Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (16698)	6/14/2001 12:43:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

, historically some pretty horrible governments where popular or even voted in to power. I meant the American people at this point in time. We got rid of Jim Crow. We got out of Viet Nam, eventually. Yes, some nasty stuff happens here and there, but it doesn't get a free ride. I really don't think the American people, however lazy, stupid, or disengaged they may seem to be at any given time, when it comes right down to it, would go along with something bad enough to require us good folks to revolt. Or the Canadian people either.

To: TimF who wrote (16698)	6/14/2001 1:10:51 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Which raises an interesting point, IMO. Apart from the US - and to some extent, Israel, although that's a rather special case - can anyone think of a country where armed insurrection/revolution (whether called "terrorism" or not) has resulted in the foundation of a stable, democratic government? If we look at other former colonies, India and South Africa are the nearest I can think of, but neither of these really involved much force. In both cases, the UK was looking to move them toward independence anyhow (maybe it would not have been as fast, but IMO would have happened within a decade or so); Ghandi, obviously, worked on the principle of non-violence; plus arguably SA was not properly democratic until the basically peaceful ending of apartheid. Most of the other British ex-colonies which split violently either succumbed to one-party rule or went straight to military leadership; Canada, Australia etc. obviously gained peaceful independence (albeit titular HOS issues still being unresolved <g>). Possibly the old Warsaw Pact nations might count, but again these were avowedly peaceful 'revolutions' - and the least so (Romania) has resulted in the least stable government... Former Yugoslavia is still rather unproven: the only stable government there, Slovenia, did not have to fight to break free, and the central government could not fight through Croatia to hold it. This is the only case I can think of where a government effectively on its 'own' territory (as against a colonising power) has been removed peacefully. I still can't think of a single case, throughout history, where a democratically elected government, subject to (basically fair) elections, was overthrown by revolutionary force and a different - but still democratic - government resulted. In other words, there aren't any good auguries or precedents for the McVeigh method, even if you're deranged enough to think it justifiable.