|
| ▲ | munk-a 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The modern anglo-saxon world has been pretty limited in this respect - but Charles I of England is an excellent example of pretty much just this playing out and being solved with a national razor. |
| |
| ▲ | mamonster 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you - I should've caveated that the Anglo-Saxon aversion to military coups comes precisely from Cromwell IMO. | | |
| ▲ | kojacklives 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | This sounds similar to holding up Ghandi as
proof that violent rebellion is not
necessary. Treating these incidents as proof
about the current world presumes people in power
lack the agency to examine history like
the rest of us. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kojacklives 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is a nonsensical reform. Every check and balance is itself
a risk, nonetheless one can not build a safe Republic by removing
them. The US thinks it is the check for Europe but this offers
no check for the leader of a superpower such as the US. (It's apparently a flaggable offense to believe
a legitimate republic is measured by making sense
even if making sense goes against Anglo Saxon
sensibilities since Cromwell.. I guess we can
call time of death on the city on a hill.) |
| |
| ▲ | mamonster 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well if you want the possibility of military tribunals you have to accept the risks of something like the 1962 Algiers coup, the 27 May revolution or (if you want a more recent example) the Wagner rebellion. I'm not certain that would be palatable to Americans but I'm not American myself so wouldn't know. | | |
| ▲ | kojacklives 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I grew up in an America that spent a lot
to explain what it was willing to do for
a Republic and ideals. The people who will
quietly give a traitor an illegal 3rd term
to avoid a more upsetting crises that
could either save the Republic or just
make it clearer it is over are
apparently what the US actually is. |
|
|
