Pave Tibet!

[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.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by meat

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.

Meat.

India and Pakistan meet all of those criteria. And they did it by protest rather than armed insurrection, thus proving that protest does in fact work well enough to create two countries at the same time. Cape Verde meets the same criteria, though they used arms to acheive the ends they wanted.

Steve

[meat]

Originally Posted by VRM

India and Pakistan meet all of those criteria. And they did it by protest rather than armed insurrection, thus proving that protest does in fact work well enough to create two countries at the same time.

Not really. And I would hardly call the deaths of 500,000 through violence, rioting and infighting 'protest.'

Doesn't pass the sniff test. Just another change of ownership.

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.

[VRM]

Meat,
A 'sniff test' is also not quantifiable.

A revolution is usually commonly accepted to have happened when some sort of force causes a major sociological change to an existing constitution, or the adoption of a new one. There are other common definitions of revolution as well.

You define Iran as a change of ownership. That is not accurate as the entire structure of the governing bodies were replaced with something completely different, and they are still using that form of government and new constitution. Using your definitions for Iran then the American Revolution was merely a change of ownership as well. We took the keys, and stole the title while we were at it.

You have not proven that protest does not work. Stating it does not make it so. People have protested our involvement in Iraq - it is quite possible that those protests (some of which were quite large) influenced the outcome of the vote that gave Congress to the DNC. I cannot prove that it did, but you also cannot prove that it did not.

It is quite possible that China could change its position regarding Tibet based on protests. It's not likely to happen, but it is not impossible either.

Steve

[meat]

Originally Posted by VRM

A revolution is

I've already defined what a revolution is, and I've cited the sole example of a successful one. Your attempts at redefining what I've written or revisualizing history are - at best - unremarkable and certainly not worthy of assent.

A change of ownership does not make for a revolution.

A failed protest with hundreds of thousands of dead protesters is not what anyone would deem a 'success.'

Your pal,
Meat.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by meat

I've already defined what a revolution is, and I've cited the sole example of a successful one. Your attempts at redefining what I've written or revisualizing history are - at best - unremarkable and certainly not worthy of assent.

Your pal,
Meat.

Meat,
The definition of revolution existed a long time before you did. I think you really need to do some reading and actually learn what the term means before we debate the subject any further. I suggest Aristotles 'Politics' - something I had to read in high school, and the source of the definitions I used.

{Items deleted...constitute provocation. Jamo}