Hi Y'all! Kinda new 'round these parts....

Well...not quite. 50 million men with assault rifles could do a hell of a lot in an urban environment. If the government wants to put down a revolution and keep control afterward, they can't very well be killing random civilians when they do so, lest more citizens are mobilized against them. Also, you can't fight a war with just smart bombs and other super-advanced technology. That stuff is important, but, as General Patton said, "It all comes down to a bastard with a rifle, who has to go into the other guy's foxhole and shoot him." While that's a slight misquote (I can't find the book I got it from) it's absolutely true. I have a rather intimate knowledge of the military, with a Captain for a brother-in-law, and a brother in the Special Forces. They tell me that all other branches of the Armed Forces exist to support the infantry. Look at any battle, and you'll find it to be true. Sure, smart bombs dropped from manned and unmanned aircraft played a big part in the Iraqi war, but who's over there right now keeping the peace? The infantry.
Okay, so I lost my train of thought. Another factor is that in a revolution, it's very likely that a large number of military officers would be on the revolting side. Almost every major revolution involved defecting military forces.

Salvatore Rosselli's label was American Apparrel, in Lodi, New Jersey. A man who owned a factory next door (I can't remember the name) bought him out when he retired.

 

But if the military defected (which they would not do in the US), we wouldn't need an armed populace. We'd just have a plain old coup. Personally, I'd rather deal with the small scale corruption we have and have revolutions the American way, you know, elections, than have any kind of violence in the streets of Everywhere, USA.

EDIT: and it wouldn't be urban combat. Most militia-supporting folk live in rural or suburban areas in the US.

 

Do you know any military personnel? Most people who volunteer are Conservative Republicans, and volunteered so they could have a chance to kill Muslims and Socialists. Okay, so that's a massivley general statement, but you will find most soldiers to be conservative. Therefore, if the government turned completely socialist or totalitarian, they most likely would strike a coup. What good four-star wouldn't want to kill the REMFs and take over himself?
Yeah, your right, I obviously didn't think that out completely. It would probably be mostly rural engagements, and there the military would have a definite advantage.

Another thought about socialism: There are striking similaraties between the way that Socialist Sweden (and other countries) keeps her populace happy, and the way the Roman Empire did the same. The socialist take most of your money in taxes and give it back as health care, welfare, and other benefits. Sounds alot like bread and circuses to me. If the government is keeping the people happy, they won't even notice when their freedom is gone. Sadly, that's the way this great country is going. Just something for you to think about, Dark Elf.

 

Reality check, Sigurd! Most people are NOT happy with the way the country is being run and people DO see that their freedoms are being taken away. Sure, the propaganda machines are running at a good clip and many are taken in by it but most people have the clarity of mind to know what's going on; it's that the powermongers have such a hoard that they get to call all the important shots. Don't make the mistake of deluding yourself into thinking that you are unique in seeing what's REALLY going on. Please.

By the way, what were you THINKING by trying to endow the Roman empire with socialistic principles?? Read up on your Roman history if that's what's lacking. Read up on socialism if you don't know what the hell that is ("The socialist take most of your money in taxes," HA!). I suggest you read up on both and edit your post(s) afterwards to make it look like you actually know what you are talking about so that all the wisdom-seekers who make the pilgrimage to this board won't be confounded by the sheer idiocy of your above statement. There is an old adage that I feel is apt for this situation and it's something that you might want to heed as it could hold you over later in life: "It's better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

 

I think you are just pissed at me because I commented on how stupid your "American Slaves" post was (which you still haven't explained). I never said that I was the only person who realized that my freedom is being taken away. But I'm not part of the majority. Most of the people I know and talk to know nothing and care even less about politics. They say, "Well, I have money in my pocket, a roof over my head, and food on the table, so why do I give a fuck about what the government is doing? Politics don't affect me, anyway." I've heard that sentance almost verbatim from countless people.

Yeah, the comparison between Roman Imperialism and Socialism was a writing mistake. What I meant to say was that the way the two systems keep the populace happy is strikingly similar. Nothing more. Obviously the systems in and of themselves are quite different. Don't talk to me about checking up on my Roman history. That's one of my fortes. I was talking about the Swedish government with the taxes bit. They do take something like 40% of your taxes and use it for social programs. Dark Elf, please correct me there. So there you go. If you still can't see the parrallels, then I don't know what to tell you. Good quote from Proverbs, by the way.

I'll edit the mistakes in my earlier posts, just to make you happy and clear the records of such a glaring error.