I didn't move any goalposts. I said

no revolution has ever been successful without international support

If you think a revolution can be successful without gaining recognition and legitimacy on the international stage, then you're living in a fantasy world. The difference between "freedom fighters toppling a dictatorial regime" and "rebel insurgents destroying civic order" is the perception and approval of the international community.

By "international community" I'm not just talking about "every average ordinary civilian" in other countries; I'm talking about the military and diplomatic powers of the world. You can't build a new country/government from the ground up without their approval, and if you think otherwise then you need to put your nose back in some books.

And no, a lot of people sympathizing with the idea isn't enough either. That helps with rebuilding after ousting the dictator, and it helps maintain a movement long enough to accomplish that goal, but it doesn't solve the technological disparities between a hypothetical civilian militia and the federal government's militarized police force, let alone the actual military. Even the state guards wouldn't hold up long against the full force of the US military; the only possible path to victory would be if it somehow miraculously remained between state guards and federal militarized police forces.

But you don't know anything about the logistics of war, let alone the politics of it, so you don't know what I'm trying to convey and think I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm arguing because I don't want to see the entire american left get absolutely steamrolled, which is what would happen if full-scale war were to break out at this time.