America's Uncertain Future

[Oil exporting People]

They'll get the guns. It's not that hard, the black market and foreign providers will ensure that.

No. To acquire sufficient numbers of weapons and ammunition to sustain a military force would require a centralized government and months if not years of mobilization. By the time that could be arranged, the Rightists will have long since shot any lefties attempting to do so. Looting the few legal gun stores that exist in the cities would not yield the numbers required to sustain any force, nor would individuals attempting to access the black market; foreign providers do not exist in ready form.

Though training will take time, that also can be acquired.

Which requires a ready to go centralized government with facilities and trainers on standby and then at least three to six months to get the first recruits out. In other words, by the time this is formed, all involved will have been lined up against a wall and filled with lead.

It's not as if the American right is already organized into some highly disciplined paramilitary force ready to spring into the offensive.

Look up the Militia movement and then the demographics/political affiliations of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Your last sentence is very colorful. You really seem to dread this outcome of the loss of human lives, no?

I'm making it abundantly clear to people, such as you, that the only outcome for Leftists in a partisan "civil war" is them rapidly getting eliminated. With that knowledge, their smartest play is to not play at all.

No such thing. The American right isn't some paramilitary super-force. Again, the American "left" will most likely lose, but that's not because they don't have guns, or because the American right (as much as some deeply wish it was) is manned by some ubermensch.

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons. It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

[Oil exporting People]

The Fifth Republic did not come about due to any homegrown Troubles or Years of Lead events in France.

.

If you ignore all the homegrown troubles and military coups of that era, sure.

EDIT: And nor can the Troubles or the Years of Lead be compared to a full scale civil war in America. Not at all. If anything, they're comparable to the current wave of Islamic terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

Hence why I've repeatedly put war into quotation marks and even noted this in my opening post. Do try to read before posting something foolish that shows you haven't.

[Olerand]

They'll get the guns. It's not that hard, the black market and foreign providers will ensure that.

No. To acquire sufficient numbers of weapons and ammunition to sustain a military force would require a centralized government and months if not years of mobilization. By the time that could be arranged, the Rightists will have long since shot any lefties attempting to do so. Looting the few legal gun stores that exist in the cities would not yield the numbers required to sustain any force, nor would individuals attempting to access the black market; foreign providers do not exist in ready form.

Though training will take time, that also can be acquired.

Which requires a ready to go centralized government with facilities and trainers on standby and then at least three to six months to get the first recruits out. In other words, by the time this is formed, all involved will have been lined up against a wall and filled with lead.

It's not as if the American right is already organized into some highly disciplined paramilitary force ready to spring into the offensive.

Look up the Militia movement and then the demographics/political affiliations of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Your last sentence is very colorful. You really seem to dread this outcome of the loss of human lives, no?

I'm making it abundantly clear to people, such as you, that the only outcome for Leftists in a partisan "civil war" is them rapidly getting eliminated. With that knowledge, their smartest play is to not play at all.

No such thing. The American right isn't some paramilitary super-force. Again, the American "left" will most likely lose, but that's not because they don't have guns, or because the American right (as much as some deeply wish it was) is manned by some ubermensch.

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons. It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

Examples of civil wars literally everywhere else prove that is not true. Militias were born, armed, and died in civil wars in Lebanon, Sierra Leon, Liberia, the DRC, etc. long after the central authority collapsed and long before the war(s) ended. The opportunity to acquire guns and weaponry post collapse is as present as ever, and in fact more present than when a State could limit you.

Again, your premise is that the American right has some ubermesnch militias just waiting to spring into action, with strategies, tactics, logistics, transportation plans and all just waiting for the moment. Which is factually not the case.

Literally not at all. Read into the rise and fall of militias and non-government actors in literally any modern civil war.

If the American army defects to the American right, which is plausible as the American right is of course far-right, as are many of America's rank and file, then it won't be a civil war, just a coup. And the resulting suppression. It won't be a Spanish civil war, more of a Pinochet coup.

You're making it abundantly clear, to people such as myself, who really couldn't give less of a fuck. I didn't address what your opinions are in that statement, I was commenting on your floral language of the slaughter of other human beings.

Again, guns will be found. The American right, again, is not already packed into well organized militias and forces, ready to spring into action. How many guns you have is of no relevance if you don't have the means and strategy to get yourself and your guns across a country the size of a continent. A war, and especially winning one, is much more than having a gun and knowing how to use it. The history of all modern civil wars shows that a lack of guns is not an issue. A lack of funds, however. But the American "left" certainly has money.

[Olerand]

The Fifth Republic did not come about due to any homegrown Troubles or Years of Lead events in France.

.

If you ignore all the homegrown troubles and military coups of that era, sure.

EDIT: And nor can the Troubles or the Years of Lead be compared to a full scale civil war in America. Not at all. If anything, they're comparable to the current wave of Islamic terrorism we are experiencing in Europe today.

Hence why I've repeatedly put war into quotation marks and even noted this in my opening post. Do try to read before posting something foolish that shows you haven't.

Botched military coups that were never even exercised. And we never had a Troubles or Years of Lead moments in France.

Fascinating. I was addressing the comparison, which I believe need not be made. I wasn't addressing your general thoughts or comments. Simply the comparison, which is nonsensical.

[Oil exporting People]

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons. It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

Examples of civil wars literally everywhere else prove that is not true. Militias were born, armed, and died in civil wars in Lebanon, Sierra Leon, Liberia, the DRC, etc. long after the central authority collapsed and long before the war(s) ended. The opportunity to acquire guns and weaponry post collapse is as present as ever, and in fact more present than when a State could limit you.

Again, your premise is that the American right has some ubermesnch militias just waiting to spring into action, with strategies, tactics, logistics, transportation plans and all just waiting for the moment. Which is factually not the case.

Literally not at all. Read into the rise and fall of militias and non-government actors in literally any modern civil war.

If the American army defects to the American right, which is plausible as the American right is of course far-right, as are many of America's rank and file, then it won't be a civil war, just a coup. And the resulting suppression. It won't be a Spanish civil war, more of a Pinochet coup.

You're making it abundantly clear, to people such as myself, who really couldn't give less of a fuck. I didn't address what your opinions are in that statement, I was commenting on your floral language of the slaughter of other human beings.

Again, guns will be found. The history of all modern civil wars shows that a lack of guns is not an issue. A lack of funds, however. But the American "left" certainly has money.

The central problem of your argument is that it's one born of historical ignorance; the areas you cite are areas where arms have been pumped into since decolonization began. You further claim the lack of authority is a boon to such efforts; again, this is ignorant, as central authority exists in the factions which arm and train said soldiers. You might find it more useful to actually read up on how the arms come about to some African hellhole then attempting to debate on them without the full facts.

Again, while your attempt to deflect by saying ubermensch repeatedly is adorable, it's blatantly obvious you can't refute the central point I made; the Militia movement has been around for decades and either way the Rightist elements in this nation are well armed, use said arms on a regular basis, and tend to be veterans. As I said, it'd be far easier for them to organize into units and begin slaughtering Leftists then it is in the reverse.

[Oil exporting People]

Botched military coups that were never even exercised. And we never had a Troubles or Years of Lead moments in France.

If you ignore OAS bombings and repeated military coup attempts, sure.

[Painisia]

Nah, I don't think there will be a full-blown civil war in the US in about 30 years. I think the situation in the US will become like Argentina in the 1970s, when there were small-scale guerrilla activities. Or we could get an another 1968, in which there were frequent riots, street fighting and tensions. Economically, the US might have a decline as a result of climate change and stock market crashes. But I see a lot of trouble in `Murica. The Left and The Right bashing each other. Both liberal and conservative media outlets are spreading encouragements to polarizing activities. Communities and families are getting divided as a result of political alignments. Centrists and The Third Way are getting criticized for not taking part in this tribalistic environment. US politics has really been dumbed down....

[Valrifell]

The fact of the matter is, nobody has the balls to actually instigate a massive civil conflict. We'd much prefer to protest and riot occasionally but nothing completely revolutionary ever comes of it. Even the Rightists who seem to constantly fantasize about such a civil conflict are terribly unlikely to start one.

[Olerand]

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons. It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

Examples of civil wars literally everywhere else prove that is not true. Militias were born, armed, and died in civil wars in Lebanon, Sierra Leon, Liberia, the DRC, etc. long after the central authority collapsed and long before the war(s) ended. The opportunity to acquire guns and weaponry post collapse is as present as ever, and in fact more present than when a State could limit you.

Again, your premise is that the American right has some ubermesnch militias just waiting to spring into action, with strategies, tactics, logistics, transportation plans and all just waiting for the moment. Which is factually not the case.

Literally not at all. Read into the rise and fall of militias and non-government actors in literally any modern civil war.

If the American army defects to the American right, which is plausible as the American right is of course far-right, as are many of America's rank and file, then it won't be a civil war, just a coup. And the resulting suppression. It won't be a Spanish civil war, more of a Pinochet coup.

You're making it abundantly clear, to people such as myself, who really couldn't give less of a fuck. I didn't address what your opinions are in that statement, I was commenting on your floral language of the slaughter of other human beings.

Again, guns will be found. The history of all modern civil wars shows that a lack of guns is not an issue. A lack of funds, however. But the American "left" certainly has money.

The central problem of your argument is that it's one born of historical ignorance; the areas you cite are areas where arms have been pumped into since decolonization began. You further claim the lack of authority is a boon to such efforts; again, this is ignorant, as central authority exists in the factions which arm and train said soldiers. You might find it more useful to actually read up on how the arms come about to some African hellhole then attempting to debate on them without the full facts.

Again, while your attempt to deflect by saying ubermensch repeatedly is adorable, it's blatantly obvious you can't refute the central point I made; the Militia movement has been around for decades and either way the Rightist elements in this nation are well armed, use said arms on a regular basis, and tend to be veterans. As I said, it'd be far easier for them to organize into units and begin slaughtering Leftists then it is in the reverse.

Again, militias with not a gun to their name were born, armed, and died in these countries long after central authority collapsed, and long before the war ended. The thing is, the presence of arms in these countries, in other people's hands, has no relevance to your militia. You need weapons of your own, which you can acquire, readily. I am speaking of knowledge of the issue as some members of my father's family (who are Lebanese) were actively involved in the gathering of funds (mostly in Europe, from the right side of the spectrum, particularly of a certain German political faction that has now been derided as the home of "liberalism") and the purchasing of weaponry for a variety of Christian militias during Lebanon's 15 year civil war. Militias that had nothing to their name prior to existing, and yet established themselves as notable actors in the conflict, if not central actors.

Again, central authority collapse only boosts your ability to acquire guns. Again, if the American central authority sides with the American right, which is far-right, as many of its soldiers are, then it's not going to be a civil war. Which actually means something to all those who own guns to protect themselves from the American State too, and who will be quickly crushed if it turns against them, but that's not the point.

The militia movement can be around for centuries, men with guns in Texas won't win a fight in Vermont. A war is more than some ubermensch American rightwingers grabbing their M16s and racing off to shoot some lefty in the brain. A war, especially a civil war, requires logistics, strategies, tactics, requisition of general supplies, a steady supply of food, tents, clothes, shelter, a control of the transportation lines and a way to use them, intimate knowledge of the terrain or the technology to get that, and so, so much more.

You can have all the guns in the world, and the mushy lefties can have butter knives, you won't just spring into action and shoot lefty brains onto the sidewalk by tomorrow morning.

[The Lone Alliance]

It's possible, I partly see the fact that the US is now two nations.

You have ultra liberal cities who seem to want the government to take care of them.
And you have the more conservative rural areas who seem to want the government to leave them the fuck alone.

There's always been that back and forth but because both sides are self isolating themselves from one another they're both polarizing even more and more.

And these two ideas cannot really be compromised on because it's key to both groups entire world view.

There's also the fact that for some people politics and political views are increasingly taking an almost religious furor. People have accepted politics as their new god, nothing is more scary than a religious fanatic.

I'm also seeing a bit of, I don't know, self defeatist attitude from people, I think there's a growing movement on both sides who WANT the US to fail, either because they see the US as evil, or they just want to purge the other side.

[Olerand]

Botched military coups that were never even exercised. And we never had a Troubles or Years of Lead moments in France.

If you ignore OAS bombings and repeated military coup attempts, sure.

A coup attempt, which never even made it to the launching point.

Now, there were FLN and OAS bombings, sure (though the OAS only existed for one year), but those weren't like the Troubles or Years of Lead, because it wasn't homegrown. They were Algerians or anti-Algerians, fighting in a war of decolonization, not a civil conflict. The Algerian war of independence was not a French civil war, even if losers (factually, they lost) like the OAS and OAS sympathizers liked to think of themselves as representing some significant faction of the French.

[The South Falls]

OEP, what is it with you and rising against the left?

[Olerand]

OEP, what is it with you and rising against the left?

His language clearly shows a certain, outlook let us call it, onto the issue, which I find quaint, and indicative of why the American right will win the war.

But his vision is also painfully unrealistic.

[Oil exporting People]

Again, militias with not a gun to their name were born, armed, and died in these countries long after central authority collapsed, and long before the war ended.

You're under the mistaken perception that if you repeat a false claim or example, I'm not sure which fits your line here better, it will become true; the fact of the matter it's false no matter how you repackage. Militias in African nations become armed because large amounts of arms are available and, typically, because they have a patron ready to so arm them. This was especially true during the Cold War, which saw both the Soviets and the U.S. dump arms into the region to get a leg up further. Further, you continue to sidestep the issue that said militias are organized entities able to purchase said weapons, which is something Leftists in the United States don't have.

The thing is, the presence of arms in these countries, in other people's hands, has no relevance to your militia. You need weapons of your own, which you can acquire, readily.

Give me one example in history where, in a developed or semi-developed country, a group of people without any organization armed themselves through individual purchases.

I am speaking of knowledge of the issue as some members of my father's family (who are Lebanese) were actively involved in the gathering of funds (mostly in Europe, from the right side of the spectrum, particularly of a certain German political faction that has now been derided as the home of "liberalism") and the purchasing of weaponry for a variety of Christian militias during Lebanon's 15 year civil war. Militias that had nothing to their name prior to existing, and yet established themselves as notable actors in the conflict, if not central actors.

"Organized fund gathering for established militias clearly shows that Leftists can buy sufficient numbers of weapons through the black market because someone told me so, anon."

Please, debate seriously.

Again, central authority collapse only boosts your ability to acquire guns. Again, if the American central authority sides with the American right, which is far-right, as many of its soldiers, are, then it's not going to be a civil war. Which actually means something to all those who own guns to protect themselves from the American State too, and who will be quickly crushed if it turns against them, but that's not the point.

I'd like to introduce you to a term called critical thinking. See, you're here saying the collapse of central authority is a boon to arms purchases but all of your examples involve centralized entities. You might want to reflect on this before posting again.

The militia movement can be around for centuries, men with guns in Texas won't win a fight in Vermont. A war is more than some ubermensch American rightwingers grabbing their M16s and racing off to shoot some lefty in the brain. A war, especially a civil war, requires logistics, strategies, tactics, requisition of general supplies, a study supply of food, tents, clothes, shelter, a control of the transportation lines and a way to use them, intimate knowledge of the terrain or the technology to get that, and so, so much more.

You: "Your militia movement won't win in Vermont even though they are armed and the other side isn't because logistics."
Also You: "Leftists can just buy guns off the black market."

Again, please use the aforementioned term critical thinking before posting further.

You can have all the guns in the world, and the mushy lefties can have butter knives, you won't just spring into action and shoot lefty brains onto the sidewalk by tomorrow morning.

Maybe not by tomorrow morning, but the simple fact of the matter is said Lefties are going to be absolute slaughtered by the bushel with little trouble by the Rightists in a matter of week. At this point you're only arguing with yourself.

[Oil exporting People]

A coup attempt, which never even made it to the launching point.

If you ignore them outright seizing territory and forcing the collapse of the Fourth Republic and bringing De Gaulle out of retirement, sure. Again, you'll find it useful to actually read a history book before debating said history.

Now, there were FLN and OAS bombings, sure (though the OAS only existed for one year), but those weren't like the Troubles or Years of Lead, because it wasn't homegrown. They were Algerians or anti-Algerians, fighting in a war of decolonization, not a civil conflict. The Algerian war of independence was not a French civil war, even if losers (factually, they lost) like the OAS and OAS sympathizers liked to think of themselves as representing some significant faction of the French.

"Algeria had millions of French and was considered a part of France, years of bombings and outright fights over political issues occurred, but somehow this is different from the Brits and Irish killing each other or the Italians blowing themselves up, anon."

[Oil exporting People]

OEP, what is it with you and rising against the left?

Where have I said or advocated such?

[Ifreann]

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons.

No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns. The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people. And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

[Olerand]

Again, militias with not a gun to their name were born, armed, and died in these countries long after central authority collapsed, and long before the war ended.

You're under the mistaken perception that if you repeat a false claim or example, I'm not sure which fits your line here better, it will become true; the fact of the matter it's false no matter how you repackage. Militias in African nations become armed because large amounts of arms are available and, typically, because they have a patron ready to so arm them. This was especially true during the Cold War, which saw both the Soviets and the U.S. dump arms into the region to get a leg up further. Further, you continue to sidestep the issue that said militias are organized entities able to purchase said weapons, which is something Leftists in the United States don't have.

The thing is, the presence of arms in these countries, in other people's hands, has no relevance to your militia. You need weapons of your own, which you can acquire, readily.

Give me one example in history where, in a developed or semi-developed country, a group of people without any organization armed themselves through individual purchases.

I am speaking of knowledge of the issue as some members of my father's family (who are Lebanese) were actively involved in the gathering of funds (mostly in Europe, from the right side of the spectrum, particularly of a certain German political faction that has now been derided as the home of "liberalism") and the purchasing of weaponry for a variety of Christian militias during Lebanon's 15 year civil war. Militias that had nothing to their name prior to existing, and yet established themselves as notable actors in the conflict, if not central actors.

"Organized fund gathering for established militias clearly shows that Leftists can buy sufficient numbers of weapons through the black market because someone told me so, anon."

Please, debate seriously.

Again, central authority collapse only boosts your ability to acquire guns. Again, if the American central authority sides with the American right, which is far-right, as many of its soldiers, are, then it's not going to be a civil war. Which actually means something to all those who own guns to protect themselves from the American State too, and who will be quickly crushed if it turns against them, but that's not the point.

I'd like to introduce you to a term called critical thinking. See, you're here saying the collapse of central authority is a boon to arms purchases but all of your examples involve centralized entities. You might want to reflect on this before posting again.

The militia movement can be around for centuries, men with guns in Texas won't win a fight in Vermont. A war is more than some ubermensch American rightwingers grabbing their M16s and racing off to shoot some lefty in the brain. A war, especially a civil war, requires logistics, strategies, tactics, requisition of general supplies, a study supply of food, tents, clothes, shelter, a control of the transportation lines and a way to use them, intimate knowledge of the terrain or the technology to get that, and so, so much more.

You: "Your militia movement won't win in Vermont even though they are armed and the other side isn't because logistics."
Also You: "Leftists can just buy guns off the black market."

Again, please use the aforementioned term critical thinking before posting further.

You can have all the guns in the world, and the mushy lefties can have butter knives, you won't just spring into action and shoot lefty brains onto the sidewalk by tomorrow morning.

Maybe not by tomorrow morning, but the simple fact of the matter is said Lefties are going to be absolute slaughtered by the bushel with little trouble by the Rightists in a matter of week. At this point you're only arguing with yourself.

Oh I never contested that you need a patron. I said that, clearly. You need funds, and you need someone to provide you with weapons. I contended, numerous times, that the American "left" has funds, and will find no shortage of parties to provide them with weapons.

In a developed or semi-developed country? I can't. See, as my original posts also clearly say, I don't think developed countries are willing to fall into civil wars anymore, and as no one has, I obviously can't provide you with examples. I can in developing countries, who are the ones who have civil wars.

Reread, clearly, and calmly. There might be some difficulties, but you can do it. Leftists will have to have militias. You can't just be "leftists" in a war. You need a militia.

Again, reread, clearly, and calmly. The vague amalgamation of "leftists" can't exist in a civil war. They will need a militia. Leftists in other civil wars had militias. You will need a militia to fight in a war. It's a condition sine qua non to even be in a war.

Again, reread, clearly, calmly, and with a clear comprehension of words and sentences. That you believe that "leftists" will be these random individuals or this massive unorganized agglomeration during this conflict speaks more to your understand than mine. "Leftists" will need to have a militia. They must, and they will. Civil wars everywhere show that, even the Spanish one, manned as it was by Anarchists even.
Even they had militias.

At this point, I am, because you're not reading posts, clearly, calmly, and with a clear comprehension of words and sentences, and most importantly with a clear mind. "Leftists" means nothing. They will need, and will have, militias. You will not purge a country as big as a continent in the work of a week, no matter how much vibrant your wording is.

[Uxupox]

The American Left has no guns relative to the Right, which is well armed and who are well trained in their weapons.

No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns. The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people. And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

It's not a matter of ubermensch; it's a matter of one side having the ability to rapidly form into unit level combat groups to eliminate the other side, which doesn't have the same ability.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

you'd be surprised at how Guevarism military strategy at how effective it is.

[Oil exporting People]

No they aren't. Contrary to the popular belief that America is up to its eyes in guns, most American households don't have any guns, and most of the minority that do, only have one or two guns.

And?

The very large majority of privately held guns in the US are in the hands of a rather small minority of people.

Yes, primarily those Militia types I was talking about. I'm still waiting for an actual point from you.

And being highly trained in the way of the firearm as you surely are, you are aware that it is somewhat impractical to use ten guns at once.

Would you like to try to make an actual point, because you're currently just making a strawman with this and we both know it.

A dozen lads that play soldiers on the weekends isn't going to conquer a town of thousands and put half of them against a wall, much less a city of millions.

I believe you'd like to read up on the National Guard before debating further.

[Olerand]

A coup attempt, which never even made it to the launching point.

If you ignore them outright seizing territory and forcing the collapse of the Fourth Republic and bringing De Gaulle out of retirement, sure. Again, you'll find it useful to actually read a history book before debating said history.

Now, there were FLN and OAS bombings, sure (though the OAS only existed for one year), but those weren't like the Troubles or Years of Lead, because it wasn't homegrown. They were Algerians or anti-Algerians, fighting in a war of decolonization, not a civil conflict. The Algerian war of independence was not a French civil war, even if losers (factually, they lost) like the OAS and OAS sympathizers liked to think of themselves as representing some significant faction of the French.

"Algeria had millions of French and was considered a part of France, years of bombings and outright fights over political issues occurred, but somehow this is different from the Brits and Irish killing each other or the Italians blowing themselves up, anon."

Uhm... Your knowledge of French history is as... deep as your knowledge of the realities of war. De Gaulle became president of the Fifth Republic, and the Fifth Republic came into existence, in 1958. He first became leader of France again by being named Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic, also in the crisis of May 58.
The OAS came into existence in 1961, and ceased to exist in 1962.

Tell me, what comes, chronologically, first? 1958, or 1961?

See, millions of French and a consideration of it as being a part of France were... not right. That's why it's not a part of France. Why the French Republic gave it independence, and why the Algerian war is called the Algerian war, and not the French civil war.

[Conserative Morality]

you'd be surprised at how Guevarism military strategy at how effective it is.

El Che et co relied on the passive support of the vast majority of the population because the population knew their current rulers were shit, but had nothing to judge the insurgents by but their pretty rhetoric. The elite wanted to hold onto power, but their goons weren't willing to die for it.

In a civil war where both sides have effectively abandoned the former ruling apparatus a la the Spanish Civil War, that's not so effective.

[Uxupox]

If you ignore them outright seizing territory and forcing the collapse of the Fourth Republic and bringing De Gaulle out of retirement, sure. Again, you'll find it useful to actually read a history book before debating said history.



"Algeria had millions of French and was considered a part of France, years of bombings and outright fights over political issues occurred, but somehow this is different from the Brits and Irish killing each other or the Italians blowing themselves up, anon."

Uhm... Your knowledge of French history is as... deep as your knowledge of the realities of war. De Gaulle became president of the Fifth Republic, and the Fifth Republic came into existence, in 1958. He first became leader of France again by being named Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic, also in the crisis of May 58.
The OAS came into existence in 1961, and ceased to exist in 1962.

Tell me, what comes, chronologically, first? 1958, or 1961?

See, millions of French and a consideration of it as being a part of France were... not right. That's why it's not a part of France. Why the French Republic gave it independence, and why the Algerian war is called the Algerian war, and not the French civil war.

The Algerians were not given indendence. They bled and fought for it against the colonial oppressors that were the French.

[Olerand]

Uhm... Your knowledge of French history is as... deep as your knowledge of the realities of war. De Gaulle became president of the Fifth Republic, and the Fifth Republic came into existence, in 1958. He first became leader of France again by being named Prime Minister of the Fourth Republic, also in the crisis of May 58.
The OAS came into existence in 1961, and ceased to exist in 1962.

Tell me, what comes, chronologically, first? 1958, or 1961?

See, millions of French and a consideration of it as being a part of France were... not right. That's why it's not a part of France. Why the French Republic gave it independence, and why the Algerian war is called the Algerian war, and not the French civil war.

The Algerians were not given indendence. They bled and fought for it against the colonial oppressors that were the French.

They certainly bled and fought, no doubt, and that is to their credit.
But de Gaulle ceded Algeria, which is to his credit, because it wasn't worth it.
If the OAS had their way, all the bleeding and fighting the Algerians had done would have resulted in nothing.

[Uxupox]

you'd be surprised at how Guevarism military strategy at how effective it is.

El Che et co relied on the passive support of the vast majority of the population because the population knew their current rulers were shit, but had nothing to judge the insurgents by but their pretty rhetoric. The elite wanted to hold onto power, but their goons weren't willing to die for it.

In a civil war where both sides have effectively abandoned the former ruling apparatus a la the Spanish Civil War, that's not so effective.

Not at all. It relied on the focal support of small bands of rural people into order to attack those from the cities through the usage of propaganda, military and civilian sabotage, enabling and encouraging dissent against leaders in the urbanized setting also attributed to this. You can see this example most commonly in Afghanistan for example. Where the vast majority of the fighting employed by the Taliban is in a rural setting against a superior organized foe.