Oh, fercryingoutloud, obviously politicians of both parties change positions on all kinds of things over time. As do regular people. Changing your views because the evidence changed or you re-checked your analysis is good. Changing because the political winds shifted and your prior position wasn't sincere or based on any deep consideration is not good. None of this is special to any political party - in America or anywhere else, now or at any other time in history.
good AP article pointing out Robert Francis' flawed thinking
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
Oh, fercryingoutloud, obviously politicians of both parties change positions on all kinds of things over time. As do regular people. Changing your views because the evidence changed or you re-checked your analysis is good. Changing because the political winds shifted and your prior position wasn't sincere or based on any deep consideration is not good. None of this is special to any political party - in America or anywhere else, now or at any other time in history.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
I was replying to the specific comment of anti's going back on their word not to confiscate and getting bad optics for doing so. I don't think they'd care at all for betraying their word
Of course not. I think Alex' is positing some level of political blowback for an overt reversal of position. I think that is very speculative, since people only care about consistency of positions that they like! If the populace wants, say, gun confiscation, then they're not going to be angry with the "flip-flopping" of a politician who changes their views to support confiscation. And vice versa.
Politics is very much a moment-to-moment things in our current state. Long-term credibility or consistency isn't really a thing that gets rewarded, so it's not a thing that anyone thinks about in DC.
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
I tried to find a link bit couldn't most of the articles are archived and are not easily accessed.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
I didn't even know Greece had a civil war. What was the outcome?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
OK, thanks for trying.
The communists didn't get Greece.
Just one of many, many similar wars around the globe that broke out in places the Axis had occupied - the resistance fighters had been generally willing to make common cause between the liberal Democrats (international meaning, not our current domestic political definitions) and the communists, both of whom were opposed to the German or Japanese invaders. With the foreign axis powers gone, the question on what path these liberated nations would take was effectively "called," and former uneasy allies turned on one another.
Think Chinese nationalists versus Mao's communists. Obviously, that one went the other way.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,625
Very interesting, thanks.
AlexanderA
Member
That's more or less correct. The Greek Civil War had two distinct phases. Round One (December 1944-February 1945) pitted the Resistance (led by the EAM-ELAS coalition, which was largely, but not exclusively, leftist) against the British, the returning Greek government-in-exile, and various pro-German collaborationist elements. This was ended by the aforementioned Varkiza truce agreement. One of the provisions of the truce agreement was that a referendum was to be held on the future of the Greek monarchy. When this referendum failed to materialize, Round Two began in 1946, when dissatisfied elements of the former Resistance coalesced into the "Democratic Army of Greece" (DSE), which was overtly led by the Communists (the KKE). The DSE turned into an insurgency, especially after the U.S. took over from the British and began aiding the Greek government under the Truman Doctrine. The Greek Civil War finally ended in1949, after Tito broke with Stalin and closed the Greek-Yugoslav border through which the DSE had been supplied. The remnants of the DSE fled behind the Iron Curtain and didn't return to Greece until an amnesty was declared in the 1970's. The KKE is now a legitimate political party in Greece and regularly pulls in about 5%-7% of the vote.
Yeah, I was obviously oversimplifying to a grotesque degree. Partly because I have pretty limited knowledge of that particular historical episode, but mostly because I wanted to emphasize its place in a much larger and clear historical pattern. Even what eventually became the Vietman conflict really fits into this category, though there's the additional element of colonialism that wasn't (fully) present with Greece.
AlexanderA
Member
That's right. And they were flying missions in the air as well. They dropped a lot of napalm on the DSE positions.
National reconciliation in Greece has been a long and painful process.
I was born in Athens a week after the Varkiza agreement was signed. My parents immigrated to the U.S. in the midst of the second round of the civil war. It wasn't safe to bring up a child there, and they had had enough of seeing their friends fighting and killing each other.
People who are clamoring for a civil war in this country should study historical precedents like this.
Are too stupid for words.
Many people have no idea of the fire that we're playing with these days.
Tommygunn
Member
Our own Civil War was vicious enough, we need not look to foreign experience. 1861-65 was this country's bloodiest war ..... long before full auto M-16s and AK's.
Deanimator
Member
The other side doesn't want a civil war. They want "dekulakization". You can't do that until you disarm the "kulaks".
An absolute monopoly on the means of armed force isn't the end. It's the MEANS to the end.
An absolute monopoly on the means of armed force isn't the end. It's the MEANS to the end.
- Status
