Time for revolt?

[Morgeruat]

I read this in GD and since this issue isn't relevent to the gun debate in that thread, but was pertinent to the issue I'm posting below, I thought I'd just make it a new thread instead of completely derailing an existing one and getting it shunted over here.

Timber Said:

Regarding CD's comment regarding "gun the military uses," I'd like to point out that, AS I SAID BEFORE, we can't own those. Semi-auto is the best your common pedestrian gunowner can get. Again, your comment is probably focusing on the cosmetics, which Felix nicely pointed out don't mean spit. Now, he made a comment about liberals in there, too, and I'd like to take the time to remind him that some liberals own guns, too, and them's fightin words. :devil: Regarding CD's comment that it is sometimes one's duty to fight one's country's military, I wholeheartedly agree. I think that time is now, today, when we should be storming D.C., but that's just me. Give me 10 or 20 thousand more like me, and I'll go Che Guevera on your ass, but that's a pipe dream. Regardless, that comment militates against his querry as to why we need such guns. I actually believe we should be allowed to own howitzers, RPGs, M16/M203 combos, tanks, etc., for that very reason. The 535 major bastards and the 1 uber bastard in D.C. should always feel like they are 10 seconds away from being quartered and drawn, as far as I'm concerned. Regarding the language in the Second Amendment and all these nice arguments about how it doesn't mean this or that, drop it. File it with your argument that you don't have to pay income taxes, and with your dissertation that West Virginia was never legally chartered as a State. Put both of them together with $1.50, and you might be able to get a Venti Starbucks coffee with it. Now, while we keep talking of America as if it were the land where you stepped off the boat and they handed you a Remington, I'd like to point out to you folks that some of us live in Socialist/Dictatorial little fiefdoms in this country, where gun ownership is nigh on illegal. And what's with Ilander acting as if he's got a monopoly on bluegrass bragging rights?

link

U.S. President George W. Bush has certified that Saudi Arabia is cooperating in the "war on terrorism," clearing the way for aid that would otherwise have been blocked under U.S. law. The move was announced late Monday in a memorandum for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as a close Bush aide headed to Riyadh after criticizing the kingdom's human rights record. "I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort," Bush said. The White House released the document as close Bush confidante Karen Hughes, the newly minted U.S. undersecretary for public diplomacy, prepared to meet with Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Under a 2005 spending bill, direct U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia is forbidden unless the president certifies that Riyadh is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the money will help that campaign. Supporters of the measure acknowledge that the overall sum of current aid is small, but say that they were principally concerned with keeping a close watch on potential future U.S. financial and military assistance to the kingdom. Hughes, U.S. undersecretary for public diplomacy, is on a regional tour aimed at improving the image of the United States, widely reviled in the Arab and Muslim world over its invasion of Iraq and support for Israel. But ahead of her arrival in the Red Sea city of Jeddah yesterday, Hughes criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record, although she admitted that democratic reforms in the oil-rich Gulf kingdom could take time. "We are concerned, and I am going to say it in Saudi Arabia, about human rights issues in the kingdom," she told reporters accompanying her on her three-nation tour. "They've got a long journey there and a lot of work to do," she said. International rights groups and some Western countries accuse the Saudi government of rights abuses against both citizens and expatriate workers, chiefly Asians. Riyadh denies the charges. Saudi Arabia applies a strict form of Islamic law and the death penalty is meted out for murder, rape, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking. So far this year there have been 70 executions announced by Saudi authorities. The Saudi government announced earlier this month it would set up a human rights agency, the second such watchdog in the kingdom. Hughes also said that although 15 of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were Saudi nationals, the kingdom has itself been "the victim of terror attacks ... and has become an important partner of the United States in counterterrorism measures." Suspected Al-Qaeda militants have carried out a spate of shootings and bombings in Saudi Arabia since May 2003, many targeting Westerners. According to official figures, at least 90 civilians, 47 security personnel and 121 militants have died since the unrest began. Bush's envoy, who arrived from Cairo, was due to travel on next to Turkey on what has been dubbed "the listening tour" by the U.S. press. "One of my missions is to go to listen. I hope to listen, to seek to understand, to show respect," Hughes said. Hughes has so far steered clear of developments in Iraq, but last week Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal warned that the country was heading toward disintegration and blamed U.S. policies for deepening sectarian divisions and effectively handing the country to Iran. A Saudi official said that "U.S. policy in Iraq is entrenching sectarian divisions and overlooking Iranian infiltration of the country." "The kingdom fears that what is taking place in Iraq will lead to its partition and the consecration of sectarian divisions in a way threatening the country's Arab identity," he said. He also accused Iran of "seeking to spread its influence in Iraq through the Shiite community," which forms a majority in the war-torn country. Tehran has dismissed Riyadh's concerns. "Iran does not expect such remarks from its friends at such a sensitive time in the region, and considers them surprising and irrational," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday. - AFP

[Morgeruat]

In case the relevence escapes anyone, Saudi Arabia is flooding the world with wahabbi propaganda paying billions for the establishment of mosques worldwide, still has one of the easiest US VISA approval processes (it's no coincidence that 15 of the 19 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi nationals), Opposes US efforts to train Shiite and Kurdish military and police forces in Iraq, has one of the worst human rights recods around (rejecting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights), pays subsidies to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and would be one of the wealthiest nations in the world if they would use their own funding to improve life in Saudi Arabia itself.

Of course US kowtowing to Saudi Arabia has been around for more than 30 years now, but I had hopes the Government would have pulled their heads out of their collective arses when congress blocked US aid to Saudi Arabia earlier this year (the law was heavily objected to by Bush)

[ 09-30-2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Morgeruat]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

~ The great statesman Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence.

[ 09-30-2005, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Timber Loftis]

I'd post, but I've got sunglass-wearing blue-suits knocking at my door.

But, do try to remember that all the signatories to the Declaration became hunted outlaws the minute they signed it. You may also recall what happened to the South -- and that was just secession, no where near rebellion.

[ 09-30-2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Morgeruat]

The fates of the Signers of the Declaration:

Five signers were captured by the British as
traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or
hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large
plantation owners; men of means, well educated,
but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and
trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
British Navy. He sold his home and properties to
pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson ! died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

[Morgeruat]

Yeah, I'm just sick of a government for the people, by the people, and of the people selling us out to those who currently pose one of the greatest threats to our way of life.

I'm also extremely irritated by my state government, but impressed by local. (Governor legalized gambling in order to raise monies for state projects and school subsidies, my county has rejected the money raised in this manner, state representatives voted an illegate 16-54% illegal pay raise right before adjourning for the summer, the local talk radio station managed to drum up 130k signatures protesting it and presented it last week, etc etc)

[ 09-30-2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

Out of interest, if the US's postition had been reversed (i.e. they stood where the English did), would they have done any different? I'm not trying to flamebait, but I am genuinely interested. If say, the US had oh I don't know, Mexico, or Africa in thrall today as colonies, and they broke away declaring indepdance - what would be the general reaction?

[Chewbacca]

Screw the Saudi Regime and the American political and corporate factions that are in the bank with them. They all profit from war and high energy prices. All of them have been screwing America since before the first Gulf war.

I think we do not need any sort armed revolt to get rid of them. Only one violent revolution has been successful in America, the first one. Even that Revolutionary war started with non-violent action including civil disobience. (that tea in the Boston harbor party incident for example). Information is more powerful than any gun. The actual publishing and distribution of the Declaration of Independence probably did as much for the freedom of America as every battle fought in the war.

We have the People, the Press, and the Polling place. I'm not ready to give up these proven and successful catalysts for change just yet.

[ 09-30-2005, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: We have the People, the Press, and the Polling place.

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] The "People" like to watch shows like American Idol and thought the Macarena was "cool". I wouldn't count on the "People" for very much.

The "Press" exists mainly to bash politicians and other members of the "Press". They report only the stories they think will be interesting so you can never really know what is going on, anyway. Finally, most of them spout only spin.

The "Polling Place" means "we'll elect 98% of the same people we elected last time and then spend the next 2 years bitching about the people we elected" then vowing "next time we'll 'Vote the Bums Out!'" but never do. These days, of course, the "Polling Place" means "your guy didn't really win--ours did".

Originally posted by Calaethis Dragonsbane: If say, the US had oh I don't know, Mexico, or Africa in thrall today as colonies, and they broke away declaring indepdance - what would be the general reaction?

The general reaction would be "we will help those nations establish independence" because not to do so would not be politically correct. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[ 10-01-2005, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: We have the People, the Press, and the Polling place.

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] The "People" like to watch shows like American Idol and thought the Macarena was "cool". I wouldn't count on the "People" for very much.

The "Press" exists mainly to bash politicians and other members of the "Press". They report only the stories they think will be interesting so you can never really know what is going on, anyway. Finally, most of them spout only spin.

The "Polling Place" means "we'll elect 98% of the same people we elected last time and then spend the next 2 years bitching about the people we elected" then vowing "next time we'll 'Vote the Bums Out!'" but never do. These days, of course, the "Polling Place" means "your guy didn't really win--ours did".
[/QUOTE]That's an excellent cynical view but I don't think it quite matches reality. We've always had stupid people, sensationalism in the press, and poorly selected politicians. Regardless of all that bullshit, much progress of all types has been made in our young nation since we took our freedom. Our system isn't perfect but it works in the long run.

Besides that which you poo-poo all over is the corner-stones of great society. Freedom of the press is great even if some of it sucks. Freedom to vote is awesome, even if the current choices stink. Freedom to act and particpate- What could be better!?! If you dont like the current political scene than anyone can participate and try to change it.

Maybe I simply see the glass as being more half-full than half-empty. :shrugs: