Show of force

Is there any real difference between this:

and this?

I mean, other than the fact that one of these armies is succeeding?

Comments

[Max]

Great photos. Better captions!

[Tyler D.]

"The March for ILLEGAL RIGHTS!!"

That is all I thought.

[No one will read this]

You mean despite the fact that one of the pictures includes tanks?

An army, carrying with it the threat of violence, and a PEACEFUL protest march for rights, whether you argree with those rights or not, are not the same.

If you are looking to make a serious point, then do so. This comparison gathers no new supporters to your cause and further alienates your position. However, if your intent is just to rile up like-minded individuals, then by all means, please continue.

I also agree with Max, better captions would be nice.

[Gullyborg]

I believe Max was saying the captions are better than the photos, not asking for better captions.

And if you don't realize that what we are seeing here is the hostile takeover of our national sovereignty by an invading alien force, then you better get your eyes checked.

[bruce]

Yes, that is so hostile just look at the deaths that took place that day?

[Brian B]

There's a pretty bit of semantic disingenuity on the part of "NOWRT". In the case of the May Day parade, (s)he describes the "THREATENED" potential of what the parading army MIGHT do. But in the case of the protest, (s)he describes the REALIZED potential of what the protestors ARE doing. (S)he is comparing apples to oranges. Let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, hmmm?

First let's compare what the two groups ARE doing: The Soviet Red Army in picture 1 is parading PEACEFULLY down the streets of Moscow, not only in compliance with the law but with the full blessings of the Politburo. Surely no one can object to such a "peaceful" demonstration? The second group of protestors -- well, for the moment, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that none of them committed any acts of truancy or vandalism, obtained a permit and abided by its conditions, and engaged in no antisocial behavior whatsoever. Even at that, the behavior explicit in each photo is identical.

Oh, that's right, NOWRT objected the the threat IMPLICIT in the first photo. Yes, that's a good point. The show of force does imply a certain ability to project force and a readiness to use that force in order to further the goals of the Soviet Union. Point taken.

But what about the demonstrators? Do you really think the extent of the point they're trying to make is, "Hi, we really don't think this is a very good idea, and we'd appreciate it if you'd reconsider. Thanks"? Come now, no one can be that dense. The point of the demonstration is to DEMONSTRATE the numbers and, it is their hope, political clout of the demonstrators. Their is indeed a threat implicit in that demonstration. At the very least, that threat is of further demonstrations, and voter opposition to those with whom the demonstrators disagree. IF you HONESTLY believe that is the extent of the threat, I would argue that you are nobly but sadly miguided. The threat extends at the very least to the threat of a disruption of normal every day activities in the cities where the demonstrations take place. And given the tenor of much of the rhetoric behind the demnonstrations, it is not difficult to infer, as individuals like Gully and myself have, that the threat may extend to include potential violence -- riots or worse.

[Gullyborg]

Violence?

What violence?

Oh yeah, THIS violence:

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8314513/detail.html

Peaceful my ass. And this is only a beginning.

[DANEgerus]

Nothing like burning American flags while waving Mexican flags that makes their actual intent clear.

[Coyote]

Great post Gully.

[Andy]

Loved this comment from your link, Gully:

"Several students were seen wading in the reflecting pond in front of City Hall."

Would someone please politely tell them that is a fountain, not the Rio Grande.

I guess we need a sign in spanish.