How Would A Well-Armed Citizenry Have Changed History? (Rome, influence, generals)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can argue anything you like but I'm not buying it.
Their weren't enough Jews in Germany carry out even an insignificant resistance and even if the resistance was significant you forget that there weren't a lot of places including the U.S. were Jews were held in high regard. So consider the for the moment that even late in the persecution of Jews the U.S. and other "liberal" countries were exceedingly resistant to accepting Jewish fleeing Nazi occupied Europe.
That's what I actually said. You apparently misunderstood the rhetorical device.
Quote:
Ya went to far with that one. The Cold War had more to do with the Civil Rights movement than WW2 and I hasten to add that contrary to popular belief the Civil Rights movement didn't start in the 60's much less the post war era.
No, the Holocaust affected the Civil Rights movement in two significant ways. One, it brought American Jews even more strongly as backers of the movement than they had been before ("First they came after....").
Second, the televised images of southern police attacking black protestors revived the images from the Holocaust, and where Americans before WWII might have denied such things could happen in a "civilized country," it was more clear to them then that it could.
What precisely are you anticipating which would justify your declaring yourself the law and dishing out frontier justice as you see fit? What is it that you think will be hitting the fan?
Also....would it be okay with you if others, with their interpretation of frontier justice which is different from yours, made a preemptive strike by gunning you down? If you support the right to take matters into your own hands based on your own judgment, how could you deny this to anyone else? What happens when they decide that you are the SHTF?
You are in a gun shy liberal state so it's little wonder you hold your views.
Watch some international news and watch those peoples throwing fists, rocks and sticks at those who want to oppress them. It escalates to civil war very quickly. This nation is not the shiny happy place depicted in movies or TV. LEOs across the nation are behaving as NAZIs at times - look it up on YT. What do you think of the four kids shot dead at Kent State in 1970? That is pretty much government gone rogue on it's citizens. That is SHTF.
If another feels it his role to take me out it is in his own mind. I am not a threat to any unless they are to me.
You sit on the sidelines and watch. I doubt I will see any brownshirts stormtrooping in my lifetime but history says it will happen here as it will everywhere. The odds are in their favor. Lots of citizens don't see it your way.
What do you think of the four kids shot dead at Kent State in 1970? That is pretty much government gone rogue on it's citizens. That is SHTF.
The single specific example you have is from 44 years ago?
Tell us, how do you see things having unfolded if those Kent State students had been armed? What do you suppose the death total would have been in those circumstances? And having indulged in a shootout with the National Guard, what would those students who survived have won? Would they be running the country now?
That's what I actually said. You apparently misunderstood the rhetorical device.
Sorry but no, I didn't.
Quote:
No, the Holocaust affected the Civil Rights movement in two significant ways. One, it brought American Jews even more strongly as backers of the movement than they had been before ("First they came after....").
Surely rhetorical devises aside that you aren't trying to argue that Jews suddenly became involved racism and racial discrimination whether it was the founding of the NAACP, the fight to free the Scottsboro Boys of the unjust lynching of Leo Frank! Like I said before, contrary to popular belief the Civil Rights movement didn't begin with with Brown v Board of Education or Rosa Parks
Quote:
Second, the televised images of southern police attacking black protestors revived the images from the Holocaust,
BS - There were plenty of images of what WAS happening here and no shortage of Americans to pose in them. Even DURING the war, there were enough examples of it HAPPENING here, unless the argument is that the entire nation was blind to the striking similarities between Jim Crow and the Nuremberg laws de jure and de facto.
What did happen was that it was increasingly harder for the U.S. to claim its position as he guardian of freedom, liberty, mom and apple pie while the Soviet Union was more than happy to hold up the mirror of Jim Crow to the rest of the world.
This nation is not the shiny happy place depicted in movies or TV. LEOs across the nation are behaving as NAZIs at times - look it up on YT. What do you think of the four kids shot dead at Kent State in 1970? That is pretty much government gone rogue on it's citizens.
I swear sometimes that folks think history only goes back as far as their own history?
Kent State, and nothing on the Pullman Strike, Ludlow, the Colorado, or West Virginia Mine wars. People talk today about Blackwater but completely forget Pinkerton. They talk about the police acting like Nazi when not to long ago, things like the exclusionary rule, Miranda rights, were the idealistic fantasies of left wing dreamers.
Surely rhetorical devises aside that you aren't trying to argue that Jews suddenly became involved racism and racial discrimination whether it was the founding of the NAACP, the fight to free the Scottsboro Boys of the unjust lynching of Leo Frank! Like I said before, contrary to popular belief the Civil Rights movement didn't begin with with Brown v Board of Education or Rosa Parks
I said "One, it brought American Jews even more strongly as backers of the movement than they had been before." Clearly, "more strongly" indicates that Jews had already been involved. Are you just being obstinate?
Quote:
BS - There were plenty of images of what WAS happening here and no shortage of Americans to pose in them. Even DURING the war, there were enough examples of it HAPPENING here, unless the argument is that the entire nation was blind to the striking similarities between Jim Crow and the Nuremberg laws de jure and de facto.
Actually, there weren't. There wasn't, for example, television. Nor was it shown happening right on main streets as opposed to dark alleys and woods.
Quote:
What did happen was that it was increasingly harder for the U.S. to claim its position as he guardian of freedom, liberty, mom and apple pie while the Soviet Union was more than happy to hold up the mirror of Jim Crow to the rest of the world.
And that only counted against the backdrop of the Holocaust.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,124,165 times
Reputation: 8104
For what it's worth, Switzerland folded like a cheap suit when Napoleon's armies approached, despite all the small arms. In fact I seem to remember that he actually designed most of its first constitution tying the cantons together as a country.
Not really. If we ever have "a brutal despot" we will have elected them democratically and would be able to also impeach him/her if there were grounds to do so.
You think if we elected a brutal despot, and then impeached him, he would just say "Drat! Foiled again" and then meekly relinquish his role as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces? Even if a 2/3 majority of the Senate lately decided they did not want a despot, of which the current sentiment of the electorate is not very strongly predictive. After all, majority of the Senate would have been elected by exactly the same people who elected the brutal despot.
You think if we elected a brutal despot, and then impeached him, he would just say "Drat! Foiled again" and then meekly relinquish his role as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces? Even if a 2/3 majority of the Senate lately decided they did not want a despot, of which the current sentiment of the electorate is not very strongly predictive. After all, majority of the Senate would have been elected by exactly the same people who elected the brutal despot.
In such circumstances the decisive factor would be the loyalties of the commanders of the armed forces. If they sided with the Senate, there would not be anything the despot could do. If they sided with the despot, there wouldn't be anything the Senate could do.
It would mirror the problems faced by the Roman Republic in the last century BCE.
After 12 years, thousands dead and hundreds of billions spent, the Taliban have gone away?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.