BoatBanter.com - Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...

wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:52:59 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:50:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 17:24:54 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:04:47 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.
Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..
Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.
You correctly assigned the blame to the governor but it would be
incorrect to extend that to the pentagon or Nixon, as much fun as that
might be. The national guard works for the state unless they are
nationalized. A lot of people say that is the "militia"
Most of the kids at Kent State were protesting Nixon's ordering of the
invasion of Cambodia, so please don't be so eager to let Nixon or the
Pentagon off the hook. While Nixon didn't order in the National Guard
goon squad, there wouldn't have been a protest sans Nixon's escalation
of that idiotic war.

I will join you in blaming Nixon and Kissinger for still being in that
war but they had nothing to do with whatever moron (probably a captain
or major) who decided it was a good idea to issue a bunch of weekend
warriors live ammo in a situation where they probably should not have
even had rifles. This was a place for shields and batons like we see
these days in riots.
I think part of the problem was people in charge did not understand
the total breakdown in respect for authority that happened in the 60s.
The National Guard, showing up in full battle gear, did not impress
these kids. That misunderstanding and the presence of live ammo
resulted in the most likely scenario. Students got shot
I know this is going to hurt, but the same can be said of the young
people protesting in the Middle East. They're not impressed with guns.

The breakdown in "respect for authority" back then was because those in
authority no longer deserved respect. Whoever issued live ammunition to
those National Guard thugs at Kent State should have been put on trial.

There were plenty of people who should have stood trial. Did anyone go
to jail for burning down the buildings at the college? How about the
ones who assaulted the firemen who came to put out the fires?
That was what prompted the armed response in the first place.

1. My recollection is that it was the ROTC building that was set afire,
rather than "buildings." But my recollection could be wrong. No one was
charged with the arson.

2. The Guard was called in to quell a rowdy, mostly drunk crowd of
students, biker gang members and others who began pitching beer bottles
at the local police. No firemen were involved at that point. The local
mayor called the governor, who agreed to send in the Guard.

Once again, whoever issued ammo to the Guard should have been put on trial.