teh gunz Ctrl

[rory_20_uk]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

[Montmorency]

Re: Afhanistan - Let's distinguish between an armed populace resisting its own state, and an armed populace resisting a foreign military & perceived puppet regime.

[Major Robert Dump]

Afghanistan is some of the most rocky and inhospitable terrain there is on the planet. The populace is some of the most irrepressible and hardy peoples on the planet. I doubt Americans - or most other western peoples - would put up with what they do.
The armies of all powers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The population hasn't been rounded up and controlled. The locals are still trusted. Most cases where insurgents have been beaten has involved rounding up the entire populace and concentrating it and throttling the life out of the opposition. Be that the British vs the Boers or the Soviets against Latvians.
The number of soldiers present in Afghanistan in numbers compared to the size of the country is tiny.
The borders are utterly porous with fighters slipping in both directions when beneficial.

There might be several countries willing to help insurgents. However, most would also be rightfully concerned about what happens if the USA government wins. Getting supplies in would be problematic, considering the infrastructure the USA has to monitor borders.

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

[rory_20_uk]

So... the best source of up-to-date weaponry is going to be from the state, operated by those that know how to use them. The biggest check against the state against its own people is its own people. Sounds reasonable to me.

In the Civil War, American soldiers did pillage their own country. The ability to do this is probably closer than you might think.

In this case, the populace doesn't need weapons that have any utility in overthrowing the government, merely ornaments to make them make up for their microphallus, or in some areas actually for hunting.

[Centurion1]

I think you are still ignoring the level of defection and deserters and "civilian acquisitions of military grade weapons" that would occur in the event of some sort of military control of the civilian population.

It already happens in small doses in relation to operations in foreign lands, with whistleblowers and people who refuse an order on the grounds that it is either unlawful or reckless (This happens far more than people think).

While I was not there personally, my unit had a heavy presence at Katrina. New Orelans police drew down on National Guardsmen at one point, when the Guardsmen tried to bust up some Cops Gone Wild action involving wal mart, a pharmacy and some black folks skulls.

We cannot even get the multiple military branches to agree and cooperate on some of the most straighforward joint missions, thinking that they will suddenly come together to rape and pillage their own country is absured, even more absurd when you consider that at any given time, roughly half of the military will not approve of the current administration.

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

[Lemur]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

Absolute hard numbers would be impossible to get, due to privacy laws, but recent studies suggest you're singing from an outdated hymnal.

1. The military, and especially its senior officers, are more Republican and conservative than the country as a whole. But the extent of this is grossly exaggerated, because the media naturally focuses on the attitudes of the officer corps, particularly more senior officers.
2. These differences are almost entirely explainable by the demographic makeup of the military, which is self-selected.
3. As with the rest of the country, the younger cohorts of the military—including its officer corps—are less Republican and less conservative. See, for example, the enormous swings in attitudes on gays in the military over the last 20 years.

[Centurion1]

Absolute hard numbers would be impossible to get, due to privacy laws, but recent studies suggest you're singing from an outdated hymnal.

1. The military, and especially its senior officers, are more Republican and conservative than the country as a whole. But the extent of this is grossly exaggerated, because the media naturally focuses on the attitudes of the officer corps, particularly more senior officers.
2. These differences are almost entirely explainable by the demographic makeup of the military, which is self-selected.
3. As with the rest of the country, the younger cohorts of the military—including its officer corps—are less Republican and less conservative. See, for example, the enormous swings in attitudes on gays in the military over the last 20 years.

Do you read any of your links?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...vance_041110w/

The men are not becoming any less conservative really they are simply less vocal about it. A good thing in my mind anyway.

Just because they are not registering as republicans does not mean they will vote for a republican. Obama's approval rating is around 25% at the moment.

1. Yes this is very true... your second tid bit which is trying to downgrade the point by saying the officer corp gets superior coverage is irrelevant and merely your attempt o start an argument regarding the poor down trodden enlisted man. Polls don't lie and the media has nothing to do with it. Following your logic every branch of the military is misrepresented besides the marine corps because the corps receives an absurd amount of coverage.

2. Not my problem. Maybe if more damnyankees wanted to protect the country the numbers would be different.... but they aren't. That's not anyone's fault besides the largely liberal north and urban population.

3. This it rue and completely unsurprising, however, they are still more likely to be conservative than anything else. Your point on gays is irrelevant. Look at PJ and I. We are both pretty gosh darn conservative and are firmly pro gay marriage, by the time my generation is in control it will be a completely irrelevant issue.

[Lemur]

Do you read any of your links?

Yes. Why?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...vance_041110w/

This is from 2010; the research cited in my link is generally more recent.

The men are not becoming any less conservative really they are simply less vocal about it.

That's not what any of these studies say; rather, there was an abrupt shift away from self-identifying as Republican to self-identifying as independent. Don't know if that holds true two years later.

merely your attempt o start an argument regarding the poor down trodden enlisted man.

I want to respond to this sentence, but it doesn't actually make any sense. The politics of officers and enlisted skew slightly differently; that's an empirical fact. So I'm not quite clear on how me quoting an article that points this out is "starting a fight." Feel free to explain.

Actually, my takeaway from a brief skim of these articles is that if only the military voted, Ron Paul would be President.

[Major Robert Dump]

Probably a bit more in favor of republican administrations if we look at the numbers....

In favor is not the same as blind loyalty

There were plenty of detractors in the Bush military
And the Obama military is not on the verge of a coup

@Rory
The Civil War was 150 years ago. If comparisons to Afghanistan will not hold water, then neither will this.

[rory_20_uk]

People haven't altered in what they are like in the last 150 years. The point was that what was inconceivable in 1840 was undertaken in 1864.

[Ronin]

I´m with Chris Rock on this one...you guys don´t need gun control...you need bullet control.

[Montmorency]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

[Major Robert Dump]

In the Civil War, two states armed their own populaces and set them against each other in conventional military conflict.

Two states armed hordes of poor, uneducated people whose best source of information was weekly newspapers and guys standing on corners shouting