Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I never thought of it that way.
Two hundred years ago a rifle was a rifle. Now governments have planes and tanks.
Then again, look at what's happening in Syria. Seems the civilian population is taking on their government. The government is kicking their asses - you can't use a rifle against planes dropping bombs - but the yet they are still going strong.
|
Yeah, I thought of Syria while I was writing that. I think a significant reason they're still going is because they're being supported and armed by outside countries. Plus there's probably a large Islamist element, and whatever their many faults, Islamists can't ever be accused of a lack of commitment. People generally may also feel like they have less to lose; in Western countries people are maybe just too comfortable with their lives.
Plus, although it's on the surface a more brutal and tyrannical regime, I'd say that state control is far worse (better, from the Government's point of view) in the West than in Syria. We're more sophisticated, with far better (surveillance) technology and better intelligence/police. So I suspect it's actually easier for groups of people to get together and plan an insurrection in Syria without being discovered and arrested, than it is in the USA.
It's interesting to wonder, with Hillary constantly attacking Assad's response, just how the US Government would react to a serious revolt. No use of Apaches? Or planes? Or tanks? The Government would use absolutely everything at its disposal to save itself.