(August 19, 2011 at 4:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Chuck, do we see a lot of instances in history where soldiers are averse to stabbing the mob? Could consult the oracle of youtube.

Yes, most recently in Egypt. There is no doubt Egyptian army could have smashed the protesters, but it declined to do so.

A little further back, in 1991, when senior Soviet conservatives staged a coup against Gorbachev, and called in the Soviet Army to Moscow to crush Yelsin's counter revolt, the vaughted Soviet Army declined to fire on its own civilian, and the coupe failed.

During the Tienamin massacre in Beijing in 1989, the communist government first called in the army group (38th mechanized army group) normally stationed near Beijing to come and crush the protest. The 38th army refused its orders. The communists then had to transfer the 14th mechanized army from half way across china to beijing to crush the protest. For a few days, the two mechanized armies deployed around Beijing as though they would engage in a tank battle against each other. Later, 2500 officers from the 38th army was court martialled.

So there are lots of occassions in history when the bayonnets of the autocracy declined to stab its citizens. Most of the time, it is only when a tyranny can't count on the unconditional fedelity of its bayonnets does the tyranny topple and fall. When the bayonnets of the tyranny remains loyal, the pitch forks of the populace is as nothing.

As a superficial observer You only see the soldiers stabbing the mob when they have no aversion to doing so. When they do have such an aversion you often see nothing because the tyranny often knows it, as Mubarik of Egypt did, and does not bring the matter to a head.

Quote:There is no doubt Egyptian army could have smashed the protesters, but it declined to do so.

Yet now it is the army that is calling the shots. They simply decided not to back an old, losing horse in the hopes of making a better deal for themselves.


Which they've gotten.

Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

---

Again, the idea that it's difficult to defeat an enemy with superior firepower does very little to sway me against what I feel to be my obligation to make the attempt. Yes, you can (and most revolutions do) include subversion.

edit-double posted that somehow.

---

Chuck, a superficial observer?

(August 19, 2011 at 5:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

---

Again, the idea that it's difficult to defeat an enemy with superior firepower does very little to sway me against the very real obligation to make the attempt. Yes, you can (and most revolutions do) include subversion.

It's not a white wash, The army could have gone on killing until the rebellion is crushed. They choose not to. That is the reason why the rebels are mostly alive, not the molotov cocktails, 12 guag shot guns or 45 Magnums.

And how does this apply to situations where armies do not show the benevolence you feel was in play here?

(August 19, 2011 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: And how does this apply to situations where armies do not show the benevolence you feel was in play here?

Subvert the discipline and loyalty of the army.

Civilian resistence against the army is one way of subverting the discipline and loyalty of an army whose soldiers and officers ultimately came from the same civilian population. But there is scant evidence that armed resistence against the army is more effective in subverting the loyalty of the army than largely unarmed resistance.

Quote:Of course it only declined to do so in those cases that didn't end in 800 some odd deaths and 6k injuries. Bit of a whitewash there.

The police is not the army. Notice in Syria, Bahrain, Libya and Iran what happened when the army backed the regime.

Do you feel that the American Revolution was effective because of it's ability to subvert British forces, or through armed resistance?

---

To be fair, I'm not certain we're disagreeing about the same thing. I would also advocate anything other than armed revolt up and until and even during such time as armed revolt became a last resort. I'm merely questioning what the citizens final means of redress would be were he to allow those that govern him to remove his right to bear arms.