Pave Tibet!

[meat]

Originally Posted by cdnus

I can't believe you guys!!!!

Sure you can. Your choice to keep your blinders on and refuse to actively participate in reality is the only thing stopping you.

Originally Posted by cdnus

You are sacraficing wonderfull young mens lives every day in a war you will NEVER win,

Again ... you're the one with the blinders on.

"We" are not sacrificing lives. Brave men and women are doing something that you clearly do not understand - probably because you only enjoy freedom, and that enjoyment isn't based on any actual effort on your part - they are protecting freedom.

I know, I know, it's a concept you and people like you will never understand.

Originally Posted by cdnus

yet you will not allow an equally opressed populus to protest or fight their war in the only way they have available to them.

Really? Huh. Let's look into that a bit closer.

First off, it's been proven over countless centuries that protest and revolution do not work. Not only does the protesting generally alienate everyone, but it also tends to turn the undecided - the fence sitters - against the protesters. There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America.

Next, the differences between Iraq, Afghanistan and Tibet are too numerous to list here. Also, the war isn't being fought over land, it's being fought over ideals. The war, in case you missed the memo, it against terror. While you may tend to empathize with the animals that kill children and innocents because they're stupid and ignorant, most of the rest of the world believes that their cause is neither just nor a cause. That you believe that a terrorist is an 'equally opressed populus' to a Tibetan shows only your ignorance to the plight of the Tibetans as well as a general lack of intelligence when it comes to world affairs. But don't let that stop you from shouting your jack@ssery from the rooftops; it'll make everyone else feel better knowing they're smarter than you are.

Furthermore, there are virtually no Tibetans among the protesters in any of the countries where the protests have been staged. Just local kooks who have - like you - no knowledge of what they're protesting or what the real issues are. Therefore, there's no 'equally opressed populus' anywhere on the scene. Your argument fails.

Finally, the crux of your argument demonstrates an amazing lack of comprehension. There's no one here not 'allowing' your imaginary (and conspicuously absent) populous from protesting. In most cases and countries, protesters can protest as long as they get the proper permits, but I digress.

Allow me to put it in small words for you so that you'll understand: the protesters are turning public opinion against their cause by using an event that brings the world together to celebrate for an idiotic political stunt that is wholly unrelated to the event. If they had paved Tibet two years ago, I would have cared. If they pave it now, I'll support it.

Originally Posted by cdnus

I thought

No, you didn't.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Paul F]

Originally Posted by meat

Sure you can. Your choice to keep your blinders on and refuse to actively participate in reality is the only thing stopping you.


Again ... you're the one with the blinders on.

"We" are not sacrificing lives. Brave men and women are doing something that you clearly do not understand - probably because you only enjoy freedom, and that enjoyment isn't based on any actual effort on your part - they are protecting freedom.

I know, I know, it's a concept you and people like you will never understand.


Really? Huh. Let's look into that a bit closer.

First off, it's been proven over countless centuries that protest and revolution do not work. Not only does the protesting generally alienate everyone, but it also tends to turn the undecided - the fence sitters - against the protesters. There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America.

Next, the differences between Iraq, Afghanistan and Tibet are too numerous to list here. Also, the war isn't being fought over land, it's being fought over ideals. The war, in case you missed the memo, it against terror. While you may tend to empathize with the animals that kill children and innocents because they're stupid and ignorant, most of the rest of the world believes that their cause is neither just nor a cause. That you believe that a terrorist is an 'equally opressed populus' to a Tibetan shows only your ignorance to the plight of the Tibetans as well as a general lack of intelligence when it comes to world affairs. But don't let that stop you from shouting your jack@ssery from the rooftops; it'll make everyone else feel better knowing they're smarter than you are.

Furthermore, there are virtually no Tibetans among the protesters in any of the countries where the protests have been staged. Just local kooks who have - like you - no knowledge of what they're protesting or what the real issues are. Therefore, there's no 'equally opressed populus' anywhere on the scene. Your argument fails.

Finally, the crux of your argument demonstrates an amazing lack of comprehension. There's no one here not 'allowing' your imaginary (and conspicuously absent) populous from protesting. In most cases and countries, protesters can protest as long as they get the proper permits, but I digress.

Allow me to put it in small words for you so that you'll understand: the protesters are turning public opinion against their cause by using an event that brings the world together to celebrate for an idiotic political stunt that is wholly unrelated to the event. If they had paved Tibet two years ago, I would have cared. If they pave it now, I'll support it.


No, you didn't.

Your pal,
Meat.

American Revolution.

[meat]

Originally Posted by Paul F

American Revolution.

Uh, yeah. That's the revolution I referenced, in the same paragraph you where you highlighted the sentence:

Originally Posted by Paul F

"...There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America..."

Your pal,
Meat.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by meat

"...There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America..."

Your pal,
Meat.

Geez...I thought of a few others in recent years right off the top of my head...
Iran, Romania, the Philippines, Latvia, Estonia, and Lituania. I would not have remembered the last three on my own without having has a short chat with my friends wife Tuula on Friday.

Even China has had a peaceful succession of leaders after their revolution, though they have not changed parties.

I support the right of people to decide their own government, and to use whatever method they think will work (though they may end up making enemies of the wrong people depending on their tactics). Lives, fortunes, and sacred honour...

Steve

[meat]

Originally Posted by VRM

Geez...I thought of a few others in recent years right off the top of my head...
Iran, Romania, the Philippines, Latvia, Estonia, and Lituania. I would not have remembered the last three on my own without having has a short chat with my friends wife Tuula on Friday.

Even China has had a peaceful succession of leaders after their revolution, though they have not changed parties.

I support the right of people to decide their own government, and to use whatever method they think will work (though they may end up making enemies of the wrong people depending on their tactics). Lives, fortunes, and sacred honour...

With all due respect to the nations involved: Iran's "revolution" is still ongoing, Romania's "revolution" was a revolution in name only - nothing really changed, and Latvia, Estonia and Lituania's struggles were for restoration - not really a revolution at all. Of all the "revolutions" mentioned, only the first Philippine revolution comes particularly close to actually being such.

A revolution is a dramatic change, not a merely a shift in direction, or a civil war. To date, the American Revolution is the only true and successful revolution.

Your pal,
Meat.

[VRM]

Meat,
'dramatic change' is subjective and not quantifiable. The American revolution could have ended with HRH granting representation to us pesky colonials. That would probably not have been enough to qualify as 'dramatic' in your eyes, but it still constitutes change, and would have been exactly what the colonials wanted.

Iran threw out their monarchy and established a theocracy (Russia and China also changed forms of government during their revolutions). They have had 30 years of peaceful transitions of power between parties that really do not like each other (and Russia and China even longer). American democracy is often termed 'the Great Experiment' - our revolution is ongoing as well. Both are valid examples of successful revolutions, and there are many others that have already been pointed out that have used a variety of methods for the revolutionaries to get what they want.

Protest and revolution can work.

Steve

[meat]

Originally Posted by VRM

Meat,
'dramatic change' is subjective and not quantifiable. The American revolution could have ended with HRH granting representation to us pesky colonials. That would probably not have been enough to qualify as 'dramatic' in your eyes, but it still constitutes change, and would have been exactly what the colonials wanted.

The American Revolution resulted in the creation of a new country, with a new form of government, a constitution, and a peaceful transport of power.

What it 'could have ended up with' is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by VRM

Iran threw out their monarchy and established a theocracy (Russia and China also changed forms of government during their revolutions).

Iran was a change of ownership.

Originally Posted by VRM

American democracy is often termed 'the Great Experiment' - our revolution is ongoing as well. Both are valid examples of successful revolutions, and there are many others that have already been pointed out that have used a variety of methods for the revolutionaries to get what they want.

The 'Great Experiment' is the belief in liberty, achievement through hard work, and the belief that all men are created equal. It's not about democracy, it's about a representative republic. And it's the only valid example of a successful revolution - significant change.

Giving the keys to the renter of an apartment isn't any more of a revolution than coming out with a new flavor for a soft drink and calling it 'New Coke.' It's still the same can, it's still from the same manufacturer.

Originally Posted by VRM

Protest and revolution can work.

Protest may work - in that it draws attention and tends to alienate - but it never succeeds. The 60s are over, the experiment failed, and bell bottoms fell out of style.

Your pal,
Meat.

[GlynMeek]

Originally Posted by meat

A revolution is a dramatic change, not a merely a shift in direction, or a civil war. To date, the American Revolution is the only true and successful revolution.

Your pal,
Meat.

Without being too broad in my thinking, Meat, wouldn't you also acknowledge that the FRENCH Revolution meets your own somewhat restricted definition of 'true revolution' (i.e. dramatic change), AND 'successful' (i.e. The French Republic is still healthy and thriving?

Glyn

[427sharpe]

The French don't fight...they just argue to see who gets to surrender first.

[meat]

Originally Posted by GlynMeek

Without being too broad in my thinking, Meat, wouldn't you also acknowledge that the FRENCH Revolution meets your own somewhat restricted definition of 'true revolution' (i.e. dramatic change), AND 'successful' (i.e. The French Republic is still healthy and thriving?

Nope. While you may think my definition of 'true revolution' is somewhat restrictive, you're not including all the parts that make up my 'somewhat restrictive' definition when you bring up something like the French Revolution.

Your pal,
Meat.