Violent Protests in America

May 4, 1970

Nobody helped the last time our government killed protesters in the street.

If you wish to gain some perspective on the question asked in the OP I would suggest starting with the Kent State killings, much study has been given to this subject and the effects it had on politics, policy etc.

The following is a snippet from this source history-world.org...
*************************************************************************************************************************************************

Kent State Shootings

The Vietnam War was the most unpopular war in American history and spurred many anti-war protest. The most violent was the shootings at Kent State University.

INTRODUCTION

On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State University
END SNIPPET
*************************************************************************************************************************************************

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I do not think our president would step down even though they expect that of others. All due respect to the OP, police brutality is out of control in the US and the people that run our government don't see anything wrong with the citizens being on the end of a hostile cop's stick. I don't see much difference if I was beat (and or killed)by the military for protesting the government or by a cop that felt I didn't hand him my license fast enough, other countries should not get involve let the populace handle their own government.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Chai_An because: after thought

The president is not a dictator....he is not the government. The only reason he is the most powerful man in our government is because he is the sole leader of the executive branch. Even though corruption has permeated throughout the government in its entirety the government is designed to have "checks and balances" between the three branches. No, he wouldn't step down if other countries told him to, but if they were backed by the people and the rest of the government he would have no choice. Also, are current one only has less than 2 years left...............he hasn't ruled for the past 40 years.
Also from my perspective police brutality is not that big of a problem right now. I have never met a cop that used unnecessary force for me not giving them my license fast enough. Though, when i lived in Raleigh I met a couple that were not to polite with me. But, alas I am white. Do you have any stories in which you observed directly?....meh I guess thats off topic

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


There won't be any violent protests on a large scale for America in any real numbers.. too lazy and caught up gawking over everyone else's revolutions on the boob and talking about how we are so free and blessed. When America officially dies, there won't be so much as a whimper. This is just my opinion though.

But onto what you were really getting at..

Another country coming to the rescue of the people? Don't see that happening either.. why would they, any other time you have seen it in history.. there has always been some alternative motive, I think the world just watches us kill each other off, just like we do in the countries that have no benefit for us.

Revolutions are never successful and lasting unless it is the will of the people that carries the burdens themselves. Revolution never lasts long when it's an outside hand doing the fighting. If people want something bad enough, they will eventually get there if there is enough of them.

Originally posted by Ariess

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I do not think our president would step down even though they expect that of others. All due respect to the OP, police brutality is out of control in the US and the people that run our government don't see anything wrong with the citizens being on the end of a hostile cop's stick. I don't see much difference if I was beat (and or killed)by the military for protesting the government or by a cop that felt I didn't hand him my license fast enough, other countries should not get involve let the populace handle their own government.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Chai_An because: after thought

The president is not a dictator....he is not the government. The only reason he is the most powerful man in our government is because he is the sole leader of the executive branch. Even though corruption has permeated throughout the government in its entirety the government is designed to have "checks and balances" between the three branches. No, he wouldn't step down if other countries told him to, but if they were backed by the people and the rest of the government he would have no choice. Also, are current one only has less than 2 years left...............he hasn't ruled for the past 40 years.
Also from my perspective police brutality is not that big of a problem right now. I have never met a cop that used unnecessary force for me not giving them my license fast enough. Though, when i lived in Raleigh I met a couple that were not to polite with me. But, alas I am white. Do you have any stories in which you observed directly?....meh I guess thats off topic

The OP didn't specify how long the president would have to be in power to be forcibly removed, he asked in general if violence began would it be correct for other countries to step in and demand the president step down.

Originally posted by Chai_An

Originally posted by Ariess

Originally posted by Chai_An
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I do not think our president would step down even though they expect that of others. All due respect to the OP, police brutality is out of control in the US and the people that run our government don't see anything wrong with the citizens being on the end of a hostile cop's stick. I don't see much difference if I was beat (and or killed)by the military for protesting the government or by a cop that felt I didn't hand him my license fast enough, other countries should not get involve let the populace handle their own government.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Chai_An because: after thought

The president is not a dictator....he is not the government. The only reason he is the most powerful man in our government is because he is the sole leader of the executive branch. Even though corruption has permeated throughout the government in its entirety the government is designed to have "checks and balances" between the three branches. No, he wouldn't step down if other countries told him to, but if they were backed by the people and the rest of the government he would have no choice. Also, are current one only has less than 2 years left...............he hasn't ruled for the past 40 years.
Also from my perspective police brutality is not that big of a problem right now. I have never met a cop that used unnecessary force for me not giving them my license fast enough. Though, when i lived in Raleigh I met a couple that were not to polite with me. But, alas I am white. Do you have any stories in which you observed directly?....meh I guess thats off topic

The OP didn't specify how long the president would have to be in power to be forcibly removed, he asked in general if violence began would it be correct for other countries to step in and demand the president step down.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Chai_An because: erased off-topic

Yes i know. I was showing how pointless it would be, as he is not the government. Also he has a very limited time in office.
If anything like this happened in America it would be completely different then what is happening in Libya. But yes, I do think it is correct to protect the oppressed. That is how America was formed. Whether or not we are doing that in Libya is a different debate. I think the answer is not as simple as we make it out to be.

If my government declared martial law and started slaughtering people because we as americans finally woke up and decided to clean the government through our constitutional rights yes I would hope china would step in and stop them. why do I choose china? because Iran would try and inforce islamic law and russia I just feel like they would cause us harm, I dont know why I feel this but I do. China is strong and as close to trustworthy as there is in the choices.

reply to post by wlmgsmn


It is my understanding, the thinking behind that part of the Constitution was entrusted into the hands of our
local county government - Your Elected Sheriff - as far as the Constitution is concerned - He is GOD, his powers far exceed that of the President of the USA even supercedes State Legislature. so are you telling the right people the right information. got a problem - go see the god father, your local sheriff. now that is power.

Star and Flag OP another great thread!

Northern Ireland 1970

In the wake of the riots, the Republic of Ireland expressed open support for the nationalists. In a televised broadcast, Taoiseach Jack Lynch stated that the Irish Government could "no longer stand by" while hundreds of people were being injured. This was interpreted in some quarters as a threat of military intervention. The Irish Army set up field hospitals along the border to provide medical support for the wounded. Under the orders of Taoiseach Lynch, the Irish Army General Staff drew up Exercise Armageddon, a classified plan for possible humanitarian intervention in Northern Ireland, which was ultimately rejected.

I have often wondered what the British government would have done if other countries had become militarily involved in Northern Ireland? The British army murdered 13 unarmed civilians at a civil rights march on Bloody Sunday. Including Father Edward Daly who was shot in the back whilst fleeing the gunfire. Similar to the scenes observed during protests in Libya.

I know the two situations have a considerable number of differences, but on a basic level Northern Ireland should have been sorted out by the people, not the military. As it was a civil dispute, the problem of course being a more than biased police force in the form of the RUC.

The British army went into NI with the original premise that they were there to protect a vulnerable minority, but that was shown to be a farce in relatively short period of time. I suspect that a similar situation will occur in Libya.

*I also find it interesting that the SAS campaigns were disastrous in both Northern Ireland and Libya.

Lessons such as these should be learnt from history.

USA would never step down it undermines their role as a super power. They would definitely use force against the people.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by Hawking

 

Tens of thousands? Strange that the Libyan press would list many reasons they protest and "tens of thousands" dead at the hand of Gadaffi didn't make the list. In fact, no mention of any deaths.

I think perhaps you didn't read the list you supplied??

Here's the bits you missed.....

.
.
.
* Gaddafi committed some of the most brutal human right excesses in the late 70′s and early 80′s. Libyan students were hanged in universities, sport auditoriums and public squares simply for not adhering to the green book ideology.

.
.
.
* Gaddafi has also shot down a civilian Libyan airliner over Libya killing about 150 passengers. Bizarrely he had given the doomed flight a similar flight number to the Lockerbie airliner. This atrocity was also committed on the anniversary of the Lockerbie airliner.
* Abu Sleem prison massacre where he ordered the killing of over 1200 political prisoners
* The HIV infection breakout in Benghazi. Over 500 children where effected because the sterilization equipment were malfunctioning.
* Gaddafi waged pointless wars in Chad and Uganda where over 20,000 Libyans died.
.
.
.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


This thought occurred to me just after the no-fly zone was announced. If an alliance of foreign powers asked Obama to step down, what would happen? Also, let's say that the Police State in America really materializes as Alex Jones and others suggest it will and we the people revolted. How would we feel about a foreign alliance barging in and fighting on our behalf? You know that there will be collateral damage. Would we as a people just be grateful for the help, even if innocents were killed in the crossfire? Should the Libyan people feel grateful? So many questions, I'm just glad I'm not in the room making these decisions.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I'm pretty sure the country would be split.

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

If our own government were killing tens of thousands of American citizens and we did not have the resources to defend ourselves, yes I would like to see China step in and defend our people. Because we all know the gov't would use the "violent protests" as an excuse for marshal law and military police in every medium-large city. Soon you would get amendments to the Constitution and the further erosion of our rights that would probably make the Patriot Act look tame.

I know you want to hear everyone say "no way I ain't havin commies fightin my gov't for me!" to make a Libya comparison, but when it comes down to it I don't want my government killing US citizens and I don't want MPs trolling our towns

edit on 20-3-2011 by Hawking because: (no reason given)

yikes. classic mistake. do you really think the chinese would be so concerned about the violation of our human rights that they would step in? oh, of course, they would step in- but only to have more workers for their own revolution.

considering china's abysmal record when it comes to human rights this is reaching. now if it came to chavez stepping in, i would be behind that. yeah, he has a checkered history as well, but at least he makes more sense to me than the chinese. if their guns wouldn't kill us their vaccines, poisoned chicken or other food supplies would do it for us.

i can hear what you are saying- i just don't think china is a good addition to a team of freedom fighters.

and anyway, the US has fired on their own people numerous times. Kent State, anyone?

It's certainly a possibility, and perhaps even probable in the near future. An officer gets scarred, the reactions take over, it could happen real quick.

BUT, I think it would likely be an isolated incident. I think the aftermath of the people post such an event would be rage and riot, perhaps nationwide, but in the end, officers, national guard, branches of military are going to say "No, we won't fire on our own people", and that will be that.

If violent protests broke out they wouldn't shot us they would use tasers first and if the tasers don't work out comes the rubber bullets and tear gas and if that didn't then riot control and if that don't work they would just start rounding up people and put them in con camps until things died down. But that wouldn't work because as soon as the rubber bullets come out its over because the anger would be just through the ozone. When Americans get mad its insanity, i mean It only took one dude to get beat up by the cops and some acquittals and LA was a battlefield for almost a week. They would for sure throw down marshall law if the people said "leave" and the president said "sike" and you know what I wouldn't mind if russia came to help but china can just chill I would find that alil fishy. But Iran ehhh you take what you can get I guess.

Originally posted by Ariess

If anything like this happened in America it would be completely different then what is happening in Libya. But yes, I do think it is correct to protect the oppressed. That is how America was formed.

commenting on the poster who said that police brutality is not much of a problem anymore- i actually agree. there are programs here in LA- sensitivity training if you will- that are mandatory for new recruits. consequently, crime is down, and the citizenry are actually learning to trust the police again in high-crime areas like compton. which, incidentally, is enjoying an amazing low in crime right now- something that is enabling old grannies to sit on their front porches again without worry about being wiped out from a drive by.
look- i don't like cops, just my nature, but i have met loads of them and i can state that cops, believe it or not, are just people. does that particular profession attract power-mad nihilists intent on terrorizing? sure. but cops generally are pretty good folk. some of them, gasp, actually get involved because they want to HELP people.
here in LA we are enjoying a 45 year low in violent crime. cops will always be a trigger happy bunch, but i think a balanced view is in order.

now, for ariess's quote about "that was how america was formed..."

er, you do realize that the crimes committed against the tribal peoples here in the name of manifest destiny pretty much zeros out your statement? its just like in israel- the oppressed act like nazis too. remember the phrase at the beginning of hunter s. thompson's "hells angels"- i paraphrase....."just because a people are oppressed doesn't give them any finer qualities of mercy or justice". just saying.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Well lets consult one of the founding fathers who knows about the subject quite well

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

They didn't add the 2nd amendment 2nd for nothing. It was added to protect the 1st amendment cause that's the most important one!

Ney wont happen, congress would just Impeach the sitting president ,
"if" it ever got that serious IMO these protest are because those people are sick of dictators.
America has it pretty good if you ask me , sure there is corruption but you'll have that. its just part of being human
sad but true

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
i say again does any one in the US remember when the national guard gunned down the unarmed students at their campus over the Vietnam war . go check your own history enough said

you would have a lot of military/police defectors if it ever came down to it.