Where do you stand?
With the people
46.8% (29)
46.8% (29)
With the leaders
21% (13)
21% (13)
Alone
14.5% (9)
14.5% (9)
Outside
16.1% (10)
16.1% (10)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Armed Revolution: Where do you stand?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

This is purely hypothetical. It is meant to provoke thought, not domestic terrorism or political unrest.

Let's say you're protesting your government. Maybe they aren't transparent, and what starts as an act of civil disobedience quickly escalates into a full-scale riot. Let's say this happens one time too many, and the government restricts or abolishes your right to gather peaceably. That's enough to make anyone dubious of their leaders. One thing leads to another, and you've got the beginnings of a revolution on your hands. Where do you stand and why? With the freedom fighters, with the government, or with yourself, hoping to survive the oncoming storm? Or do you leave the country, wanting no part in the bloodshed, abandoning your whole life and family for a clear conscience?

There are many options for each choice. You could stand by your government or the people, but lobby them to resolve things peacefully, only taking a side if it becomes absolutely necessary. You could stand alone in an attempt to keep your family out of harms way, or simply because you don't trust either side.

If you've got the time, please explain your choice.

EDIT I've got to say, you're still all wonderfully intelligent, rational human beings. It's been a while since I was last on the forums here and well...

image

I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

- The government remains a stable institution, no matter how seemingly corrupt it is, so is more likely to be able to provide the services necessary to maintain the country (i.e. they have offices/departments and the resources to maintain infrastructure, emergency services, power, food distribution, etc, etc) then violent revolutionaries.
- The government forces are more likely to be better equipped and trained (I'm aware that portions of the Armed Forces could very well defect to the anti-government side but I have a plan for that: "Oh nuts.")
- The anti-government forces are unlikely to be able to have coherent and consistent aims and can become easily fractured, so someone standing with them in the name of fighting for a open democratic society could very well end up calling hardline Fascists comrades(as shown by history, particularly in the Russian Civil War with the mix and match of anti-Bolshevik forces ranging from rival Marxists through republicans to Tsarist aristocrats. See also Syria with all the extremist groups being drawn into the fray).
- Fighting with the government lets me say "You rebel scum!" to opponents The government provides a lot of services for me that I generally take for granted, so while I may not agree one hundred percent on whatever they do, I am grateful for their existence.

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

- The government remains a stable institution, no matter how seemingly corrupt it is, so is more likely to be able to provide the services necessary to maintain the country (i.e. they have offices/departments and the resources to maintain infrastructure, emergency services, power, food distribution, etc, etc) then violent revolutionaries.
- The government forces are more likely to be better equipped and trained (I'm aware that portions of the Armed Forces could very well defect to the anti-government side but I have a plan for that: "Oh nuts.")
- The anti-government forces are unlikely to be able to have coherent and consistent aims and can become easily fractured, so someone standing with them in the name of fighting for a open democratic society could very well end up calling hardline Fascists comrades(as shown by history, particularly in the Russian Civil War with the mix and match of anti-Bolshevik forces ranging from rival Marxists through republicans to Tsarist aristocrats. See also Syria with all the extremist groups being drawn into the fray).
- Fighting with the government lets me say "You rebel scum!" to opponents The government provides a lot of services for me that I generally take for granted, so while I may not agree one hundred percent on whatever they do, I am grateful for their existence.

Pretty much this. Despite all the glamor some people seem to think exists around armed revolution, it doesn't typically end well. Usually for some semblance of stability to exist there needs to be either a strong unifying force inside, a strong external force keeping the anti-gov side united and stable, or both. Examples like the American Revolution tend to be cited, but everyone forgets that the Revolutionaries never won a major engagement and that it was only the UK pulling out because of lack of interest that ended the war, and that was with French help.

For a revolution to turn a corrupt country into a democracy would usually require a peaceful revolution, one that turns the world against the oppressors in question such as in India or South Africa (though in the latter's case it shows that just because one transitions to democracy does not mean corruption goes away or that the economic situation will improve).

Depends on how crazy the 'freedom fighters' are largely. I'd rather stay neutral or actively work with the government than help setup a communist dictatorship for example. I'm also very dubious that I would have much of an effect on how the war went, as I have no military training whatsoever and would be better put to use conducting evil science experiments on unwilling test subjects.

So basically, one side would have to be committing genocide or a similar atrocity for me to get involved, and even then it would only be if it was happening in my country, not somewhere else. You've got to pick your battles and stick to non-violent protest for as long as possible.

There's no easy answer, depends on the details.

It is likely that things will escalate, that the government would take harsher measures in response to revolutionaries getting more extreme and vice versa. In which case neither side remains blameless.

In general, though, so long as the government holds free and fair elections, I'd lean towards supporting it against attack.

Gonna have to be very boring and say 'depends'.

Generally speaking a civil war is not desirable for anyone, so there'd have to be quite a deep motivation for me to support one.

If this government crackdown is part of a wider trend towards authoritarianism then yeah, I might reluctantly stand against the government. If the government was becoming transparently hideous - fascism, Stalinism, religious fundamentalism - I'd do it willingly (ideologically speaking - whether I'd actually have the balls to do anything is another question - and one which I suspect people will gloss over in their answers!).
Conversely, if the rebel group was objectionable in similar ways I'm not going to associate with them either. So yeah; it depends.

thaluikhain:
There's no easy answer, depends on the details.

OneCatch :
Gonna have to be very boring and say 'depends'.

Very much agree.

Armed revolution is a pretty strong position to take. I would only take it if was fairly certain that life after the revolution would be better than life before- that there would be substantial gains to be worth the blood spilt and that there was some sign that social stability would come after. An armed revolution that comes out of a riot over the right to assemble doesn't strike me as likely to fulfill that criteria.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

thaluikhain:
There's no easy answer, depends on the details.

OneCatch :
Gonna have to be very boring and say 'depends'.

Very much agree.

Armed revolution is a pretty strong position to take. I would only take it if was fairly certain that life after the revolution would be better than life before- that there would be substantial gains to be worth the blood spilt and that there was some sign that social stability would come after. An armed revolution that comes out of a riot over the right to assemble doesn't strike me as likely to fulfill that criteria.

Not to mention that personally deciding to fight in a bloody civil war is a lot different from deciding a civil war is morally right. It's all very well to talk about defending your nation from "Them", but the majority of people talking about doing that won't have served in a police or military force even under the safest and most comfortable of times.

Now, if anyone here happens to actually be a revolutionary or special forces type, who've got experience in working with insurgencies in enemy territory, fair enough, I'd tend to believe them when they'd say they fight. Otherwise, not so much.

There is nowhere near enough information on the hypothetical situation to make any kind of informed decision.
So, depends.

It all depends on the situations at hand. If the government is clearly and deliberately violating the Constitution in ways that are incredibly harmful to citizens' rights and freedoms I am obligated as an officer to use all means available to me to fight against the government and their co-conspirators. If on the other hand the revolution is of a different flavor, maybe a secession or something like that; I will again follow my obligations as an officer and follow my orders.

Having been involved in a protest that turned violent (not hugely, 100 people out of 50,000 started being twats), I know the honest answer to this, and am disappointed to say that rather than confront my fellow protesters and try to urge them to keep perspective and stay peaceful, I slunk off and disassociated myself from events I knew where taking place and ought to have attempted to stop. So the answer is by myself.

Generally though, I stand by the system because I whilst I may well agree with the revolutionaries cause, I disagree strongly with armed revolution as a means of change. There are extreme circumstances where I may find it acceptable, but you would literally have to be living under a despot or worse.

But, as I say in my first paragraph, what I believe is moot. I'm a coward and would just try and avoid trouble rather than do what I think is right.

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

You're certainly not alone.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: a revolution is essentially a reset button on everything, and it almost never ends up going as you expected. If you want to change a government, you have to be a part of it.

If possible, I'd leave. I don't want to live in an unstable country. Regardless of the outcome, a revolution is essentially a civil war, and I wouldn't want to be involved for my own safety. If the rebels win, there's no telling how the new government will work out and there will almost certainly be a period of instability (like how the US had the Articles of Confederation and was a functionally different government for a few years....that absolutely did not work). If the government wins, they will almost certainly clamp down on security in order to reassert their power.

But if leaving was not an option, it would depend.

If the revolution was because the government was becoming increasingly tyrannical to the point where it was a threat to me (like Nazi Germany) then I would have to fight against them.

But if the proposed new government of the rebellion was even worse than what was currently in place I would side with the government. For instance, a religious movement that wants to turn the country into a hard-line, fundamentalist theocracy.

But I would probably just bail if possible.

It'd depends on whether I truly believed the government was descending into tyranny, or whether I believed it just needed to undergo a self-correction.

Shit would have go bad in a big way before I'd be willing to kill people over it.

My answer depends on multiple variable that are difficult to coherently list, but in general:

I would stand with an uprising against a genuinely corrupt or unrecoverable government if the ringleaders of the uprising appear to genuinely have the best in mind for the people.

I would stand with a government that is at most somewhat flawed against any uprising. (a violent uprising that occurs in the absence of strong reason to use such measures is by default in my opinion misguided, and is almost certainly led by people that are serving personal objectives)

If neither side has particular merit, or I have other reason to greatly doubt the possibility of a positive outcome regardless of the victor, I stand with myself, my family and my friends, preferably on their way the hell out of the fire zone.

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

- The government remains a stable institution, no matter how seemingly corrupt it is, so is more likely to be able to provide the services necessary to maintain the country (i.e. they have offices/departments and the resources to maintain infrastructure, emergency services, power, food distribution, etc, etc) then violent revolutionaries.
- The government forces are more likely to be better equipped and trained (I'm aware that portions of the Armed Forces could very well defect to the anti-government side but I have a plan for that: "Oh nuts.")
- The anti-government forces are unlikely to be able to have coherent and consistent aims and can become easily fractured, so someone standing with them in the name of fighting for a open democratic society could very well end up calling hardline Fascists comrades(as shown by history, particularly in the Russian Civil War with the mix and match of anti-Bolshevik forces ranging from rival Marxists through republicans to Tsarist aristocrats. See also Syria with all the extremist groups being drawn into the fray).
- Fighting with the government lets me say "You rebel scum!" to opponents The government provides a lot of services for me that I generally take for granted, so while I may not agree one hundred percent on whatever they do, I am grateful for their existence.

Firstly, I have to disagree with the idea that a government, no matter how corrupt offers stability. Because I frankly don't care too much about stability if it only benefits the rich and powerful and frequently comes at the expense of human rights. Governments should serve the people. And as soon as they stop serving the interests of their entire country and serve the powerful few instead, they're no longer a legitimate government and change should be carried out. Hopefully that means peaceful change through election, referendum, protest, etc. But sometimes those options aren't available. Sometimes the only options you have are to flee or to fight. And I have no qualms with those who decide to do the latter if the situation is bad enough and they want to at least have some chance of fixing their country. It's not ideal, but neither is bending over and taking it. And if people are angry enough to overthrow their government and fight, kill, and die to do it, then something is desperately wrong.

Second, as far as equipment and training, we can always ask the US military how easy it was winning the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Large militaries have been ground to a halt by smaller or less well equipped guerrilla forces for centuries. Add in the fact that many soldiers may be reluctant to follow orders and fight their own people and you've got a recipe for the military to fail to control the country.

Third, of course anti-government groups have the potential to fracture into different groups that want different things. But people don't generally go to the length of being prepared to lay down their lives to overthrow a government because it's been doing anything good for them.

It's easy to sit back in a first world country and figure it would have to get unbelievably bad to have the populace resort to armed revolution. But the thing people tend to forget is that in the places where this happens, things frequently are that bad. And propping up such a regime simply because it's "more stable" helps no one.

ClockworkPenguin:
Having been involved in a protest that turned violent (not hugely, 100 people out of 50,000 started being twats), I know the honest answer to this, and am disappointed to say that rather than confront my fellow protesters and try to urge them to keep perspective and stay peaceful, I slunk off and disassociated myself from events I knew where taking place and ought to have attempted to stop. So the answer is by myself.

May I ask why you say you're disappointed to say that? I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable and justified choice. If you are not in a position of power or authority, then telling violent-minded protesters to change their behavior may not just be pointless, it may actually be dangerous. If a protest turns violent, I think it's far better for everyone in the long run for the sincerely-minded protesters to abandon the violent people in their midst and let the police deal with them and in doing so provide evidence (whether or not that evidence will be reported is another matter) that the movement behind the protest is not the same as the movement behind the violence.

I think you did exactly the right choice and you have no reason to be disappointed in it at all.

I stand on whichever side seems to be more reasonable, really. I don't trust the electorate any more than I trust the government, seeing as the electorate put the government there in the first place, so I'd actually have to look closer and see who's being less of a moron before I pick a side.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

ClockworkPenguin:
Having been involved in a protest that turned violent (not hugely, 100 people out of 50,000 started being twats), I know the honest answer to this, and am disappointed to say that rather than confront my fellow protesters and try to urge them to keep perspective and stay peaceful, I slunk off and disassociated myself from events I knew where taking place and ought to have attempted to stop. So the answer is by myself.

May I ask why you say you're disappointed to say that? I'd say it was a perfectly reasonable and justified choice. If you are not in a position of power or authority, then telling violent-minded protesters to change their behavior may not just be pointless, it may actually be dangerous. If a protest turns violent, I think it's far better for everyone in the long run for the sincerely-minded protesters to abandon the violent people in their midst and let the police deal with them and in doing so provide evidence (whether or not that evidence will be reported is another matter) that the movement behind the protest is not the same as the movement behind the violence.

I think you did exactly the right choice and you have no reason to be disappointed in it at all.

I've just always felt I should have voiced my misgivings. I noticed it getting 'rowdy' and left before it really kicked off, but I sort of feel that if I and anyone who felt the same as me had voiced their disapproval instead of just walking away then it may have taken the momentum away from people egging themselves on and calmed things down.

But thank you for your support.

It depends on the Situation: Let's say there's a Revolution in the USA Tomorrow.

If the Rebels are Marxist-Lenninist, Stalinist, Maoist or Theocrats fighting to form a new Communist Dictatorship or Christian Theocracy within the USA? Then no, I wouldn't join the Revolution.

If the President suspended the Constitution, declared himself Dictator, abolished Congress and re-packed the Supreme Court with his Fascist Buddies? Then I wouldn't be siding with him.

If both sides suck like the examples above? Then I take a third option, and start my own group so that I can get some kind of power some where in the USA. (Because why not?)

I would side with whichever side benefits me the most, be it the government or the people.

The situation dictates the reaction. I cannot think of a broad-strokes answer to a question whose variables could lean me so far in all directions. It requires me to know and approve/disapprove of whatever's going on at the time.

There is no correct answer without knowing the ideological stances of the revolutionaries and governments in question and at least a basic cultural context of the area.

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

- The government remains a stable institution, no matter how seemingly corrupt it is, so is more likely to be able to provide the services necessary to maintain the country (i.e. they have offices/departments and the resources to maintain infrastructure, emergency services, power, food distribution, etc, etc) then violent revolutionaries.
- The government forces are more likely to be better equipped and trained (I'm aware that portions of the Armed Forces could very well defect to the anti-government side but I have a plan for that: "Oh nuts.")
- The anti-government forces are unlikely to be able to have coherent and consistent aims and can become easily fractured, so someone standing with them in the name of fighting for a open democratic society could very well end up calling hardline Fascists comrades(as shown by history, particularly in the Russian Civil War with the mix and match of anti-Bolshevik forces ranging from rival Marxists through republicans to Tsarist aristocrats. See also Syria with all the extremist groups being drawn into the fray).
- Fighting with the government lets me say "You rebel scum!" to opponents The government provides a lot of services for me that I generally take for granted, so while I may not agree one hundred percent on whatever they do, I am grateful for their existence.

As a fellow loyalist, I agree with you. In some cases, I would turn rebel, but a government needs to be truly horrific or beyond fixing to go that route. I think that most people agree with that as often in revolutions that is the case. I base this on the fact that here in Canada, staying under the British sphere ended up being a very good thing.

Violent revolutions don't tend to end well, especially if they are prolonged. Often rebel leaders, in order to overthrow the government, become as bloodthirsty and vicious as the people they overthrow. The act of using violence, often extreme violence, to win, changes people. And all too often the victors, reveling in their power, persecute and execute their former enemies instead of trying to include them into society, which leads to counter-revolutions occurring.

Revolutions can be successful, but usually the successful ones are non-violent, or nearly non-violent. There are notable exceptions - the American Revolution, for example. But often the armed revolution goes bad and either implements a regime that is as bad (or worse) than what came before or fails to really solve the problem and just generates a civil war.

I agree that in some instances, an armed revolution is the only course of action - but be aware that there are costs to an armed revolution and things might not turn out the way you think they will. The Russian Peasants of 1918 certainly didn't think they'd get the government they got.... neither did the Cambodians.

It's nice that the answers in this thread are generally rather ambivalent. There's no idealogical fanatics.

OT: If there was a revolution, I would prefer it to remain non-violent. Violent revolutions tend to become very messy.

My answer to this poll also depends on details and circumstances. Who's more in the right? Would a revolution actually improve the status quo? Is this the right time for a revolution? Which are the main rebel groups, and how powerful are they?

Because quite frankly I would be willing to go for every single option depending on the circumstances.

"In order for a country to stay pure and for the people, that country must have a revolution every few decades in order to clean out the corruption of the Government and reset it..."

In other words. I'll most likely be a rebel as I believe the American Government does need a clean up and a reset. The idea of this type of revolution isn't to take out the country but the Government officials themselves and then simply reset the Government with the same system and the only use the laws we, the people, want and need in order to keep the country peaceful, working, and strong...

And honestly, yes. I believe we need a revolution currently. The American Government is highly obvious with it's corruption now and many new things that they are going for, or had passed, within the last 5 years are highly going against either an individual's human rights or the original freedoms which our founding fathers had given us.

Oh and sometimes, I swear our Government is flat-out stupid when it is trying to fix the economy...

In general, when shit gets bad, I leave. I mean, I'm not really a patriot. And I don't think I'd be willing to die for my country. If the USA broke out into armed conflict tomorrow morning, I'd just pack my things and move to Canada. Sorry.

Jusey1:
The idea of this type of revolution isn't to take out the country but the Government officials themselves and then simply reset the Government with the same system and the only use the laws we, the people, want and need in order to keep the country peaceful, working, and strong...

How on Earth do you do something like that?

You'd have to fight anyone who supported the government as much as you oppose it, you'd tear the country apart.

Unless everyone opposed the government, in which case how is it still in power?

Jusey1:
"In order for a country to stay pure and for the people, that country must have a revolution every few decades in order to clean out the corruption of the Government and reset it..."

In other words. I'll most likely be a rebel as I believe the American Government does need a clean up and a reset. The idea of this type of revolution isn't to take out the country but the Government officials themselves and then simply reset the Government with the same system and the only use the laws we, the people, want and need in order to keep the country peaceful, working, and strong...

And honestly, yes. I believe we need a revolution currently. The American Government is highly obvious with it's corruption now and many new things that they are going for, or had passed, within the last 5 years are highly going against either an individual's human rights or the original freedoms which our founding fathers had given us.

Oh and sometimes, I swear our Government is flat-out stupid when it is trying to fix the economy...

But if you rebuild with exactly the same structure then you'll end up with exactly the same structural deficiencies and eventually the same problems (whatever they may be). In which case what's the point in expending (probably) hundreds of thousands of lives?

Ultimately the laws that you collectively want are the laws that you get. Democracy is reactive when people actually care about an issue.
Yeah, you may not like speed limits, but you can bet that there'd be huge political pressure to reinstate them the minute people started dying in droves on autobahn-style roads. You might not like military spending, but you sure as hell like the hegemonic influence it gives you, and through that the obscene amount of wealth your nation has. You may not like massive corporations and tax evasion, but you support it by buying from Amazon and Tesco and Walmart instead of elsewhere.

As much as I bitch about the US generally, imo it's not doing any worse now than it has previously. When do you think it was last doing ok? The 80's? The 50s? The 1840s? What kind of era was it at it's best?

If i believed in the cause i would stand with the people because i'm not a coward and am happy to stand up and be counted. If the government started to use force against the protest rather than deal with the issues causing it then i would happily take up arms and fight it directly, and kill if necessary...whatever it takes to resolve the issue. But i'd like to think that i wouldn't be the person starting the fight, merely making it too costly to continue the fight for either side.

The Gentleman:

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

You're certainly not alone.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: a revolution is essentially a reset button on everything, and it almost never ends up going as you expected. If you want to change a government, you have to be a part of it.

Excellent, we can stand shoulder to shoulder against when we're lined up against the wall!

Dragonlayer:
Excellent, we can stand shoulder to shoulder against when we're lined up against the wall!

Oh, hell no. In the event of a sustained armed rebellion that looks like we're going to lose, I will be out and on my way to one of a handful of locations I've already scouted out. You're on your own there...

Vivi22:

Dragonlayer:
I bet I'm going to be the only government loyalist in the poll and almost certainly the only one to do so because I've always wanted to crack some skulls as a secret policeman.

- The government remains a stable institution, no matter how seemingly corrupt it is, so is more likely to be able to provide the services necessary to maintain the country (i.e. they have offices/departments and the resources to maintain infrastructure, emergency services, power, food distribution, etc, etc) then violent revolutionaries.
- The government forces are more likely to be better equipped and trained (I'm aware that portions of the Armed Forces could very well defect to the anti-government side but I have a plan for that: "Oh nuts.")
- The anti-government forces are unlikely to be able to have coherent and consistent aims and can become easily fractured, so someone standing with them in the name of fighting for a open democratic society could very well end up calling hardline Fascists comrades(as shown by history, particularly in the Russian Civil War with the mix and match of anti-Bolshevik forces ranging from rival Marxists through republicans to Tsarist aristocrats. See also Syria with all the extremist groups being drawn into the fray).
- Fighting with the government lets me say "You rebel scum!" to opponents The government provides a lot of services for me that I generally take for granted, so while I may not agree one hundred percent on whatever they do, I am grateful for their existence.

Firstly, I have to disagree with the idea that a government, no matter how corrupt offers stability. Because I frankly don't care too much about stability if it only benefits the rich and powerful and frequently comes at the expense of human rights. Governments should serve the people. And as soon as they stop serving the interests of their entire country and serve the powerful few instead, they're no longer a legitimate government and change should be carried out. Hopefully that means peaceful change through election, referendum, protest, etc. But sometimes those options aren't available. Sometimes the only options you have are to flee or to fight. And I have no qualms with those who decide to do the latter if the situation is bad enough and they want to at least have some chance of fixing their country. It's not ideal, but neither is bending over and taking it. And if people are angry enough to overthrow their government and fight, kill, and die to do it, then something is desperately wrong.

Second, as far as equipment and training, we can always ask the US military how easy it was winning the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Large militaries have been ground to a halt by smaller or less well equipped guerrilla forces for centuries. Add in the fact that many soldiers may be reluctant to follow orders and fight their own people and you've got a recipe for the military to fail to control the country.

Third, of course anti-government groups have the potential to fracture into different groups that want different things. But people don't generally go to the length of being prepared to lay down their lives to overthrow a government because it's been doing anything good for them.

It's easy to sit back in a first world country and figure it would have to get unbelievably bad to have the populace resort to armed revolution. But the thing people tend to forget is that in the places where this happens, things frequently are that bad. And propping up such a regime simply because it's "more stable" helps no one.

Hey: the Fascist jackboot may be crushing my neck, but at least the trains are running on time! More or less.... My point is, the infrastructure for maintaining the lives of a national population is already in place with a government - dictatorships still run hospitals and deliver the post. Now I'll definitely concede that all these benefits may not reach everyone under a corrupt government but I believe that it is better for a few (or the many) to suffer under such a regime while things are fixed then for an armed uprising to happen and turn the entire country into a war-zone that threatens everyone; better reform at the top then revolution from below. After all, how many revolutionaries actually plan for things beyond the stirring catchphrase and "Give AKs to everyone" stage?

We certainly can and they'll give us the answer: "Piss easy." US forces racked up vastly one-sided kill-ratios in Vietnam, all but obliterated the Iraqi military in weeks and consistently outmatch and outfight Taliban and other extremists in Afghanistan; soldier to soldier, the American armed forces proved more than a match for their foes in these conflicts. But I understand the point you're getting at and must admit this largely came down to "I'll take my chances with the centuries old institution Armed Forces over the People's Army strapping bomb-vests to martyrs across the street."

But that doesn't necessarily mean the people prepared to lay down their lives to overthrow the government want to replace it with something "good". "Better" definitely, but the Mujahideen forces that would transform into the Taliban who were revolting against the Afghan government in the 80s thought that a fundamentalist theocracy would be "better" for the country then a regime that allowed schooling for women. What I'm trying to say is that I think sticking things out with the government would be better in the long-run then letting the entire populace take up arms and fragment into hundreds of factions who would inevitably become more fanatical and desperate as the revolution drags on.

I agree that the places where this happens have to have some awful circumstances for it to happen. I also see that usually in these places revolution has made the situation even worse.

Seems like far too simple a choice. Sometimes the people are wrong. Sometimes the government is wrong. Sometimes everyone is wrong, and you're effectively alone. I'd need a lot more context to really weigh in.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked