Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My step-dad as a good point re: Saddam

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:48 PM
Original message
My step-dad as a good point re: Saddam
Suppose in, say 10 or 20 years, we get a REAL rogue president -- one who makes Bush look like a defender of the rule of law.

Suppose that president does some really bad, illegal stuff -- including killing a lot of people based on trumped-up charges. And suppose, in the meantime, the U.S. loses some of its military might.

Would it be OK for, say, China and/or Russia to decide that "regime change" in the U.S. is justified and then go do it? Would it be OK for them to take it upon themselves to "liberate" the U.S. from an "evil dictator"?

Or, would most of us here say that the regime that runs the United States is OUR problem? Wouldn't we say that foreigners are allowed to help (as the French did in the Revolutionary War) but that the fight is ours to fight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
earlybelle Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hate to say it but most people here in the US won't give a damn.
They will be shopping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2.  earlybelle...
to DU!


You're safe from the Sheeple in here. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Right before they're watching
American Idol. :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. These kinds of remarks seem to me to be out of touch
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 12:58 AM by Oak2004
with the actual mood of the American people.

Yes, people have not been streaming into the streets over GWB -- yet (though they did stream into the polls in unprecidented ways to vote out his congress). But the mood in this country is approaching the boiling point. All it would take is one more push -- the last straw -- and I believe active resistance will be bursting out all over.

I have never seen this country as close as it is today to revolution. That's not hyperbole: once upon a long time ago, I did some academic work on revolution and its precursors. At the time, "revolution" was on the lips of many young people, but if you actually looked at the underlying political dynamics of America what you saw was an adolescent-led reform movement, not a revolutionary movement.

Today is a whole 'nother story. There is a deep, deep anger that cuts across all generational and ethnic groups, most classes, and very nearly all regions. Not disapproval and resignation-- not a sense that everything is screwed up but nothing can be done about it -- but a simmering rage. I've heard some very ordinary people who would normally not be considered "political" variously talk about leaving the country, seceding from the union, or hoping the current administration could be forced out of office (impeachment, military coup, etc.). What's even more telling is that far from being considered crackpots, people who complain like this (at this stage it is of course only complaining) usually find sympathy, agreement, and commiseration.

The results of the midterm election again speak of an energized and furious, not discouraged, populace. That's the difference between populations who acquiesce to bad governance and those who overthrow bad governments: populations who overthrow their government are furious and believe they can or must change it. If anything this country has a superabundance of proto-revolutionaries: it's rare that more than 10-20% of a populace actively participates in a revolution, and everything I hear and see suggests we've got at least that percentage who could be pushed over the edge.

The absence of a lot of outward signs -- protests in the streets, people organizing -- means nothing. Revolutionary periods tend to spring up unexpectedly, surprising even their leaders. The most obvious recent historical example are the revolutions that rocked the Soviet bloc. There were subtle, soft signs of potential revolution for years with only a few easily suppressed dissident groups and individuals visibly active. But when a few pieces fell in place, the Soviet bloc exploded with little warning. Looking at the American Revolution one sees the same phenomena, if one clears from one's head the after-the-fact tale told in school textbooks suggesting a large, long-lived resistance to British rule prior to 1776, and realizes how meager in size and scope the active resistance was prior to the Intolerable Acts. A famous letter from Lenin, written around 1916, has him griping that Russia would be the *last* place in Europe for Communist revolution.

The US is a tinderbox waiting for a spark. I personally would rather not see that spark. Revolutions are a kind of political Russian roulette: maybe they are peaceful ("velvet revolution") or maybe they become the most horrific of wars. I'd rather see an orderly resolution of our crisis of governance in keeping with the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Tell him he clearly understand
this Jamaican proverb - same knife stick goat, stick sheep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nah
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 01:03 AM by quinnox
First the U.S. has too many nukes and spends too much on military hardware and high technology so that it is very difficult to match the U.S. in combat, any country would be a fool to try. Also the geography makes it very tough to invade and conquer the U.S. as it is surrounded by oceans. But just to answer the premise, however unrealistic, I don't think any country would have the right to interfere with internal politics of the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC