Do Violent Revolutions Tend to Have Positive Results?

[AionPhanes]

In an earlier thread I was explaining why I thought we should have allowed Assad to put a quick end to the revolution in Syria. It would have saved countless lives and prevented ISIS and other terrorists a new strong hold. I also noted that I thought many of the "Arab spring" revolutions (like Libya) ended up making said nations crappier places to live.

Then I said :

"Though you might find a few exceptions* in history as a general rule I don't think violent revolutions are a particularly helpful way to better ones country. Especially if you don't have the firepower and support to pull it off quickly."

* One possible exception might involve the overthrow of colonial powers ruling from the other side of an ocean and lacking the ability to project enough force to hold on to the territory if they faced determined and continued opposition. <~~ Yeah, I'm obviously referring to the American war of Independence here.

So... are violent revolutions generally a loosing situation or am I on the wrong track here?

 

[cow451]

Short-term violence may be required for long-term gain. Syria appeared to be a lose-lose deal. Oddly Daesh/ISIS may cause enough unity of purpose among the super powers that a solution will have to happen that fits regional/local needs instead of Western business interests.

 

[stamperben]

Here in this country there's been a need for revolution since before I was born. At one time I thought that would have to be a violent one, now I think it needs to be of the sort that encompasses the ballot box - a political revolution.

Wake up and vote America.

 

[cow451]

Violent revolution would require cutting back on binge-watching shows on Netflix and Roku. Therefore, not likely here in the good old USA.

 

[AionPhanes]

I would agree that there may be rare instances where armed revolt might turn out for the better. There just seems to be a horrible track record of revolutions merely making things worse. Especially if the revolutionaries are too weak to win a fast and decisive victory and the said revolution grinds on and on bringing about maximum casualties.

Notice how common it is for one bad regime to simply take the place of another too. The revolution starts with talk of liberty and human well being then you have a brutal dictator like Lenin take power for example. Or like in Libya where the religious loonies start taking over. Once the chaos starts it's hard to prevent a strong man from rising up to seize power.

That's why it bothers me to see the US being so quick to arm and fund people who are out starting armed revolutions. Especially when said revolutions are destabilizing a region and making it a breeding ground for terrorism and extremism.

 

[Cerberus~Infinite]

Depends on how far out you go. France was not a pretty place after their revolution. Wasn't pretty before it. It's a bit better now.

The Arab spring has not led to good things in many of those nations. 50, 100, 200 years from now. Who knows.

It's best to avoid them when possible. But sometimes the frying pan is so miserable that the gamble on likely ending up in the fire is worth the small chance of finding your way off the stove all together.

 

[AionPhanes]

An armed revolution against the American government would be a waste of life and resources. Non violent methods of reformation would have a greater cost to effect ratio. Even if one doesn't mind corpses lining the streets it would still be pragmatic to reject such a revolution simply because it wouldn't be an effective way to bring about any real improvement in the lives of the American people.

 

[nightflight]

Here in this country there's been a need for revolution since before I was born. At one time I thought that would have to be a violent one, now I think it needs to be of the sort that encompasses the ballot box - a political revolution.

Wake up and vote America.

I will.

 

[Vylo]

They can have positive outcomes, but are a bit riskier than non-violent ones. You can suffer backlash and have the movement implode on itself, win a phyrric victory, or simply be massacred. Non-violent tends to be less risky, but takes a lot of willpower and sometimes isn't as effective. Pretty sure people could have camped outside Assad's place for days and nothing significant would have changed.

 

[jayem]

Depends on how far out you go. France was not a pretty place after their revolution. Wasn't pretty before it. It's a bit better now.

The Arab spring has not led to good things in many of those nations. 50, 100, 200 years from now. Who knows.

It's best to avoid them when possible. But sometimes the frying pan is so miserable that the gamble on likely ending up in the fire is worth the small chance of finding your way off the stove all together.

Thomas Jefferson spent a lot of time in France, and was very sympathetic to the French people. Though he deplored the violent excesses of the Reign of Terror, he believed it was necessary to dispose of the King, and the nobility. And he never completely renounced the Revolution.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Do Violent Revolutions Tend to Have Positive Results?

Well.. there's America.


#RevolutionaryWar

And
America is arguably the mightiest country in the world.

 

[lupusFati]

Well.. there's America.


#RevolutionaryWar

America is the mightiest country in the world.

No, America isn't the mightiest country in the world. We haven't been the greatest country in a long time, actually.

You're just spouting some lie you've been told your entire life.

Also... I don't view the USA as a positive force in this world, right now. We terrorize other countries and wage meaningless wars. That's not positive.

EDIT: And I see you've edited your post a third time. So in response... no. We're not even arguably the mightiest in the world.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

No, America isn't the mightiest country in the world. We haven't been the greatest country in a long time, actually.

You're just spouting some lie you've been told your entire life.

Also... I don't view the USA as a positive force in this world, right now. We terrorize other countries and wage meaningless wars. That's not positive.

I didn't mean ethically- I meant military wise. Did you know that there is no other country on Earth that spends the amount of money we do on the military?

And
America is the reason others aren't pulling out their own soldiers to the same degree. You like to pretend we're out there for no reason, but notice the recent attack was nowhere near America..
We suffered the worst terrorist attack in modern history. 9/11 involved nearly 5000 victims, half who died.

 

[lupusFati]

I didn't mean ethically- I meant military wise. Did you know that there is no other country on Earth that spends the amount of money we do on the military?

That doesn't make us 'mighty'. It makes us 'bloodthirsty'. Also, I count everything about a country when I gauge 'greatness'. Military doesn't matter if its citizens are being treated badly, after all. That's a horrible view, that 'might makes right'.

And
America is the reason others aren't pulling out their own soldiers to the same degree. You like to pretend we're out there for no reason, but notice the recent attack was nowhere near America..

I don't see how this is relevant at all. If anything it undermines your argument and proves my point.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

That doesn't make us 'mighty'. It makes us 'bloodthirsty'. Also, I count everything about a country when I gauge 'greatness'. Military doesn't matter if its citizens are being treated badly, after all. That's a horrible view, that 'might makes right'.

'Bloodthirsty' is a loaded word. The Jews were bloodthirsty after the holy Exodus, if you want to go there. The reason America goes to war is because she has the military might to do so. The UK has it's military, but has chosen free healthcare and whatnot over defending against a very old, historical enemy.

 

[patrick jane]

I'd say by definition any revolution has violence

 

[lupusFati]

'Bloodthirsty' is a loaded word. The Jews were bloodthirsty after the holy Exodus, if you want to go there. The reason America goes to war is because she has the military might to do so. The UK has it's military, but has chosen free healthcare and whatnot over defending against a very old, historical enemy.

Might doesn't make right, I thought I already established that. And even if bloodthirsty is a loaded word, I'm completely correct. You're not even proving me wrong here. You're proving me right with this comment.

"We go to war because we can". That's what you're saying. And that's horrible.

 

[patrick jane]

Might doesn't make right, I thought I already established that. And even if bloodthirsty is a loaded word, I'm completely correct. You're not even proving me wrong here. You're proving me right with this comment.

"We go to war because we can". That's what you're saying. And that's horrible.

We always have interests involved with any war we participate in

 

[lupusFati]

We always have interests involved with any war we participate in

Yes, that's how war works. It doesn't mean it's right, though. It doesn't mean those INTERESTS were something we should be wanting/desiring/coveting. And I have NO INTEREST in shedding blood any more than what is necessary to defend this nation and its people.

But I don't see the USA waging war for defense anymore. We've become a problem.

 

[patrick jane]

Yes, that's how war works. It doesn't mean it's right, though. It doesn't mean those INTERESTS were something we should be wanting/desiring/coveting. And I have NO INTEREST in shedding blood any more than what is necessary to defend this nation and its people.

But I don't see the USA waging war for defense anymore. We've become a problem.

No, we suppress and defeat tyranny and oppression. We are welcome wherever we go.