Union had already proved was not worth pursuing.

Absolutely true.

The war is now 15 years going, and shows no sign of letting up. Duh!

Well, not exactly. We're pretty much out of Afghanistan with our combat troops, which is a good thing. Now we need to blow up every bit of infrastructure we've ever built for them, every US vehicle or piece of equipment, all of THEIR vehicles and infrastructure and then leave and let them rebuild their mud huts by hand.

Fuck the Afghans, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians and every other squalid, barbaric third-world Muslim shithole on earth. We don't need anything from barbarians living in mud huts who can't even maintain peace among themselves.

[Blind groper]

Gee, Seth, you are all heart!

Also wrong, since making a defeated enemy hate you is a sure and certain way to guarantee future atrocities against you.

Why do you think Muslims hate the west so much? Why do you think young men and women are willing to blow themselves up with a suicide bomb just to take a few westerners with them? Look at history!

[Seth]

Gee, Seth, you are all heart!

Also wrong, since making a defeated enemy hate you is a sure and certain way to guarantee future atrocities against you.

I don't give a fuck if they hate us just so long as they fear us enough to internalize that hate and mind their manners, or get blown right back to hell. When and if they decide to act like civilized persons and get along with everyone else, then maybe, after five generations or so of good behavior we can open their cage and let them poke their heads out into civilization. Not before all the current hate-mongering wannabe tyrants are long dead however.

Why do you think Muslims hate the west so much? Why do you think young men and women are willing to blow themselves up with a suicide bomb just to take a few westerners with them? Look at history!

Because they are fucking ignorant barbarians who believe they have a right to rule the world, that's why, and for no other reason. We'll do them a favor and save them the Semtex and blow them up ourselves. I'm fine with that.