Oh, okay. Well, let's retroactively apologize to the French Resistance for these:
Posted on 06/14/2011 5:57:40 AM PDT by nuconvert
MISSOULA, Mont. – Authorities searching a 30-square-mile swath of rugged Montana forest for a former militia leader and survivalist say the man was prepared for his shootout with sheriff's deputies and left several caches of food in the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Perhaps next time you can keep my comments in context. shazzaaam!
There’s a huge difference between a bunch of drunks sitting around and talking stupidly and people plotting to overthrow the govt.
If you/they don’t know the difference perhaps you should quit and get a job at the 711.
As for the 9/11 hijackers. There was significant intelligence indicating there was a real threat. Only it was largely ignored.
Or ya can go to McVeigh, where they knew he was going to do it and ignored him.
Oh, okay. Well, let's retroactively apologize to the French Resistance for these:
Naw... We have drones HERE too!
Methinks someone has been watchinh a bit too much Sly Stallone ;-)
You have anything resembling evidence the Liberators were effective against the Germany Army? Did they drive them out of France? Did they even seriously impede their operations?
I seem to recall the French Resistance being pretty ineffective militarily, even when using weapons considerably more powerful.
In fact, I believe a rather large actual army, several in fact, was required to defeat the German Army.
Oh, okay. Well, you will need to tell a lot of people and authors. These researchers and historians are sadly mistaken, and you need to let them know!
Just a few quick examples for you to get busy on:
Right again on all points!
IOW, the French Resistance was a useful auxiliary to millions of men invading France. I never said otherwise. I said they were militarily ineffective, that by themselves they could have never defeated the German Army or driven them out of France. They could only, in the long run, have died, had the Allied invasion not occurred.
Which is pretty much what I said in the beginning about the military value of a single handgun. By itself, all it can realistically do is get you killed. Possibly you will die proud of yourself, which may be worth it, but you will still die.
The “moral force” repeatedly quoted in your sources can be less upliftingly phrased this way: The existence of the Resistance, despite its lack of general support from Frenchmen, especially in the early days, and of real military effectiveness, especially before the invasion by the Allies, allowed the French to build up a great post-war myth of The Resistance as French heroism.
There were Resistance movements that actually gave the Axis real military problems, the most notable being in Yugoslavia, where they tied down 38 divisions, despite there being no realistic possibility of an Allied invasion.
Meanwhile, despite a massive invasion force forming just across the straits, the Germans had only 57 divisions in France, Netherlands and Belgium.
Yup.
I believe in the importance of resistance to tyranny, armed resistance when necessary.
I also believe it is important to engage in such resistance with a clear head, not blinded by illusions of overthrowing tyranny with a single handgun.
Also, one handgun is what you start with with you are assembling your 20 million you say DOES make a difference.
BTW, this is where Lewis & Clark went through the Bitterroot mountains. It almost killed them.
I define “militarily effective” as being able to fulfill a military objective by military means. In the case of occupied France, the objective would have been to drive out the occupiers, not just annoy them. The Resistance was utterly incapable of this.
Al Quaeda is not militarily effective, as such, by this definition. Their effects on our society are economic and social. Obviously these aspects cannot be completely separated from military ones, but Al Quaeda’s impact on our society has been almost entirely due not to what they did, as such, but rather on how we have chosen to react.
Total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been stated as $1.2T, although from an anti-war site, so I don’t know how accurately. Often these guys lump in military costs we would have incurred without these wars.
Let’s assume it’s accurate, though. That’s over a ten year span, so an average of $120B per year. Meanwhile, the US budget for 2010 was $3.55T, in a single year.
I propose that the post-911 wars have had little to do with out present mess, that with reasonable domestic fiscal policies we could have handled their cost easily.
Which is not to say they haven’t been a big problem on top of excessive domestic and entitlement spending, but let’s keep a sense of proportion. Had the money not been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’m sure the pols would have found some way to spend it here.
Will thermal imaging distinguish between a man and large game animals in the forest?
I, on the other hand, define “militarily effective” as one described by the term "Total War", in which:
Most disagreements can be reduced to definitional differences. I view Al Qaeda; the French Resistance; and other asymetrical warfare factions and techniques as “military effective” due to my definition under Clausewitz’s Total War concept.
Ergo, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG and I am RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT.
Whatever bloweth up thy skirt.
Why send in SWAT unless he has a dog...
$1.2T? Try $5T at least and rising.
All for under a $1M investment on Al Queda's part getting a few hijackers enrolled in flight school...
I'd say that is pretty damn effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.