Posted on 07/10/2009 9:32:03 AM PDT by AJKauf
Armed revolution isn’t obsolete, even in an era when the weapons systems available to the government are overwhelmingly destructive.
Highly destructive weapons systems, if used in cities, kill so many innocents that such actions turn people against the government. Think about what happened at Waco in 1993 and the part it played in the Democratic loss of Congress (and, unfortunately, in provoking Timothy McVeigh). There’s a limit to how much firepower you can unleash without destroying your government’s own base of support.
There’s another reason that armed revolution is still not only feasible, but sometimes actually necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. ..
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Theres not a damn thing funny about it, but is apparently becoming necessary.
Government military power usually outweighs all its competitors. But they usually can’t use it all at once, since they’re almost always using it for something else. Plus, revolutionaries are usually willing to do things the powers that be aren’t. Oh, and it’s always useful to turn parts of the ruling class against itself.
The American People are just too damn lazy to revolt, I’m sorry but I have lost all faith in my fellow rock dwellers to take charge in time crisis. Hell they are usually why we are in this mess in the first place, they elected these Fascists in the first place, despite all of us hollering at the tops of our lungs for them not to.
There is NOTHING at all funny about it. I cannot think of one thing funny about it. It may or may not be a necessary thing somewhere off in the future, but it certainly will NOT EVER be a funny thing. It will not be funny to go through, it will not be funny to be involved in, it will not be funny on any level.
If something like this happens, you cannot imagine the destruction and damage to people and property. Many people you know will die or be injured. Acquaintences, friends, family, business people, people at church. Nothing funny at all about this subject.
Good read, thank you for the post.
I have to agree that there are times for violence and hate; after-all it’s a rather pathetic man who doesn’t hate corruption/evil and/or refuses to stand-up/fight for anything.
Concerning "Rock Dwellers" you may be right, but concerning "Rednecks" it is a little different.
Nobody has to go up against the authorities. Just their supporters, then it becomes the authorities job to protect their base. Puts them on defence from the get.
See Somalia 1993 for the impact or an armed populace.
It would take the concerted coordinated effort of the military and police (sheriff, marshall) to plan a coup that includes all three branches of our Federal Government. At the least the Executive and the Congress will need to be ‘controlled’ by people bearing armaments.
That isn't an armed revolution scenario, at least not as it's likely to go down in the United States. "What chance do you and your shotgun have against the entire U.S. Army?" is a false premise. "What chance do 90 million armed citizens have against 1.8 million military and police combined?" is a lot closer assessment to the reality on the ground. If it gets to that point the country will be ungovernable.
I’m with you Jack. I don’t think secession will ever take hold.
I've often wondered about our militarys' action in the event of an armed revolt. The usual spin is that the Armed Forces would support the government. I'm not completely convinced of this. Seems to me that the military is really the only organ of our government that takes it's oath seriously, and it might take some convincing for them to accept that the way our constitution is being trampled by our elected official is in line with the traditional concept of preserving, protecting and defending that document t. For sure there would be elements of the A.F. that would support the government, but I'd bet that there would be those who would refuse to attack the citizenry.
Hm... so you’re suggesting what, exactaly?
To Lazy,,,Exactly Right.
as the Romans,,,Keep the Circus and the Bread Coming and all is Well.
The article Brought out interesting Ideas,,,
There’s another reason that armed revolution is still not only feasible, but sometimes actually necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. Consider what happens when Mullah X tells General Y to have his troops mow down the protesters. General Y might not have a problem with this, but some of his soldiers will. Private A might sympathize with the protesters or have some moral problems with killing unarmed civilians. But what is he going to do? If he protests, or refuses orders, he will at least be court-martialed — and maybe his commander shoots him on the spot, as an example to other soldiers. It will take a pretty courageous (or foolish) private to take a chance like this. The worst that happens if Private A follows orders is that he has some sleepless nights about what he has done.
Now, what happens if the protesters are in a position to fight back? I won’t claim that the average collection of armed civilians is going to successfully defeat a military unit of comparable size. The soldiers are trained and disciplined, and they generally have better weapons than the civilians.
Still, what happens when Private A (and more than a few of his fellow soldiers) now receives orders to open fire? If he follows the repugnant orders, there is now a real risk of getting killed by an enraged civilian shooting back. If Private A perceives that the risk from the civilians is roughly comparable to the risk from the government, he is now free to change sides — and that is what has happened in a number of successful revolutions in the last few decades. Once the civilians become dangerous, individual soldiers and entire military organizations change sides. (As eventually happened in Romania.)
This is the reason that, throughout recent history, governments scared of armed revolution take steps to disarm the civilian population. Britain passed the Firearms Act in 1920 (licensing rifles and handguns) because the cabinet was convinced that Britain was on the edge of a Bolshevik revolution. While statements made in Parliament when the bill was introduced claimed that the goal was crime control, cabinet papers declassified in 1969-70 demonstrate that the primary fear was armed revolution — and the disarming of civilians was driven by that fear.
Armed revolution remains a viable response to tyranny — at least if you live in the universe where armed revolution at least occasionally has succeeded in overthrowing it. (In Mr. Kraushaar’s universe, maybe not!)
Military coup....
Really? Are YOU NUTS????!
Like any military that WILL exert force to overthrow its governmental body would actually return the power to the people. Sorry, but your idea is the epitome of “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
Have you heard about Honduras?
|
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.