| From: | IronRaven cyberraven@********.net |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Value and so on.... |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:24:13 -0400 |
>The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
By who's definition?
BTW, if you read the documents of the time, the Founding Fathers accepted
that freedom and safety are (a) only capitalised at the start of a sentance
or in a title, and (b) not the same thing. Not by a long shot. One is
part of the human soul, the other is somethign you make for yourself.
>individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
>whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
OK, so how do they get funded if they aren't political? How do they get
organized, if they aren't politcal? How do they define threats if they
arn't political?
Human beings (gag, puke) are political animals.
>weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
>name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?
Initally, or at the end. If the later, can't think of a one. If the
former, can't think of any that were not military coups that had access to
the systems you discuss, but a lot of them were successful none the less.
The real key is getting outside support, and hanging on until you do.
When the Castro brothers and Che Guavera hit Cuba, they only had a handful
of guys with rifles and a few pistols. Guavera is held as a folk hero by
mcu of South and Cetnral America, and even though he is was a little commie
****, he is still one of the patron saints of guerilla warfare. As for the
Castros, thier only oops were mismanagement and bad PR.
>houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
>groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
You obviously don't know about guerillas, or how to successfully hunt them
out. First off, hurting civvies only gets a few guerillas to step forward,
while it creates more of them. That is what the Russians did in both
Afganistan and Chechnia.
Second off, as a guerilla, you usually know that the shit is about to hit
the fan, and have time to scatter, so the guerillas aren't hunting at home
and/or they've disperssed thier families before they take the field. Even
if you don't, what you are describing doesn't work as well as a lot of
folks (including politians with stars on thier collars) might think.
Witness the Kwuati resistance to the Iraqis- they were saying right up
until the shells started landing that the Iraqis would not go south, and
they believed it. But those guerillas held out and started gathering
intelligence, supplies and personnel weeks before anyone of the outside
started backing them with something more real-world than "well, done, keep
up the good fight" on shortwave.
The Afganis had been disarmed by the political leadership, and their
military effectively nuetralized within 72 hours back in '79. And it took
about a day after that before the first Russian paratrooper was found with
his thoat cut and his equipment missing. They started with horses, a
handful of weapons that had been smuggled or hidden (think street-gang type
stuff, but in worse shape and further behind the tech curve), and lot of
bad attitude, and conducted a successful, low-level, harrasment-based
resistance for two years before Regan ordered the supplies to flow. They
weren't getting diddly squat from anyone before 1981, except some dead
Russians.
>for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
>much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.
Research resistance. If the "people" are pissed, the guerillas get
support. The guerillas get support, their odds improve. Unless you, as an
invading country, can win over the people (you can't crush the human
spirit), the gurrillas will win. It may be sixty years- that is how long
it took Vietnam. The Irish guerillas have been working at for a hundred
years, and unless the news has changed in 12 hours, they will keep right on
working. But it will happen.
A lot of folks think that a successful guerilla uprising results in tanks
packed with sweaty jungle or desert fighters waving rifles and flags,
rolling towards the airport to stop the government from flying away with
the national treasury as the Americans and Brits chopper thier people of in
panic. Sometimes it does, and I imagine it feels damn good win that way.
But loosing a guerilla war is usually more like dieing from a thousand
paper cuts rather than being decapitated. Best way to win one is what the
IRA are doing now- using political means wherever you can. Fewer people
get hurt, it doesn't break as much key resources (like hospitals, schools
and cropland), and everyone can tell thier constituants that they are
winners.
CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
