May 20, 2006

Revolutions and their ends

I think he genuinely wanted to end it and was prepared to make some concessions to do that. And he stuck his neck out to do that. He showed some guts.

When you're riding the tiger, the only way you're going to get off is when you land in the tiger's stomach.

Ghotbzadeh was convicted in August 1982 and executed the following month.

That was fast.

It's unclear whether or not the current Iranian President, our good friend Ahmadinejad, was one of those "student" hostage-takers, although several former hostages have identified him as such.

Bowden doesn't seem very unsure about this fact. The writer, not the commenter.

France suggested to the Shah that they could "arrange for Khomeini to have a fatal accident"; the Shah declined the assassination offer, arguing that this would make him a martyr.

Right, another "martyr" argument that leads to death and destruction. Same thing was said about Fallujah, Osama, and Sadr. Just get rid of these people, you'll be sorry if you don't.

Elmondo brings up an interesting point. It relates to why I say that revolutions don't have a good track record and how revolutions always end up purging the revolutionary grass roots membership. A lot of it has to do with populism. The dangers of populism

I remember the union protests. One specific incident involved the steel workers union fighting Carnegie, the owner of the steel mills. The unions just wanted better terms. Carnegie's negotiation team specifically set out to put the terms so low that they would never be accepted. Carnegie was out to break the unions. So what did the unions do? The unions broke into the steel mill after Carnegie closed it, and had a shoot out with the strike breakers that was being brought in at a private river port inside the steel mill perimeters. In the end, the National Guard arrested the union leader and members. Why? Because regardless of the justice of their cause, they trespassed on someone's private property.

The principle of human rights, is tenuous and vulnerable. Once a bloody revolution violates the "rules", there is nothing there to stop the cycle of violence. The United States has had the chance to grow and improve because the military was always there to crush "populist" uprisings that used violence or violated the laws. This is why non-violent revolutions are much more successful.

The military can't crush "too many" uprisings of course, given the 2nd Ammendment. So what we have is a deadlock, a balance, the only thing that can allow for civic improvement. A Mexican standoff is always better than people shooting at each other.

Violence doesn't solve your political problems as easily as you might imagine. Presumably because if you can overthrow the Man, why can't someone else overthrow you? If the United States can throw off the shackles of Briton, why can't the South secede from the Union? These are the questions that face a nation. And the track record for movements and revolutions that use violence to solve their problems is less than 1 out of 10. America is a charmed land, where a "civil war" ended up with a more united and more powerful nation than before. When a "Revolution" ended up with the first democratic experiment. America is downright weird, historically speaking. A freak of history.

I cannot remember the last time that an armed and violent revolution brought about a progressive/positive ending. OH ya, Fox is reporting that HAMAS got caught trying to smuggle 815k to Gaza from Egypt. Abbas confiscated it, heh. Now Hamas wants their dough back. It just gets better and better for the cash strapped terroist organization after Israel, America, and Europe finally cut off terroist funding.

Populist revolutions don't work unless you have the Socialist, Leftist, and Rich class with you. It is those people that you need to purge afterwards. Remember Cuba? Ya, that was just like Iran. Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan... the list just goes on and on and on.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home