Well, in the abstract, yes, but I would hasten to add that being shot at (by American insurrectionists or anyone else) is a pretty convincing argument that one should shoot back.
Exactly. It’s one thing to order troops to massacre unarmed peaceful protesters, it’s another thing to order troops to return fire against an armed militia force.
Again, what if the Governer of a state rebels against a unpopular President, maintains control of the National Guard, and refuses federalization of said Guard?
Despite the repugnant nature of the book, it seems possible.
But there is a peaceful and constitutional remedy for an “unpopular” president, impeachment. What exactly does “rebelling” mean, anyway? Is she confiscating federal property and putting it under state control? Is she ejecting federal employees? Does that mean if federal troops enter Texas she’ll order the guard to open fire? What if residents of Oklahoma try to enter Texas?
You can’t just declare Texas an independent country because the president is unpopular. If the federal government turns fascist is the correct response to declare independence for your little state or to go to DC as an american citizen and hang the fascists from the lampposts? One bad president isn’t enough to destroy the United States of America over.
See my post #20. The same thing happened in 1860. It is a no-brainer that the President would send in whatever troops necessary to do the job.
Mmm. I agree that the proper answer is to impeach the son of a gun.
So, how would you start a revolution with a chance of success? How much of the country has to revolt at once? Where? Texas isn’t a bad start, it’s got a lot of land, and some important military bases, both tank and Air National Guard.
Alaska might also be interesting, if somehow they got Russia to back them.
I CAN’T start a revolution with a chance of success, because 99% of the American people would applaud when the president sent in the FBI SWAT teams to arrest/kill me. And rightfully so. Anything that annoys me about our current political system could be changed peacefully, if only I could get enough people to agree with me. The fact that most people don’t agree with me doesn’t give me the right to start shooting them. If I want to change things I can run for office, start a lobbying firm, post messages on internet bulletin boards, or stand on streetcorners holding up signs.
Our political, economic and social systems would have to change drastically before anyone would have a realistic change to start a successful revolution. Revolution is only an option when the current situation is so intolerable that people are willing to kill and die to change it. Since no such intolerable situation exists today, so people willing to kill and die to change our current situation are nuts who should be dealth with by a combination of psychiatrists and the FBI.
Hoover, Roosevelt, they both have too man Os in their names.
Thanks.
I’ll agree with that, Lemur. Let me rephrase: What would be the necessary conditions on the following fronts, in order to start a revolution for a chance of success?
Geographic
Political
Economic
Legal
Uhm… supplies?
[QUOTE=toadspittle]
Again, it depends on the level of unrest. In general, I agree; but when the insurrection is small, and the risk of killing innocent civilians is quite high, I think some troops (NG or not) might be reluctant.
Here’s the relevant Convention Center quote, btw:
All of this tells me that Gen. Honore thought that if he gave the order to maintain order in the convention center another Kent State was eminently possible and maybe even probably.