Military

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

At the moment the army are reactionary, patriotic and igronant. But they are an incredible force, which could be used to crush a popular uprising.
The concequences of the government ordering the army to attack the workers are huge. The authorities would look barbaric and violent and that may give the revolutionaries more support (as it did in the Peterloo Massacare...although they were different circumstances). But despite this they could crush a revolution.

So would they need to be supporters of the revolutionary cause...as the workers wouldnt be able to fight off the whole army.

Would they need to be infultrated in a way that a few high up officers can take their battalions to defend the workers?

[Tower of Bebel]

There are some threads on this subject already.

I wouldn't suggest infiltration. Today, many imperialist armies are made out of volunteers. Most of them are no real workers. Only the reserve would has a solid feeling with the real world.
However, the Bolsheviks had revolutionaries in the Russian army, since the army was full of workers and farmers who had to join the army, not as volunteers, but obligatorily. And the reason why some revolutionaries were in the army is the same as for those workers and farmers who joined the army.

I think today's ("peace time") armies can be won over by class conflict 'only'. When the bourgeoisie is weakened and the workers are strengthened then the soliders might come over and form their own councils.

[Forward Union]

In times of revolutionary upheavel, a proportion of the army will desert and joing the Revolution. It's happened in every serious revolution in history.

So our own revolutionary millitary must exist, with a far more democratic structure (although it will be hierachical)

I would also add that our millitary must be mandated by the working class in democratic assemblies. And thus would not be a force seperate from the interests of the working class, but will be an instrument of it.

[Fiskpure]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:03 am
I think today's ("peace time") armies can be won over by class conflict 'only'. When the bourgeoisie is weakened and the workers are strengthened then the soliders might come over and form their own councils.

I'm not sure that can be done, as we should learn from our mistakes in history -> Civil war in Spain.

[Raúl Duke]

In revolutionary times as in Russia sometimes the whole sections of the military would turn their guns around, shot their officers, and join the masses.

Although in the US we have noticed a increase reliance on mercs...How should we expect them to react at a time of popular revolution.

Soldier councils? never heard of it (unless you mean militias. I suppose its ok they can assume that structure as well.). Its most likely that when they defect to the revolution they would at least for a time keep their immediate field officers (that are sympathetic to the revolution) until a later time. At that later time, presumably when the civil way begins, they might assume a shape similar to what Will Everard is thinking.

[Red Scare]

Militias would work fine in my opinion, because the proletarians would not feel like they were forced because they would be making their own decisions.

In the French Revolution during the Storming of the Bastille much of the soldiers deserted and helped the revolutionaries storm the Bastille, and it happened like that all over France.

I do not think having a full organized army will be good, for we do not want our revolution to turn out like the American one, if you want to call that a revolution.

[The Douche]

I figure my presence in this thread will probably cause another arguement like the other. It is not my desire.

There are a lot of soldiers in the US army who have no desire to be in Iraq and who believe its a lost cause. They are working class, disenfranchised, miss home, and don't support the war. But are about as reactionary as thier counterparts in the work force, who proudly wave the flag and "support the troops". The real reaction lies in the leadership.

As for high ranking officers leading thier troops in defense of the revolution...that is the WRONG idea. As communists we organise from the bottom up, in the workplace, the community, and eventually the time will come for us to do so in the military. (such a situation was rapidly approaching at the end of vietnam)

[raspute]

I was recently arguing with my military recruitment officer the other day, and it made me think that the army could be won over by revolutionaries, we just need to educate them. The dude was just a completely indoctrinated, patriotic moron, and had no clue about any of the history I was explaining to him (i.e. we basically financed the genocidal Iraq-Iran war so that Saddam would become our friend), and I think he left somewhat skeptical of his patriotism.

Basically, the majority of our military is good willed, but ignorant. I think that this could vastly help the revolutionary cause in our favor, if we can just educate the troops.

Or stop it at it's source: inform friends, classmates, etc. who look into joining our country's military of its often murderous, corporation backed history, and dissuade them.

[Lynx]

The army and the police are an obstacle to revolution. They are the means by which the state inflicts bloodshed and killing. They are either with us or against us. If they are against us, they must be fought and defeated.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:42 pm


As for high ranking officers leading thier troops in defense of the revolution...that is the WRONG idea. As communists we organise from the bottom up, in the workplace, the community, and eventually the time will come for us to do so in the military. (such a situation was rapidly approaching at the end of vietnam)
I know as communists we organise form the bottom up...but the army does not, and many soildiers would follow their leadersover to the revolution. As much as we disagree with this form of organisation, it is a tool which we should use

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+December 08, 2007 05:53 pm--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg @ December 08, 2007 05:53 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 02:42 pm


As for high ranking officers leading thier troops in defense of the revolution...that is the WRONG idea. As communists we organise from the bottom up, in the workplace, the community, and eventually the time will come for us to do so in the military. (such a situation was rapidly approaching at the end of vietnam)
I know as communists we organise form the bottom up...but the army does not, and many soildiers would follow their leadersover to the revolution. As much as we disagree with this form of organisation, it is a tool which we should use [/b]
As an enlisted man in the US army...NO we would not. We would follow what we decide to as individuals. (in such a controversial and radical situation)

Soldiers are not robots like a lot of people want to think. We have families, kids, brains, politics, and ideas, all original and independent of the chain of command. We're just like every other worker except that we are sometimes forced to do much more horrible things. (for a plethora of reasons)

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 08, 2007 06:26 pm--> (cmoney @ December 08, 2007 06:26 pm)
Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 08, 2007 05:53 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 02:42 pm


As for high ranking officers leading thier troops in defense of the revolution...that is the WRONG idea. As communists we organise from the bottom up, in the workplace, the community, and eventually the time will come for us to do so in the military. (such a situation was rapidly approaching at the end of vietnam)
I know as communists we organise form the bottom up...but the army does not, and many soildiers would follow their leadersover to the revolution. As much as we disagree with this form of organisation, it is a tool which we should use
As an enlisted man in the US army...NO we would not. We would follow what we decide to as individuals. (in such a controversial and radical situation)

Soldiers are not robots like a lot of people want to think. We have families, kids, brains, politics, and ideas, all original and independent of the chain of command. We're just like every other worker except that we are sometimes forced to do much more horrible things. (for a plethora of reasons) [/b]
So then why are you in Iraq if you have a brain?

No personal insult, but Im saying you follow orders...

Or is life or death fro oil not a "radical or controversial" enough issue for you to follow your own course?

[Dros]

I don't think the military as an institution will side with a revolution. There will (hopefully) be mass defections and the military will probably surrender quicklyish when (if) it becomes appearent that the masses are going to face crush them.

[bugsy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 09:24 pm
I don't think the military as an institution will side with a revolution. There will (hopefully) be mass defections and the military will probably surrender quicklyish when (if) it becomes apparent that the masses are going to face crush them.
I don't want to piss on yer chips too much, but I doubt if it's possible for a professional army to be defeated in the kind of fighting which would (theoretically) take place during a revolution.

I can only speak really for the British Army (in which I served as a Medic for six years), but the COIN/FIBUA experience they gathered and improved upon in Norn Iron makes them easily the best in the world at it. The chances of defeating them are thus practically zero.

However, having said that, and in contrast to some of the opinions on this thread, squaddies are far from ignorant or stupid. Don't forget that something like 43 percent of British squaddies actually hold degrees. I personally have the fullest confidence that (1) British squaddies would categorically refuse to fire on civilians in a revolutionary situation in the UK, and (2) the vast majority of them would welcome the opportunity and join the revolution. I'm talking about the rank and file here and not necessarily Ruperts. And indeed, if the Ruperts are on their tods, who are they going to issue orders to?

Just a few thoughts.

MsG

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:15 pm
I don't want to piss on yer chips too much ... squaddies ... Ruperts ... tods
Nothing ontopic really, but I just love British slang. It has style.

[Dros]

Originally posted by bugsy+December 08, 2007 10:15 pm--> (bugsy @ December 08, 2007 10:15 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 09:24 pm
I don't think the military as an institution will side with a revolution. There will (hopefully) be mass defections and the military will probably surrender quicklyish when (if) it becomes apparent that the masses are going to face crush them.
I don't want to piss on yer chips too much, but I doubt if it's possible for a professional army to be defeated in the kind of fighting which would (theoretically) take place during a revolution.

I can only speak really for the British Army (in which I served as a Medic for six years), but the COIN/FIBUA experience they gathered and improved upon in Norn Iron makes them easily the best in the world at it. The chances of defeating them are thus practically zero.

However, having said that, and in contrast to some of the opinions on this thread, squaddies are far from ignorant or stupid. Don't forget that something like 43 percent of British squaddies actually hold degrees. I personally have the fullest confidence that (1) British squaddies would categorically refuse to fire on civilians in a revolutionary situation in the UK, and (2) the vast majority of them would welcome the opportunity and join the revolution. I'm talking about the rank and file here and not necessarily Ruperts. And indeed, if the Ruperts are on their tods, who are they going to issue orders to?

Just a few thoughts.

MsG [/b]
I'm not saying that the revolution will defeat them in a conventional war. That is absurd. I think that mass uprisings would cause 1.) wide spread desertions, 2.) the military to not act, and 3.) the quick anihilation of the political athority on which the military is based. The way I see the revolution going in the first world is like such: workers uprisings and riots in major cities and economic centers cripple the government and seize control of the economic base in one rather quick burst. This negates the ability of the military to do much. Also, even in reactionary countries, most armies are not willing to gun down their own people. Obviously there are exceptions but generally militaries are skeptical of that.

I don't recall ever saying that British military personnel were stupid. If I ever said that (which I didn't) I was referring to American personnel who by and large don't have degrees.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by drosera99
I don't recall ever saying that British military personnel were stupid. If I ever said that (which I didn't) I was referring to American personnel who by and large don't have degrees.
I know this is off topic but since when is a degree the difference between intelligence and stupidity?

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg+December 08, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg @ December 08, 2007 06:36 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:26 pm

Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 08, 2007 05:53 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 02:42 pm


As for high ranking officers leading thier troops in defense of the revolution...that is the WRONG idea. As communists we organise from the bottom up, in the workplace, the community, and eventually the time will come for us to do so in the military. (such a situation was rapidly approaching at the end of vietnam)
I know as communists we organise form the bottom up...but the army does not, and many soildiers would follow their leadersover to the revolution. As much as we disagree with this form of organisation, it is a tool which we should use
As an enlisted man in the US army...NO we would not. We would follow what we decide to as individuals. (in such a controversial and radical situation)

Soldiers are not robots like a lot of people want to think. We have families, kids, brains, politics, and ideas, all original and independent of the chain of command. We're just like every other worker except that we are sometimes forced to do much more horrible things. (for a plethora of reasons)
So then why are you in Iraq if you have a brain?

No personal insult, but Im saying you follow orders...

Or is life or death fro oil not a "radical or controversial" enough issue for you to follow your own course? [/b]
Refusing to serve in Iraq means a long prison sentence. There is no escape from it, and no alternative to fight for. I have people who depend on me, so yes I am following that order.

If I was ordered to fire on innocent civilians I would say fuck no, as would every other guy I know in my unit.

If there was a revolution going on then I would have a side to deffect to, such an option does not exist with the war in Iraq, and thats why most anti-war soldiers are complacent.

[Marsella]

Refusing to serve in Iraq means a long prison sentence.

Really?

The first conscientious objector to the Iraq war received 6 months imprisonment.

He could have avoided much of it if he had lodged a conscientious objection.

Link (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/115386_wobjector02.shtml)

[Jazzratt]

Of course we're going to need the army on our side. They are armed, trained and able - a lot of them come from working class backgrounds and in some countries they are even conscripts. I imagine After a while the draftee/conscript:Volunteer ratio will increase as revolutionary conditions begin to manifest.

Here in the west, in countries that have been supportive of America's imperialist wars we will need the help even more because, thanks to the nature of the operations these soldiers have been involved in they know how to face guerillas so the tired old tactics of Che and Mao will not be as effective.

Now I have no idea how to go about winning support from the army but it is something that needs discussing and I'm open to suggestions.

[bugsy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:06 pm
Of course we're going to need the army on our side. They are armed, trained and able - a lot of them come from working class backgrounds and in some countries they are even conscripts. I imagine After a while the draftee/conscript:Volunteer ratio will increase as revolutionary conditions begin to manifest.

Here in the west, in countries that have been supportive of America's imperialist wars we will need the help even more because, thanks to the nature of the operations these soldiers have been involved in they know how to face guerillas so the tired old tactics of Che and Mao will not be as effective.

Now I have no idea how to go about winning support from the army but it is something that needs discussing and I'm open to suggestions.
True indeed with the guerrilla tactics, but also the CQB tactics acquired are very important.

As to how to win over the squaddies; there's no need. I believe it would truly amaze you just how many squaddies are amenable to Socialist ideas. And if you think about it, they know much more about true oppression than some banker wanker, who's never faced anything more arduous than a bit of a bollocking from the boss because s/he got a few figures wrong.

Given the right circumstances, the squaddies (at least those of the British Army) will definitely be onside. They're genuinely interested in a more just world for everybody, as strange as that may sound. But try talking to a few squaddies yourself.

MsG

[Dros]

Originally posted by ComradeR+December 09, 2007 08:16 am--> (ComradeR @ December 09, 2007 08:16 am)
drosera99
I don't recall ever saying that British military personnel were stupid. If I ever said that (which I didn't) I was referring to American personnel who by and large don't have degrees.
I know this is off topic but since when is a degree the difference between intelligence and stupidity? [/b]
Also a good point.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:06 pm
Of course we're going to need the army on our side. They are armed, trained and able - a lot of them come from working class backgrounds and in some countries they are even conscripts. I imagine After a while the draftee/conscript:Volunteer ratio will increase as revolutionary conditions begin to manifest.

Here in the west, in countries that have been supportive of America's imperialist wars we will need the help even more because, thanks to the nature of the operations these soldiers have been involved in they know how to face guerillas so the tired old tactics of Che and Mao will not be as effective.

Now I have no idea how to go about winning support from the army but it is something that needs discussing and I'm open to suggestions.
Imperialist armies knowing how to face guerrillas? From the looks at Iraq and Afghanistan the US military leaned nothing from Vietnam except how to control the media better, in Iraq and Afghanistan they are not facing disciplined guerrilla forces but simply unorganized violent unrest and the US military has no clue what to do. US troops have time and again proven to be undisciplined in Iraq, emptying whole magazines at a single target (sometimes randomly as they don't know were the target is) causing whole units to reload at the same time, against a organized guerrilla force this trigger happiness could easily be exploited by ambushing them while they all reload at the same time, a guerrilla force could also get the US forces to simply expend all their ammo through the art of attacking and pulling back to cause the stupid American forces think they are winning when they are expending ammo at fast rate and falling into a carefully planed ambush (of fresh forces that are fully stocked with supplies as they don't have to move due to the US forces being drawn to them) were the US forces would be low on ammo like done by the PLAF in Vietnam.

[Fiskpure]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:15 pm
I don't want to piss on yer chips too much, but I doubt if it's possible for a professional army to be defeated in the kind of fighting which would (theoretically) take place during a revolution.
Soldiers or not, they can still think what's best for their nation and their people. They will realize later that they're only fighting against their own people, and we'll have the same situation as we had in Russia during the 1917 revolution.

[bugsy]

My, my, Psy, what a master tactician you are. :D :D :D

The Septic squaddies would be firing M16A2s of M4s in .223 Rem with 30-round mags. Or maybe a version of the G36, also with 30-round mags. Since different squaddies are concentrating on different targets, there's never a time that they all have to load simultaneously. The reloading sequence is: release mag and drop into top of smock; pull full mag from pouch and ram home; cock weapon and resume firing. Time taken? Let's say five seconds, although I could replace the mag on an SLR using the aforementioned sequence in three seconds. So even if they all had to reload at the same time, what are you going to accomplish in three to give seconds?

The doctrine of the Septics is to use overwhelming firepower, that's why they brass everything up (including allied troops). While that's extremely wasteful, they carry an awful lot of ammo per man and their replen is geared to the doctrine. There's also the fact that they're putting a shiteload of lead downrange at all times, since they not only have their personal weapons, but also Minimis, gimpies and Ma Deuces. Under such circumstances, it's a very good idea not to poke your head above the parapet.

I'd also beg to differ on your estimation of the quality of their opponents, particularly in Aghanistan. Don't forget, these boyyos defeated the Ivans, who had a whole lot more troops in theatre.

MsG

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 04:55 pm
My, my, Psy, what a master tactician you are. :D :D :D

The Septic squaddies would be firing M16A2s of M4s in .223 Rem with 30-round mags. Or maybe a version of the G36, also with 30-round mags. Since different squaddies are concentrating on different targets, there's never a time that they all have to load simultaneously. The reloading sequence is: release mag and drop into top of smock; pull full mag from pouch and ram home; cock weapon and resume firing. Time taken? Let's say five seconds, although I could replace the mag on an SLR using the aforementioned sequence in three seconds. So even if they all had to reload at the same time, what are you going to accomplish in three to give seconds?

The doctrine of the Septics is to use overwhelming firepower, that's why they brass everything up (including allied troops). While that's extremely wasteful, they carry an awful lot of ammo per man and their replen is geared to the doctrine. There's also the fact that they're putting a shiteload of lead downrange at all times, since they not only have their personal weapons, but also Minimis, gimpies and Ma Deuces. Under such circumstances, it's a very good idea not to poke your head above the parapet.

I'd also beg to differ on your estimation of the quality of their opponents, particularly in Aghanistan. Don't forget, these boyyos defeated the Ivans, who had a whole lot more troops in theatre.

MsG
Reports from Iraq is that the more skilled Iraq insurgence fires a burst of around 10 round in full fire with the first round being aimed and then hide, US troops usually responds with randomly firing at the general direction of were the fire came from, yet skilled fighters tend to not pop out from the same area and instead use cover to move to another location either to fire from a different location or to leave the area entirely. That reloading time is a large window, it is enough time to toss in grenades or use a grenade launcher that can be fitted to a AK-47, when talking about a large ambush springing during that reload time, it would be long enough for the ambush to rip the squad to ribbons.

As for troops carrying lots of ammo, since you can empty a entire magazine in a few seconds it means it is still possible for US troops to run of ammo in a battle.

[Lynx]

I can cut someone some slack for joining the military in peacetime thinking they can get away with the benefits without risking their life or having to take life. Bloody stupid thing to do, though.
Soldiers with degrees ending up as pawns for the likes of Bush and Brown. Priceless :angry:

[spartan]

I find myself in agreement with most of bugsy's points here.

The fact is though soldiers are taught to obey orders they wouldnt find it easy to fire on civilians (Especially if those civilians are their fellow countrymen who they are told to defend).

Of course if those "civilians" had guns in their hands and were perhaps firing them then that would of course make your average soldiers life a hell of alot easier as they can justifiably kill those "civilians" (Though they arent really civilians anymore as they are armed which makes them combatants).

Alot (Maybe a majority) of the people who join the army do so because they want an exicting occupation (Instead of the boring nine to five office job) and because they cant see themselves doing anything else (For lots of people the army is a sort of "last resort" where bad qualifications dont really mean that much to the employer though things are changing in that department or so i heard).

Anyway i was thinking of joining the army but everyone around me keeps on putting me off the idea and i must admit that it would be difficult for me in the army if there was ever a revolutionary situation (I know whose side i would take but if those around you are genuinely hostile to the revolutionaries then that would put me in a very tight situation).

[bugsy]

This is a bit off-thread,actually, but since we've been on the subject of squaddies (or perhaps armed forces in general), nobody's mentioned the tremendous and unique solidarity they enjoy.

I say this because I want to introduce a very humbling example of this solidarity - a solidarity truly unique to the British Army:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?nam...t=84166#1674217 (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=84166#1674217)

Have a butcher's and see if your opinion of squaddies doesn't change just a bit.

MsG

[MT5678]

Don't bother with the military: tools of the bourgeois.
Remember, we are many, they are few.
And,
"All the capital in the world is no match for the proletariat with its hands in its pockets"
Eugene V. Debs

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by MT5678
Don't bother with the military: tools of the bourgeois.
Remember, we are many, they are few.
We will need support of defectors from the military in order for a revolution to have a chance. Gone are the days when anyone could just pick up a rifle become a conventional military threat. Of course if it becomes a long drawn out clash with the bourgeois state (a war) then the revolution is lost anyway, at lest in the developed nations.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Psy+December 09, 2007 06:29 pm--> (Psy @ December 09, 2007 06:29 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 04:55 pm
My, my, Psy, what a master tactician you are. :D :D :D

The Septic squaddies would be firing M16A2s of M4s in .223 Rem with 30-round mags. Or maybe a version of the G36, also with 30-round mags. Since different squaddies are concentrating on different targets, there's never a time that they all have to load simultaneously. The reloading sequence is: release mag and drop into top of smock; pull full mag from pouch and ram home; cock weapon and resume firing. Time taken? Let's say five seconds, although I could replace the mag on an SLR using the aforementioned sequence in three seconds. So even if they all had to reload at the same time, what are you going to accomplish in three to give seconds?

The doctrine of the Septics is to use overwhelming firepower, that's why they brass everything up (including allied troops). While that's extremely wasteful, they carry an awful lot of ammo per man and their replen is geared to the doctrine. There's also the fact that they're putting a shiteload of lead downrange at all times, since they not only have their personal weapons, but also Minimis, gimpies and Ma Deuces. Under such circumstances, it's a very good idea not to poke your head above the parapet.

I'd also beg to differ on your estimation of the quality of their opponents, particularly in Aghanistan. Don't forget, these boyyos defeated the Ivans, who had a whole lot more troops in theatre.

MsG
Reports from Iraq is that the more skilled Iraq insurgence fires a burst of around 10 round in full fire with the first round being aimed and then hide, US troops usually responds with randomly firing at the general direction of were the fire came from, yet skilled fighters tend to not pop out from the same area and instead use cover to move to another location either to fire from a different location or to leave the area entirely. That reloading time is a large window, it is enough time to toss in grenades or use a grenade launcher that can be fitted to a AK-47, when talking about a large ambush springing during that reload time, it would be long enough for the ambush to rip the squad to ribbons.

As for troops carrying lots of ammo, since you can empty a entire magazine in a few seconds it means it is still possible for US troops to run of ammo in a battle. [/b]
HAHAHA. Sorry. As an infantry soldier in Iraq I beg to differ, while I'm not running combat missions many of my friends are and this analysis is terribly incorrect.

The most effective insurgent does not employ small arms (such as rifles, machine guns, or RPGs) he uses an EFP, or Exlosively Formed Projectile. Its a container packed with explosives and soft metal (usually copper) and in a funnel type shape, when the explosive goes off it forces the extremely hot metal out the device in a cone shape, this metal is capable of penetrating out armoured vehicles, and with enough explosive, even our M1 Abrams tanks. After that would be your standard IED, imporvised explosive device.

All intelligent insurgents know better than to engage our troops with small arms, they won't win. Imagine, a convoy with 15 up armored humvess, each packing a crew served weapon on top, either a .308 caliber 240 machine gun, a .50 caliber M2 machine gun, or a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher, and they're roaring down the street at 50 mph. You're gonna pop out with an AK? Even if you hit it with a direct hit from an RPG you would not disable it, you might be able to hit the gun/gunner, if you're fast, and lucky.

As for relaoding time, all the guys in my platoon are capable of changing magazines and engageing in 2 seconds or less, hours are spent practicing it. We don't burn up ammo either, we fire controlled pairs (two aimed rounds). Each infantryman carries a minimum of 240 rounds on his gear, usually closer to 330 rounds, plus another 90 or so in his pack, plus a few boxes in the truck, not to mention the thousands of round for the truck mounted machine guns.

All US troops also wear full body armor capable of stopping up to three rounds from an AK47.

So, using small arms you have to engage a professional soldier and shoot him 4 times in the chest before being seen. There is no cover that will protect you from the Mk19, and a .50 cal will cut through concrete with a few rounds.

This isn't even factoring in close air support, artillery, or QRF (quick reaction force) which can often be anywhere in thier AO (area of operations) in about 30 mins, and they will roll out just as well equppied as the first group, with more ammo, and some tanks.

Will you take such a force on with molotov cocktails and civilian weapons with no training? I wouldn't. But I would...if I had some training...

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 pm
HAHAHA. Sorry. As an infantry soldier in Iraq I beg to differ, while I'm not running combat missions many of my friends are and this analysis is terribly incorrect.

The most effective insurgent does not employ small arms (such as rifles, machine guns, or RPGs) he uses an EFP, or Exlosively Formed Projectile. Its a container packed with explosives and soft metal (usually copper) and in a funnel type shape, when the explosive goes off it forces the extremely hot metal out the device in a cone shape, this metal is capable of penetrating out armoured vehicles, and with enough explosive, even our M1 Abrams tanks. After that would be your standard IED, imporvised explosive device.

All intelligent insurgents know better than to engage our troops with small arms, they won't win. Imagine, a convoy with 15 up armored humvess, each packing a crew served weapon on top, either a .308 caliber 240 machine gun, a .50 caliber M2 machine gun, or a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher, and they're roaring down the street at 50 mph. You're gonna pop out with an AK? Even if you hit it with a direct hit from an RPG you would not disable it, you might be able to hit the gun/gunner, if you're fast, and lucky.

As for relaoding time, all the guys in my platoon are capable of changing magazines and engageing in 2 seconds or less, hours are spent practicing it. We don't burn up ammo either, we fire controlled pairs (two aimed rounds). Each infantryman carries a minimum of 240 rounds on his gear, usually closer to 330 rounds, plus another 90 or so in his pack, plus a few boxes in the truck, not to mention the thousands of round for the truck mounted machine guns.

All US troops also wear full body armor capable of stopping up to three rounds from an AK47.

So, using small arms you have to engage a professional soldier and shoot him 4 times in the chest before being seen. There is no cover that will protect you from the Mk19, and a .50 cal will cut through concrete with a few rounds.

This isn't even factoring in close air support, artillery, or QRF (quick reaction force) which can often be anywhere in thier AO (area of operations) in about 30 mins, and they will roll out just as well equppied as the first group, with more ammo, and some tanks.

Will you take such a force on with molotov cocktails and civilian weapons with no training? I wouldn't. But I would...if I had some training...
A number of conveys are un-escorted there was even a few videos that went on the Internet of convoys from convoy crews showing them being helpless against rocks being tossed at them because they have no escort, no humvess, not even jeeps with heavy machine guns.

As for rounds, 300 rounds would last only under a minute firing in full auto (not taking into account reload times), as for rounds being carried on a vehicle that is not useful to them if they are not close to get it or if the vehicle is disabled and the troops have to hike back to base as every pound of ammo would slow them down (this is why Che stated the importance of conserving ammo the more weight a fighter has to lug the less mobile they are).

There has been cases where foot patrols (that have no vehicle support) ran into a hit and run attack from buildings and troops firing when they don't know were the target is, this means US troops are not aiming instead randomly firing that is just a waste of ammo, it also hides movement as the unit randomly firing are looking down their gun site instead of scanning the area (bad idea to focus down your gun site unless you are aiming). This gives the fighters more mobility as they can move faster without being spotted.

As for body armour Iraq is arid climate with hot climates making body armour give troops very little mobility when on foot. This means interruptions to the supply lines would greatly effect the fighting capacity of the imperialist forces. Also US body armour reliability is questionable caused by rushes not being probably manufactured (as instead of expanding production the US just gets workers to work faster that leads to mistakes). Even when body armour works the AK-47 round has enough kick to knock a full grown human to the ground when its momentum is stopped by body armour.


As for air support, artillery and QRF the US though the same way in Vietnam but when the enemy has great mobility they can leave before they arrive (thus the point of hit and run doctrine), there is also the problem that forces could be pre-occupied with other conflicts (when the insurgences is large enough to have many battles all at the same time across the country)

[The Douche]

A number of conveys are un-escorted there was even a few videos that went on the Internet of convoys from convoy crews showing them being helpless against rocks being tossed at them because they have no escort, no humvess, not even jeeps with heavy machine guns.

No convoy leaves unprotected in this country. I'm here, I see it, I have friends here who rode convoys for 18 months straight, both on gun trucks as infantrymen, and in supply trucks as cargo drivers. It is true that on some routes convoys leave in large numbers with small number of gun trucks. But the QRF is always a short ways away in such situations. (we don't have jeeps anymore fyi)


As for rounds, 300 rounds would last only under a minute firing in full auto (not taking into account reload times), as for rounds being carried on a vehicle that is not useful to them if they are not close to get it or if the vehicle is disabled and the troops have to hike back to base as every pound of ammo would slow them down (this is why Che stated the importance of conserving ammo the more weight a fighter has to lug the less mobile they are).

The M4 carbine, the standard issue weapon for an infantryman does not fire full auto it is semi and three shot burst. And as I said, which you convienently ignored, we are trained to engage in controlled pairs, not unleashing ammo like 16 year old kids with paintball guns. There is one full auto weapon per squad, and it carries around 1400 rounds. It is the M249 SAW, and it is designed to be fired in 8 shot bursts. You don't use a machine gun by holding down the trigger and letting it rip. A platoon also has two .308 caliber 240s assigned to it (I am a 240 gunner) and the standard load out for it is 800 rounds. Keep in mind these are minimums and soldiers always carry far more rounds. And in convoys there are far more machine guns, those numbers only reflect dismounted operations.

Troops would never hike back to base if a vehicle was disabled, we would hold up and defend our position, wait for QRF, call for artillery, call in all nearby units, and call for CAS, apaches can be anywhere in Baghdad in minutes. It takes a long time to expend 300 rounds. Don't forget, Che died at the hands of light infantrymen trained by the US.



There has been cases where foot patrols (that have no vehicle support) ran into a hit and run attack from buildings and troops firing when they don't know were the target is, this means US troops are not aiming instead randomly firing that is just a waste of ammo, it also hides movement as the unit randomly firing are looking down their gun site instead of scanning the area (bad idea to focus down your gun site unless you are aiming). This gives the fighters more mobility as they can move faster without being spotted.

Such behavior is very common for non-combat soldiers who find themselves stuck in combat roles (Military Police often end up in this situation). Well trained and combat experienced soldiers (of which there are now many) react much cooler. Regardless, they may not have vehicles with them at the moment (my friend's unit currently runs foot patrols) but the QRF is always close by for such units. (his QRF...an armor squadron complete with abrams and bradleys, is never more than 20 minutes away) Don't tell me about combat...I'm the infantryman.


As for body armour Iraq is arid climate with hot climates making body armour give troops very little mobility when on foot. This means interruptions to the supply lines would greatly effect the fighting capacity of the imperialist forces. Also US body armour reliability is questionable caused by rushes not being probably manufactured (as instead of expanding production the US just gets workers to work faster that leads to mistakes). Even when body armour works the AK-47 round has enough kick to knock a full grown human to the ground when its momentum is stopped by body armour.

Supply lines? On foot? Supplies don't move on foot, and the war isn't fought like that. There really are no "supply lines". Yes, convoys are run with supplies on a weekly basis to some remote locations, but thats it, and body armor has no effect on it. You're wrong about the quality of US body armor, I've yet to hear a single story about it failing, and a guy in my unit, his civilian job includes testing body armor for the government, they shoot two plates out of every pallet to test them. I know people who were shot in the chest by AKs, they kept fighting.


As for air support, artillery and QRF the US though the same way in Vietnam but when the enemy has great mobility they can leave before they arrive (thus the point of hit and run doctrine), there is also the problem that forces could be pre-occupied with other conflicts (when the insurgences is large enough to have many battles all at the same time across the country)

The army's tactical doctrine has evolved since vietnam. Most people who fantasize about taking them on have not. Hence our comparatively low number of casualties. You can't escape things like FLIR. Those appaches hunt down insurgents even as they're running away. Not to mention no unit is ever that far away from other units, who will imediately begin reacting by either bringing in direct support, or setting up cordones around the area.

And if we were dealing with a revolutionary situation and there was a unit getting really fucked up, they'd just pull back and call for fire, within minutes 105mm howitzer rounds would level whole city blocks. The bourgeois will stop at nothing to kill the revolution.

[bugsy]

Dear Psy,

Please don't get me wrong, mucker, I really understand the basis of your thinking, but you're totally theorising and clearly lack any real understanding (or experience) of the basics of CQB (close-quarter battle), COIN (counter-insurgency) operations and FIBUA (fighting in built-up areas). These are methods wrested at the expense of many lives from Aden, NI, Vietnam (to a certain extent) and many other theatres around the world.

If you honestly want to see just how effective such tactics can be in the field, you could do much worse than google Michael Yon and read his quite hair-raising accounts of CQB, OCA, CR and other such methods as applied by the British Army and also the Septics.

The problem with people like you is that, come the revolution, you're going to get folks unnecessarily topped for want of practical training and a clear idea of what the opposing forces can actually do.

Just a thought

MsG

[Lynx]

Training and equipment.
If the tactics you describe are so effective, then why does the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to drag on? Civilian casualties from years of fighting are already horrendous, what is stopping the military from inflicting more in the short term if it would mean a decisive victory?

If the military has the firepower to exterminate the civilian population, that is an argument for either a non-armed revolution, as evidenced in Burma, or a heavily armed one. Which would be more practical?

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 10, 2007 06:01 pm--> (cmoney @ December 10, 2007 06:01 pm)
No convoy leaves unprotected in this country. I'm here, I see it, I have friends here who rode convoys for 18 months straight, both on gun trucks as infantrymen, and in supply trucks as cargo drivers. It is true that on some routes convoys leave in large numbers with small number of gun trucks. But the QRF is always a short ways away in such situations. (we don't have jeeps anymore fyi)
[/b]
A number of convoys are unprotected as most convoys are operated by mercenaries and not the US military even though these are vital to US forces.



The M4 carbine, the standard issue weapon for an infantryman does not fire full auto it is semi and three shot burst. And as I said, which you convienently ignored, we are trained to engage in controlled pairs, not unleashing ammo like 16 year old kids with paintball guns. There is one full auto weapon per squad, and it carries around 1400 rounds. It is the M249 SAW, and it is designed to be fired in 8 shot bursts. You don't use a machine gun by holding down the trigger and letting it rip. A platoon also has two .308 caliber 240s assigned to it (I am a 240 gunner) and the standard load out for it is 800 rounds. Keep in mind these are minimums and soldiers always carry far more rounds. And in convoys there are far more machine guns, those numbers only reflect dismounted operations.

Some troops carry the M16A2 and a growing number of troops use the AK-47 due to the M-16 family of rifles jamming when sand gets them in and it being way easier to clean a AK-47.


Originally posted by cmoney+--> (cmoney)
Troops would never hike back to base if a vehicle was disabled, we would hold up and defend our position, wait for QRF, call for artillery, call in all nearby units, and call for CAS, apaches can be anywhere in Baghdad in minutes. It takes a long time to expend 300 rounds. Don't forget, Che died at the hands of light infantrymen trained by the US.
[/b]
Che died by not following his own advice and his poor health by then slowed down the mobility. A unit not hiking back would make them sitting ducks, artillery is worthless when the enemy is close (as the shells would be falling you as well) while support takes time to arrive and might never arrive if they are tied down elsewhere (a number of officers in Vietnam made this mistake assuming they could always count on re-enforcements and didn't know what to do when their request for re-enforcements was denied). The PLAF also used US troops calling for help to expand the ambush by letting the help arrive then the PLAF bringing in re-enforcements (that was in hiding) join the fight and encircle US forces.


Originally posted by cmoney

Such behavior is very common for non-combat soldiers who find themselves stuck in combat roles (Military Police often end up in this situation). Well trained and combat experienced soldiers (of which there are now many) react much cooler.

There are number of officers don't act in a cool manner, this is why there is so many accidents in check points as the officer in charge panicked.


Originally posted by cmoney

Regardless, they may not have vehicles with them at the moment (my friend's unit currently runs foot patrols) but the QRF is always close by for such units. (his QRF...an armor squadron complete with abrams and bradleys, is never more than 20 minutes away) Don't tell me about combat...I'm the infantryman.

20 minutes is a long time for hit and run tactics.


Originally posted by cmoney

Supply lines? On foot? Supplies don't move on foot, and the war isn't fought like that. There really are no "supply lines". Yes, convoys are run with supplies on a weekly basis to some remote locations, but thats it, and body armor has no effect on it.

Vehicles run on fuel, without fuel vehicles don't move, meaning solders have to carry their supplies on foot. Yes they are supply lines, as fuel is not produced on site of US bases in Iraq and Afganistan.


Originally posted by cmoney

You're wrong about the quality of US body armor, I've yet to hear a single story about it failing, and a guy in my unit, his civilian job includes testing body armor for the government, they shoot two plates out of every pallet to test them. I know people who were shot in the chest by AKs, they kept fighting.

There is some talk of manufacturing defects caused by rush jobs.


[email protected]

The army's tactical doctrine has evolved since vietnam. Most people who fantasize about taking them on have not. Hence our comparatively low number of casualties. You can't escape things like FLIR. Those appaches hunt down insurgents even as they're running away. Not to mention no unit is ever that far away from other units, who will imediately begin reacting by either bringing in direct support, or setting up cordones around the area.

IR can't tell one person from another, they are just a human shaped blob on the screen. So in urban environment it is pointless due to the number of humans in the area, so all IR means is the guerrilla fighters have to blend in with the general population by the time helicopters arrive.


cmoney

And if we were dealing with a revolutionary situation and there was a unit getting really fucked up, they'd just pull back and call for fire, within minutes 105mm howitzer rounds would level whole city blocks. The bourgeois will stop at nothing to kill the revolution.
Problem is cities provide the industrial capacity that supports the military, also arms factories also have workers so the longer a revolutionary war go on the more powerful the workers will get while the weaker the state would get.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 06:20 pm
Dear Psy,

Please don't get me wrong, mucker, I really understand the basis of your thinking, but you're totally theorising and clearly lack any real understanding (or experience) of the basics of CQB (close-quarter battle), COIN (counter-insurgency) operations and FIBUA (fighting in built-up areas). These are methods wrested at the expense of many lives from Aden, NI, Vietnam (to a certain extent) and many other theatres around the world.

If you honestly want to see just how effective such tactics can be in the field, you could do much worse than google Michael Yon and read his quite hair-raising accounts of CQB, OCA, CR and other such methods as applied by the British Army and also the Septics.

The problem with people like you is that, come the revolution, you're going to get folks unnecessarily topped for want of practical training and a clear idea of what the opposing forces can actually do.

Just a thought

MsG
While the military is very powerful when taking it head on, the average patrol can't storm a building due to not having the manpower (especially when they don't which building they should storm). The unprotected convoy with no escort also can't do much especially in a built up area. This mean hit and run doctrine still works as it is still possible to hit a force and hide from re-enforcements.

[spartan]

The M4 carbine, the standard issue weapon for an infantryman does not fire full auto it is semi and three shot burst.
I thought that the M4A1 variant of the M4 carbibe, which eliminates the 3 round burst of the M4 carbine for full auto fire capability instead, was the main carbine issued to US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Anyway if the US army has any sense they would adopt the H&K 416 like Norway has.

Slightly off topic but dont you think that it would be great if the Russians built an AK, with all the modern features of the AK-100 series, to fire the new 6.5x39 Grendel round?

The 6.5x39 Grendel cartridge is the same length as the Russian 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 rounds but it is better than both these rounds IMO as the small caliber 5.45 bullet lacks stopping power whilst the bigger 7.62 bullet gives slightly too much recoil which effects accuracy at longer ranges.

The 6.5 bullet is thus a perfect middle ground between these two rounds as it combines the stopping power of the 7.62 bullet with the small caliber little recoil of the 5.45 bullet.

[bugsy]

Dear Sys,

You’re just not getting what I’m on about, so let me give you a real-life lesson of what I mean. All British Army bods are first and foremost taught to be soldiers and then they learn their trades. This is the tradition in most armies in the world.

Not long ago (August 2007), I attended an “old-sowjaz (British Army) meeting” in Cheshire, UK. One of those attending made the suggestion that we repair to his “battleground” just outside Cheshire for shits and giggles. He runs an area for “ battle training with paint-guns. So the scene was set for a paint-gun battle with the following teams:

Team 1: 3 shop assistants, 2 vehicle mechanics, 7 bank clerks, 1 baker, 4 bricklayers, 2 scaffolders, 5 insurance salesmen, 1 used-car salesman, 5 local gobment employees.
Total: 30. Average age: 24.

Team 2: 3 former Medics (including me), 2 former Sappers, 4 former Planks, 2 former Scalies, 1 former RAOC clerk. ALL none teeth arms! Total 12. Average age: 47.

Result: Team 2 attained its objectives in 17 minutes (the exercise was on a basis of four hours) with no losses. All members of Team 1 were “neutralised”. Job done!

You were saying?

MsG

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:59 am
Dear Sys,

You’re just not getting what I’m on about, so let me give you a real-life lesson of what I mean. All British Army bods are first and foremost taught to be soldiers and then they learn their trades. This is the tradition in most armies in the world.

Not long ago (August 2007), I attended an “old-sowjaz (British Army) meeting” in Cheshire, UK. One of those attending made the suggestion that we repair to his “battleground” just outside Cheshire for shits and giggles. He runs an area for “ battle training with paint-guns. So the scene was set for a paint-gun battle with the following teams:

Team 1: 3 shop assistants, 2 vehicle mechanics, 7 bank clerks, 1 baker, 4 bricklayers, 2 scaffolders, 5 insurance salesmen, 1 used-car salesman, 5 local gobment employees.
Total: 30. Average age: 24.

Team 2: 3 former Medics (including me), 2 former Sappers, 4 former Planks, 2 former Scalies, 1 former RAOC clerk. ALL none teeth arms! Total 12. Average age: 47.

Result: Team 2 attained its objectives in 17 minutes (the exercise was on a basis of four hours) with no losses. All members of Team 1 were “neutralised”. Job done!

You were saying?

MsG
I'm not talking about untrained guerrillas, the lack training and organization is the reason why insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not as effective as the PLAF was. There are tons of un-escorted supply convoys in Iraq that provides supplies for US bases in Iraq, how long do you think US troops would last in Iraq if their supply of fuel was constantly interrupted? Or if they can't get replacement parts to repair their vehicles? You can also look at the Spanish-Civil war, if not for the in-fighting and betrays of the Stalinists the rebels could have taken the state despite Franco having more fire-power as they were spread Franco's forces thin.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Psy+December 11, 2007 04:58 am--> (Psy @ December 11, 2007 04:58 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 03:59 am
Dear Sys,

You’re just not getting what I’m on about, so let me give you a real-life lesson of what I mean. All British Army bods are first and foremost taught to be soldiers and then they learn their trades. This is the tradition in most armies in the world.

Not long ago (August 2007), I attended an “old-sowjaz (British Army) meeting” in Cheshire, UK. One of those attending made the suggestion that we repair to his “battleground” just outside Cheshire for shits and giggles. He runs an area for “ battle training with paint-guns. So the scene was set for a paint-gun battle with the following teams:

Team 1: 3 shop assistants, 2 vehicle mechanics, 7 bank clerks, 1 baker, 4 bricklayers, 2 scaffolders, 5 insurance salesmen, 1 used-car salesman, 5 local gobment employees.
Total: 30. Average age: 24.

Team 2: 3 former Medics (including me), 2 former Sappers, 4 former Planks, 2 former Scalies, 1 former RAOC clerk. ALL none teeth arms! Total 12. Average age: 47.

Result: Team 2 attained its objectives in 17 minutes (the exercise was on a basis of four hours) with no losses. All members of Team 1 were “neutralised”. Job done!

You were saying?

MsG
I'm not talking about untrained guerrillas, the lack training and organization is the reason why insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are not as effective as the PLAF was. There are tons of un-escorted supply convoys in Iraq that provides supplies for US bases in Iraq, how long do you think US troops would last in Iraq if their supply of fuel was constantly interrupted? Or if they can't get replacement parts to repair their vehicles? You can also look at the Spanish-Civil war, if not for the in-fighting and betrays of the Stalinists the rebels could have taken the state despite Franco having more fire-power as they were spread Franco's forces thin. [/b]
Where can they get training then? Perhaps from defecting soldiers or sympathising former soldiers?

Yet a number of people on here have intense hostility towards such people being involved in the communist movement.

If our convoys were effectively attacked with regularity (unlikely) and we didn't have the resources to defend them in large enough scale then a number of solutions could be employed.

1)The doctrine for how the war is being fought could be modified, rear areas established and the war could be fought like a conventional war, with rear areas, enemy areas and no man's land, each side trying to fight to expand thier rear area, with all equipment/personnel based there. (how the revolution would most likely be fought, but on a spread out scale, with the cities being the center of revolutionary activity and the reactionary areas surrounding them)

2)They could rely on air assets to deliver supplies, which happens more and more every day here in Iraw, because it is so much safer.


I thought that the M4A1 variant of the M4 carbibe, which eliminates the 3 round burst of the M4 carbine for full auto fire capability instead, was the main carbine issued to US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

For the millionth time. I am in Iraq right now, sitting on the bed in my barracks, my rifle is leaning on the wall right next to me. The US army/navy/marine corps/air force do not use full auto rifles.

I'm not familiar with the weapon you're talking about. The M4 is a pretty good weapon, and it has served pretty well and will probably still be issued when I have kids.


While the military is very powerful when taking it head on, the average patrol can't storm a building due to not having the manpower

A typical patrol is at least platoon sized, which means about 36 people. Infantry doctrine in the US army states that a building is a platoon objective. If we started taking fire, there are 36 people who have the ability to observe where it came from, we can get a reasonably good idea which building, and clear the three or four suspect buildings. In real life, one squad can clear an entire building, and I have seen it done effectively.


A number of convoys are unprotected as most convoys are operated by mercenaries and not the US military even though these are vital to US forces.

Those mercs are armed. And even the civilian convoys are accompanied by soldiers. I don't know how many times I have to say it, I see it with my own eyes.


Some troops carry the M16A2 and a growing number of troops use the AK-47 due to the M-16 family of rifles jamming when sand gets them in and it being way easier to clean a AK-47.

The M16A2 also fires in semi and 3 shot burst, not full auto, I carried one before I got here. No considerable number of soldiers carry AKs, and if they did it is just expediently, in the event that there is a serious problem with thier rifle or they have run out of ammo. The M16 is an extremely effective and reliable weapon. Have you ever even held one? I carry mine everyday, in the sandy desert, and it functions flawlessly.


Che died by not following his own advice and his poor health by then slowed down the mobility. A unit not hiking back would make them sitting ducks, artillery is worthless when the enemy is close (as the shells would be falling you as well) while support takes time to arrive and might never arrive if they are tied down elsewhere (a number of officers in Vietnam made this mistake assuming they could always count on re-enforcements and didn't know what to do when their request for re-enforcements was denied). The PLAF also used US troops calling for help to expand the ambush by letting the help arrive then the PLAF bringing in re-enforcements (that was in hiding) join the fight and encircle US forces.

Iraq is not anything like vietnam. You like a tactical analysis of the forces involved. While I'm sure your political analysis is spot on, you simply are not a soldier and don't know. Notice how those with military experience counter every point you make?

P.S. I know a number of people personally who have called in "danger close" fire missions, within a hundred meters of thier own position. Not to mention an M203 grenade launcher or an AT4 anti-tank weapon will very effectively destroy a building, both of which are carried by individual soldiers.


There are number of officers don't act in a cool manner, this is why there is so many accidents in check points as the officer in charge panicked.


Thats why we have a chain of command instead of one single person in charge of everyone.


20 minutes is a long time for hit and run tactics.

Firing a quick burst from your AK or RPK machine gun isn't gonna be very effective anyways. You can either light it up and run, or you can have a drawn out engagement. One will keep you alive, the other will get you killed. Its just a question of how many of the enemy you want to take out and how much you're willing to risk.


Vehicles run on fuel, without fuel vehicles don't move, meaning solders have to carry their supplies on foot. Yes they are supply lines, as fuel is not produced on site of US bases in Iraq and Afganistan.

Planning prevents you from running out of fuel in the field, and if you did, you would wait it out. Yeah its a suply line, but its not some long permamnant ever extending line of trucks which is constantly running. How will you get the intelligence necessary to know when and where that convoy is? And surely you understand that the most vital convoys will be the best protected?


IR can't tell one person from another, they are just a human shaped blob on the screen. So in urban environment it is pointless due to the number of humans in the area, so all IR means is the guerrilla fighters have to blend in with the general population by the time helicopters arrive.

You can see weapons in hands.


Problem is cities provide the industrial capacity that supports the military, also arms factories also have workers so the longer a revolutionary war go on the more powerful the workers will get while the weaker the state would get.

Durruti said that we (the proletariat) were willing to destroy this whole wrold in order to build our new one. The bourgeoise WILL do the same.

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 11, 2007 05:07 pm--> (cmoney @ December 11, 2007 05:07 pm)
Where can they get training then? Perhaps from defecting soldiers or sympathising former soldiers?

Yet a number of people on here have intense hostility towards such people being involved in the communist movement.
[/b]
I have nothing wrong with troops defecting to a rebel army. Trotsky recruited a number of troops that defected from the Russian military.


Originally posted by cmoney+--> (cmoney)
If our convoys were effectively attacked with regularity (unlikely) and we didn't have the resources to defend them in large enough scale then a number of solutions could be employed.

1)The doctrine for how the war is being fought could be modified, rear areas established and the war could be fought like a conventional war, with rear areas, enemy areas and no man's land, each side trying to fight to expand thier rear area, with all equipment/personnel based there. (how the revolution would most likely be fought, but on a spread out scale, with the cities being the center of revolutionary activity and the reactionary areas surrounding them)
[/b]
Yes that is possible


Originally posted by cmoney

2)They could rely on air assets to deliver supplies, which happens more and more every day here in Iraw, because it is so much safer.

Remember wars are fought in order to accumulate capital, if occupation becomes a losing proposition for the capital class they will withdraw.


Originally posted by cmoney

A typical patrol is at least platoon sized, which means about 36 people. Infantry doctrine in the US army states that a building is a platoon objective. If we started taking fire, there are 36 people who have the ability to observe where it came from, we can get a reasonably good idea which building, and clear the three or four suspect buildings. In real life, one squad can clear an entire building, and I have seen it done effectively.

That is if the the platoon can observe where it came from, else in a built up urban enviorment it becomes a guessing game, guess wrong and they could be making them vulnerable for another hit&run without knowing where it came from. Add traps to buildings and it would frustrate troops, spending all that time clearing traps from a empty building only to get hit again when they go back to the street and still not knowing where it is coming from, sooner or later they'll call in air support that would be the point where the sniper goes home (if not sooner).


Originally posted by cmoney

Those mercs are armed. And even the civilian convoys are accompanied by soldiers. I don't know how many times I have to say it, I see it with my own eyes.

The private convoys have been sent out when the US army denied them escorts due to troops being needed elsewhere. Even when these convoys gets escorts a lot of times the escorts can't repel even the poorly executed ambushes in Iraq.


Originally posted by cmoney

The M16A2 also fires in semi and 3 shot burst, not full auto, I carried one before I got here. No considerable number of soldiers carry AKs, and if they did it is just expediently, in the event that there is a serious problem with thier rifle or they have run out of ammo. The M16 is an extremely effective and reliable weapon. Have you ever even held one? I carry mine everyday, in the sandy desert, and it functions flawlessly.

The AK and SKS are simple to repair and clean thus why guerrilla forces around the world use them. You can fire a AK or SKS while still coated on cosmoline (poor accuracy when you don't clean out the cosmoline but they still work).


Originally posted by cmoney

Iraq is not anything like vietnam. You like a tactical analysis of the forces involved. While I'm sure your political analysis is spot on, you simply are not a soldier and don't know. Notice how those with military experience counter every point you make?

You right Iraq is different then Vietnam but it is still possible for a organized guerrilla force to make occupation impractical.


Originally posted by cmoney

P.S. I know a number of people personally who have called in "danger close" fire missions, within a hundred meters of thier own position.

Not as easy when troops are scattered.


Originally posted by cmoney

Not to mention an M203 grenade launcher or an AT4 anti-tank weapon will very effectively destroy a building, both of which are carried by individual soldiers.

Guerrilla force can also use such weapons like RPGs, grenade launchers and heavy machine guns.


Originally posted by cmoney


There are number of officers don't act in a cool manner, this is why there is so many accidents in check points as the officer in charge panicked.

Thats why we have a chain of command instead of one single person in charge of everyone.

Yet at check points it still happens.


Originally posted by cmoney

Firing a quick burst from your AK or RPK machine gun isn't gonna be very effective anyways. You can either light it up and run, or you can have a drawn out engagement. One will keep you alive, the other will get you killed. Its just a question of how many of the enemy you want to take out and how much you're willing to risk.

A single AK but many AKs firing in bursts become effective.


Originally posted by cmoney

Planning prevents you from running out of fuel in the field, and if you did, you would wait it out.

I mean bases not having enough fuel or parts to send vehicles out, or send helicopters up.


Originally posted by cmoney

Yeah its a suply line, but its not some long permamnant ever extending line of trucks which is constantly running. How will you get the intelligence necessary to know when and where that convoy is? And surely you understand that the most vital convoys will be the best protected?

The PLAF did this through spies planted as translators (or translators they got defect). Also locals can give information on convoy patterns. Hitting less vital convoys provides supplies for a rebel army (by looting disabled trucks under the cover of a smoke grenade barrage on these trucks) and ups the costs of occupation. More vital convoys would be reserved for when a rebel army is strong enough to overwhelm the escorts with firepower or when a opportunity opens up to take such a convoy.


[email protected]

You can see weapons in hands.

Why would a properly trained guerrilla still have their rifle out? By that time would be on the run part of hit and run doctrine. A cold (not fired recently) pistol is not as noticeable to IR so a fighter can use that for defence if they run into problems (which they should try to avoid at that point and simply do their best to get back to a base without detection). The heat from the fired rifle is a problem by the SKS and AK are so durable you can dunk them in water or oil, they are also so cheap (from the point of view of a guerrilla army) that they can be simply abandoned on the field.


cmoney

Durruti said that we (the proletariat) were willing to destroy this whole wrold in order to build our new one. The bourgeoise WILL do the same.
Destroying the world is unprofitable and capitalists are not exactly brave (which is why they don't do their own fighting)

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Psy, give up- You aren't going to win.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:22 pm
Psy, give up- You aren't going to win.
I don't see why my view that a organized rebel army using guerrilla tactics being still viable is so unthinkable. Iraqi and Afghan insurgence that are far from a organized rebel army has made US occupation costly so I don't see why a organized rebel army would be of no use.

[Green]

I believe that it depends on the individual situation whether or not the support of the army is necessary. I would definitely not suggest you try to start a revolution in America without at least some support from the army.

Trust me. I live on a military post. The US Army knows what it's doing.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to assemble a rebel army to at least help, but they would be quickly crushed in the event of an uprising if they stood alone.

[spartan]

The most useful weapon of the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq are propaganda and media attention (Which they achieve by sucide bombings of military personal and civilians and also IED's) in a word basically terrorism.

Though we all love the AKM used by most irregular forces in the world today, the fact is it is way past its sell by date (Hence it being upgraded with new features by the Russians in the new AK-100 series of weapons to keep it going strong).

Also to our Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran comrades on here: Do the insurgents make use of Molotov cocktails alot of the time in combat situations?

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:07 pm
I believe that it depends on the individual situation whether or not the support of the army is necessary. I would definitely not suggest you try to start a revolution in America without at least some support from the army.

Trust me. I live on a military post. The US Army knows what it's doing.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to assemble a rebel army to at least help, but they would be quickly crushed in the event of an uprising if they stood alone.
Duh, of course a revolutionary army needs support but it doesn't necessarily need support from defectors from the military (thought it would be a huge help) what it really needs is local support for supplies and to help hide fighters after hits.

As for the idea the US Army knows its doing, in Fallujah the US forces used White Phosphorus (modern napalm) against a few disorganized insurgence and the order came right from the big suits in the Pentagon (so it was not used out of panic). Its results was exactly the same when the US used napalm in Vietnam, it made the insurgency more powerful as they got far more recruits from the outrage of the bombing of civilians then was lost by the bombing. The only reason we don't see a powerful revolutionary army forming in Iraq is the communist party in Iraq is very weak (far too weak to form a revolutionary army) and religious groups have more resources to attract disgruntled Iraqis in their ranks yet the religious groups lack understanding of guerrilla warfare (of course religious fractions not understanding guerrilla warfare is a good thing, and the weaknesses of the communist party in Iraq is something that has to be addressed).

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Psy+December 11, 2007 09:56 pm--> (Psy @ December 11, 2007 09:56 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 09:22 pm
Psy, give up- You aren't going to win.
I don't see why my view that a organized rebel army using guerrilla tactics being still viable is so unthinkable. Iraqi and Afghan insurgence that are far from a organized rebel army has made US occupation costly so I don't see why a organized rebel army would be of no use. [/b]
I agree with this. A well organized, semi well equipped, and reasonably trained guerrilla army can cause quite a problem for a modern conventional army. They can also win a war of occupation (like in Vietnam).

I was under the impression that you were arguing that a mass of random people with rifles would be able to take on an win against modern imperialist armies.

Though the development of a more conventional army (more conventional, though not conventional like we have today, it must still be based on democracy, I mean conventional in the sense that they have the training/supplies of the imperialist army) will be necessary to actually win the revolution/civil war.


The AK and SKS are simple to repair and clean thus why guerrilla forces around the world use them. You can fire a AK or SKS while still coated on cosmoline (poor accuracy when you don't clean out the cosmoline but they still work).

Absolutely, thats why I own one. But its not superior to an M16, thats why I want to own one of those.


Also to our Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran comrades on here: Do the insurgents make use of Molotov cocktails alot of the time in combat situations?

Not that I've seen. Handgrenades, rifle grenades, RPGs, and mortars are so prevalant in this country that they have no need. I have seen a number of homemade grenades though. (I think describing them would violate the no bomb instructions policy)

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 12, 2007 01:29 pm--> (cmoney @ December 12, 2007 01:29 pm)
I agree with this. A well organized, semi well equipped, and reasonably trained guerrilla army can cause quite a problem for a modern conventional army. They can also win a war of occupation (like in Vietnam).

I was under the impression that you were arguing that a mass of random people with rifles would be able to take on an win against modern imperialist armies.
[/b]
The only time unorganized insurgence can take on a modern army is if they are in huge numbers and can spread the army the thin but even then they would be nowhere as effective as organized and disciplined forces


Originally posted by [email protected]

Though the development of a more conventional army (more conventional, though not conventional like we have today, it must still be based on democracy, I mean conventional in the sense that they have the training/supplies of the imperialist army) will be necessary to actually win the revolution/civil war.

Training from imperialist armies would only be need in the sense of examining their training to develop tactical doctrines to counter it, there is no reason training a revolutionary army how to fight as if they have the resources of a imperialist army. Getting supplies can be acquired through looting supply lines, a rebel army won't learn how to loot a supply line with modern conventional military training, a rebel army needs training specialized for their circumstance.

As for civil-war, by that time the rebel army has industrial production behind it so yes more conventional training would be helpful but that industrial production probably not be at the level to manufacture modern equipment and arms so again training has to be based on the lower tech arms and equipment (and it probably be a good to focus production on arms and equipment easy to build and maintain)


cmoney

Absolutely, thats why I own one. But its not superior to an M16, thats why I want to own one of those.

For a rebel army the M16 is just too impractical. Rebel armies clean SKSs and AK-47 by simply poping the cover and pouring oil in it (and draining it out), some just yank oily cloth through the barrel, most only give their AK or SKS a good cleanings when they they have nothing better to do. The only alternative for a rebel army (that I can think of) would be the FN FAL or Kalashnikov 100 series

[The Douche]

The only time unorganized insurgence can take on a modern army is if they are in huge numbers and can spread the army the thin but even then they would be nowhere as effective as organized and disciplined forces


And if they had numbers that large no imperialist soldier would be safe anywhere in the country.


Training from imperialist armies would only be need in the sense of examining their training to develop tactical doctrines to counter it, there is no reason training a revolutionary army how to fight as if they have the resources of a imperialist army. Getting supplies can be acquired through looting supply lines, a rebel army won't learn how to loot a supply line with modern conventional military training, a rebel army needs training specialized for their circumstance.

As for civil-war, by that time the rebel army has industrial production behind it so yes more conventional training would be helpful but that industrial production probably not be at the level to manufacture modern equipment and arms so again training has to be based on the lower tech arms and equipment (and it probably be a good to focus production on arms and equipment easy to build and maintain)


Yeah that was in reference more to late revolution/civil war. And I only meant that they should focus on modern and conventional tactics, not the hierarchy or anything like that. An M16 is easy to maintain, one days worth of instruction and supervision can teach you what you need to know.


For a rebel army the M16 is just too impractical. Rebel armies clean SKSs and AK-47 by simply poping the cover and pouring oil in it (and draining it out), some just yank oily cloth through the barrel, most only give their AK or SKS a good cleanings when they they have nothing better to do. The only alternative for a rebel army (that I can think of) would be the FN FAL or Kalashnikov 100 series

You could do the same with any light lubricant with an M16. That is what soldiers to for the most part, when I clean mine over here all I do is wipe it down with an oily rag and punch the barrel once. And I really only clean it once a month, if that, and it works just fine. If my life depended on it I would do it much more, obviously.

I would agree with the FAL. Infact, I consider it to be probably the greatest battle rifle of all time, maybe tied only with the m14.

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 12, 2007 04:37 pm--> (cmoney @ December 12, 2007 04:37 pm)
Yeah that was in reference more to late revolution/civil war. And I only meant that they should focus on modern and conventional tactics, not the hierarchy or anything like that. An M16 is easy to maintain, one days worth of instruction and supervision can teach you what you need to know.
[/b]
The imperialists forces in the Russian civil-war had a far less firepower advantage them modern imperialist armies. Meaning even when a revolutionary army has say armour units they can't just lock horns with the US army and have to use the armour by hitting fast and getting the hell out of there and into cover as fast as possible to reduce the risk of being spotted from above (meaning rebels tanks would be more designed to take on armoured Humvee and infantry then US tanks)


cmoney

You could do the same with any light lubricant with an M16. That is what soldiers to for the most part, when I clean mine over here all I do is wipe it down with an oily rag and punch the barrel once. And I really only clean it once a month, if that, and it works just fine. If my life depended on it I would do it much more, obviously.

You don't need light lubricant for AKs and SKS, they can still fire with when coated with cosmoline so heavier oils don't bother them and only effect accuracy. Also the AK and SKS can take tons of abuse, you can take them under water and simply drain the water out and mostly accuracy will only be affected (and you shorted the life of the rife but since they last so long it is not a big deal).

[The Douche]

You don't need light lubricant for AKs and SKS, they can still fire with when coated with cosmoline so heavier oils don't bother them and only effect accuracy. Also the AK and SKS can take tons of abuse, you can take them under water and simply drain the water out and mostly accuracy will only be affected (and you shorted the life of the rife but since they last so long it is not a big deal).

You can use common household lubricants, like sewing machine oil on an M16 and have it properly function, much better than an AK/SKS. You can strap your M16 to your back and swim through a ricer than bring it up shooting. I know a guy who fell into a canal here during a firefight (the canals are nasty, full of waste water and run off and stuff) and his weapon full to the bottom, we had to reach down, fish around for it, pull it out of the muck and the bottom and then started firing.

Obviously if it sat down there for an extended period of time it wouldn't work, but neither would an AK or SKS.

Another reason I think the M16 would be the choice weapon is because it fires the standard NATO round, and when things start to fall apart the guerrillas get thier gear from convoys, so an SKS/AK won't be of much use when you snag a box of 1000 5.56 rounds.

[Red Puppy]

This is a tough topic. I admit freely, I would need a lot of training. There's a big doubt in my mind that we could face even a small amount of trained military even if we were better armed.

But, someone once told me we would need a ton of currency before we could abolish it. This is what I think they were referring to. Mercenaries will probably be a big necessity. I think that would give us a big upper hand, not to mention the military that comes over to our side we could crush the opposition. Time is a big factor, we must not miss out on this--the best time to do this, I think, is before the troops leave Iraq.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting there's a lack of troops in the US right now?

And to further this, I am for infiltrators in the ranks. Not the way the others were saying, though, I think the best way would have a small group strategically plant explosives in store rooms, weapon rooms, naval and air bases on the brink of the revolution and cripple the forces that way. Sure, they still have guns, but when there's fighting in the streets and they call for back up, what will they do when none come?

My 2c, again, probably a lot of flaws. I am pretty unexperienced.

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 13, 2007 09:56 am--> (cmoney @ December 13, 2007 09:56 am)You can use common household lubricants, like sewing machine oil on an M16 and have it properly function, much better than an AK/SKS.
[/b]
Some guerrillas used motor oil to lubricate their AK/SKS and they still work, also remember when they are not water tight so when are submerged they lose their lubricant yet still works, it just heats up really fast and jam far more often. Speaking of parts they are very simple, and can be made in the most crude metal shop.


Originally posted by [email protected]

You can strap your M16 to your back and swim through a ricer than bring it up shooting. I know a guy who fell into a canal here during a firefight (the canals are nasty, full of waste water and run off and stuff) and his weapon full to the bottom, we had to reach down, fish around for it, pull it out of the muck and the bottom and then started firing.

Obviously if it sat down there for an extended period of time it wouldn't work, but neither would an AK or SKS.

There is far more clearance in the AK and SKS for the parts, so the parts simply push obstructions to the empty space around them, this also means parts have more room to flex when they are stressed. Meaning the AK and SKS are more reliable.


cmoney

Another reason I think the M16 would be the choice weapon is because it fires the standard NATO round, and when things start to fall apart the guerrillas get thier gear from convoys, so an SKS/AK won't be of much use when you snag a box of 1000 5.56 rounds.

The 7.62x39mm is readily available, for example arms dealers are easily found in Afganistan due to feudal land lords having tons of drug money and mostly wanting to only spend that money on arms as growing their armies to take over smaller feudal land lords is the only way to acquire more wealth in Afganistan. Iraq is different but the 7.62x39mm is easily found there due to huge stockpiles built up before the occupation and Iraqi government forces still using them. Another reason is there are far more AKs in the world then any other weapon, the USSR and China simply flooded the market during the cold war making them cheap, the SKS mostly is adopted by guerrilla forces because it fills the role of a accurate rifle and uses the same ammo as the AK.

[The Douche]

Some guerrillas used motor oil to lubricate their AK/SKS and they still work, also remember when they are not water tight so when are submerged they lose their lubricant yet still works, it just heats up really fast and jam far more often. Speaking of parts they are very simple, and can be made in the most crude metal shop.

I know. Everybody in the world knows that those two weapons systems require the least amount of maintenance for function and cap be put through insane amounts of abuse. I am not arguing that.


There is far more clearance in the AK and SKS for the parts, so the parts simply push obstructions to the empty space around them, this also means parts have more room to flex when they are stressed. Meaning the AK and SKS are more reliable.

I know that. I own one. My point is that trade off made in innacuracy, lack of spare parts/ammo once the shit hits the fan makes the AR series a better choice.


The 7.62x39mm is readily available, for example arms dealers are easily found in Afganistan due to feudal land lords having tons of drug money and mostly wanting to only spend that money on arms as growing their armies to take over smaller feudal land lords is the only way to acquire more wealth in Afganistan. Iraq is different but the 7.62x39mm is easily found there due to huge stockpiles built up before the occupation and Iraqi government forces still using them. Another reason is there are far more AKs in the world then any other weapon, the USSR and China simply flooded the market during the cold war making them cheap, the SKS mostly is adopted by guerrilla forces because it fills the role of a accurate rifle and uses the same ammo as the AK.

Begging your pardon but I'm talking about a revolutionary situation in the US.

In the event of such a revolutionary situation, don't you think martial law would be declared and the sale of weapons/ammo stopped?

[Psy]

Originally posted by Red Puppy+December 13, 2007 02:18 pm--> (Red Puppy @ December 13, 2007 02:18 pm)This is a tough topic. I admit freely, I would need a lot of training. There's a big doubt in my mind that we could face even a small amount of trained military even if we were better armed.

But, someone once told me we would need a ton of currency before we could abolish it. This is what I think they were referring to. Mercenaries will probably be a big necessity. I think that would give us a big upper hand, not to mention the military that comes over to our side we could crush the opposition. Time is a big factor, we must not miss out on this--the best time to do this, I think, is before the troops leave Iraq.
[/b]
Why waste money on mercenaries? They won't be able to take the military on head on either.


Originally posted by Red [email protected]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting there's a lack of troops in the US right now?

Don't think the US mainland is undefended!!!!!! Police and federal law enforcement are not push overs and the military still has a sizable force it can quickly mobilize. Remember the US usually has troops abroad.


Red Puppy

And to further this, I am for infiltrators in the ranks. Not the way the others were saying, though, I think the best way would have a small group strategically plant explosives in store rooms, weapon rooms, naval and air bases on the brink of the revolution and cripple the forces that way. Sure, they still have guns, but when there's fighting in the streets and they call for back up, what will they do when none come?

My 2c, again, probably a lot of flaws. I am pretty unexperienced.

The US has lots of store rooms so such infiltrators probably would be useful in information gathering, it not as noticeable and even when there is suspicion it would greatly effect moral of troops as it could be a very long time before they know who is leaking information, causing the troops to stop trusting each other (thus they are no longer as a effective on the battle field as they don't trust each other to watch their backs)

[Psy]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 13, 2007 05:15 pm--> (cmoney @ December 13, 2007 05:15 pm)
I know that. I own one. My point is that trade off made in innacuracy, lack of spare parts/ammo once the shit hits the fan makes the AR series a better choice.
[/b]
The SKS is fairly accurate for a carbine, the biggest complaint from rebel forces is the small built in magazine that only takes 10 rounds but that can (and a number has modified it).


cmoney

Begging your pardon but I'm talking about a revolutionary situation in the US.

In the event of such a revolutionary situation, don't you think martial law would be declared and the sale of weapons/ammo stopped?
A revolutionary situation in the US would be very different. The US is a modern industrial power. What this means is the centre of a US revolution would be the industrial centres yet machinary leaving factories does pose a problem but that another story. Anyway occupied factories can manufacture but their supply lines probably would be cut so their would be limited to materials easily acquired (meaning factories probably be spending alot of time looking through scrap yards for material) , also there is bound to many interruptions to production. So all designs that can be produced when your talking a civil-war has to be a) of easily found materials b)quickly and easily produced and c)long lasting as they have to reproduced.

[Red Puppy]

Why waste money on mercenaries? They won't be able to take the military on head on either.

No, of course not, but they will have much more military experience and training than the average worker.


Don't think the US mainland is undefended!!!!!! Police and federal law enforcement are not push overs and the military still has a sizable force it can quickly mobilize. Remember the US usually has troops abroad.


I never claimed the US was undefended, but there wouldn't be as much of a massive force if we weren't in Iraq, am I right?

As for law enforcement, head over to the local ghetto. Rally your under privileged, your gang members, people who generally wouldn't mind killing cops and already do, beneath the red star and they will become pushovers.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Red Puppy+December 14, 2007 12:06 am--> (Red Puppy @ December 14, 2007 12:06 am)
Why waste money on mercenaries? They won't be able to take the military on head on either.

No, of course not, but they will have much more military experience and training than the average worker.
[/b]
Their motives would also only be for the accumulation of capital thus not exactly trust worthy.


Originally posted by Red [email protected]

I never claimed the US was undefended, but there wouldn't be as much of a massive force if we weren't in Iraq, am I right?

Like I said most of the time the bulk of the US military is abroad..


Red Puppy

As for law enforcement, head over to the local ghetto. Rally your under privileged, your gang members, people who generally wouldn't mind killing cops and already do, beneath the red star and they will become pushovers.
You underestimate federal law enforcement and their ability to infiltrate groups, plus their ability to organize local law enforcement.

[Red Puppy]

Maybe I do. I never claimed to be some kind of expert. Just my 2c. Continue on the discussion without me as I know I don't add anything to it.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 04:17 am
Maybe I do. I never claimed to be some kind of expert. Just my 2c. Continue on the discussion without me as I know I don't add anything to it.
Why don't look up COINTELPRO and you can see how much of a threat federal law enforcement can be.