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.
  • 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
                                • 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.

                                  L Offline
                                  L Offline
                                  Lost User
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #35

                                  You have television and fast food. Result - people can't be bothered with a revolution ! The tigress is here :-D

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J JoeSox

                                    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 Offline
                                    J Offline
                                    Jason Henderson
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #36

                                    http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html[^] Sounds plausible to me. But if that happens, I'll even go buy a gun and fight against them.

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

                                    articles profile

                                    J C 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • C Chris Losinger

                                      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 Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Roger Wright
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #37

                                      Exactly. Ancient man conquered his rivals with the jawbone of an ass; modern man uses the jawbone of a politician.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • J Jason Henderson

                                        http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html[^] Sounds plausible to me. But if that happens, I'll even go buy a gun and fight against them.

                                        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
                                        #38

                                        Article Reads: Others wonder if knowing the fringe politics of the people paying the bills might keep some demonstrators off the streets. I guess I am wondering too. A clear money trail on that story.:eek: Later,
                                        JoeSox
                                        www.joeswammi.com
                                        It's not easy facin' up when your whole world is black
                                        Rolling Stones

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • J Jason Henderson

                                          http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81314,00.html[^] Sounds plausible to me. But if that happens, I'll even go buy a gun and fight against them.

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

                                          articles profile

                                          C Offline
                                          C Offline
                                          Chris Losinger
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #39

                                          don't confuse the organizers with the demonstrators. i'm sure that 90% of the people out there didn't research the politics of the group who paid for the toilets - there are (were) more important things to worry about. i didn't go to any marches. and one reason was because i didn't agree with ANSWER or any of the other groups who are essentially hijacking a valid and reasonable cause in order to advance their other causes. one other reason i didn't march is because i know my local and state politicians don't give a fuck what we actually think, between election cycles anyway. -c

                                          Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

                                          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