that was before tanks and instant communication. the army would have been less organized and maybe you could have a chance against the government, especially as a militia. today you don’t.
you do have a chance against a bunch of fuckwads who threaten you because the party they voted for won and the think they can rape freely now. just not the government.
We have psychos trying to implement a theocratic government and oppressing women and minorities like Afghanistan
The last three wars have been pretty recent, and haven’t not gone well against a foe no where near or equal. Not so much as a pyric victory, but an eventual unwillingness to keep wasting time and money and lives, and we just left. What do you call it when you just leave a war failing all your objectives and handing over territory to the enemy?
what are you talking about? control over your own land is nothing like invading a remote country halfway around the world.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but the biggest difference, and one that actually matters, is that there was a very clear us vs. them defined and easily spotted. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan we were fighting against people that blended in and weren’t being actively turned on by their neighbors. Here, you can bet every dickish Dick that voted red would happily report on the neighbors that they even have an iota of suspicion about resisting the orange cunt.
Actually you are describing how it would not be different at all than these other wars. An insurgency in the us would be particularly hard to pick out. There would be no outward appearance between “us” or “them” we are a very diverse nation after all. Also, in these wars neighbors were turning each other in left and right. It was nearly impossible to determine if it was legitimate, or a personal squabble, or some random in order to get brownie points with the us. People are no different over here.
Besides, i will not entertain the idea that fighting against tyranny is wrong because it would be hard.
