Yesterday, 02:29 PM
They had "bigger guns and tanks" than the Viet Cong and Taliban, too., for all the good it did them. And the Gang of Eight had more and bigger guns and tanks at their disposal than Yeltsin did - but the Soviet Union fell apart at the seams anyway (and with amazingly little violence).
The question is not whether they have more or bigger weapons. The question is whether they have the will and wherewithal to pay the political price of actually using those guns and tanks on Americans on Main Street USA. It is not at all a foregone conclusion that they do.
In sharp contrast to, say, some poor, brown-skinned unfortunates in some shithole country no one cares about on the other side of the planet. It's one thing to flex about what an invincible bad-ass you are when it comes to bombing the ever-loving hell out of starving children in Yemen. After all, what's it gonna cost you, really - even if you lose (see: Afghanistan)? But it's quite another thing when it comes to the prospect of bombing anyone at all in Peoria or Springfield. How can anyone seriously believe that it's simply a matter of "rock beats scissors" (or "tank beats AR-15")?
Connect With Us