|
Post by sirpaul on Oct 19, 2005 7:35:51 GMT
There is liberation occurring in Iraq. There is now democracy where there was none. Isn't democracy an ends, as opposed to a means? Now, the people can choose socialist or communist candidates (or people who are from their same tribe. Which ever).
As for war itself, Mao had it right... Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. If you control all the guns, you control all the power. That is why I believe in the arming of citizens... The power is dispersed to all the people.
As for the violent overthrow of a corrupt and ineffective government, I am for it. While some may consider it a coup, I would consider it a glorious revolution. I’m sure that the comrades here would agree with me that such an action is a revolution and should be supported by socialists everywhere.
As for the violent overthrow of a corupt and ineffective government, I am for it. While some may conisder it a coup, I would consider it a glorious revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 19, 2005 18:17:07 GMT
For me it depends in the situation, if it is a socialist society it is the ends, if it is a capitalist society it is but another means we should be using to achieve socialism. The initial "liberation" was but imperialism after Iraq's oil and for control of the middle east, the new "liberation" will probably if anything end up being either another currupt regime or religious theocracy.
I oppose that all people should be armed it gives others the right to control the lives of those around them and degrads society. Arms should only be given to proffessional fighters who are trained and know what they are fighting for.
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Oct 19, 2005 20:00:48 GMT
In war, people die. Therefore, war is bad. We don't need to overcomplicate this.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 19, 2005 20:09:53 GMT
Is there any other type of theocracy?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Oct 20, 2005 14:19:29 GMT
Errr....yes! Look a pineapple...*runs*..
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 20, 2005 21:03:14 GMT
The elimination of the former oppressing ruling elite is indeed justified to put an end to the counter-revolution. If the King had lived on in France, the former aristocrats and foreign powers would certainly have rallied around him to reinstore the monarchy, it was a wise decision - in particular given the crimes of the ancient regime. I'd say the the cold murder (it's nothing more) of the King have radicalized others Monarchies in Europe in their war against France. It should be noted that British supported the revolution as long as the King was kept and became mortals enemies of it when he was beheaded. Keeping the King could have avoided the Napoleonic wars and changed Europe's face.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 20, 2005 23:17:04 GMT
If the Napoléonic Wars hadn't happened, we'd be several decades socially, politically and economically behind what we know today.
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Oct 20, 2005 23:31:43 GMT
First of all- that's not true.
Second- Can progress be put in front of people's lifes? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 21, 2005 1:25:02 GMT
First of all- that's not true. How so?
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 22, 2005 20:49:06 GMT
It is interesting to mention that France took more than 30 years of lateness in industrialization by enduring the revolution and Napoleonic era. Without both France would have been a real match for England on industrial power as soon as the 1850's.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 22, 2005 22:25:31 GMT
If Napoléon hadn't gone on a roadtrip round Europe, the Italian, Belgian, German, Hungarian and Polish nationalist movements would have been either significantly delayed or never stirred-up at all.
SSG: Didn't Napoléon's plans force France to industrialisation?
EDIT - Well, the Poles were sufficiently pissed off about constant partitioning before the Grand Armée came along.
|
|
|
Post by D.S. of Soviet Sexy Girls on Oct 22, 2005 23:35:14 GMT
I totally agree with your first remark ST. Concerning industrialization, I don't think so, but I should check that.
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Oct 23, 2005 0:18:35 GMT
I too agree. When Napoleon started invading everywhere, he spread his resources too thin, weakening France.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Oct 23, 2005 23:45:04 GMT
War is a strange and ultimately futile quirk of the human race. I personally believe it is impossible to change anyones views by force. The only way is by persuasion, discussion and honest debate. You cannot bomb democracy upon a nation. Taking Iraq as an example... If you were a resident of Baghdad would you welcome with open arms the invaders that at the start of the campaign bombed your house, killing your wife and children?
Reverse the situation.... suppose a coalition of communist nations led by, say. China decided to liberate the people of the USA from the capitalist tyranny and corruption of the Bush administration, declared war and attempted an invasion . Would they be welcome? I think not! Suppose they were successful, would American citizens be dancing in the street and throwing rose petals as the first tanks halted outside the Pentagon?
It's also noticeable to me that the actual people that declare war are the ones that ensure there own (and their families) safety before they stand at the back shouting propaganda along the lines of "get stuck in lads and lasses, you are fighting for your Country, while keeping their own heads well down and well away from any threat.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Oct 24, 2005 0:45:15 GMT
Donald Rumsfeld is so old he didn't skip Vietnam, he avoided Korea. Odd considering most of the world leaders in WWII had seen some form of combat in WWI (eg, Hitler)
|
|