01-04-2016, 06:42 PM
(01-04-2016, 06:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When people ask why the government hasn't stormed the place, I am reminded a bit of the Bonus Marchers during Hoover's presidency. 15k+ WWI vets camped out in DC and demanded the government pay them early for bonuses they were set to get in 1945. They were armed with clubs instead of guns, but they were camped for 2-3 months out in DC.
When they were ordered to leave, the refused and the cops shot at them and they fought back. Finally, Hoover sent in the army. Douglas MacArthur, Giver of Zero *****, feared an insurgency against the federal government and ignored Hoover's orders to stop driving them back after they abandoned their first camp. They continued on and drove them from their second camp. FDR said of this "I just won the election".
The government isn't going to go into a fortified area with 150 armed men and attempt to arrest them all. They don't want the bad PR if one of those domestic terrorists gets killed and they don't want to unnecessarily risk the lives of their own men. They'll go the slower negotiation route first.
I agree that negotiations are the better route to go first, always are. Do you agree or disagree that this would have gone much differently if these terrorists were not primarily (if not all) white?
Personally, I'm all for siege warfare in instances like this if it can be afforded and done safely. I'm just feeling like there is a big double standard going on, especially given that these men are doing this in defense of someone who has gotten a slap on the wrist for what should have been serious jail time given his history.
