06-16-2016, 06:50 PM
(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines. This isn't the late 1700s.
Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong...
Should a sovereign state legally allow a violent, armed revolution to overthrow it?
No, if it comes to that, then things have gone beyond the law, and very likely the state itself has too and become a tyranny. A violent revolutionary movement has to build its own army and its own state to replace the established one. It must have the support of the people on a massive scale, and the wherewithal to build this alternative army and state.
The Confederacy is the only such movement in our history, and it failed. And just like the 1776 movement, it was a secession movement--- not even a movement to overthrow the established government, except in what it considered its territory. In Vietnam, the people rose up to defeat an invader (the US army), not to defeat their own government.
But non-violent revolution is now the preferred norm and the new approach, since the sixties. The United States may be in-part corrupt and may engage in imperialism supported by a military-industrial corporate complex, and all that, but it still has the ability to change itself legally and non-violently.