Revolution!

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
My two questions are:


1)So what do you see as the most important factors in a successful revolution?

2)And How would you see a revolution in your own country develop?

So for me:

Well looking at the English civil war, the French Revolution, The American Revolution, Middle east.

Important factors would be:
1) Good leaders
2)Support of 20% or more of the population.
3) A constant supply of unregistered arms and Ammunition (Its more important to have a supply of these through out rather than a initial stockpile).
4) A portion of ones miltary,police and veterans that are willing to mutiny
5) A nation willing to sponsor you.

And How would you see a revolution in your own country develop?

Well IM from the UK

Well with our government becoming more and more corrupt and detached people would become disillusioned. If our economy continues to stagnate with budget cuts happening all over the UK people from all walks of life will becoming more and more angry

So it would most likely start like the riots a couple of years ago. But instead of fizzling out a good leader would take charge and direct it. The police and Armed forces would be disillusioned with our government due to the constant cuts and miss treatment causing some to mutiny or stand down. Russia and China would see a chance to hurt the west and flood the UK with illegal arms to support the rebels. The Revolution would most likely fail due to the USA coming other to support our government out of fear of it spreading to them. Though due too our heavy urbanisation it would drag on with pretty bloody fighting.

edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I'm in Manchester and the riots of a couple of years ago, were nothing but kids causing damage and organised looting. Not sure how you can direct that.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
i do not think it is far away everyone i speak with i pissed at some cut or other and they have just announced another 13 billion of cuts but can find tens of billions for foreign bank bailouts and help for morgages .

something tells me they want this ? some joker in goverment decided to pay rent etc DIRECTLY to everybody junkies etc where can that go wrong .

just wait for tent citys to spring up the revolution will be televised



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
With support of 20% of the population, you would be enforcing a minority view on the masses. If only 20% of people want a revolution, then that means 80% dont. What right do they have to inflict their system on those who did not ask for it? Surely, that would be hypocritical. We supposedly live in a democracy.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WilsonWilson
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I'm in Manchester and the riots of a couple of years ago, were nothing but kids causing damage and organised looting. Not sure how you can direct that.


Down here they were pretty intense.

The thing is year the riots were just a disorginised criminal mob and our police lost control.

Imagine if it was a directed event wit four times the people and a cause and direction.
edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_
With support of 20% of the population, you would be enforcing a minority view on the masses. If only 20% of people want a revolution, then that means 80% dont. What right do they have to inflict their system on those who did not ask for it? Surely, that would be hypocritical. We supposedly live in a democracy.


I did not say it was right. It was just what needed.

Anyway chances are the support would be 20% for 20% against and 60% who dont care would rather watch X-Factor. Which is what seems to be the split in most revolutions. So if that 60% dont get involved they cant really complain.
edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firefly_
With support of 20% of the population, you would be enforcing a minority view on the masses. If only 20% of people want a revolution, then that means 80% dont. What right do they have to inflict their system on those who did not ask for it? Surely, that would be hypocritical. We supposedly live in a democracy.


But the whole point of a revolution is that the democratic system has already failed. We can argue that democracy has already been destroyed by the simple fact that there is now an unelected and secret group more powerful than those we have elected. It's impossible to have faith in a democratically elected government when there is a far more powerful and secretive group capable of controlling all those in government.

So if 80% of the people are too ignorant to even understand that they have no vote, or that their vote is meaningless, isn't a revolution required to remove that government and have a true democratic vote on their replacement?

In response to the OP, it's impossible to predict what would happen, because there are too many possible scenarios. The government could stand down within a week, or the military could be called in to stop the "terrorists" (yes, our governments would do exactly what Mubarak and Assad did and try to discredit any revolution by branding them terrorists). It would not be so easy for Russia or China to arm any revolution because of NATO and the rest of Europe being in the way. What would Ireland and Scotland do? How would the media be manipulated to control the public and would they fall for it?

I personally think any revolution will start the same way it seems to start in all other instances... people protest in large numbers, the police and government response is authoritarian and violent and the images of that swells numbers even more. Eventually we come to a point where the government either has to submit and agree to stand down or follow the demands of the public, or they break out the lethal weapons.

That's the braking moment. Persistence of large numbers of people protesting could get a country to that point, but the response when the people get to that point is the real critical moment. If the government fights back with lethal weapons, then we fall into a state of civil war. If they stand down and the people succeed in removing them, then there's a real chance that the people can claim their democracy back by dismantling the machine controlling the elected.

That's my take on it at least.
But whatever I personally believe, I don't think we'll see any of this happen any time soon.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 


I get where you are coming from. Apathy is a big problem, but maybe people need to pay the price for it, so they will finally get motivated to actually do something. And many people are actually happy with the current system, they benefit from it, they are fed, clothed and sheltered comfortably.

But on the other hand, sometimes you need to do things "wrong" in order to fix things, like thumping a faulty appliance. Certainly I am not against the minority of us making our voices heard, but ultimately, unless the situation is extreme, then if our voices are ignored then the masses have spoken and should be allowed to wallow in the crap they allowed to be created so they could be comfortable.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I think that in looking around, there are precious few revolution attempts that have gone well in well organized and well supported nations. In the case of the U.S, it's actually been planned for with very high dollars under the name Continuity of Government (as in, it keeps going through tidal wave, asteroid, war, insurrection...whatever) since the Reagan years. Actually in the budget.

The biggest thing about revolution in America is the area I can't quite understand. People seem to imagine two sides. Rebels or some opposing force and the Government. If fighting actually broke out with the momentum of riots without slowing? It wouldn't be two sides. It would be many. Race alone would have La Raza, The New Black Panthers and the Aryan Nation/Brotherhood all looking to make their own little nations within the nation. That's before even touching Right/Left or nationality.

Oh...and Iraq -may- have had WMD (Didn't, as it turned out). I *KNOW* the U.S. does and I know where with inventories down to the last canister. So does anyone else who cares to look, as our nation figures all that stuff is dandy to allow into the public domain.
All that will vanish into the ether in a true SHTF and some idiot will think using some isn't a bad idea eventually.

Humpty Dumpty likely would be broken through our lifetimes, anyway. Once it fell......shattered little pieces, all over, with 300 million pissed and armed people at various levels. Nothing good there, I think.



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thats a really really good point!

Yeah what happens to all the races? And other religios groups?

In the UK there is so much tension there would likley be a Jihad group and Zionist Group and a Christian group ect

It would create a mess. Along with a potential problem of genoside.

And yeah WMDS would be a issue. In the UK or goverment would be limited due to our countrys small size, though I guess Sarin could be quite effective seeing as it breaks down quite quickly.

Thank you for your contribution



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Important factors would be:
1) Good leaders
2) Support of 20% or more of the population.
3) A constant supply of unregistered arms and Ammunition (Its more important to have a supply of these through out rather than a initial stockpile).
4) A portion of ones miltary,police and veterans that are willing to mutiny
5) A nation willing to sponsor you.



Revolutions don't interest me all that much, but history does.

Another important factor would be:

6) Clear ideological aims for the insurgents. Are they communist or fascist? Nationalistic? Religious? Truly pluralist? Public support (or even mere tolerance) of the insurgency depends upon the most likely end-state of the campaign. When the smoke clears and the regime is gone, will the political and social environment be more pleasant and engaging for the bulk of the population than it was before?

I disagree with the following points:

2) Support of 20% or more of the population.

Based on historical examples such as the American Revolution and the Viet Minh campaign against the French in Indochina, 5% is the magic number. That's 5% of a population either actively supporting or participating. It's when you have a minimum of 5% actively and ideologically supporting the insurgents and a minimum of 5% actively and ideologically supporting the regime that problems occur. Balkanisation is one possible result of these numbers. As you can see, it's not enough for either the insurgents or the regime to have the support of a certain percentage of the population, it's imperative that they drive as many people AWAY from their opponents as possible. It doesn't matter if those who are driven away join your side, become fence-sitters or become apathetic as long as they don't join the other side.

3) A constant supply of unregistered arms and Ammunition (Its more important to have a supply of these through out rather than a initial stockpile).

Historically, very few, if any insurgents have had their own privately-held stockpiles of weapons with which to rise up against their perceived oppressor. Arms, ammunition and munitions are captured or stolen from the enemy and collaborating security forces, in the case of foreign invasion they are looted from the stocks of the surrendering forces (i.e. France in WWII and Iraq in 2003), in most cases they are provided by outside supporters - China and Russia supplying the VC/PLAF during the Vietnam War, Iran supplying insurgents during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Britain and America supplying resistance groups in Europe and Asia during WWII. Large stockpiles of weapons are unnecessary, and will if used in the early stages of an insurgency bring unwanted attention to the embryonic "resistance". When there is a need, effective weaponry is usually made available one way or another.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
You should be careful. Big Brother is watching you.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adaluncatif
You should be careful. Big Brother is watching you.





posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adaluncatif
You should be careful. Big Brother is watching you.


If black people are considered "brothers" than Obama is a brother.

And it makes sense now that Big Brother is watching you.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


About the only way Americans would revolt (not being silly here) is to take away their TV's and computer's. Take away their entertainment.

The Honey Boo Boo.
Dances with Celebrities.
Idol.
Internet Pron.
FaceBlog.

Take away power. Power to run air conditioners, power to keep the ice cream cold. All the electricity.

Do that and it'll be a blood bath. No distractions, no comfort. No iPhones or iProducts.

People will actually look around.

Rub the sleep from their eyes and see the horrid mess we were all in.

It's coming.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You can't take away Internet Pron!!


Just kidding.

Revolutions suck. It's bloody and violent. No one wins.

Considering all the revolutions mentioned above - those countries are still pee'ed off. You just switch one tyrant for another.

Revolution would just be a quick fix. Wanna fix the world the solution won't be that simple. Gotta change the entire system.

I'm sure even than people would still find a reason to be angry





top topics
 
3

log in

join