[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah, that was what I was refering to although the militia predated the nation state and the states. Militias were almost always used to defend the colonists and later communities against indian attack. There were a few instances when it was used with British regulars against the French. But it was only effective against untrained and undisciplined Indian tribes. Those were the only enemies of the nation/colony/state which it could achieve success on a regular basis.

How ridiculous is the idea that the Soviets could defeat our military and be beaten by a militia? Very ridiculous even absurd.

The Patriot aside, actual history shows that the British had their way in the South during the Revolution. South Carolina (including Charleston) and Georgia were under British control throughout the War until they decided to leave.

Militias were notorious for being undisciplined, unreliable and for running away when the battle started. See what Washington believed if you don't believe me. It is not hard to find out the truth about militias in that day and age.

But this is part and parcel of a romantic nostalgia which refuses to face facts about those days.

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "How ridiculous is the idea that the Soviets could defeat our military and be beaten by a militia? Very ridiculous even absurd. "

What a comfort to know that our military efforts in Iraq are going to be successful. I was afraid that an armed segment of the Iraqi populace which is opposed to us might be able to discourage us into leaving and plunge Iraq into a civil war from which one faction or another would gain power.

I suppose that there is some explanation for Soviet failure in Afghanistan?