Posted on 09/22/2004 5:32:31 AM PDT by Dazedcat
That Bonus "Army" was unarmed. And the firing was with tear gas and truncheons, not bullets. It didn't involve lethal force. It is very difficult to get REGULAR (as opposed to special internal security) troops to fire on their own citizens (and don't bother mentioning Kent State; those shooters were scared, poorly trained weekenders). Here is a classic example.
In 1962, the people of Novocherkassk, Russia rioted over a rise in the price of bread. Things got so out of hand that communist party headquarters were trashed. The police were ineffectual, so regular army troops were brought in. The regular troops SIDED WITH THE CITIZENRY. After all, it was from the lowly citizenry that these troops came. Special Interior Ministry (not Defense Ministry) troops (who were ethnic Kazakhs and hated Russians anyway) had to be brought in to put down the uprising. So you see, regular troops from the best large army in the world at that time would not fire on their own people. Totalitarian states are able to maintain order because they use special security forces (ZOMO in communist Poland, MVD interior troops in the old USSR, Securitate in Communist Romania, Special Republican Guards in Saddam's Iraq) because regular troops recruited from the local people can't be relied upon to quell a popular rebellion over the long haul.
I guess the Shah of Iran found that out. However, as an ex militay man I wonder if push really came to shove the results would be the same today. The Nation is more divided than I have seen in my lifetime.
Lotsa hair triggers out there.
The time to fight about this stuff is in the primaries, and in your local elections. With the Kerry-or-Bush divergence staring us in the face on November 2nd, please keep your monkey wrench collection in the tool box for another 40 days. Thank you.
Agreed. I've voted a straight libertarian ticket for sometime, but I have to say that I was fairly pleased when Bush won the last election--I actually thought, for a brief moment, that the conservative movement in America will finally gain some ground. Republican President, Republican Congress--things were good to go. Bush promised privatized social security and smaller government. I was fairly excited.
But, after four years of Bush in the White House, I'm reminded again of why I've switched to the LP. His administration has been like a bad joke--or worse--a nightmare for conservatives. Nothing about privatizing social security, nothing substantial in the way of tax cuts, a bloated budget (including a record allotment to the Department of Education), CFR, a massively socialist undertaking in medicare--the list goes on. Not only has Bush not accomplished much on a conservative agenda, he hasn't even proposed many conservative plans to reduce the size and scope of government.
Sorry. People give me this "oh, Kerry is so bad" riff, but from where I'm sitting, the Rs, at the very least, need a massive wake up call.
As for "homicide bombers", that is a redundant statement. Was Billy the Kid a "homicide shooter" or OJ a "homicide stabber". Suicide bomber is the preferred term when the bomber intends to blow himself up along with his victims.
Oh don't be obtuse about semantics. The Soviet Union was not fascist in the "traditional 1930's sense" either. If it is not self-evident to you that Al-Qaeda is evil, you are probably a liberal-minded person that thinks 9/11 happened because not enough baby Arabs are breast-fed long enough.
There is no need to shed crocodile tears over atrocities by Western Europeans during the Crusades. Muslim warriors inflicted far worse and more frequent blows against people of other faiths.
Ronald Reagan is my favorite president for the last at least 100 years.
I think a little more favorably of Bush senior than you, I guess, although I don't disagree that he failed to carry on Reagan's march back to our original American ideals.
I don't think one can label it a dynasty unless the positions are inherited. Also, it's definitely an American tradition for the children of politicians to go into politics. The 2nd and 6th presidents are an example.
#1 - George Washington
#2 - Teddy Roosevelt
#3 - Ronald Reagan
Runners up:
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James K. Polk, James Madison, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln (well, sort of).
At the moment it goes like this for me:
1. James Madison
2. George Washington
3. Ronald Reagan
Subject to change, though, as I continue to read up on them.
I was in James Monroe's house "Ash Lawn" a couple years ago.
Was interested that, since in those days they heated with wood fires, that in winter time the whole house wasn't used, just the parts that could easily be kept warm.
Very cool that Madison, Jefferson and Monroe were all friendly neighbors for a while. A community of giants, with George Washington nearby.
Good post. I can't think one damn reason to vote for Bush, save for being a mindless, programmable party loyalist.
Check out Theodore Rex.
It mentions an historical item I had never heard of before. Apparently the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt and the Kaiser were just a hair's breath away from war over a planned German invasion of a South American Country, I think it was Venezuela, for failure to repay debts to Germany.
Teddy stared and the Kaiser blinked.
T.R. was very much like the Founding Fathers. He was a true renaissance man - historian, naval expert, marksman and hunter, biologist, conservationist, polylinguist and a straight shooter politically. After he helped engineer the Spanish American War, he resigned from his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and put his money where his mouth was by enlisting in the service to fight.
I also disagree with the man on certain issues, but at least you can respect him as president of the United States if America! As my father always says, it's not always who you're voting for, it's who you're voting against. GWB 2004!!!
Taking into account the speaker lineup at the GOP convention, is this really such a far-fetched statement?
Do you happen to know what the owner of this server thinks of libertarianism? ;-)
So are you saying that you SUPPORT a Kerry presidency?
What is that? Your high school yearbook picture? Who went with YOU to the senior prom?
I'm not trolling, just trying to get responses to this article and compelling arguments as to why I should vote for Bush again.........can you grasp the concept?
Nowhere did I say in the original post that I was going to VOTE for Kerry.....but I often forget where I am here. This is FR, where it's so cut and dry. Republican=good regardless of what they do, all else bad.
No trolls in sight........
Nice reply, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.