Wed 8 Feb, 2012 04:26 pm
So the news lately has been rife with talk of Syria and the violence and rebellion breaking out there. Prior to that it was Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia. So many regime's falling, so many changes . . . gotta be a good thing, right?
Here's where I get murky. So a group of protestors or 'rebels' depending on what news organization's story you're reading, decide to step up and demand the overthrow of a regime. Defections from the army occur, arms are taken up, and a call for help to the international community is sounded. At this point, many countries start beating their chests at the injustices taking place, and demanding that their governments intervene.
I start to picture what this scene would look like if it happened in Atlanta. If a massive protest in Georgia started demanding a removal of whatever President was in power at the time. Local reservists join. Arms are taken up . . . I'm assuming the government would send in the army to calm everything down. There would likely be some shooting, martial law declared, some deaths. . . wouldn't the international outcry be the same? Would the American response to dissension of that level in it's own borders be in any way related to what we're seeing in the Middle East?
I know that many of the 'Arab Spring' rebellions began as semi-peaceful protests . . . but just how far would we let something like this go in the USA? Curious what people's thoughts are.
The difference here is that US Presidents can be removed from office through the political process. The dictators that have fallen in the Middle East and North Africa didn't afford the people that kind of political process.
But yeah, an armed rebellion outside of the political process would be summarily put down by the US government.
I would imagine the international response to your Georgia scenario would include a good deal of "whatever" sentiments ... as in, "the US doesn't know the strife of nations like Syria, Libya or Bahrain; Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia".