I'm mad as HELL and can't take it anymore We need a revolution

[greenbriar]

this maddness has GOT TO STOP

[marmar]

1. I'm ready...

The normal channels for redress of grievance don't seem to be working.

[Minnesota Libra]

2. I'm with you on that one. nt

[Philosoraptor]

3. It's way past time.

It's coming, one way or the other.

[originalpckelly]

4. When in the course of human events...

:patriot:

[diamondsndust]

5. sign me up!

[Ringo84]

6. You're probably right

We crossed the 'too far' line three or more years ago. The stuff that Duh-bya has tried to do - much of which he has succeeded in doing - is despicable and unamerican. Since the American people and lawmakers seem unwilling to stand up for what's right, it's gonna fall onto our shoulders.

Maybe DU should be called 'Revolution Headquarters'.
Ringo

[mtnsnake]

7. Revolution? Nah. We need people in the streets demonstrating

And contrary to what some will say, domonstrating in the streets, if done on a regular basis, IS constructive and WILL eventually be taken notice of.

[walldude]

11. It's going to take a draft to get people in the streets

in number and often.

[Totallybushed]

22. Who, though, will

the people be demonstrating against? It won't be the Republicans because they are never going enact a draft and hand the Dems such an emotional issue.

So it would have to be the Dems who are calling for one to "get the sheeple in the streets". Be careful what you wish for.

Edit to add: Anyway, involuntary servitude, which the draft certainly is, is not a progressive issue. IMHO

[walldude]

28. Not who, what. When kids start having to go against their will

they will start protesting in numbers to get out of Iraq. I don't wish for a draft, but I do know that we still feel too secure to revolt.

[Totallybushed]

31. I disagree.

Look. No matter how I parse it, "but I do know that we still feel too secure to revolt." makes it sound like George Bush is doing such a great job that nobody is interested in change.

OK, that concept makes my whole body shake, just thinking about it. We know that this is not the case. Stolen elections, poor economy, Iraq war, spying on citizens, etc., etc.

But that's what it's saying. I can't make it read any other way except, "unless there is a draft, there is nothing to protest for the vast majority".

Now, the draft. The Republicans won't enact one. They're not that stupid as politicians. Charlie Rangel and other Democrats are, in fact, about the only ones calling for one. So what does this mean?

I'll tell you what I think it means.

A)The Republicans retain control = NO DRAFT

B)The Democrats take control of one house of Congress. Probably no draft talk. If there is, it won't pass and Dems will take the heat an blame for bringing it up.

C)Dems take control of both houses of Congress, but not a veto-proof majority. Again, probably no draft. Democrats aren't stupid politicians, either. But say they pass one. Bush will veto it. Republicans go into 2008 as the great protectors of our liberties, and Dems face a crushing defeat in both the WH and Congressional races that year.

D) Dems take a veto-proof control of Congress. They stop worrying about the draft and try to impeach Bush. But say they neglect this and pass a draft. Whoopee. They take the blame in the next election and lose. In the mean time, the new Republican President now has the draft and can go adventuring like LBJ did in Vietnam. You think Iraq is bad. You didn't live through Vietnam.


Here's the short version. As Democrats are the only ones actually pushing the draft, they will get the blame whether or not it is enacted.

Therefore: I, personally, think that it is a terrible idea for Dems to push. All cost and no benefit. Let's see, if I remember my math correctly anything divided by zero is infinity. That's how bad I think this idea is.

Furthermore, it is not a progressive idea. If you had been around in the 60s, you'd remeber how hard we worked to get rid of the draft. To try to go back now would be like trying to reverse the Civil Rights movement.

[Laotra]

35. Draft

A citizens army is much less likely to shoot at you than "voluntary" mercenary army.

[Totallybushed]

38. Tell it

to the Germans. Tell it to the Japanese. Tell it to the Vietnamese.

Sorry, but that's the silliest thing that I have heard on DU this month.

If someone is shooting at you, you will shoot back, whether you originally wanted to be there, or not.

[Laotra]

43. By "you"

I meant the fellow countrymen of the soldiers, should have expressed more clearly.

[yurbud]

34. I teach college, and can't see too many of my students going willingly

not out of idealism, but because they have no respect for authority or sense of obligation since society is doing less and less for them all the time.

[porphyrian]

8. I'm right behind you...

...and the armed men they send after you.
;)

[rubberducky]

9. Ready!!

I`ve thought this for awhile now. Seems that all the boomers who marched for peace have been attacked by arthrites. Time to get the gym shoes on people!!!!!! Unfortunately our young people seem to be strangely silent. Mom and dad need to show them how it is done. It won`t happen sitting in front of the tv or ps2.I`m an old hippie, who remembers Nixon very well. This admin makes the Nixon bunch look like Mother Theresa.:hippie:

[cigsandcoffee]

10. I'll bet you don't have a mortgage. n/t

[greenbriar]

12. my mortgage is probably higher than yours

so is my student loan

what the hell does that matter anyway?

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. it matters because too many people are complacent in this world

.. and they have a ton of bills to pay, so they aren't going to miss time from work (time lost = smaller paycheck), or risk losing their jobs for not showing up to work, to go out and protest.

Sadly, it's going to take the shrub openly declaring himself dictator or president for life, before people will take to the streets... and by then, it'll be too late...

[reichstag911]

15. I believe cigsandcoffee's implication...

...is that those with financial and other encumbrances are disinclined to revolutionary ideation.

[uppityperson]

14. I do and what does that have to do with it? nt

[LoZoccolo]

18. WINNER!

:thumbsup:

[Vogon_Glory]

16. A Peronist Movement Might Be Needed

An American-style Peronist movement might be needed. Although I'm more moderate than most DU'ers, I am increasingly worried that business-as-usual Democratic politics aren't going to prove sufficient to put an end to this GOP kleptocracy.

A truly well-organized, disciplined American-style Peronist or Chavezista political movement might be the only force capable of throwing the incumbent Banana Republicans out of office.

[originalpckelly]

19. You do realize that Peron was a popular dictator...

popular, but still a dictator. We don't want that. That is what we are trying to prevent.

[Vogon_Glory]

20. I Do Realize That. That's What Scares Me.

I do realize that Peron was a popular dictator. Huey Long was also someone well short of tolerating political dissent and Hugo Chavez shows worrisome authoritarian tendencies. But only a movement of that organization and coherence might be strong enough to oust the Republicans.

I don't LIKE my scenario one damn bit. However, I fear it might be all too realistic.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Oddly he was sort of a populist dictator as well

Supporting the unions and such.

There was a bit of socialist in that old fascist. Weird mix.

[rman]

44. Peron was elected 3 times,

after he was vice president in the (pro labor) government that resulted from the coup in which he participated.
During his first term as elected president the opposition used slogans calling him a dictator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n

[LoZoccolo]

17. In this country, we get to have a revolution every two years.

I think a lot of people here are too lazy to work for it though because it involves campaigning, walking their neighborhoods, handing out flyers, making phone calls, registering voters, and learning how to share their point of view without being obnoxious so people listen. So they just talk about how they hope for some armed revolution. But they're not going to do either one anyways so blah blah blah blah.

Funny story: someone on a further-left message board said they hope that after the revolution, me and a few other named people from DU get our property taken and get deported to a "right-wing bantustan". See so you can kinda see why I wouldn't want that type of revolution.

Let's have a revolution the American way! :patriot:

_{NOTE: The four "VOTE" graphics represent voting four times, which you can do in my home town of Chicago if you are a Democrat baaaa ha ha ha ha!
ANOTHER NOTE: The first note about voting four times was just a joke, get a sense of humor!}

[Totallybushed]

21. November, 2006.

Election Day.

It's all the "revolution" needed if Dems get off their asses.

[Laotra]

23. Hasta la Victoria Siempre!

K&R

Any suggestions how?

[hack89]

24. Yea - a little violence will fix things right up! nt

[Laotra]

25. Who said anything about violence? n/t

[hack89]

26. You are right - we will do it just like Che did it!

Guevara became a leader among the rebels, a Comandante (English translation: Major), respected by his comrades in arms for his courage and military prowess,<12> and feared for what some have described as "ruthlessness": he was responsible for the execution of many men found guilty of being informers, deserters or spies.

Hasta la Victoria Siempre!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_guevara

[Laotra]

32. Congratulations

for recognizing the quote. I confess, I take Che as a postmodern icon with plenty of irony, not as a succesfull modell for revolutionary tactics. My nick may give a hint which current non-violent (=no shooting war) revolutionary movement we can learn most from. From below and to the left.

[hack89]

37. No big deal - it just got my attention. nt

[Beelzebud]

27. I'm just waiting for the signal.

I'm sure we'll all know it when we see it.

[tavalon]

29. I just hope it won't take the form of a mushroom cloud

[ChristianLibrul]

30. You'll need a rifle and pistol...

...for each member of your family. Let me know if you aren't sure how to start.

[rastafan]

33. "Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)

[LittleClarkie]

36. Here's a graphic for you

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. Good luck! nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Here We Go Again...

:nopity:

[robcon]

41. I think revolution is a disastrous course.

You won't know what you get - and I suspect it will be worse - when you start to overthrow a governement.

[rman]

45. See the French revolution,

and the mini revolution in Venezuela that brought back Chavez a few days after the US supported RW military coup in 2002.
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm