Pave Tibet!

[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.

[Excaliber]

Wow, sounds a lot like the lounge of late...

[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.

[Excaliber]

A protest doesn't have to end in revolution to be successful. I can think of a bunch of protests that happen everyday around the country, some are BS others are for a just cause. Guess it depends on which side of the fence your standing on. Protests shortened the Vietnam war, for instance, from my side of the fence, that was a good thing.

I have had customers protest their bill, it seldom changes anything. Sometimes I feel bad, but only until I get the money.

So what was the deal with that 'Islamic revolution' in Iran, 1979 I believe it was? Well, the news said it was a 'revolution', but hey, what do they know! {Item deleted...constitutes provocation. Jamo}

[meat]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well, the news said it was a 'revolution', but hey, what do they know! They need to confirm these stories with Meat before missleading us.

The media only exists so that they can get paychecks. They're not interested in presenting news, they're only interested in presenting whatever will lead to another story.

Your pal,
Meat.

[fsstnotch]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

So what was the deal with that 'Islamic revolution' in Iran, 1979 I believe it was? Well, the news said it was a 'revolution', but hey, what do they know! They need to confirm these stories with Meat before missleading us.

[Excaliber]

Meat, you do keep me intertained and your arguments are always twisted with undeniable logic, or maybe just twisted...

[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}

[Jamo]

Note editing...we're not kidding.

[427sharpe]

I need to go back, find out who HIJACKED this thread and jus' whup his arse!
I thought we was whuppin' on the Tibetis and the clogs yellin' in the streets about same....how the HADES did EYE-RAN get into it? We all know they are p/o'd 'cause of the Ayatollah Khomeni. But what would happen to YOU if ya had to live in FRANCE for years???

[Excaliber]

Who's on first?

[427sharpe]

Whats on second?