very interesting thread, and good points by ustwo, mr. Mephisto, and lebell. I know it was specifically stated that this did not need to become another "hardball" thread, but a quote from MSNBC Hardball seem highly appropriate and topical. At least one Democratic Kerry supporter is against revolution, even the American revolution.
hardball article, transcript
about 1/4 way down the page...
Quote:
JIMMY CARTER, 39TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you Chris, good to be with you and your folks.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about – this is going to cause some trouble with people but as an historian now and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force. Do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War more than any other war until recently has been the most bloody war we’ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a non-violent way. I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.
|
(props to WSJ best of the web today for pointing it out to me)
Don't always agree with Carter, and don't agree with the comparison between fighting in Iraq and that in the American Revolution, but...
At the risk of getting too political or too personal, the fallacy of the idea of starting a revolution because someone is upset about the United States going to war in another country just really needs to be pointed out.
The great thing about a stable elected government is that there can be a bloodless "revolution" every four years if the people decide that it needs to be done. While I appreciate the strong sentiments, a revolution above and beyond the election would be bloody, and people interested in peace are not likely to wage it.
Completely as an aside...
By the way, Carter, you historian, you, was the revolutionary war really that comparatively bloody? Is maybe the reason the United States is where it is in relation to India, Canada and Australia maybe because, at least in part, of the American Revolution (and the war of 1812)?