US Gun Laws

[Asher]

Only because it's incredibly lightweight.

Fascinating how such a "lightweight" country has demonstrably had more balls in fighting the forces of evil in the world...

The US was cowardly in both World Wars, trying not to get involved until the enemy was weakened.

[Egbert]

Late for the first one and waited to get bombed before joining the second.

[Hauldren Collider]

Fascinating how such a "lightweight" country has demonstrably had more balls in fighting the forces of evil in the world...

The US was cowardly in both World Wars, trying not to get involved until the enemy was weakened.

Liar, Japan was full force when we send those pagans back to the stone age

[Asher]

Liar, Japan was full force when we send those pagans back to the stone age

Japan was nothing.

They were "full force" because they were almost as cowardly as the US. They at least had the balls to attack first, which is more than we can say for America.

[Hauldren Collider]

[Egbert]

Japan had already been fighting for years. Years of fighting is not conducive to "full force".

[giblets]

Fascinating how such a "lightweight" country has demonstrably had more balls in fighting the forces of evil in the world...

The US was cowardly in both World Wars, trying not to get involved until the enemy was weakened.

When Americans try to stay out they get called cowards. When they are proactive, people whine about how the US is messing with the rest of the world.

[Cort Haus]

The WW2 scenario cannot be compared with the various conflicts since.

[Hauldren Collider]

The WW2 scenario cannot be compared with the various conflicts since.

Says the person whose country's ass was saved by American generosity.

[giblets]

Says the person whose country's ass was saved by American generosity.

Personally I don't think Nazi Germany could have conquered Britain.

[Hauldren Collider]

Personally I don't think Nazi Germany could have conquered Britain.

Except for that whole thing about supplying their army...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

And it's debatable. If they hadn't attacked Russia, they might have been able to win. It's impossible to know for sure of course.

[Docfeelgood]

Fascinating how such a "lightweight" country has demonstrably had more balls in fighting the forces of evil in the world...

The US was cowardly in both World Wars, trying not to get involved until the enemy was weakened.

lol

[notyoueither]

Liar, Japan was full force when we send those pagans back to the stone age

Japan was a thouroughly defeated nation that did not possess the fuel to see the mail delivered, let alone to send a fleet to sea.

The military of Japan was no more threat to the US when the bombs were dropped than a fly with no wings is to you.

The only thing the dropping of the bombs accomplished, arguably, is the hastier collapse of the government and the more rapid advent of peace which may have resulted in less loss of lives among the Japanese.

Whatever the case, using ulmimate force against a helpless opponent is less bad ass than beating your wife.

[Docfeelgood]

Japan was a thouroughly defeated nation that did not possess the fuel to see the mail delivered, let alone to send a fleet to sea.

The military of Japan was no more threat to the US when the bombs were dropped than a fly with no wings is to you.

The only thing the dropping of the bombs accomplished, arguably, is the hastier collapse of the government and the more rapid advent of peace which may have resulted in less loss of lives among the Japanese.

Whatever the case, using ulmimate force against a helpless opponent is less bad ass than beating your wife.

IMHO
Saved more lives than killed.

I would not go so far as to say helpless.
They were tenacious because of the bushido code of honor.


BTW
DYK?
Roddenberry was inspired by the Japs as the model for the Klingon in the Star Trek universe.

[notyoueither]

If there's a conflict among established authorities, there are modern armaments and trained soldiers on either side. Not a pertinent example.

Sure is.

Take your peasants revolt for example. You like to call it your war of independence.

There were established authorities on both sides. In England were Parliament and the King. In the colonies there were local assemblies. Only one side had a professional military when things started. Both sides had one when it ended. In that middle part there were men of conviction and courage, some of whom had training, to protect and guide your pissant peasants in a successful revolt against the most successful imperial power and military organisation of the age, with a little help from some friends.

The real point of the Russian example though, is that is not always possible to predict which way a military will go when they are called upon to combat their own people. There are cases of the military being called out against little more than mobs then doing an about face and ousting the regime that sent them into the streets.

Running over unarmed, peaceful protesters with tanks? No, that's not comparable to putting down a revolt either. Satyagraha is a real *****, and I recommend rebels try it before hijacking tankers and looting hardware stores. It's harder to paint yourself as a victim when you're torching the houses of "collaborators" and doing other revolutionary-type stuff.

You are drowning in the fallacy of what you would do. No true Scotsman, etc, etc. You are a really bad critic. You simply fail at it.

You do not live in these places where people have felt desperate enough to challenge authority backed by armed might. You, and I, might wish things to go a certain way, but who the hell are we to judge what is appropriate and what is not when living a year or forty in their lives? Forget about Felch and his trolling. If you want to discuss that, address him.

While I don't know a lot of WWII history, I've been given to understand that

1. The Nazis were a foreign occupation.
2. The Nazis were busy fighting a bajillion-front war at the time.
3. Le Resistence did not actually, itself, liberate France or any portion thereof. That would be the massive invasion by U.S. forces. Using lots and lots of heavy equipment. The resistance were just an ongoing pain in Hitler's ass. No?

1. Yes, although there were stirrings against the regime within the German military and some went so far as to explode a bomb to try to take the madman out. Again, you have to take into account the aversion to the tasks you ask the professional military to undertake. Some of them may react violently all on their own. Others may just need an excuse or a pretext to turn on you, mein Furher.
2. The Nazis had hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of men available to occupy and keep conquests passive. They had the manpower and in places had no problem laying waste to entire villages where partisans were active. That is how effective a ruthless, scorched-earth military is even when occupying foreigners. Not at all. In fact, the worse the military lays into the local population the worse the revolt will get, by and large. Tear a page from the British handbook. You win an insurgency with bathtubs and washing machines, not bullets and bayonets (something about Malaysia that I read somewhere). Again, this is by and large. there is also the example of the British in South Africa where brutal means did prevail at the cost of adding the term 'concentration camp' to the English language.
3. To free ones own nation from a ruthless, determined and technically advanced state adversary, one whose leadership makes Cornwallis look like a child Gandhi, by force of arms would be a nearly singular accomplishment. It does not happen while the oppressor has the will and the wherewithall to keep the foot on the throat. Still, I'll refer you to Tito and Yugoslavia. The Nazis were largely purged by the partisans before the Red Army arrived, which result led to the queer status of Yugoslavia as between the West and East for the following 45 years.