• captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    That was a combination of guns, explosives, and widespread military and civilian resistance in an area that the United States doesn’t feel a need to hold. Armed resistance in Iowa went very differently

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Your argument is weak when the end results of both wars were the same: while one side had overwhelming numbers of tactically trained fighters with advanced equipment, advanced technology and a government supporting with infinite money, the other side won anyways and was simply a bunch of fucking farmers with AKs.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The Vietnamese peasants and afghans were using more than just guns and the reason the US left wasn’t failure but loss of will to expend resources. The Vietnamese people elected Ho Chi Minh and resisted colonialism. The afghan people resisted colonialism at every turn. The American empire didn’t seem to hold either land, just to turn it over to an allied government.

        No amount of violence will cause the United States to cede shit. The closest to what you’re talking about is stuff like Harlan County. But remember the civil war too

        I’m all for arming ourselves but without delusion. Once you shoot a cop or soldier you’re dead. Maybe it’s worth it, maybe it isn’t, but be aware.