Can you fight?

[Anarcho]

When the revolution comes, there are many here who have stated they will fight. Some here who have stated that they will be spies (For whom, I'm not sure).

What I want to know is, how well would you do?

Have you fired a weapon before?
Do you practice marksmanship?
Do you know the care and feeding of your weapons?
Can you live in the field for long periods of time?

I've seen lots of anti-gun sentiment here, and it confuses me.

So what's up? How well of a fighter would YOU make?

[libereco]

I have never fired a gun, and I don't intend to fire one. Especially not at another human being.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Anarcho on 1:30 pm on May 22, 2002
When the revolution comes...

Read: when the pigs fly...

There ain't gonna be no fuckin revolution. Sorry kiddos, we're stuck with capitalism until our deaths, at least everyone on this forum posting from Western countries (ie USA, Canada, UK, Western Europe). So forget it. I, for one, am gonna dedicate my life to aid working and eradicating poor labour practices.

[bleed3r]

I'm gonna agree with guerillaradio there, I don't believe we'll see a revolution in our lifetimes... Society is far too fucked up to make reparations within a single generation. However, I can answer yes to the first three of those questions, and to the fourth I am unexperienced, save camping and whatnot. However I'm not sure of my views on armed response... I can't say for sure right now whether I believe it is necessary or not, and until then I don't plan on taking the life of another human, capitalist soldier or otherwise.

(Edited by bleed3r at 4:27 pm on May 22, 2002)

[yuriandropov]

i agree with the two above comments. in western hemosphere, there will be no revolution in any of your lifetimes. communism will be confined to former communsit countries and the third world. the west may shift towards a centre left style of politics but thats as far left as they will go.
to answer the qusetions, yes, no, yes, yes

[Nateddi]

Where is your internationalist spirit, Yuri?

If all the third world will be able to overthrow their puppet governments, and the former communist countries can become communist as well, well than, capitalism will fall too.

There is no way that without third world exploitation (labor, resources, etc) capitalism can exist. If the engine a car falls, the car wont go, as simple as that.

[yuriandropov]

i know what you are saying nateddi, but without a communist super power, USA can just intervene wherever there interests are threatened and keep there exploitation in place. i'm not saying there won't be a communist revolution throughout the world, but it will happen when the gap between rich and poor gets worse.

[oldman]

The best bet for a better world is to elect (i know this could produce a lot of flack) Ralph Nader in the U$, and the NDP in Canada.

i'm not familiar with the popular socialist parties in the UK or France.

At least they would take care of the sick, hungry and homeless

A communist state will not emerge until it is formed from scratch by people willing to take a few sacrifices to the benefit of the majority. Something like a homeland for commies!! hehe. It would not be right to impose this system upon the masses

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i fired a weapon a hand gun, and a automatic.. i used to be in u.s custom so i praticed there....and i can live in the fields or woods for a long time ...and i can clean and take care of my weapons but the markmenship is so so..

[uth1984]

There are two ways for socialism to come about:

The ballott box (thru elections)
or
The bullet. (metaphorically speaking)

Whilst it would be lovely to have a non-violent revolution, Malcom X got it right: there is no such thing as a bloodless revolution; because a revoolution is a total overturning of what has gone before.
Perhaps I could say what I would fight AGAINST, not for. I would fight for my country and culture, and against anyone who wanted to take it from me.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I have fired/owned a number of weapons, I was born/lived in Alaska, can sustain in the field for prolonged periods, live off the land if I have to. However, I think a revolution would be predicated by the people being dissatisfied to the point of wanting a revolution. The vast majority of people in the US and the west in general are very happy or at least content with the present system. That is why we had a revolution 200 years ago, so we could live free like we do now. This forum represents a tiny, tiny group of misled individuals.

[Charango]

uth1984- I understand how you would want to fight for your country and culture, but that would just divide people. If (emphasis on if) there is going to be a revolution, people must get over their differences which separate them and work together. As far as the questions go... I'm afraid I'd have to answer no... I'll leave now...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Anyway, I would be fighting for american forces, which would crush any attempt at a coup to install an oppressive, totalitarian, freedom robbing dictator regime.

[Nateddi]

Anyway, I would be fighting for american forces, which would crush any attempt at a coup to install an oppressive, totalitarian, freedom robbing dictator regime............................................ ...... of a leftist leaning rule. I will furthermore support any coup against democracy of a leftist leaning rule, and I will support any bloody dictator which serves american corporate interest.

Its not democracy we protect, its capitalism. Be it ruled by a dictator, or by some sort of a democracy, we support it. We oppose any leftist movement, whether its led by a democratic leader who won an election, or a populist revolutionary who is a possible threat at becoming a dictator.

This is the basic American policy toward revolutions / movements. It has been historically proven.

All coups are unpopular (hense the name), all coups establish right wing unpopular dictatorships (pinochet, attempted coup on chavez, overthow of greneda's marxist movement, sandandistas in nicaragua, etc.)

All leftist movements are popular revolutions by the people (russia, cuba, china, vietnam, etc).

[Xvall]

I will fight If I have to, or feel the need to..
I don't care how innacurate I will be..
I'm not going to just sit aside, and watch the world die, while I donate a little bit of money to people and thing that that's solving anything.

You can't just 'correct' the problems by giving the poor money, you have to think behind it, like what is putting the people in this position, and how you can uproot these problems.

[Capitalist Imperial]

One man's revolution is another's coup, and america's revolution was a revolution for democracy and capitalism, and it was by the people,of the people, and for the people.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 9:27 pm on May 22, 2002)

[Nateddi]

American Revolution was a people's revolution
Russian Revolution was a people's revolution
Cuban Revolution was a people's revolution
Chinese Revolution was a people's revolution
Vietnamese Revolution was a people's revolution

The term revolution only refers to a popular change in government via violence.

A coup is an unpopular change in government via violance.

All american foreign policy on leftist governments included coups (or attempted coups) against a popular government, as I mensioned in my previous thread.

This wasn't an attach on the American Revolution, rather an attack on the 1945+ US foreign policy (especially toward Marxist / leftist movements).

[Anarcho]

I feel that the usage of the term coup versus revolution is indicative of the force used, and the external media.

The US, Russian, and Vietnamese conflicts were revolutions. It was a pitched battle between opposing forces.

The Military takeover of Pakistan, albeit benevolent for now, was a coup.

What I don't think many folks realize is that there are opportunities in the West for revolution... but it may not stem from a Socialist standpoint.

For example: If the US gov't made a sweeping law banning private ownership of firearms, I could see that being a major step towards a revolution against the gov't. The trick would be to work the socialist angle....

[SU37]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:00 pm on May 22, 2002
Anyway, I would be fighting for american forces, which would crush any attempt at a coup to install an oppressive, totalitarian, freedom robbing dictator regime.
But what if the leaftist movement is being helped by China and China sends chinese troops.China has more troops America has citizens.

[komsomol]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 3:12 pm on May 22, 2002

Quote: from Anarcho on 1:30 pm on May 22, 2002
When the revolution comes...

Read: when the pigs fly...

There ain't gonna be no fuckin revolution. Sorry kiddos, we're stuck with capitalism until our deaths, at least everyone on this forum posting from Western countries (ie USA, Canada, UK, Western Europe). So forget it. I, for one, am gonna dedicate my life to aid working and eradicating poor labour practices.



THis is the attitude we dont need, comrade. We can make the change, we can, but we need the support of the masses. To gain the support of the masses we must first draw attention to ourselves, do some soapbox preaching in the park, we must tell them our views and opinions, our speeches must be powerfull but most important we must convince them that what we speak is the truth by backing up with reason, if we have the right immpression and the people have the right logic, they will come around to ou point of view.

[samaniego]

PUSSY'S ALL THOSE WHO ARE AFRAID TO DIE, FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF MAN.
WAS CHE AFRAID TO DIE?

[James]

I admire Che, but i don't think of him as a god. He was a human. Every human is afraid of dying, some more than others thats all.

I can't see any revolution coming through in the UK, except maybe a right wing...nah, i can't even see that happening.

The UK is stuck till people start to open their eyes. Most people in the UK don't see the need for a revolution. Why would we? we got our nice homes and shit. Heck, some of us even give money to charity! or a two pence to a begger.

The people of the UK don't want a revolution, so its not going to happen.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from SU37 on 4:09 pm on May 23, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 9:00 pm on May 22, 2002
Anyway, I would be fighting for american forces, which would crush any attempt at a coup to install an oppressive, totalitarian, freedom robbing dictator regime.
But what if the leaftist movement is being helped by China and China sends chinese troops.China has more troops America has citizens.


China has no means to get chinese soldiers to us soil, US navy is far superior to chinese navy, and chinese transport ships would be sunk by US submarines/ships/aircraft before they were halfway across pacific. Also, china does not have enough money to employ all of their troops over sustained operations. US has much more $$ and can sustain more forces over time than china,by far.

[Robin Hood]

China has no means to get chinese soldiers to us soil, US navy is far superior to chinese navy, and chinese transport ships would be sunk by US submarines/ships/aircraft before they were halfway across pacific. Also, china does not have enough money to employ all of their troops over sustained operations. US has much more $$ and can sustain more forces over time than china,by far.

First, the China Vs US scenario is just silly. True, Chinas army is way larger and in a land battle would overrun the US/NATO troops just as the Warsaw Pact would have done. Counting out Russian and its free states from this. This first to overwhelming numbers and hardware. Second to that chines war technology as the russian war technology is designed for the battlefield. This based on just about any NATO report on for example the way russian and chines fighter planes are designed. While the US planes are built like swizz watches the chines are built like tanks. Rugid, simple, 2lowtech and made for the battlefield. Actually only Sweden and the UK with its harriers (Sweden using simple roads to launch fighters) have a strategy for an invasion.
The US relies far too much on airports and bases, something that can be taken out with little effort. This excluding the US Marines who have Harriers themselves.

Allthough!

As to Capital Imperial, a chines army would have been sunk. Crossing the pacific is a deathtrap in a modern battlescenario. Wouldnt like to be on a US carrier either waiting for some 15 dollar chines suicide sub to take it out.

Last, one big defect with the US army that has been critized to endless is the lack of protection against an EMP attack. Chines due to lowtech dont suffer from that problem.

Again though, whole scenario is dumb and very unrealistic at best except in Hollywood.

As for the first post by Capitalist Imperial.
Yes
Yes
Yes
and
Yes

Always followed the teachings of el Che on to that one has to be prepared and so I felt it naturaly to serve in my countries self defence forces allthough I of course dont sympatise with its existance. Still it serves as a potential training base for any revolutionary as it does for the enemy. Except concription I practise markmanship and Im interested in camping. This I think should be a MUST for any true revolutionary as it is to use computers and have a "normal" job. A modern revolutionary shouldnt stand out from the crowd.
The whole thing about walking around in dirty clothes, unshaven and looking like a bad El Che wannabe straight from the field is not revolutionary, its downright dumb! El Che looked like that because he just got out of the fighting. Look at the other pics of El Che in daily civilian life.
Heck, wearing symbols telling everyone who one is and where one stands is just as good as mailing the CIA ones personal details and when and where one planes to do any action.

As to how a revolution will be...well, when the big ones comes it will surely be the next step in mankinds social evolution. Might take a hundred years but it will happen, then one should be prepared. As for today one should be prepared as one can always serve in any of the revolutionary armed forces around the world. With the proper resources I recommend the Kurdish guerillas in east Turkey or FARC. Allthough as a white guy one do stand out alot, tip, get a tan 8)
This brings true field experience.
Else for the pacifists, dont blame you as when someones shoots at you anyone wets him/herself, one can serve as teacher or assist medicaly by joining the Red Cross or various UN projects in the third world.

Last, as to Capitalist Imperial comment on the American revolution.
Were you asleep during history or just had a bad teacher? The American revolution was a revolt for independence from british rule not for democracy and freedom, except freedom for whites from other whites. As to opposite from the movie Patriot, the british actually had a significant negro army as they offered them freedom and a salary.
The reason for the revolt was simply that people didnt felt they had any reason to be loyal to the british crown and government just as in South America the spaniard/portuguise/italian/other colonists felt detached from the Spanish crown.
Also pushed by some lads who thought it was great to form a new nation as they would be the natural choice for government.
Recommend reading Howard Zinns - The History of the American People or some non US history books to get another angle.

Enough ranting.
Please ignore bad grama, spell checking and punctiation. English is not my first language and I didnt check.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Again, robin, good points, although i don't think that you give US weapons enough credit in battlefield application, and increased lethality of US weapons is further compromising warsaw weapons survivability. Also, with mid air refueling and aircraft carriers, the US is far from dependent on land based runways, I would say chinese/russian planes with limited carrier ability and less sophisticated mid-air refueling are more dependant on land-based airfields (of course, land based air fields are always preferred, they are efficient and cheap to operate from considering the alternatives) as for the chinese army, yes,the standing army is large, but again would never reach US land per our air forces/navy, and china does not have the $$$ to continuously sustain and maintain even close to their entire military force over a lengthy campaign, especially against and adversary as letrhal as the USA. The USA could actually afford to employ more forces and weapons longer than china could, so we actually have a larger employable military anyway.

[death b4 dishonour]

it doesnt matter how lethal your weapons are, or how expensive they were, the US wouldnt have enough bullets to kill every chinese soldier. and i dont think the chinese soldiers would be motivated by money to fight anyways.

[Anarcho]

Quote: from death b4 dishonour on 2:21 am on May 25, 2002
it doesnt matter how lethal your weapons are, or how expensive they were, the US wouldnt have enough bullets to kill every chinese soldier. and i dont think the chinese soldiers would be motivated by money to fight anyways.

The majority of Chinese soldiers, locked in a land war with the US, would die of starvation and bombs. The US air superiority would be established quickly, and the ability of the People's Army to move supplies and food and troops to the front would be seriously disrupted.

At this point, other than a protracted guerilla war, the US is pretty much the global power. Sad, in a way, but true.

[Astrofro]

What country in all of your minds is more fair and ready for a world power, or would do better? Please dont say countries that have no chance of becoming one...
Regarding the American revolution... The Americans were ready to creat another monarchy with Washington at it's head. And saying look for books not published by the US on an American Revolution? pfft...

The Chinese would horibly loose to the united states. Ever heard bout tactical nukes. If China even tried taking on ANY Western nation they would be outnumbered by ALL the western nations

[Angie]

Can you fight?Full military training here, but I must admit that that sort of training alone is pointless without other abilities backing it. Fighting isn't just about picking up a gun, shooting it, and hoping it hits someone or something, regardless of what society teaches. So, as many fighters as possibly must be involved in espionage, sabotage, some level of politics, community service in the most vital areas, the ability to be both charismatic and a public speaker, have at least a level 2 in First Aid (level 3 is preferrable, but 2 is decent for most situations), you name it - for anyone to consider being a guerilla these days (especially considering the hi-tech nature of the government-ran militaries), you need much, much more training than just the ability to shoot a gun. Sorry guys, the average person is nowhere near ready to fight and win. Even Che would require further training to survive in today's world.

I've been training for many years now, and doing my own groundwork in the field daily, but even that's not good enough yet. For there to be ANY revolution to overthrow the government, there must first be a revolution of the people themselves - the locating of those people who would be willing and able to fight, and then their education must begin. They must learn how to fight properly - to cope with today's brutal, impersonal warfare situations, not Che's - in all honesty, GuerillaWarfare is a good read, but it needs a little updating to apply to today's way of life.

Something I'll mention before ending this post is something important that received a mention in Che's Bolivian Diaries. Two Bolivian guerilla soldiers amongst Che's troops who freaked out when things got a little rough. It must be remembered that those who were fighting in Cuba alongside Che had been trained alongside him pre-Revolution. Those who joined up with him in Bolivia generally hadn't been trained. Training is EVERYTHING. Not just physical, but emotional, also. Hence my comment on how the education must begin.

[BOZG]

The US air superiority would be established quickly

The PRC air force outnumbers the USAF

[Robin Hood]

Well first to answer Capitalist Imperial.
First, a modern war is won by the one that strikes first. In a scenario...extremely unlikely...that China goes into toe to toe war with the US and invades by somehow get its airforce in range of the US, again extremely unlikely but lets say for fantasy that they had Mexico and surrounding islands.
A first strike might have annihilated US airforce but still, in the end China would have lost due to the simple fact that the people of the US wouldnt have bowed down to an invader. Just look at Afghanistan, half a year is comming after the US has invaded and still there are cells of resitance. Imagine Chines infantry marching around in say Alabama, wouldnt like to be in their boots...
No matter how many billions of troops they poor in the only thing they will achive is massive destruction but by time they would loose and by this not counting in the near impossible logistics.
Still, this all in a non nuclear scenario...again, extremely unlikely. Rather put my money on an alien invasion.
Another thing is that the US is a very very large country, smaller than Russia and maybe China but hiting 80-90% of all US airbases would be quite an amazing thing.
Same thing goes for the US invading China, wont happen and would have ended in disaster for the same reasons.
The US army might not be stronger but its perfect for its tactics of short political warfare. Something that Bush seems to have forgotten with Afghanistan. The US seems to be doing another Vietnam...
Somalia dosent count as that was against a mob using guerilla tactics in a city which is probably the worst possible situation to fight in.
As for China dragging its forces over the pacific...yeah right, even there US subs would have a field day runing hit and run tactics. Again, same goes for the US in dragging its large army across the pacific.
With todays weapons, even without nukes, it would be a slaughter.

Else to Angie. Agree, all military training and experience gives very little when it comes to the battlefield. Anyone can crack up when seeing fellows soldiers be taken out or when laying there with horrible injuries. Another thing is today when we have just about perfected weaponry to fit any battlefield. Specially the US.
For example in one of the books by El Che he writes that air raids by bombing are very inefficient against dug in guerillas. Today a guerilla faces gunships, airexploding and gasexploding bombs and other versions that are made to specially take out reinforced troops.
Also the leadership, I might have some experience but I know that Im no leader. Rallying people, making them fight for you, obeying you, following orders that seem tricky... Real leaders are hard to come by. There are no university courses and charisma is not one train. One can improve ones people management skills but "leading" a bunch of employees and draging people to a cause are two major difference concepts.
Allthough I must point out in the fighting part that its not that hard. Anyone with a bit of training and a machinegun/submachinegun can put up a tricky situation for any experienced troop. For example Somalia, former Jugoslavia and Lebanon.
A tank can quite easily be taken out by antitank in a city enviroment. Allthough sure, facing an army in open ground is something else, even hills and forests. A peoples army fighting an army excells in ambushes/sneak attacks following hit and runs, but that doesnt win a war, sooner or later one have to mount an assault. Without a heavy armed and experienced army it just about cant be done today.
Still I strongly agree on the psychological part. For myself the idea of injuries is something that still gives me shacky hands.

As to Astrofo, there is no country that can dominate the world by force alone. The US is kind of doing it but by politics and economy and that only because capitalism is accepted by just about all rulers on this planet.

For a worldwide revolution to be succesful it must start by the third world cutting out the resource flow to the west followed by that the people in the west raise against their masters.
As I said before, this would mean the next step in mankinds history of social evolution not seen since mankind went from monarchy to represented democracy.

Also the Chines are alot less affected by economy and strain on the people for war. The US unless in an invaded scenario is not made to hold out for a prolonged war that will take years.
This is defect of "democracy", something that Chinas "fascism" is imune to.

[Guest]

Hmmm, Robinhood, I more or less agree with almost everything that you said, A chinese invasion attempt would very, and i mean very, likely be stopped in the pacific. Even assuming they get to land, the people of the US are armed and I predict would be more than willing to engage chinese military in "amature homeland defense". Consider that many (the majority) of these gun owners are hunters with high powered hunting rifles with scopes, witha lot of practice at the range and in the "field". The chinese that did 1st make it to US soil (again, which is highly unlikely in the 1st place), then survived US land warfare systems and infantry (another great filter), would not-so-systematically be picked of by mostly NRA members, LOL, LOL.

As for afghanistan, I would assess your vietnam analogy to fuzzy at best, and poor at worst (not a personal attack, you obviously are well-thought, but an attack on your analogy). The war in afghanistan has already achieved a major objective, eradicating the taliban's political control of afghanistan. We are basically keeping the remaining taliban on the run, unable to "set up shop" or stockpile weapons for future action. We continue to find resistance pockets, and systematically eliminate their personel and hardware. All of this without signficant US losses (of course, I am not counting 9/11). Most of the losses we've suffered have come from our own errors (friendly fire), and the few losses attributed to enemy forces can be counted on 1 hand. Vietnam was much diffferent, 50K+ US loses, and no majortives acheived (which was small campared to the millions of vietnamese losses and aecimated economy) see my previous post for my further assesment of vietnam.

As for angie, I finally agree with you on something, war is a campagn on many platforms, not just battlefield engagements.

[Guest]

oh, that last post is me, capitalist imperial

[Guest]

Again, this is Capitalist Imperial



Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 2:20 pm on May 26, 2002

The US air superiority would be established quickly

The PRC air force outnumbers the USAF



I don't even know if this is a true statement, but assuming it is, lets consider some things:

1) The chinese are still employing j-4's and migs developed in the 50's, much their inventory is old and lacks trrue engagement ability with western aircraft even 20 years old.

2) Even the more current migs are stripped down versions of the russian/soviet designs, the russians will contract their aircraft purchases/manufacturing with china, but they are not going to share their premium technical applications with China. Even china's most advanced warplanes can't compte with US airpower.

3) Again, a key variable (some would argue it is the most important variable) to remember with China, and this can be said about their personel, land systems and navy as well: China does not have the economic power to sustain their existing air (or any) forces at even close to full capacity over time. The overhead and logistics required to maintain their people and hardware dictate funding and resource flow that China is just not capable of. Again, is is a matter of relativity. The USA can maintain its force at a greater capacity over time. The US can actually afford to employ a larger percentage of its force at once over time than china, and can employ a larger absolute force than china at once over time (and said force will be more technologically advanced, bettter maintained, better prepared, and more lethal than chinese forces).

[BOZG]

A battle between the USAF and the Chinese airforce would be unpredictable. It's a battle of numbers against skill who's outcome would only be known after a war.

[hobo]

i could never see a successful invasion of america taking place, unless the country was split and already of the brink of civil war and a full scale invasion in support of one side. i don't think we will see revolutions of western super-powers in our lifetimes but we are already seeing the their beggings, through the mass protests and people turning away from mainstream parties. We just have to make sure that we continue these and make sure that they bring power to the left

[Guest]

Quote: from BornOfZapatasGuns on 10:58 am on May 27, 2002
A battle between the USAF and the Chinese airforce would be unpredictable. It's a battle of numbers against skill who's outcome would only be known after a war.


actually, we would have #'s, skill, and tech advantage

[Robin Hood]

More than free to attach my analogy on Vietnam, Capitalist, thats part of debating.
Interested though to know on what parts.
Been in Vietnam?
A luxury I get to do in my field of employment is travell alot, been to Vietnam, meet the people and I have heard the stories from war veterans. Also met many american vietnam veterans. To that also read various books, actually got one from all US newspaper reports.
Not an expert but as an history fan.
Another thing to note is that some 60.000 US soldiers died. But how many got seriously injured? A big detail here is that the US troops had the luxury of vastly superior medical resources specially the ability to ferry injured to a doctor using helicopters. This saved countless of US troops who else would have died if they had remained in the jungle. The NVA or VC didnt have this luxury and had to treat wounds mostly by simple first aid. Seen a gunshot wound before? One might not directly die if one get treatment in time but leave it there and you will have a nasty infection in no time. You wrote before that you had field experience from Alaska. Correct me there.
If so you might know how deadly a wound can be and how hard it is to treat it. Even a broken leg can kill you.

As for Afghanistan you missed the whole point. Remember the US generals saying it would take a week or so, over a half a year later and troops are stuck in hunting down small cells. Got some russians friends who were to Afghanistan and they kind of get nostalgic on the point that the US seems to be falling into the same trap of endless fighting. Another thing is that the Afghanis are getting slightly tired of the US. These guys are not big on foreigners and if they get pissed off, something that probably is only a question of time or if the US would do something stuiped like intervening in their tribal laws and ways then they better get out before the get into a real second Vietnam.
Remember that these "peasants" might be lightly armed but the got:
*A fanatic belief in Islam, not Talibans exactly but not far
*Endless amount of troops, partly from Pakistan but from the whole region.
*Terrain
The Taliban government was easy picking as US weapons are made to take out that kind of targets and by that I mean stationary and highly visible ones.
Just look now as they keep "winning" skirmishes.
Else, sure, if you believe US news then the US losses will always be low. Heck, what else are they going to write?
Remember ones when I was in Kuwait slightly after the war and saw some burned out US tanks and APCs and holding a NewYork Times stating that US losses were max 300. Remember I thought, "heck, it must have been these guys". Hardly though. Again, the US here had the superior medical resources to thank for their low losses. We might never know exactly how many died but Ive seen plausible numbers of around 3000. Sure minalistic compared to the Iraqis but that counted that the Iraqi military was mostly composed of ill trained and zero motivated troops who were more than gladly to surrender. Specially after been bombarded by artillery and from the air.
Still, the US were wise to avoid fighting in the citys and partly this why they decided not to go further into Iraq. Else because the US needs Sadam.

Finishing off the China/Russia Vs US as its quite pointless. The scenario is at fantasy level and a realistic scenario would involve way too many factors. Could base a larger debate there.
Another important fact is the US never have had any plans of directly conventionaly invading Russia just because of the distance. Any attack would be through Europe and surrounding countries.
Else the main battle scenario was actually a counter strike based on a Russian invasion of Europe which was the most plausible scenario of the any and of these all involved the use of nuclears to halt or hinder the massive russian onslaught something that most likely would trigger a global nuclear war which in turn would have left the planets population on the northern hemisphere extinct with the southern waiting for the radioactive winds to mount extreme casualties.
Even with Reagans so called StarWars system that takes out 90% of the incoming missiles it would have left the US a broken nation waiting for the orbiting plutonium to finish off the planet. Instead of a missile rain it would face a plutonium rain.
That StarWars scenario was actually pure fantasy. 90% cant be achived and still it wouldnt solve the plutonium problem. The main problem factor here is winds. Even a purely nuked Russia would leave radioactive winds.
This is why a nuclear war was never initiated...and never will. Thankfully.

[RedRevolutionary87]

sorry, id like to get back to the first topic, i have very little experiance with fire arms, but i can train, and i can get better, and even if im not could, i would fight for a usefull cause, every person helps, and im sure there will be some sort of drastic change in our life times, remember my friends, communism needs to happen at the peak of capitalist development. the farther the usa goes into their right wing, the more powerfull we will get, the more poor people there is out there, the better our chances, they cant kill us all, and it will eventualy get to the point where people will have nothing to live for, and they will fight to their deaths, until every last one of them dies, the opposing armies will lose moral because they are killing millions of civileans, even armed women, eventualy the tides will turn for us...never give up hope comrades

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 3:12 pm on May 22, 2002

Quote: from Anarcho on 1:30 pm on May 22, 2002
When the revolution comes...

Read: when the pigs fly...

Comrade, I think what youy mean to say is :

Read: Right now...

There are Marxist revolutions going on at the moment in Columbia, Peru, Nepal, Mexico... it just takes the dedication to actuallt go there and fight

[oconner]

Have you fired a weapon before? Yup
Do you practice marksmanship? Yup
Do you know the care and feeding of your weapons? Nope
Can you live in the field for long periods of time? Dunno

[pastradamus]

I've never fired a gun in my life,only BB guns ;)

no seriously im no good with a gun.Aint pa's style.
Hands & legs are my tickets.

[Moskitto]

Fighting in woods is bad it's like, "look over there, someone's shooting at us."

Me looks and doesn't see anything.