Thursday, September 25, 2014

So you really want to take on the US Military...

Think about these videos before you do something really dumb (not that you're too brite anyway)...



The fun begins around 2:40 in the next vid:



So you have sniper fantasies?



How can we forget steel rain?



Just remember the Spartans were wiped out by superior forces.

Have a nice day!

39 comments:

  1. The MRLS is the ultimate terrorism generating weapon. First when it uses cluster bombs to attack targets in heavy populated areas, and then later when unexploded bombs the size of a coke can kill children and other people trying to collect metal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah--Laci, being a not particularly bright dog, continues to fail to realize that responding to a dozen or so insurgents by killing everyone within a square kilometer tends to breed far more insurgents than it kills.

      I look forward to Laci's explanation of what insurgency the U.S. military has managed to wipe out within the last fifty years.

      Delete
    2. That's pretty slick, Kurt, pretending to not get Laci's point. Fanatical gun owners like yourself, often claim to possess arms to defend yourselves against the government when and if it turns tyrannical. That's a joke, which is clearly illustrated in Laci's post. Nice dodge though.

      Delete
    3. I keep telling you, Mikeb, 4th generation warfare. No one who reveres the Second Amendment as the last bulwark against tyranny proposes fighting the U.S. military head to head. The notion that we do propose to do so is one of Laci's favorite straw men (and apparently one of yours, as well), but accomplishes nothing but allowing Laci to indulge in his fantasies of gun rights advocates being slaughtered en masse.

      The U.S. military is still probably the best in the world at bring mass firepower to bear, precisely where and when they want it, and has still never defeated any of the determined insurgencies it has faced in many decades.

      And that's without going up against an insurgency in which the insurgents live among the military's and government's infrastructure, and even among the political shot-callers themselves.

      Delete
    4. Oh, so you tyranny fighters are counting on the tyrannical government to only partially use its might and that's how you'll defeat them? Got it.

      Delete
    5. "Oh, so you tyranny fighters are counting on the tyrannical government to only partially use its might and that's how you'll defeat them?"

      Again Mike, one of the aims in insurgents is to bring about an overreaction by government forces, brining more people in sympathy with their goals. For example using Laci's favorite piece of hardware, the grid square eliminator. You eliminate the insurgents in the grid square, plus some other families, and then you get someone using a variation of having to destroy the village in order to save it.
      So Laci's love of trotting out the massive weaponry and projecting the military might of the government would be a true gift for an insurgency.
      I personally don't believe that will be necessary in this country because the checks and balances in our government when added to the protections of the Constitution will prevent it. Keep in mind, that a true insurgency requires a support and logistical tail not unlike a regular military force.

      "􀁺 Movement leaders.
      􀁺 Combatants (main, regional, and local forces [including militias]).
      􀁺 Political cadre (also called militants or the party).
      􀁺 Auxiliaries (active followers who provide important support services).
      􀁺 Mass base (the bulk of the membership)."

      Without this "tail", an insurgency is just a criminal gang and not long for this world, unless you live in Chicago of course.


      Delete
    6. Oh, so you tyranny fighters are counting on the tyrannical government to only partially use its might and that's how you'll defeat them?

      And yet another straw man soundly defeated. Congratulations, Mikeb! If I were made of straw, I'd be terrified of your debating prowess.

      Delete
    7. Thanks, ss, for once again showing that you're the reasonable one.

      "I personally don't believe that will be necessary in this country because the checks and balances in our government when added to the protections of the Constitution will prevent it."

      Of course it's not going to happen here. That's what Laci's post is all about, as I see it. When gun-rights folks talk about fighting off government tyranny they're living in a fantasy world of their own invention.

      Kurt, I don't know what you're talking about in that last comment, other than slipping in another personal attack about my debating prowess. In my comment I was talking about exactly what you said, that the future US tyrannical government would never use its entire might against you true patriots and therefore you'd be able to prevail.

      As I just said to ss, you live in a fantasy world.

      Delete
    8. In my comment I was talking about exactly what you said . . .

      I "exactly said" that, did I?

      Odd--I can't find any evidence that I even approximately said that. But again, nice job kicking that straw man's ass.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, Kurt, for misunderstanding. I took this

      "No one who reveres the Second Amendment as the last bulwark against tyranny proposes fighting the U.S. military head to head."

      to mean what I said. But, now I realize that you're as batshit crazy as the most deluded survivalist government hater out there - even worse since you're in a wheelchair and wouldn't be able to fully participate in whatever hit-and-run "insurgency in which the insurgents live among the military's and government's infrastructure, and even among the political shot-callers themselves" that you fantasize about.

      You talk a good talk, though. I'll give you that.

      Delete
    10. I took this . . . to mean

      Yeah, and I took "exactly what you said" to mean that I, you know . . . exactly said what you claimed I did, rather than you "took" it to mean what you claimed I said.

      But your peculiar use of the word "exactly" notwithstanding, tell me, Mikeb, can you point to one insurgency that the U.S. military has defeated in recent decades? I can think of a few attempts, but not a single success.

      Tell me also, Mikeb, would you call it a fair assessment that a pretty solid majority of those serving in the U.S. armed forces (especially the career NCOs, the backbone of any professional military) could be described as holding political beliefs in keeping with what is often described as the "right wing"? How about the assessment that in any hypothetical insurgency, the insurgents would also be described as holding "right wing" beliefs (you know, those dangerous folks Laci describes as "the US right," except without the Australians and Norwegians he puzzlingly felt compelled to include)?

      Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq--the U.S. military didn't defeat any of those insurgencies, despite spending probably trillions of dollars (not to mention thousands of lives) in the attempt. And that's without the service members being ordered to fight an "enemy" with whom they identify by ethnicity, culture, common history, and politics. I guess we know why you find the Oath Keepers so objectionable.

      True--I won't be of much use in any such confrontation. I can't imagine, though, how that undermines the legitimacy of my extolling the value of an armed citizenry in defeating tyranny.

      Delete
    11. "Thanks, ss, for once again showing that you're the reasonable one."

      "That's what Laci's post is all about, as I see it. When gun-rights folks talk about fighting off government tyranny they're living in a fantasy world of their own invention."

      Mike, I don't think I'm as reasonable as you're hoping. My belief is that Laci was doing the usual trotting out of hardware to somehow psychologically cow those that believe the personal ownership of arms helps in some way to keep a government in check.
      I believe that ALL of the things I mentioned help keep our government from misbehaving to the point where rebellion would be necessary. That includes ALL of the amendments in the Constitution, including that pesky Second Amendment.
      A rebellion such as the one you believe is being fantasized by the "right wing extremists" would truly be a horrible thing, I have seen it up close. But I don't believe its likely. About as likely as say, the US engaging in a war using nuclear weapons.
      And guess what, I seem to be sitting just over 200 miles from 150 nuclear weapons. Engaging in a nuclear war would likely be as disastrous for our country as a full up rebellion, yet we still seem to be ready for it.


      Delete
    12. Kurt, the examples you give of the US failing in their missions abroad is a different thing entirely than the US government becoming a tyranny and oppressing its own citizens to the point of eliciting revolution. That's what you guys fantasize about in your bizarre grandiose way. But, you keep pitching it, man. As I said, you talk a good talk.

      ss has admitted a couple times now that he doesn't think it'll ever come to that. He states this in his usual reasonable way, as opposed to you and your exaggerated superlatives. I would go further than ss does. I'd say it's so far out of the realm of possibility that to continually talk about "what if it happens," is fucking ridiculous.

      Delete
    13. I sincerely hope SSG is correct in his assessment, but whether or not he is, a well armed citizenry is vital, as he has noted.

      Delete
    14. "Vital" for what? For preventing tyranny? Is that why Japan, Australia and Great Britain have all gone tyrannical?

      I noticed you didn't respond to my last comment about your slick attempt to equate US failed missions abroad with the US government becoming a tyranny and oppressing its own citizens. That was really one of your stupider attempts to justify continually talking about "what if it happens."

      Delete
    15. "Vital" not in the sense that a nation that disarms the citizenry will inevitably devolve to tyranny, but in the sense that if it happens, the people will have no recourse. I am happy for the people of those countries that it hasn't happened. Yet.

      I noticed you didn't respond to my last comment about your slick attempt to equate US failed missions abroad with the US government becoming a tyranny and oppressing its own citizens.

      You "noticed" that, eh? Well, I've noticed that although you claim the U.S. military's utter inability to defeat insurgencies abroad "is a different thing entirely than the US government becoming a tyranny," but didn't bother to explain what the differences are, and why those differences would make a domestic insurgency the only one the U.S. military can successfully put down.

      I've also noticed a lack of response on your part to the differences I have pointed out--differences that favor the domestic insurgency.

      Delete
    16. You're living in a fantasy world of grandiosity and self-aggrandizement.

      "but in the sense that if it happens,"

      "a domestic insurgency"

      "differences that favor the domestic insurgency."

      THERE IS NO DOMESTIC INSURGENCY, not now, and not ever.

      Delete
    17. What the hell do you mean, "THERE IS NO DOMESTIC INSURGENCY, not now, and not ever"? You've never heard of the Revolutionary War, that gives Laci such sour grapes? Never heard of the Civil War? That's odd, since you have said that displaying the Confederate flag is "giving "the nation's Enemies Aid and Comfort."? That almost sounds as if you worry about a potential new insurgency.

      Delete
  2. I was wondering when you were going to trot out the fearsome battle tech videos again Laci. And of course my reply is lets look at how well that worked out for us. How is Iraq and Afghanistan doing?
    The argument could be made that the current goings on in Iraq are a completely different conflict. Or perhaps the insurgents that were still there simply "rebranded" themselves. And what exactly do you think Afghanistan's situation will be say, a year after Coalition forces are gone? Or perhaps we should look at how popular the US is in Pakistan as a result of our "surgical" drone attacks are.
    Insurgencies are a bit more complicated than a standard force on force conflict, which can be won with combat power and tactics in a straight up fight. Perhaps you should consider reading up a bit on insurgencies,

    "FM 3-24 MCWP 3-33.5 INSURGENCIES AND COUNTERING INSURGENCIES"

    http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  3. You keep posting stuff like this. It seems you're the one with fantasies about the government leveling it's own cities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laci, your continuing childish attempts to bait gun owners to take on the military is utter fantasy. Most serious gun owners already know what equipment the military has. And no, there isn't any reason to take on the military and the military will NEVER take on the U.S. citizen. It is your fantasy that you wish to see this happen. Why? Do you think that would teach us a lesson or something?

    You watch too much television, WAY too much. For your supposedly being some sort of super smart lawyer/god/enlightened/omnipotent person, your idiocy shows really bright. You damn well know the military will never take on the U.S. citizen in our own soil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not Laci trying to bait anyone. It's a clear rebuttal to YOUR nonsense about fighting against tyranny.

      Delete
    2. "Your" Mike, really? Where in my comment did I say anything to that effect?

      Delete
    3. As ss pointed out, keeping Anonymous as your handle makes it easy for you to deny things like that. My "your" was really directed at the gun rights fanatics in general. I suppose you not only deny ever saying this yourself, but you've never even heard it from the others. Right?

      Delete
    4. Sure I have heard it from others, but you have not heard it from me. You pointed to me in your comment, if you wish to generalize, fine. Just make it a bit more clear that that is what you mean.

      Delete
    5. Why don't you give yourself a fucking name other than Anonymous. That way, as ssgmarkcr pointed out, you can be held accountable for what you've said in the past.

      Delete
    6. Oh please. Just the other day SS cited anon for a comment Sandra made. Point is he pays no attention to who says what, he's so busy spewing his gun loon garbage.

      Delete
    7. Sure, be glad to as soon as you require everyone to have a "fucking name" and no provision for any anon. That way everyone can be held accountable.

      Delete
    8. "Oh please. Just the other day SS cited anon for a comment Sandra made."

      I'm sorry Anon, could you point me to that mistake please? I'd like to see where I messed up?

      Delete
    9. I pointed it out on the thread you made it. Again, you pay no attention and just spew your gun loon garbage. I said then I'm not listening to your rant about anons when you can't even keep a name separate from an anon.

      Delete
    10. Well Anon, the challenge is that using Mike's handy search feature using Sandra and the only thing that came back was a year ago. If you can't be a little more clear, I'm not going to feel real confident that I did it.
      I've admitted errors before, even to an Anon, and I've corrected myself in the past with no prompting, so here's your chance.

      Delete
    11. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/dropped-gun-injures-baby-dad-charged.html#comment-form

      Read the thread SS. And I mentioned your mistake 3 times on 3 different threads when you gave your anon rant. I'm tired of your GC type dishonest crap, then ask me to prove what I already proved and pointed out was your mistake. I'll pass by a mistake, but not your lying cover up that infers I was lying. And as I told you before anything you say is questionable varsity since you have been proven to outright lie about me many times, not to mention your word twisting dishonesty.
      Anon did not say what you quoted, Sandra did.
      That's the last time I'm going to prove multiple times, your lies. Once is enough.

      Delete
    12. You are correct Anon, I did reply to an Anon when i should have said Sandra. Thank you for posting the link so I could see. And an Anon did make a correction in the thread and I failed to notice. My apologies.

      Delete
    13. Save your disingenuous apologies.

      Delete
  5. How long have these forces been in Afghanistan? Which military force left Vietnam with their tail between their legs, beaten by a bunch of rice farmers? And this was after killing how many millions of them?
    Naw, Americans love their military, the churches worship the soldiers, every sporting event salutes them, every local, state, and national event honors them.
    Read the War Prayer by Mark Twain. Nothing has changed.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there a correlation between America's love for guns and it's love for war? We haven't had a peacetime period since WW II.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And here comes Laci again with his fantasies about killing us all--and untold numbers of civilians--by having the government use MLRS and other weapons systems on US soil.

    Laci, you should keep your wet dreams to yourself rather than showing what a bloodthirsty coward you are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not too "brite?" Are your legal filings rife with misspellings as well?

    -LawProfessor

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps we should use a more current and local example of Laci's contention being a fallacy. Notwithstanding the circumstances, Eric Frein has been leading the police a merry chase for just about two weeks now.
    They have a thousand people, helicopters with the same night vision systems as in the video above and even with the guy making tactically unsound decisions by intentionally showing himself, they have been unsuccessful.
    Frein's undoing will likely be him being cocky. It also makes me wonder if he is truly limited to staying in that particular area, or if he is simply deciding to stay there to play his game.

    ReplyDelete