Well, some of them blamed it on since it benefitted him politically.
And he was going to use it as a pretext to “Take Our Guuunnns”.
Is the “lesson” to be drawn that militias are made up of cowards? I think a better lesson is that liberals regularly work themselves into a panic over nothing (“The militias are coming to take away our rights! Booga booga!”).
I recently received a very credible email warning of an imminent outbreak of eternal peace and happiness worldwide in the very near future. I’m not sure how seriously to take this but if there is even some truth to it (and the person who sent it to me cited trustworthy people in the know in high places) then I think we could be in for some earth-shaking changes.
The email sender (who I trust completely) warned of an upheaval the likes of which have never been seen.
Among other things, the email warned of (and yes, I know it is cliche, but still very likely) dogs and cats living together, the lamb lying down on Broadway, goldfish developing lungs AND toupees, and a bearded hippie riding into the Mall of America on a giant rainbow-colored unicorn–WITHOUT a horn!!!
It also spoke of a successful “Hands Across the World” where every person over the age of 5 will join hands across the planet–even over the oceans because of spontaneous marathon water-treading abilities–and sing Kumbaya in 7 part harmony.
You might mock me, but the person who sent me this wouldn’t have sent it if it wasn’t true.
Be prepared. Be very prepared.
This is what worries me most. The chilling thought that we have American service men and women stationed on U.S. soil–and they have weapons! Who ever thought THAT was a good idea!!!
Wrong. Oh so wrong, my naive friend.
FEAR THE ALBINOS!!!
Now I have that line “…some Puerto Rican girls who’re just dyin’ to meet you…” stuck in my head.
Funnily enough, liberals say the same thing about conservatives (“they’re willing to give up all their civil rights and entrust the very government they say they despise with ultimate power for fear of the vanishingly unlikely chance of terrorists!”).
ETA: Actually, that’s an interesting question; have any conservative pundits explained why they trust the government with some things (handling of terrorists, etc.) and not others (health care, etc.)?
Well, it isn’t the liberals who are working up rhetoric about the imminence of anti-liberal anti-government “popular resistance”, it’s the anti-government types themselves.
Maybe liberals are often too ready to interpret anti-government revolutionary fantasizing as a genuine threat, but the fantasies are originating with, and being spread by, the wannabe revolutionaries, not the liberals.
Are wannabe revolutionaries cowards for talking about rebelling against Democratic governments but not actually doing anything about it? Not necessarily cowards, but I think it’s fair to say that they’re somewhat out of touch with reality.
I don’t know a single liberal who has ever been afraid of the militia movement. We view them as pathetic, paranoid and delusional, not as scary – at least not on a widespread level. A few of the more deranged individuals are capable of the odd act of terrorism, of course.
On the other hand, you can’t throw a rock, or turn on Fox News without finding righties who genuinely think the Government is going to take their guns away, put them in concentration camps, impose martial law, set up death camps, etc. And it’s not just the fringe – it’s mainstream Republican media shills, elected Congresspeople and GOP candidates for Vice President of the United States.
No, I don’t think he was considering a nuclear strike, but that doesn’t make that particular thread an example of lefty nuttery or that CNN was spouting lefty nuttery-- it seemed to be simple news sensationalism.
On behalf of Central America, pardon me while I fall down laughing. Out of SDMB posts apparently made in earnest, this may be one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. Just within the 100 years:
Nicaragua, 1912.
Mexico, 1914.
Haiti, 1915.
Dominican republic, 1916.
Honduras, any number of times
Dominican Republic again, 1965.
Grenada, 1983.
Panama, 1989.
Dude, I mean, really. And that’s not counting paramilitary/CIA stuff in the 1950s, incursion into Cambodia in the 1970s, invasion of Russia some time back (bet you didn’t know about that one . . .)
A History of American Wars We have been overstepping boundaries as long as we have existed. We do not respect national sovereignty We have supported dictatorships and installed puppet regimes, We have assassinated leaders. You can not get better until you know who you are.
Those are all countries within the US’ sphere of influence, which I admit fit the parameters of the question I posted but weren’t really what I had in mind. I’m sure you see how Iraq and Haiti are not quite the same, although I’ll concede the point.
Not to besmirch those who really are are serving our country, but . . . I’d rethink your implied assumptions there, fella. It may just be possible that not every single member of today’s volunteer army went in for the main purpose of saluting the flag and eating apple pie for breakfast.
And???
There are over a million active duty military personnel. All kinds of folks in there. Not sure that means we are on the verge of civil war.
How about the Mexican-American war, then ? 1846 ought to fit the “prior to 2003” bill, as well as predating the “sphere of influence” crapola. Cause for the war : “Mexico doesn’t recognize Texas is ours, and they might attack over it at some point. Let’s attack them now !”. Doesn’t get more pre-emptive than that.
Or, if you want to be really obvious about it, Viet-Nam ?
The first military action in the Mexican-American War was a Mexican attack on US troops (even if the American troops were spoiling for war already). The Vietnam War is hardly “really obvious”; the French had been there for years already.
Disregard the “predates the sphere of influence crapola” part of the last post. I could have sworn the Monroe Doctrine had been formulated later than the 1820s.
… what ? The French left Viet-Nam in 54. The Viet-Nam war started in 59.
Not to pee on everyone’s parade, but a grand total of **none **of the wars/military actions anyone has mentioned thus far was preemptive, including Iraq in 2003. The invasion of Iraq was sold as preemptive, but it no such thing, it was preventative at best. God I hate when dictionary definitions are quoted, but Preemptive
Bolding on the operative word mine. A preemptive war/military action is launched against a threat that is imminent and unavoidable, or at least is seen to be. A preventative war/military action is launched against a perceived future threat, not an imminent one. The Six Day War in 1967 was a preemptive war; Egypt and Syria were clearly and unmistakably about to go to war with Israel. Rather than waiting to be hit, Israel struck first and caught its neighbors flatfooted. Even if the reasons given for invading Iraq in 2003 are taken on their face, it was preventative, Iraq was not imminently threatening the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud; it was a threat at some point in the indeterminate future.