Bush admits Iraq nothing to do with 9/11

Are you saying it takes gunfire to start a revolution?
If that is the preferred military technology of the time, then yes.

I know that people routinely bring up MLK Jr. and Ghandi as examples of how revolutions have taken place without gunfire, however, I feel those opinions are misguided. MLK Jr. and Ghandi, both great men, had the advantage of pressing a country in a time when the country was militarily occupied in other places. I, for one, do not believe that India would have gained its independence had Great Britain not been involved in the British just finished fighting two wars, the two costliest wars in history, in thirty years. I also doubt that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 would have been passed had it not been for the Detroit Riots in 1967. It was the only time in American history in which our Active Duty Military forces have been deployed to fight on American soil, as a regiment from the 82nd Airborne was sent to Detroit to keep the peace (in the middle of the Vietnam War!) MLK Jr. was assassinated in 1968 and less than a week later the CRA 1968 was passed. I believe the legislators feared riots of triple the size of the Detroit riots.
 
Minus the whole Russian and French ones right?
There must be an overwhelming amount of violence or the capability to inflict violence in order to successfully revolt, IMO. True, mobs of angry people can overcome a few guards with guns, or even many guards with guns (just ask the Iranians and the Iraqis,) however, for must revolutions to work, you must be able to square off against those you are revolting against on some sort of battlefield.
 
chopping heads off seemed to work fine. Most of the skirmishes in France were little barricade fights. Most fired and ran. There was no major battles in a sense we think of them.
 
And Russia on the other hand had nothing held back. There were even Yanks, Tommies, and a few others over there fighting the good fight.
 

VN Store



Back
Top