this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
1141 points (99.1% liked)

Political Memes

10138 readers
1119 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoly@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (7 children)

I have never understood how some think that people with guns can withstand the largest armed forces on the planet.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, that's why there's no more Taliban. Or ISIS. Or Hamas. Or ...

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

ISIS and Hamas haven't actually accomplished anything. Not exactly worth emulating.

If we want to emulate the Taliban, we'd have to go hide out in Mexico until the Trump administration gives up and gifts us our country back. Somehow I don't think that would work out for us quite so well.

[–] AndiHutch@lemmy.zip 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Time to check out a history book or two. With that attitude, US would still be a colony of Britain. Or the US would've won in Vietnam instead of getting kicked out by the locals. Granted, it is a bit different without an ocean in between, but it could still happen. Or we could break up like what happened to the USSR.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 months ago

The purpose of an armed resistance isn't a direct confrontation with an armed force. It's the death of a thousand logistical cuts. It's bleeding the country's economy dry by disrupting the commerce required to keep daily life running smoothly and crippling the regime's forces by making people afraid to sign up - one way or another. Whether that's neighborhoods chasing ICE out or people finding out where cops and soldiers live and "paying them a visit" in the dead of night. An armed resistance's goal is to simply be too big of a thorn to ignore but too entrenched and evasive to be worth the amount of money and effort it would take to catch them. Even just their existence in the media is a form of warfare. By simply being in the news they show a population that the regime can be resisted, even by just a bunch of people with guns.

Look at Napoleon's war in Russia in 1812 and his massive losses due to poor supply lines, disease, and the Russians scorched earth policy ahead of the fierce Russian winter. Or to the American Revolution, where a bunch of farmers with guns and the financial backing of France became such a thorn in the side of the British Empire that they became one of the most powerful and obnoxious countries of the past two centuries and are the subject that started this whole conversation.

You can turn your guns on the entire country's population, but then what? You're going to have a hard time keeping troops loyal when it's their friends and family on the other side of the gun, and terrorizing the population like that will make it impossible to keep the propaganda machine going. You'd be forced to rule through direct oppression, which would breed more resentment and more people willing to pick up a gun and fight back. Your only hope is to convince the discontent population that opposition is pointless and the true believers that you are right.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why don't you ask those guys in Vietnam about that? Or Afghanistan, for that matter.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It wasn't just guns though. In Vietnam, it was traps, tunnels, jungle terrain, etc. And in Iraq/Afghanistan, they used IEDs and suicide bombers...

Insurgency is possible, but it's very costly. And you'd need more than just firearms.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Same way people with guns stood against us for like 20 years.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And died in the process. By the tens of millions.

[–] SpaceShort@feddit.uk 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Better die fighting fascism than live under it.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You are separated from reality and have never lived under harsh conditions. It all sounds like fun and games until your children starve in front of you and you can't do anything about it since all systems have broken down.

[–] SpaceShort@feddit.uk 1 points 4 months ago

"Harsh conditions" is what happens when you live under fascism. If you die fighting it, you don't live under harsh conditions, you're dead.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Same with you.

[–] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

The largest armed forces had hospitals been very bad with dealing with insurgency. It can crush a national military in days. An armed populace is just a quagmire it has little ability to deal with