Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Is Revolution Possible?

Is Revolution Possible?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
cssquestion
41 Posts 14 Posters 3 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J JoeSox

    Roger Wright wrote: is there any possible way that the people could prevail over the government? Non-Violent way: Vote for third party candidates. Personally get involved with your local government, any thing you(people) can do to reform presidential elections. Roger Wright wrote: Is it possible for a popular revolution to succeed in the modern world? Sure, why not. Look at history. I guess we could break out in civil war and the Leaders would be the ones with the most guns and money? Maybe the Mobs running the wars? And the UN watching, or maybe fighting on one side to re-establish "democracy"??:confused::-D http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/14romefell.html[^] Later,
    JoeSox
    www.joeswammi.com
    It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
    Rolling Stones

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Roger Wright
    wrote on last edited by
    #15

    Interesting parallels there.:suss: Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

    J 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • B Brit

      Roger Wright wrote: Once upon a time an army of ragtag, socially undesirable misfits took up arms against an Imperialist power and defeated it, replacing an unresponsive and repressive monarchy with the rule of a Constitution constructed on the precept that all men are equals, and deserve equal treatment and maximum freedom to pursue their dreams uninhibited by government restriction. It worked rather well for a couple hundred years, but it has recently taken a turn for the ugly, and the government born of the idealistic dreams of a nation of castaways has grown increasingly tyranical. Ahhhh, those days of revolution, when America was young, Blacks were slaves, and the State of California would pay $20 for an Indian scalp. Whoa! Maybe things weren't so good afterall. Try not to enshrine the past too much. It's a falicy that "the good old days" existed. Roger Wright wrote: Is it possible for a popular revolution to succeed in the modern world? It worked in India (but, then, the British homeland was halfway around the world). You shouldn't concentrate too much on the capabilities of modern armies. In a revolution (in one own's country), the military is often loath to kill their own countrymen (but it does happen). Remember: the tank didn't run over the guy in Tienimmen Square (though lots of Chinese did die in Tienimmen Square, and there was no revolution). I think you could equally turn the question a bit and ask this question: "all those people who say that the Iraqi people should be responsible for regime change in Iraq -- is that a reasonable opinion?" Afterall, Saddam has used weapons that the US wouldn't use on its own people, and has killed on a massive scale. Hence, Saddam can exert much more pressure on his people without a revolution since he will kill and torture hundreds of thousands of them to preverve his dictatorial grip on power. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

      R Offline
      R Offline
      Roger Wright
      wrote on last edited by
      #16

      Brit wrote: "all those people who say that the Iraqi people should be responsible for regime change in Iraq -- is that a reasonable opinion?" I do, indeed, question those people, and my question is exactly that - can an effectively unarmed populace overthrow a government that holds all the superweapons? The situation is actualy better in Iraq than the US, as the military-type weapons are readily available there, and virtually non-existent here. Much noise is made in the press here about all those nasty 'assault weapons' we're allowed to have, but they're all really nothing but hunting arms with big magazines. We're not allowed to have fully auto guns, nor any truly effective weapons. In many parts of the world these dangerous toys a just as illegal, but readily available in the black market - not so here. Brit wrote: It's a falicy that "the good old days" existed. I wasn't referring to any "good old days" as such... It was a very tough life, far worse than any I've known. My point was the equality of firepower and the sense that the British did not take the threat seriously, and persisted in methods that could not be effective against a guerilla force. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • B Brad Jennings

        Sure, I think it is possible. The only way the revolutionaries could win is if many people in the military felt stongly for the cause as well and joined the revolution. As powerful as hunting rifles are, they are no match for a tank. Brad Jennings "if the golden arches shut shop, where else are the VB people going to get work." - Colin Davies

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Roger Wright
        wrote on last edited by
        #17

        Brad Jennings wrote: As powerful as hunting rifles are, they are no match for a tank. Nor is a commercial AK-47 any match for a military M-16. Even dynamite is relatively ineffective compared to C-4, and recent legislation has made it extremely difficult to obtain black gunpowder, or even ammonium nitrate fertilizer. A popular uprising would be doomed from the start, without the tacit support of the military, and that would leave the door wide open to a military coup. Such a cure would be worse than the disease. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

        B 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • M Megan Forbes

          Perhaps the question is not so much whether it's possible, as whether people will be prepared to leave their comfortable way of life to do so. Sad to think we as a race are so mediocre in attitude. :(

          I may try to delete my CP cookies. But its almost like tossing the keys of the appartment into the river. - Andreas Saurwein

          R Offline
          R Offline
          Roger Wright
          wrote on last edited by
          #18

          Mediocre isn't quite the word - some fine people have been led for all the best reasons to surrender their freedom voluntarily. Complacency seems a more apt description. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P Paul Watson

            Look how far non-whites had to be pushed here in South Africa before they even considered revolting. Repressed by a handful of whites for decades. Look how Saddam treats his own people. No revolts there either. Shocking. I still believe a committed revolution of the common man can succeed. It is just getting them to stand up that is the hard bit.

            Paul Watson
            Bluegrass
            Cape Town, South Africa

            Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

            R Offline
            R Offline
            Roger Wright
            wrote on last edited by
            #19

            Paul Watson wrote: It is just getting them to stand up that is the hard bit. Sheep have trouble balancing on their hind legs, I'm afraid. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B brianwelsch

              Chris Losinger wrote: these days we call that "asymmetric warfare", or "terrorism". or maybe Guerilla warfare. :~ BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

              C Offline
              C Offline
              Chris Losinger
              wrote on last edited by
              #20

              brianwelsch wrote: or maybe Guerilla warfare we only use that word when we have no stake in the outcome. when it's used against us, it's terrorism. when we use it, it's asymmetric warfare. -c (spelling fixed)

              Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

              R B 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • P Paul Watson

                If the revolution can recruit the guys with the modern intel systems, armour, communications systems etc. then yes. Otherwise it would take big business to do it. So Roger, when is your next Revolt America! chapter meeting taking place? ;)

                Paul Watson
                Bluegrass
                Cape Town, South Africa

                Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

                R Offline
                R Offline
                Roger Wright
                wrote on last edited by
                #21

                Not me! As I implied in my original post, I'm of the opinion that it's already too late. The American public has been effectively disarmed by its government, one tiny step at a time, and because of the disparity in resources between the people and the government, I don't believe such a revolt can be won. We'd need a visionary with more fire and faith than I have to lead such a movement. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                C 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • R Roger Wright

                  Interesting parallels there.:suss: Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  JoeSox
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #22

                  Roger Wright wrote: Interesting parallels there I thought so too. "This extension of paternalism was accompanied by a tremendous increase in the personnel of the imperial civil service. Each bureau expanded its field and new bureaux were constantly being created. By the time of Antoninus Pius, who ruled from 138 to 161 AD, the Roman bureaucracy was as all-embracing as that of modern times. Naturally, too, as benevolent paternalism and bureaucracy took over, personal freedom tended to disappear." Sounds way too familiar. :(:( Later,
                  JoeSox
                  www.joeswammi.com
                  It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
                  Rolling Stones

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • C Chris Losinger

                    brianwelsch wrote: or maybe Guerilla warfare we only use that word when we have no stake in the outcome. when it's used against us, it's terrorism. when we use it, it's asymmetric warfare. -c (spelling fixed)

                    Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                    R Offline
                    R Offline
                    Roger Wright
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #23

                    I like the terminology, Chris!:-D Assymetric warfare - perfectly descriptive. Alas, the voting booth remains the only effective weapon we have at our disposal; if only people would use it! More importantly, much could be done if the voters would use their own minds, rather than relying on CNN for their opinions. Yeah, right - armed rebellion has better odds than that bit of wishful thinking! Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Stan Shannon

                      I'm game :) The real problem would be getting a sufficient mass of people united around a common cause. I know many people who have expressed the willingness to take up arms against the government, but they all want to do it for different reasons (Sorry Europe, none of them are Socialist causes). One down side of a diverse media is that it has people worked up over a very large and incongruous (sp?) set of causes. The other problem is that during our Revolution as well as our Civil War, the average joe could walk away from his farm and know that it would still be there four years later and also know that his family could scratch out a living while he was gone. That is certainly no longer true - what is your family going to live on while you are off fighting the good fight? The economic disruption would be far more severe than in 1776 and 1860. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Roger Wright
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #24

                      Stan Shannon wrote: One down side of a diverse media is that it has people worked up over a very large and incongruous (sp?) set of causes. Does the phrase "divide and conquer" come to mind? Stan Shannon wrote: The economic disruption would be far more severe than in 1776 and 1860. Good point - I hadn't even thought of that aspect. Miss one tax payment and the government will steal your property and boot your family out into the streets. Two years ago 130+ families here lost their homes to the city. The state government - based on Federal standards - decided that the city must switch from septic systems to sewers, the city built them (badly, and far over budget), then condemned the property of those who couldn't afford the tax imposed on them. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • C Chris Losinger

                        brianwelsch wrote: or maybe Guerilla warfare we only use that word when we have no stake in the outcome. when it's used against us, it's terrorism. when we use it, it's asymmetric warfare. -c (spelling fixed)

                        Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                        B Offline
                        B Offline
                        brianwelsch
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #25

                        "Exactly in parallel with the distinction between military and civilian targets in war, the extended version would designate as “guerilla warfare” the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order to attain political, ideological and religious goals. Terrorism, on the other hand, would be defined as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims.” So the colonists applied guerilla warfare. At least if you agree on this definition they did. ;) More on trying to define terrorism: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=393[^] BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                        C 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • B brianwelsch

                          "Exactly in parallel with the distinction between military and civilian targets in war, the extended version would designate as “guerilla warfare” the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order to attain political, ideological and religious goals. Terrorism, on the other hand, would be defined as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims.” So the colonists applied guerilla warfare. At least if you agree on this definition they did. ;) More on trying to define terrorism: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=393[^] BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                          C Offline
                          C Offline
                          Chris Losinger
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #26

                          brianwelsch wrote: So the colonists applied guerilla warfare. At least if you agree on this definition they did. 9/11 changed everything. we have always been at war with iraq. war is peace. freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose. (and, BTW, my 'definitions' in the post above were entirely tongue-in-cheek) -c

                          Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                          B 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • C Chris Losinger

                            brianwelsch wrote: So the colonists applied guerilla warfare. At least if you agree on this definition they did. 9/11 changed everything. we have always been at war with iraq. war is peace. freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose. (and, BTW, my 'definitions' in the post above were entirely tongue-in-cheek) -c

                            Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                            B Offline
                            B Offline
                            brianwelsch
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #27

                            I still eat French fries. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • R Roger Wright

                              Not me! As I implied in my original post, I'm of the opinion that it's already too late. The American public has been effectively disarmed by its government, one tiny step at a time, and because of the disparity in resources between the people and the government, I don't believe such a revolt can be won. We'd need a visionary with more fire and faith than I have to lead such a movement. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                              C Offline
                              C Offline
                              Chris Losinger
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #28

                              Roger Wright wrote: The American public has been effectively disarmed by its government important note here: the Iraqi government doesn't prohibit people from owning guns. in fact, Iraqis have a lot of guns. why didn't they use them to overthrow Saddam? probably because Saddam has bigger guns. -c

                              Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                              R 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • B brianwelsch

                                "Exactly in parallel with the distinction between military and civilian targets in war, the extended version would designate as “guerilla warfare” the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel in order to attain political, ideological and religious goals. Terrorism, on the other hand, would be defined as “the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims.” So the colonists applied guerilla warfare. At least if you agree on this definition they did. ;) More on trying to define terrorism: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=393[^] BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                                C Offline
                                C Offline
                                Chris Losinger
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #29

                                more on "terrorism": the PATRIOT act defines a terrorist as someone who uses a weapon or other dangerous device to damage persons or property with intent to coerce or intimidate government or civillian populations. so, that covers just about everything. -c

                                Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                                B 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • R Roger Wright

                                  Once upon a time an army of ragtag, socially undesirable misfits took up arms against an Imperialist power and defeated it, replacing an unresponsive and repressive monarchy with the rule of a Constitution constructed on the precept that all men are equals, and deserve equal treatment and maximum freedom to pursue their dreams uninhibited by government restriction. It worked rather well for a couple hundred years, but it has recently taken a turn for the ugly, and the government born of the idealistic dreams of a nation of castaways has grown increasingly tyranical. It has been clear for a generation that change is overdue, and that the trend of current events is against the common man. The inhabitants of this land have strived to make changes by due process, within the laws prescribed by their Constitution, but their efforts have been constantly defeated by a court system that considers itself to be a power for revisionism and reform, rather than restricting its decisions to the role of interpretation prescribed by law. Things are only growing worse, and lawful action is seemingly less effective each passing day. Is it possible for a popular revolution to succeed in the modern world? This country was formed when a bunch of farmers took up their muskets and challenged the world's greatest superpower. At the time, that ruling army was staffed by men who believed that wearing bright red suits and marching in straight lines down country lanes was a smart way to do battle. The weapons they bore were essentially the same as those owned by the angry farmers who opposed them, but the farmers had the nasty habit of hiding behind trees - not very sporting, but effective. Today the populace is armed to some extent, but with only hunting arms, few if any explosives, no modern intel systems, no armor, communications systems that can be easily disabled with a phone call from the government, and an ID-based economy that makes it childsplay to track the movements and activities of any individual. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a revolution is overdue and that the sheep that inhabit this land might be stirred to attempt one, is there any possible way that the people could prevail over the government? Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                                  J Offline
                                  J Offline
                                  Jason Henderson
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #30

                                  It depends on what type of revolution it is. Don't think for a second that some communist fifth-column could ever grab control here. The people wouldn't let it happen. You must have popular backing of the people if you want your revolution to last.

                                  Jason Henderson
                                  "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

                                  articles profile

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • C Chris Losinger

                                    more on "terrorism": the PATRIOT act defines a terrorist as someone who uses a weapon or other dangerous device to damage persons or property with intent to coerce or intimidate government or civillian populations. so, that covers just about everything. -c

                                    Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                                    B Offline
                                    B Offline
                                    brianwelsch
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #31

                                    So any aggressor with a political motive is a terrorist. Like, ummm...., the US. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                                    C 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • J JoeSox

                                      Roger Wright wrote: is there any possible way that the people could prevail over the government? Non-Violent way: Vote for third party candidates. Personally get involved with your local government, any thing you(people) can do to reform presidential elections. Roger Wright wrote: Is it possible for a popular revolution to succeed in the modern world? Sure, why not. Look at history. I guess we could break out in civil war and the Leaders would be the ones with the most guns and money? Maybe the Mobs running the wars? And the UN watching, or maybe fighting on one side to re-establish "democracy"??:confused::-D http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/14romefell.html[^] Later,
                                      JoeSox
                                      www.joeswammi.com
                                      It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
                                      Rolling Stones

                                      J Offline
                                      J Offline
                                      Jason Henderson
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #32

                                      JoeSox wrote: maybe fighting on one side to re-establish "democracy"?? Who says the revolutionaries want a democracy?

                                      Jason Henderson
                                      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

                                      articles profile

                                      J 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • B brianwelsch

                                        So any aggressor with a political motive is a terrorist. Like, ummm...., the US. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

                                        C Offline
                                        C Offline
                                        Chris Losinger
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #33

                                        brianwelsch wrote: Like, ummm...., the US. well, yeah. but good luck trying to win that case. :) -c

                                        Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • J Jason Henderson

                                          JoeSox wrote: maybe fighting on one side to re-establish "democracy"?? Who says the revolutionaries want a democracy?

                                          Jason Henderson
                                          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

                                          articles profile

                                          J Offline
                                          J Offline
                                          JoeSox
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #34

                                          Jason Henderson wrote: Who says the revolutionaries want a democracy? true, maybe....uhhh Communism? :-D Later,
                                          JoeSox
                                          www.joeswammi.com
                                          It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
                                          Rolling Stones

                                          J 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes

                                          • Login
                                          • Don't have an account? Register
                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups