Quote:
|
Originally Posted by desal75
If everyone is so in favor of revolution I propose that you, yourself fire the first shot. If such things as stated above have driven you to that level of anger than act upon it.
Or would you rather not place at risk the comfortable place you occupy with such actions.
I do agree that things could be greatly improved but are they terrible enough that a violent uprising (and killing) is necessary?
|
We have invaded and overthrown a government that had done nothing to us and did not have the capabilities of doing anything to us. Then we mismanaged that war so terribly that the end of it isn't even in sight, and we have most likely started a civil war that may well degenerate into a regional war, and perhaps grow even larger than that since all the other countries will get interested once their oil supply is in question.
We have then, through no-bid contracts, wasted BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars by letting Haliburton and a few others corrupt their way to riches, all acquired on the backs of the poor and middle class tax payers.
We have allowed a man to be appointed by a council of judicial ministers rather than to be elected by the public, then when he ran for election in 2004 we have allowed suspect voting machines (I promise to deliver Ohio for President Bush, said the CEO of Diebold) to call in to question even that election. In short, our leader, is not our rightful leader.
If this isn't bad enough to make you think we need to stop the government, NOW, then I don't have any idea what it would take to get you angry enough.
Why don't we start shooting? Because there aren't enough of us, and it wouldn't do any good. Even if 25% of the country rose up to fight the government, our pistols, rifles, and shotguns cannot hope to defeat the military. And, once they'd killed or arrested all of us, there would be that much less of a check on the runaway power of the neoconservative movement. In short, at this point, until more people get angry, a revolution would be a very dumb idea.