Why don't people in authoritarian regimes like in North Korea or Iran just rise up and rebel...

Why don't people in authoritarian regimes like in North Korea or Iran just rise up and rebel? People in America would have. Some things in life are worth more than living

>People in America would have
People in your country with guns not affiliated with the army or the police would straight up fucking die and be killed for a man that just made it a pat on the wrist to poison their drinking water.

well crafted bait

What the fuck are you talking about?

>People in America would have
So why haven't you done so in the past few decades?

>Some things in life are worth more than living
Like dying for Israel?

Notice how America has had no threat of dictatorship? There's a reason for us. The government is more scared of us than we are of the government.

I just watched a documentary on the Khmer Rouge and nothing like that would ever happen in America because we would've rose up and thrown them out of power.

Indeed.

Anyone armed in opposition to the government in the advent of an uprising would be declared an enemy of the state, you fucking idiot. They'd be killed without a second thought.

>Notice how America has had no threat of dictatorship?
You're living in a country ran by corporate dictators.
>The government is more scared of us than we are of the government.
Your government isn't scared of you, which is why they have shown no holds barred in terms of infringing your rights.

Trump rewriting environmental protections so that flyover fucks are now screwed if a coal operation decides smog or turning any surrounding body of water into a grey soup will help cover overhead cost.

>People in your country with guns not affiliated with the army or the police would straight up fucking die

You underestimate how well Americans organize. I challenge the government to fight a well armed rebellion in a place like Kentucky or West Viriginia where everyone is armed and only need a reason to rebel

>we would've rose up and thrown them out of power.
Woah, military theory thread. Alright, step by step, how would you do that?

>would have
No, the dumbfucks of this nation proved their stupidity once again in the previous presidential election.

>The government is more scared of us
HAHAHHAAHAHA the delusion on this man. The government constantly lies to the public and they just eat it up.

So what are you waiting for then?

We don't live in a place like North Korea or Turkmenistan

Buddy you missed my point. You could fight, instead your most well armed people would rather die fighting for someone like Trump or some other politico-corporate suit than fight against them.

can someone just nuke this fucking country please

Just want everyone to know that OP is the actual majority opinion when it comes to Iran.

I don't agree with Iran's government at all, but I can at least understand why it is the legitimate government of that country.

Just give us a reason to fight and try to take away our guns, and see the kinds of rebellions that would spring up

Thousands upon thousands would die

From your point of view. That's the point.

>You underestimate how well Americans organize.
No, we aren't. Americans are fucking useless at organising compared to what their military complex is capable of. They already have every aspect of your existence monitored and can easily make you disappear overnight if they wanted to.
>I challenge the government to fight a well armed rebellion in a place like Kentucky or West Viriginia
You'd end up with hundreds of thousands of dead Kentucky and West Virginia denizens, you delusional fuck. Your bangsticks are meaningless even in a battle of black and white fire power because even the best armed citizens can't defend themselves against drone strikes.

>Thousands upon thousands would die
Yeah while everyone in power from the state legislature to Washington watches in amusement from a distance. I imagine the local collaborator vs rebel split will be roughly 1:1.

All I'm saying...is that if Stalinist Russia happened in the USA, we'd resist a whole lot more. I'm just sayin

You have to go back, Huang.

>Thousands upon thousands would die
99% of them being the rebellions redneck gun owners. Your military has been blowing up citizens for decades and know how to do it damn well.
Gun owners have no power against the military.

I'm an anglo born in Australia. Feel free to expand on your points instead of spering out like a typical braindead mongrel American Sup Forumstard.
Hilariously delusional conjecture doesn't constitute an argument.

1776 and 1917 are more alike than you would probably care to admit. If anything the Reds got far less foreign help than the founding fathers.

The last time we had an armed rebellion, 600,000 people died putting it down. It's not as easy as it looks.

its funny because the British attempted to impose a large government on the American population in the 1760s and attempted to genocide us in the process, but we fought back like a boss

Seeing all these pathetic people not fighting and choosing to die instead is pathetic

I'll tell you. People in this countryes haven't ever seen better life, but only the worst one.

Majority of the population stayed neutral during the war of independence. Even your founders admitted as much.

>I'm just sayin
That's nice but nothing in the modern history of your country supports this.

Last time you had an armed rebellion one side didn't have access to drones and the ability to bomb buildings from thousands of kilometres away with the press of a button.
Comparing current day America to the Civil War period is the hight of stupidity.

>the militaries of over 200 years ago are in any way comparable to the militaries of today
lmao

Yeah and most of the American officer corps would side with the rebellion than the government. You don't know American culture. We're not weak, cowardly and passive.

You're an idiot.

If those things happened in your country you'd have starved to death before you got the bright idea to rebel.

Not him, but that point is entirely irrelevant.

In both situations that point of the civilian population would be to simply create hostile territory that cannot be properly conquered. The situations don't have anything else in common.

That fact that France and other European powers helped America was only possible because America was willing to fight in the first place. We needed France to win, not to fight.

White Russia would have gotten help from everybody if they were a bunch of pussy faggots (which they weren't), just because everybody wanted to keep the red threat away.

The retard is trying to say that authoritarianism is hard against an armed populace. Take Ottoman rule over Greece for example. There was territory the Ottomans didn't strongly rule over because of resistance, and people who wanted to resist began to gravitate towards the mountainous southern Greek regions.

Like Syria?

Nikita, get that proxy away and go to school already.

They killed over 10 percent of their entire population but they kept fighting anyways. Theres no way Americans rebels would let a million die before surrendering let alone 30 million.

Lobbying in america is so common
, I'd rather live under a dictatorship.

>the absolute state of my countrymen
This is just beyond retarded.

And that was a war fought with organized, regular armies, not an insurgency.

Also a huge chunk of the federal army pre-war was on both sides.

ITT: Delusional Americans

An insurgency would be much harder to beat. Like the other guy said, Chechnya. Russia couldn't beat them despite one of the world's strongest militaries and far fewer qualms about human rights than us.

Everyone look at this person.

This guy has never served in the military. He probably hasn't even joined a proper militia or anything.

He's a pseudo-para-military fuckboi with delusions of grandeur. He'd probably love parading in the streets of his hometown with a rifle just to show he can.

This serves as an example of a substantive minority in modern American culture.

ITT: one russian troll with us proxy finally created a good bait thread, but failed anyway.

>American officer corps side with the rebellion
Lad, I hope you understand this country is not united in any way. You would never have the entire population against the government. The people that own guns aren't going to do shit to the most advanced army this world has seen. Quit larping, you make everyone look bad.

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Iran is a functioning state where people have a decent quality of life, why should they rebel?

North Korea is really a unique case and can't be compared to normal countries. Normal people are unarmed and brainwashed, they would get btfo if they tried to rebel.

>reddit spacing
god, I hate you all.

Lemme put it this way. There are about 100 million firearms in this country and less than a million military personnel.

That's original Sup Forums spacing, from before reddit even existed. I've never been on reddit, but you clearly know how that site works.

Maybe you should go back to your home.

I really doubt that. OP talks like a real Trump supporter really talks. There's far more real people on Sup Forums who think like OP than you think.

but aren't gun nuts also the same people that say to respect the military

They just scream bullshit about respecting the troops until it comes time to fund the VA through taxes, then the troops are on their own.

Also there's huge areas out in the Rocky Mountain states where insurgents could hole up forever and be almost impossible to suppress. Think Afghanistan.

The VA is the poster child for the wonders of socialized medicine. :^)

Exhibit A.

And in Afghanistan they were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. Guerilla warfare isn't the same anymore thanks to the advent of GPS. The government has superior fire power. They wouldn't last. They wouldn't even have to hold back without a large civilian population.

>Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Iran is a functioning state where people have a decent quality of life

>this poster again
Hey Ardashir, if Iran is so great to live in, why do you live in Toronto on welfare instead?

1) Where would you get enough food for rebels and their families, especially during winter?
2) What's the the strategic idea behind hiding in the mountains?
3) How much infrastructure/production value Rocky Mountains have?
4) Where would you get enough people who know the place and how to move across it fast?
5) How are you planning to hold against massive plane/helicopter supported assault without money/weapon/volunteers support like one mujahedeen's had?

This is true. Any real American insurgency against its own government would have to be centered in areas with the population density to protect the insurgency and those places have all the government's juicy targets anyway.

The real trick would be to make the targets that are hit look "government" and not "civilian innocent Americans dying, being slaughtered by these bad guys the government is fighting" which is a pretty tall order.

To be honest, this whole scenario would just degrade into a situation similar to how the Irish public overall felt about the troubles, except with a higher death toll.

>How are you planning to hold against massive plane/helicopter supported assault without money/weapon/volunteers support like one mujahedeen's had?

Almost all insurgencies get outside support from somewhere. Also if you want to have a serious discussion, using anime reaction images tends to not be a good way of getting it.

Or I mean Vietnam.

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but America is the Saudi Arabia of food, and the people most likely to side with the rebels are also the people that happen to grow food around here.

All of America has important infrastructure. In fact America's rural infrastructure projects are absolutely massive by any country's standards in peacetime.

The last two are mostly answered by the fact that the guy you're talking to is assuming that large portions of the armed population are going to side against the government.

I am one of the people that agrees with you on the whole, America cannot survive a war against its own army.

Because Toronto is better, but his point is that Iran isn't a hellhole.
So, where are you planning to get it from?
>
Why, are you afraid of them? I guess you can use some browser extensions to hide them, but that's not the point.

Not to mention that it was with primitive technology on both sides; with the US military's current arsenal, it can fight extremely effectively without any boots on the ground.

The idea that some inbred dicklets from Kentucky whose experience with guns consists of taking potshots at rabbits between heroin injections is pants-on-head retarded. I can't believe people still buy into the militia meme; it's PURE delusion.

Oh, you're trying to say that a rebellion WOULDN'T get steamrolled, based upon a past instance wherein everyone had similar amounts access to the same technology. Idiot.

Everyone look at the idiot and laugh.

Learn to read.

I wish that were the case, Ivan. A large proportion of our population non-ironically believes that they would be able to take on our extremely well-equipped (and at this point so technologically advanced that most of their warfare can be waged remotely) army. I think a lot of these gun nuts let their power fantasies go to their heads and actually start to believe that they're far more competent than they are.
Learn to think. I'm not the one who believes that a handful of delusional gun nuts in heroin country can take on drones and missiles.

>Learn to think. I'm not the one who believes that a handful of delusional gun nuts in heroin country can take on drones and missiles.

Neither is the guy you replied to, you fucking retard.

His pic applies directly to you, it turns out.

ITT: People who think technology wins wars rather than the human element

The best equipment in the world won't win a war if you don't believe in the cause you're fighting for. In the case of Vietnam, we simply couldn't justify the expense in blood and treasure for some country on the other side of the world most Americans had never heard of.

This is true. For example, in the Civil War the South got considerable amounts of material from Europe. They wanted the US to be divided and weak to nip a rising superpower in the bud.

To be fair, a lot of deaths in the Civil War were actually from disease rather than combat.

Oh, there was a miscommunication- that was me replying to myself to correct myself because I initially misinterpreted what was saying.

Technology wins in a confrontation between regular armies, it's not so effective with insurgencies where the enemy can blend in with the population. The Russians couldn't conquer Afghanistan and neither can we.

Wasn't the South naval blockaded during the entirety of the war?

>People in America would have.
Not until we collapse. This country is a lost cause that has already fully surrendered itself to corporations.

The last Southern port wasn't taken until February 1865.

Uhm.. Yeah?
But the coastline was still blockaded, so european countries weren't able to send anything to the South, right?

They were able to conduct business with Europe for most of the war because it took a long time to close off all those ports (the last one was taken just two months prior to war's end) and of course the famous blockade runner ships like CSS Alabama which was purchased from Britain and had British crew members.

Was it Admiral Yamamoto who said during WWII "It would be impossible to invade the United States. There would be a gun hiding under every blade of grass."

Too bad that guns don't matter anymore. All modern conflicts are decided by aviation and artillery. And civilians don't have that.

This lad proves you can bait pretty much any board

Technically, the national guard in big states of the US has artillery and aviation.
But civilians lack experience, navy, spies, diplomacy, cruise/ballistic/nuclear missiles, and many more things, you are very right in that point.
Whatever, it's an interesting theme to discuss nonetheless.

lol

>consumerist fathole
>rebeling against anything

aslong as walmart is open youll be docile as a puppy

Because your aviation and artillery were so successful in Afghanistan and Chechnya, no?

The average civilian has never had access to military-grade weapons at any time in history. You think every farmer had a cannon in his barn in 1776?

Chechnya is now under full russian control, so yes.
In Afghanistan we had the same problem as you had in Vietnam - the country is too big to control it with limited continent.

>Chechnya is now under full russian control, so yes
Yeah...after military force failed and Putin just had to bribe them to stay in the country.

>USA rebels
>rebels gain massive support from China and Russia
>nu-USA becomes a balkanized commie shithole
Mite b cool.

I was going to get to that and forgot. Insurgencies usually always get outside support from somewhere--you don't think China or something would fund them to balkanize the US?

You assume us is benevolent.

You should read about the Chechen wars actually, it's very interesting.
There were actually two Chechen wars. The first one, under Yeltsin, was a total disaster like you mentioned, assault of the city of Groznyy with armored forces, for example, because new russian army after the fall of the USSR was still a joke. It ended after a while with the Afghanistan-typed stalemate. But in 2000 the Putin came in and used forces as they were supposed to be used - with massive air and artillery support, usage of cruise missiles and SF operations. And yes, the "golden donkey of Phillip" was used, and it was a good idea in both long and short runs. Technically, it was only a war for no more than a year. Then for two more years special forces hunted the chosen warlords, while army controlled and defended the living places and infrastructure. And then it was over, and now Chechnya is one of the most loyal russian regions.

The American Revolution (for instance) was supported by France. Most guerrilla/terrorist movements in the Cold War era were funded by the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Libya.

kek. We are all fucked in the case of an armed rebellion.

>us military can fight effecrly without boots
Why americans diein afghan then to 40 cent bombs?

The problem with supporting the rebels in the US is the distance. It's very expensive to send big amount of ships and/or planes so far away. And even after that, where exactly the named rebellion is happening? Maybe the border with Mexico is somewhat acceptable, but civilians won't be able to hold it before the supplies from abroad arrive. The coastal lines will be controlled by the US navy, and the states deep inside the continent won't have any help at all.

Rebellions the state cant put down without combat, drones wont protect key sectors nor win any ground or battles.

Civilians and rebels alike would side with each other over machines.

One radar would make all drones useless and shot down.