When the Government Wants There to be Fewer of Us........Time to Watch Our Backs

[sealybobo]

I like social security. I think it’s a wonderful social program. I was just talking shit.

 

[Unkotare]

.... I was just talking shit.

As usual.

 

[freyasman]

Just counting the days until a real Civil War breaks out, and the Dems are found hanging from trees around the White House and Capitol buildings.

What makes you think it will be the Dems? Or the Dems alone? You have no clue what you are advocating. You have no clue about the suffering that will occur. And sadly. You have no clue that the most probable outcome is the very totalitarian Government you decry.

I paid attention in history class. I've watched many interviews with American vets over the years. I've watched many war documentaries over the years as well. And I paid attention.

And one of my history classes in school was taught by a retired, decorated military Colonel that taught us the truth about American military, and how to tell the lies from the truths in historical books.

I know better than most what I'm talking about, what will happen, and what suffering must occur in order for change to happen.

Thanks for pretending you know anything about me. You gave it a good shot, but failed miserably.

Oh. You studied it. Cool. I lived it. I’ve seen people begging for food. Women willing to sell their bodies to be able to feed their children. I’ve seen death. Destruction. I’ve smelled the death. The mixture of rotting flesh snd voided Bowels. I’ve seen dogs eating human flesh.

You’ve studied it.

Help me out. Let’s pretend your scenario goes forward. Most people have three days worth of food in their cupboard. Let’s pretend it is two weeks. They are more prepared than the norm.

Ok. Food shipments stop. Truckers are not going to be running deliveries when the act has a coin toss if they ever return. So while you are engaging government forces. What do you do with the civilians who are hungry and demanding food? Fuck them? They’ll swarm and stomp you and your band of freedom fighters into the ground.

Medical? Have you considered that? Injuries require supplies and medications. Have any? Or are you going to loot pharmacies to take what you need?

Power. How will you provide power to areas you control? Order the workers to continue running the equipment? Hold them at gun point?

You haven’t thought about anything. Warfare is not about bombs and bullets. It is about supplies. The military has stockpiles on their bases. What do you have? Enough for yourself. Perhaps a friend or two? How long will that last?

How will you communicate? Walkie talkies from Walmart? CB radios? Cell phones will be shut down. So how will you communicate?

You’ve thought about it? You don’t even have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

For every infantry soldier there are ten troops in support. That is supply, medical, chaplains, intelligence, operations staff, engineers, artillery, aviation, cartographers, and a list that goes on for quite a while.

You’ve thought about it? You had a teacher who was a Colonel? Are you fucking kidding me? You watched some TV and masturbated imagining yourself as a Patton?

Jesus. You are clueless. The first soldier in your little army that gets a minor wound is going to die from infection.

Let’s explain it to you just using food. We will ignore the civilians. You obviously have.

Let’s say you have a total of thirty people in your command. Three meals a day. That is ninety meals a day for your troops. In a week and a half. About the time you are starting to get organized that is 900 meals. Do you have an enormous farm with vegetables and cattle running about?

In case you haven’t read this. Hungry troops don’t fight well. It takes a lot of calories to feed an army. Check your history books for the defense of Battan and Corregidor. Troops fighting on 3/5 rations were unable to get out of their fighting positions. See how many died on the death March. Malnutrition made marching impossible.

Any prisoners you take have to be fed too.

You’ve thought about it?

I was a sergeant. And in the field easily a quarter of my time was spent taking care of the needs of my troops. Food. Water. Hygiene. Maintenance of equipment.

Unless your little war is over in about three days. You’re fucked. And it won’t be over in a few days. It will barely be getting started.

You’ve thought about it.

What about Combat fatigue in your troops? When they are in emotional shock from seeing friends and family die? Just give them a slap like Patton? That will show them.

Until you’ve been in a hole trying to buckle your chin strap around your knees and become a turtle in your helmet you haven’t thought about shit.

All true, but that works both ways.

I was in a chow hall in Jalalabad back in 06 and I mentioned to the XO I was sitting with that if I was an insurgent, I would blow up or burn down every chow hall I could, and murder every cook and kitchen worker. I would also sabotage all the HVAC units on base, and kill all the AC repair and service contractors.
I told him I would have every troop there eating cold T-rats and sleeping in tents that were over 100 degrees inside. But I wouldn't hurt a single one of them....
He looked at me for a few minutes and just said; "Holy shit dude...."


Imagine what could be done here, on our own soil.

The problem is the insurgents have to attack in this case. They have to capture vital installations. They have to remove and replace designated Government officers.

Imagine this. The Insurgents take Texas by storm. The Military bunkers down on their bases. What happens next?

The Insurgents think they’ve won. They have about half of the Oil Supply cut off. The rest of the nation becomes fuel starved in a couple weeks. They have won.

But have they? They can’t get food. They can’t get information. They can’t even get power imported from other states.

But their strengths are also targets. A single fighter can take out electrical choke points and black out entire sections of the state.

Your scenario of it being hot and uncomfortable is now statewide.

So the Insurgents have to take Washington. They have to stand in the Oval and declare victory. They have to eliminate the political leadership. Or force the leadership to surrender.

The alternative is to expect the Government to accept the cessation of Texas in our notional scenario.

The phrase no way in hell comes to mind to describe that likelihood.

No. It’s all or nothing. And that means fighting the US Military including Reserves and National Guard. Actual battle hardened troops with experience. Something our armchair Patton has never seen.

The only way the Insurgents have any hope of success is a years long campaign of guerrilla warfare. Cutting bridges. Cutting supply routes. Cutting train tracks.

Making it difficult or impossible for Government supplies to get through. Of course it also means supplies for the people don’t get through.

Best case scenario. 10% or maybe as much as a quarter of our population dead.

The nation breaks down into various nation states. Where each faction has strengths.

Oh yeah, it will be a complete shit show, no doubt, but I think you seriously overestimate how formidable the .mil is.
I watched them fuck up logistics in epic fashion, over and over again, when they were actually being supported by the general population.
When everyone is throwing monkey wrenches into things, every chance they get, and privates and NCOs are fragging every higher officer they can, I don't see them being much of an obstacle.

And I been there and done that too, guy. My assessment comes from observations at the sharp end of things.

Believe me I know how screwed up supplies can get. And operations. And all that.

When I met my first member of the John Birch Society. I spent an hour listening to him. Then I said. “I’ve been in the Army for years. Years. And they have never issued me a pair of boots that fit right. Not once. Not by accident. You want me to believe that they are behind all these conspiracies and are doing it all perfectly when they never once got my boot size right?”

The thing is, is that it just isn't complicated..... all that you would need is to shoot every agent of the state, every time they showed their face in public, that's all.
You just treat it like pest control; see a varmint, shoot it.
You don't need some large organization, just a bunch of pissed off individuals who simply start blasting whenever they see them.
What's the government going to do about that?
Cordon and search an entire city for the shooters? Good luck with that plan, lol.

Dorner shut down all LE in SoCal for a week and cost them millions of dollars and he was just one guy. And in the process of catching him, they made dozens if not hundreds of new enemies.

How enthusiastic do you think all these .gov employees are gonna be when their homes, and the homes of all their relatives, keep getting drive-bys and firebombed every night?

When they get refused service at every business because they work for The Man? Their food poisoned at a restaurant?
When they can't get a repairman of any kind to come out for anything, because they are on a .gov payroll? When their kids are getting beaten down at school every day?
Or their wives spit on at the nail salon, and told to gtfo?
And if they call the po-po about any of this, the responding cops get lit up as soon as they roll up...... after about the 3rd time, no more police response.




Yeah, the government would last about a half an hour if they ever get the general American population pissed enough.

 

[Unkotare]

The questions surrounding overpopulation and birth control have always been tricky at best. Bottom line: you can't be against population control but complain about too many people in one area. Nor can you be against social services that help all those people you formally claimed had a right to be born. Since we live in a competative society with limited resources and opportunities, we should have our priorities straight. Case in point: you can't be against treating availability of contraceptives to those 16 and above then tell single parents or two parent families who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, "tough cookies! No one told you to have kids you couldn't afford to look after. Go off and die somewhere or leave the country altogether."

And the band played on.

All of those conclusions are illogical.

 

[sealybobo]

You don’t enlighten us.

 

[Unkotare]

You don’t enlighten us.

YOU are hopeless.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

The questions surrounding overpopulation and birth control have always been tricky at best. Bottom line: you can't be against population control but complain about too many people in one area. Nor can you be against social services that help all those people you formally claimed had a right to be born. Since we live in a competative society with limited resources and opportunities, we should have our priorities straight. Case in point: you can't be against treating availability of contraceptives to those 16 and above then tell single parents or two parent families who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, "tough cookies! No one told you to have kids you couldn't afford to look after. Go off and die somewhere or leave the country altogether."

And the band played on.

All of those conclusions are illogical.

Yes, the conclusions similar to the OP are illogical, when one goes through the list of contradictions I've previously laid out.

 

[Unkotare]

The questions surrounding overpopulation and birth control have always been tricky at best. Bottom line: you can't be against population control but complain about too many people in one area. Nor can you be against social services that help all those people you formally claimed had a right to be born. Since we live in a competative society with limited resources and opportunities, we should have our priorities straight. Case in point: you can't be against treating availability of contraceptives to those 16 and above then tell single parents or two parent families who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, "tough cookies! No one told you to have kids you couldn't afford to look after. Go off and die somewhere or leave the country altogether."

And the band played on.

All of those conclusions are illogical.

Yes, the conclusions similar to the OP are illogical, when one goes through the list of contradictions I've previously laid out.

YOUR conclusions are illogical.

 

[OldFlame]

Biden nominee has a history of terrorism and open advocacy for population control. The democrats' hostility toward human life is becoming more and more brazen.

Biden nominee called for population control to protect environment: 'We must breed fewer consuming humans'

Tracy Stone-Manning, Biden’s controversial nominee to head up BLM, has come under fire in recent weeks for her connection to a tree spiking incident – an ecoterrorism tactic – in Idaho in the 1980s, where she traded her court testimony for legal immunity.

www.yahoo.com

"We must consume less, and more importantly, we must breed fewer consuming humans."

Which is true.

"Encouraged Americans to only have two children and no more."

Which is perfectly fine.

Planned Parenthood and women's freedom of choice is important.

The post title is misleading troll bait.

Women's 'freedom of choice'?? Will you support them when they start to limit the number of children a woman can have, like the current policy in China? Is that the 'freedom of choice' for women that you promote?

 

[bendog]

Biden nominee has a history of terrorism and open advocacy for population control. The democrats' hostility toward human life is becoming more and more brazen.

Biden nominee called for population control to protect environment: 'We must breed fewer consuming humans'

Tracy Stone-Manning, Biden’s controversial nominee to head up BLM, has come under fire in recent weeks for her connection to a tree spiking incident – an ecoterrorism tactic – in Idaho in the 1980s, where she traded her court testimony for legal immunity.

www.yahoo.com

THAT'S what dems say about voting lol