Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CWMV]

The thing is that such an idealistic approach does not work.
Governments which have exhausted all other forms of control always depend of the monopoly of arms in order to cow the plebians.
From rome to the modern day.
All power comes from arms, what you do with said power after the need for arms has passed is another matter entirely.
Tarquinius Superbus was forceably overthrown and sent into exile. Created the Roman republic.
Louis XVI was overthrown by the people, who then let their revolution get the better of them.
Lousy Redcoats were sent packing back to their island by American riflemen and the French navy.
etc etc.
Total change requires the force of arms to complete, but also wisdom to see that change grow into a government of, by and for the people that instigated the change.

Put simply, if you aren't willing to bleed for your freedom you do not deserve it.

And second why are so many people here using the "world revolution" mantra?

EDIT: And again look at the men from history that we admire. Guys like Solon and Brutus (both the 509bc and 44bc editions) advocated armed resistance to tyrannical leaders.

[Gaston]

I can only agree with what you say, CWMV... unfortunately, changes can only be made with violence... it is the only language the potent understand, because in any case, they are ready to use it against the people, even if the people does not use it...

I hate violence, but sometimes, it can be necessary... and Freedom has always grown through violence... just have a look on History...

[Batbomb]

... unfortunately, changes can only be made with violence...

What about the indipendence of India? Gandhi worked with peaceful resistance. Or the fall of the Berlin-Wall in 1989, and later the creation of unified Germany- again it was archieved through demonstrations, and not violence.
Violence is not the only tool by which changes can be archieved, and it often creates even more violence on the long run, as actions alsways provoce reactions.

[Gaston]

Yes, but these examples are few... unfortunately ! ideally, it should be like this, but the world we live in is NOT ideal...

[Whiskey_Sierra_972]

And when you'll got the power after an armed revolution...who 'll drive the nation if you are a miscellaneus of forces and ideals?

You really think that after the older enemy 'll be defeated all 'll came to a normal condition in such fragmentation?

Look at what is happening in Lybia and Tunisia....the actual new leader aren't better that older , people don't stay better than before!!!

They....and you if you'll got such revolution....in this way have only changed the head not the soul!!!!

No mate!!!

I'm afraid for you because your revolution haven't yet revolutioned you!!!

You are actually instrumental at who look to go at the power not to give you the RIGHT new power!!!

[CWMV]

What about the indipendence of India? Gandhi worked with peaceful resistance. Or the fall of the Berlin-Wall in 1989, and later the creation of unified Germany- again it was archieved through demonstrations, and not violence.

The common factor in both those instances was a failing government in a far away country.
A strong, local despotic government will not fall to roses in gun barrels and flowery words.
The people must unit, decide what they want, and fight for it.

[Dreamk]

Parlementary democracy is still the best and most human regime, with all its shortcomings, and must be protected and seached for - Revolution is just changing a dictature for another, generally more bloody and inhuman. Revolution may sound romantic but it's always the opposite - blood bath and dictature - democracies are weak precisely because they are not dictorship and there s a need to protect them in their weakness. Liberty needs to be fought for and won over everyday - thsi si more than a slogan, because democratric structure intresequely allows anti-democartic forces - from left and right, no difference, terror is terror, dictorship si dictatorship - to run to elctions and pour their propaganda upon the population - its' part of basic fredom of expression that these "revolutionaries" or "freedom fighters" hate so much once they get in power. The last Brazilian governments who see themselves rooted in "revolution ideology" have quite naturally turned into a beast that is devouring its own people.

[Batbomb]

What about the indipendence of India? Gandhi worked with peaceful resistance. Or the fall of the Berlin-Wall in 1989, and later the creation of unified Germany- again it was archieved through demonstrations, and not violence.

The common factor in both those instances was a failing government in a far away country.
A strong, local despotic government will not fall to roses in gun barrels and flowery words.
The people must unit, decide what they want, and fight for it.

What about the Rosenstrasse protest? It took part in Nazi-Germany. It is an example that non violent resistance can work in hard-lined regimes aswell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest

[CWMV]

Did it stop the holocaust? Did the Nazi regime fall?
No.
We are taking about regime change. Exacting small things from such governments isn't hard. They want to placate you to keep the sheep docile. If giving up a few Jews keeps the locals happy, by the government and holocaust keep on trucking it is a pointless event.

[Blumax]

This is great thread and makes interesting reading but besides that here is an open conversation on political ideals that has remained mature, civilized and respectful of each others opinions without the need for intervention from Administrators. Five pages so far and long may it continue in this peaceful context.

Congratulations guys, i'm impressed by your maturity!

[LuseKofte]

Well I admire the courage the people of Brazil , Syria, Tunisia shows. All these people getting beaten and prisoned for their beliefs. They are truly todays face of faith and hope. Regardless on what I agree upon or not

[santobr]

santobr.