Discuss

[SEC=UGA]

 

(CBS) Not many countries in the world can say it, but America can: We have never had a military coup.

 

Not because a coup would be impossible or because it's against the law - it is, of course. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

 

No, we've never had a coup because civilian control over the military is so ingrained in us, so much a part of our core values, that a coup is unthinkable, unimaginable.

 

That is why the president had no choice when it came to dealing with General McChrystal.

 

He didn't just insult the president and nearly every civilian who outranked him with his sophomoric rant. Whether he meant it or not, he insulted the office of the presidency, and showed distain for the traditions on which our country is built.

 

The presidency is something special only so long as we choose to make it special. When those down the chain of command feel free to insult their superiors without consequence, it weakens the presidency and sends a message - not just through the military ranks, but around the world - that the president is no longer in control of those he commands.

 

That is a dangerous message that can never be allowed to stand. .

 

General McChrystal is a patriot who has served his country with courage and valor, and that service ended in a tragic way.

 

But the responsibility that looms above all others for the president - any president - is first and foremost to protect America's core values.

 

There can be no joy taken in any of this for anyone, but the President did what had to be done.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

(CBS) Not many countries in the world can say it, but America can: We have never had a military coup.

 

Not because a coup would be impossible or because it's against the law - it is, of course. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

 

No, we've never had a coup because civilian control over the military is so ingrained in us, so much a part of our core values, that a coup is unthinkable, unimaginable.

Many countries can say the same.

[Rovers]

Many countries can say the same.

 

Which ones? Australia, a few others, but not many.

[Ursa Majoris]

Which ones? Australia, a few others, but not many.

Canada

France

Germany (I know what you are going to say....)

Britain

Denmark

Norway

Sweden

Luxembourg

Italy (yes, I know but it's not a coup....)

Iceland

New Zealand

India

Russia

Finland

Iran (again, I know but that's a revolution, not a coup)

South Africa

Egypt

Morocco

Switzerland

.

.

.

.

[Rovers]

Canada

France

Germany (I know what you are going to say....)

Britain

Denmark

Norway

Sweden

Luxembourg

Italy (yes, I know but it's not a coup....)

Iceland

New Zealand

India

Russia

Finland

Iran (again, I know but that's a revolution, not a coup)

South Africa

Egypt

Morocco

Switzerland

.

.

.

.

 

Many of those could be argued... revolution or coup? Maybe calling it an overthrow of the governement would clarify the distictions. Most govt overthrows got support from the military juntas. Is the difference a delineation of whether or not a military leader assumes control of the government? I think that is the expected outcome of a coup, but I also think that falls short of what a coup is. Many, if not most revolutions have key military leaders included in the revolt.

 

The definition of a coup could be debated. Our government have never been over thrown. Under any definition. I sometimes wonder if that is a feather in our cap, or a pacifistic, apathetic, pessimistic acceptance of things as they are. A feeling of helplessness agianst big governemnt and big business. I opt for the latter. Can't beat city hall.

[moneymakers]

Obama = Jimmy Carter x 10

 

Its not been but a year and half and the whole country is falling apart in every aspect.

name one thing better the bum has done.

 

should of been hope and bull. thats what you got.

 

still wanna discuss?

[Savage Beatings]

I think Obama did the right thing in dealing with this General.

[Ursa Majoris]

The definition of a coup could be debated. Our government have never been over thrown.

Really? You sure about that? Because I think you'll find it has.

 

A revolution could be a coup but in this case we are talking about a military coup, which necessarily requires a military head of state, even in an interim capacity. I don't think any of my off-the-top-of-my-head list has ever had a military head of state.

[Jackass]

I think Obama did the right thing in dealing with this General.

+1

[gbpfan1231]

I think Obama did the right thing in dealing with this General.

Agree but if Obama was doing a good job he may have not had to deal with the general situation?????

[Jimmy Neutron]

The definition of a coup could be debated. Our government have never been over thrown. Under any definition. I sometimes wonder if that is a feather in our cap, or a pacifistic, apathetic, pessimistic acceptance of things as they are. A feeling of helplessness agianst big governemnt and big business. I opt for the latter. Can't beat city hall.

 

I think it has more to do with how relatively new our country is - we still have that new country smell. It hasn't hurt that we've been very rich - money is a great pacifier.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Many of those could be argued... revolution or coup? Maybe calling it an overthrow of the governement would clarify the distictions. Most govt overthrows got support from the military juntas. Is the difference a delineation of whether or not a military leader assumes control of the government? I think that is the expected outcome of a coup, but I also think that falls short of what a coup is. Many, if not most revolutions have key military leaders included in the revolt.

 

The definition of a coup could be debated. Our government have never been over thrown. Under any definition. I sometimes wonder if that is a feather in our cap, or a pacifistic, apathetic, pessimistic acceptance of things as they are. A feeling of helplessness agianst big governemnt and big business. I opt for the latter. Can't beat city hall.

didn't we overthrow the British rule at one point?

[Rovers]

didn't we overthrow the British rule at one point?

 

Was British rule overthrow a revolution (yes) or a coup? Yes, this country did overtthrow Brittish rule. That is considered to be a revolutioin. One could fairly say that the southern succession was a revolt, even a junta, a rebellion, whatever. It was put down. It was not a coup attmept, as the military did not try to control the government., as such, it was a a rebelion or revolution.

 

So Ursa, yes, it is accurate to say to say that OUR government has never been over thrown. The Engish government was, but not "our government". English rule has been upsurped many times. Cromwell for instance. The Cromwellian movement could well be considered a junta. So could many of the English Crown wars be as well. Kings were as much military as anything else then.

[Riffraff]

I think Obama did the right thing in dealing with this General.

Agreed.

 

Guess who's signature will forever be on McChrystal's retirement certificate: Barack Obama

 

Don't feel too badly for the General, he'll be pulling in over $100,000 in retirement pay each year.

[Ursa Majoris]

Was British rule overthrow a revolution (yes) or a coup? Yes, this country did overtthrow Brittish rule. That is considered to be a revolutioin. One could fairly say that the southern succession was a revolt, even a junta, a rebellion, whatever. It was put down. It was not a coup attmept, as the military did not try to control the government., as such, it was a a rebelion or revolution.

 

So Ursa, yes, it is accurate to say to say that OUR government has never been over thrown. The Engish government was, but not "our government". English rule has been upsurped many times. Cromwell for instance. The Cromwellian movement could well be considered a junta. So could many of the English Crown wars be as well. Kings were as much military as anything else then.

Bah. You are applying your own interpretations and definitions to support your own point. Usurpation and changes of ruling dynasties are not military coups. I did consider Cromwell when compiling the list and it is definitely a debatable point but on balance I wouldn't say that was a military junta in the accepted sense where the army itself takes over power. That was a rebellion (revolution) of Parliament against the supposed divine right of the king. The military was split and both halves were tools of either king or parliament.

 

My list is accurate, I believe.

[BeeR]

Not because a coup would be impossible or because it's against the law - it is, of course. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

Technically no - but realistically, yeah. Very much so.

 

No, we've never had a coup because civilian control over the military is so ingrained in us, so much a part of our core values, that a coup is unthinkable, unimaginable.

That's huge of course, but a big part of it is that we are so individualistic. Hell the services compete and disagree so much among themselves and even within themselves - and people who blindly will follow military leaders no matter what are all but extinct.

 

Believe me: there is NO and I do mean NO way our military would all come together to overthrow the gov't. The idea is so absurd it's laughable.

 

And yeah I agree Obama did what he had to. I don't know for sure how well or poorly Obama is re. his handling/relationships with the top military brass (it doesn't exactly seem overwhelming at least), but that doesn't excuse what the Gen. did.

 

 

 

Really? You sure about that?

I am. Rovers is right: when being ruled by the Brits, that wasn't our government. Our country didn't even exist (yet). Edited June 28, 2010 by BeeR

[Azazello1313]

Canada

France

# France in 1799 by Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I) and the French Consulate against the French Directory

# France in 1804 by Emperor Napoleon I against the French Consulate

# France in 1815 by Emperor Napoleon I against King Louis XVIII of France

# France in 1830 by Louis-Philippe of France against King Charles X of France

# France in 1848 by Louis-Eugène Cavaignac and Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III) against King Louis-Philippe of France

# France in 1851 by Emperor Napoleon III against Louis-Eugène Cavaignac

# France in 1870 by the French Third Republic against Emperor Napoleon III

Germany (I know what you are going to say....)

Britain

Ireland in 1921 by Irish Republican Army against United Kingdom

Denmark

# Denmark in 1660 by Frederick III of Denmark

# Denmark in 1772 by Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and her son Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark and Norway.

# Denmark in 1784 by crownprince Frederick of Denmark.

Norway

Sweden

# Sweden in 1772 by Gustav III of Sweden against the Privy Council of Sweden

Luxembourg

Italy (yes, I know but it's not a coup....)

Kingdom of Italy in 1922 by King Victor Emmanuel III and Benito Mussolini against Luigi Facta

Kingdom of Italy in 1943 by King Victor Emmanuel III and General Pietro Badoglio against fascist dictator Benito Mussolini

Iceland

New Zealand

India

Russia

# Russia in 1917 under the Russian Provisional Government against Tsar Nicholas II of Russia

Finland

Iran (again, I know but that's a revolution, not a coup)

# Iran in 1921 by Reza Shah Pahlavi against Ahmad Shah Qajar

# Iran in 1953 by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi against Mohammed Mossadegh

South Africa

Egypt

# Egypt in 1952 by Gamal Abdel Nasser

Morocco

Switzerland

.

.

.

.

 

list of successful coups d'etat

 

I knew some of those were wrong (I mean, come on, france? NAPOLEON??) so I went ahead and fact-checked your whole list

 

additional list of attempted coups, which list a whole slew of attempts in england and germany.

[BeeR]

I thought he was saying they wouldn't happen now, not that they never had one. lol.

[Azazello1313]

I thought he was saying they wouldn't happen now, not that they never had one. lol.

 

the quote he was replying to:

 

(CBS) Not many countries in the world can say it, but America can: We have never had a military coup.

 

Not because a coup would be impossible or because it's against the law - it is, of course. It would be difficult, but not impossible.

 

No, we've never had a coup because civilian control over the military is so ingrained in us, so much a part of our core values, that a coup is unthinkable, unimaginable.

[Ursa Majoris]

list of successful coups d'etat

 

I knew some of those were wrong (I mean, come on, france? NAPOLEON??) so I went ahead and fact-checked your whole list

 

additional list of attempted coups, which list a whole slew of attempts in england and germany.

Military coups. Not coups, but military coups where the army takes over power directly and installs itself - not someone else but itself - since that's the subject of the thread.

 

You are right on some of them though. Egypt - I forgot Nasser. Iran, I forgot the 1921 coup. Also, Napoleon's accession was a military coup, without a doubt.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Azazello1313]

Military coups. Not coups, but military coups where the army takes over power directly and installs itself - not someone else but itself - since that's the subject of the thread.

 

umm, that is a feature of pretty much every coup. one part of the government seizing control from another part can't really happen without the involvement of the military.

 

I think this puts it pretty well:

 

Coup d'état (Fr., stroke of state), an attempt to change a government by the threat or use of force, usually but not always associated with the military, although the willingness and ability or lack of it on the part of the armed forces to defend a government can be decisive in a coup d'état by others.

 

in other words, the military is usually directly involved, and when it's not, when it simply stands back and does nothing while the head of state is overthrown, even that can be taken as a decisive sort of tacit involvement.

 

in any case, which of the ones listed would you argue did NOT involve the military? or are you saying a coup is only a "military coup" if the military takes over and the new guy they put in charge is a general?

[Square]

I sometimes wonder if that is a feather in our cap, or a pacifistic, apathetic, pessimistic acceptance of things as they are.

I don't know. We are kind of the most militaristic aggressive nation on the planet and have been for easily the last half century. Plenty of those military actions were for good reason, so I'm not trying to debate the why. I just don't think there is any real way to paint the US as being pacifist.

[SEC=UGA]

I don't know. We are kind of the most militaristic aggressive nation on the planet and have been for easily the last half century. Plenty of those military actions were for good reason, so I'm not trying to debate the why. I just don't think there is any real way to paint the US as being pacifist.

 

I think he was referring to the general population of the US.

[Azazello1313]

I think it has more to do with how relatively new our country is - we still have that new country smell. It hasn't hurt that we've been very rich - money is a great pacifier.

 

well, it's also possible a big reason is the way our government is set up, with divided powers, orderly transition, etc. I think it is fairly well-designed to diffuse a lot of these pressures.

[Ursa Majoris]

or are you saying a coup is only a "military coup" if the military takes over and the new guy they put in charge is a general?

That was what I had in mind as the original premise was a direct military takeover. I will concede your other points but I was looking at generals as heads of state.