- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 85,880
- Reaction score
- 72,572
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's perfectly possible when issues are black and white.
"Possible" does not mean "proven".
Oh ?
Can you give an example of a country deciding to not invade another because of the proliferation of guns amongst the population ?
1] You are asking me to prove a negative.
Did the 2A dissuade the British from invading in 1814 ?
Not always, sometimes invasions are meant to liberate the people (Iraq 2003), sometimes it's to prop up an unpopular government (Afghanistan 1979 and Vietnam) sometimes it's punitive in nature (USA 1814)
And like I asked, please provide an example of a country deciding not to invade because of the armed citizenry
Fair enough.
However, by your statement you concede invasions sometimes are done to occupy.
Of course, the Afghans repelled the Soviet & later US led invasions, but neither the USSR or USA was deterred by the armed Afghan tribesmen.
Also in Mogadishu...but the Iraqis lost and the Mujahedeen only triumphed because of the topography of the country
Though Tbh, when in modern times has a country ever been conquered and successfully annexed? Since WWII, I can only think of one such attempt - Kuwait 1990. (possibly you could add the Falklands 1982 but that was for a small territory).
This is why Russia's invasion of the Ukraine is bound to fail Btw.
Agreed.
It wasn't in 1814
As Otto von Bismarck remarked "The Americans are a very lucky people. They're bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish."
Were the USA bordered by say Nazi Germany, and were the US military relatively weak, the citizens, hunting rifles and Colt .45's would offer no deterrence.
One exception does not make a rule. Nor does my use of 'deterrent' imply a 'successful' deterrent. I am simply claiming a level of deterrence. It is just one component.
Wherever you're going, have a good time.
Thank you!