Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem I have is the people that deserve to get theirs never seem to...

That's because they're either smart, lucky, or powerful enough to avoid it. Same as ever.

By and large, the game has always been the same and always will be, its just some of the more esoteric rules that have changed.

BaronIveagh wrote:
...and the US likes to hide it's hypocrisy and crimes against humanity behind a mask of righteousness.

So does pretty much every other country. In fact, I can't think of any government that has admitted to being evil. Not many people either.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, it does, but they're only hundreds of years old, and the US has a common language. Think about the red blue division and ask yourself how bad things have to get before some yahoo gives a rebel yell and declares the US government has failed it's people.

How many times have the Republicans and Democrats engaged in "ethnic" purges against one another?

BaronIveagh wrote:
They have them already, but normally they're not taken seriously. This changes when a society is under pressure and people start getting desperate. Unemployment in George has passed the 20% mark, so stop and think about how desperate some of them are getting.

The thing is, the Balkans Balkanized because there were several different, relatively equivalent centers of authority. This isn't the Civil War era, you're not talking about a place in which people generally feel more loyal to their state than their nation. Very few people identify as "Georgian" first. Moreover, you're not talking about a place where the populace has a credible ability to stand up to military force. Unless the disgruntled can get the state government on their side, any armed rebellion would be utterly crushed, especially if they started trying rape and pillage as many rebellious groups tend to; eliminating any public support.

Hell, look how many people got fuming mad about OWS crapping on sidewalks. Imagine what happens when rebels start raping and murdering, which they would need to (eventually) if they wanted control.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem I have is the people that deserve to get theirs never seem to...

That's because they're either smart, lucky, or powerful enough to avoid it. Same as ever.

Oh come on Dogma, is it even worth replying? That's life!

Good people die of cancer, babies are born with no skin.. why exactly does this warrant a retort!?

It seems a little whiny for my taste. And who decides who "deserves" something anyway?

LordofHats wrote:The most common cause of civil war is not political disagreement on silly issues like Bob marrying Ted, they're caused by the succession of government power, which really just doesn't happen much in democracies.

Eh, it happens in democracies all the time, though usually via military coups (when a predominantly middle class military is unhappy a socialist got elected) or a lack of national identity (basically Africa). The US is the exception, not the rule, and it likely became an exception by being rather homogeneous in terms of power structures at its foundation. Brazil is a good example as well, though perhaps a less idealistic one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Oh come on Dogma, is it even worth replying? That's life!

I won't lie, I'm mildly intoxicated and waiting for my latest data set to compile, so I'm a bit bored given that my primary (gaming) computer is now locked down from anything especially hardware intense.

BaronIveagh wrote:Well, first of all, that's pretty disparaging to both the Army and Marine Corps of the time.

They can be disparaged all they want but its true.

Second, how well do you think, and I'll use an example, the Pennsylvania National Guard will react to a protracted insurgency in, say, Pittsburgh?

They probably wouldn't. The US Army would send a standing unit to do that. The PANG is only the PANG because it recruits from PA. It takes orders from the Army, and the Army would likely try dealing with such a threat itself before calling up a reserve force (ignoring that before any military force became involved it would likely be police and state troopers doing it). Ignoring that Pittsburgh is probably the last place to start a rebellion

Except the ones that did. The Association of Real Estate Taxpayers being the most well known group in the tax payers revolt of the 1930's. Granted, it was more 'mass Civil Disobedience' then 'armed rebellion' but...

So you know they're very different things then? Civil disobedience by its own essence doesn't threaten the existence of the state or attempt to remove it. It's not a rebellion or a break down of social order. Its a protest.

What do you think is going to start happening in the US if employment keeps falling? Do you think the state can support 20%+ and climbing unemployment figures?

It's virtually impossible to starve in the US. We have this thing called food stamps for that. And like I said, when things actually get bad enough, inevitably people might start voting intelligently. I find it far more likely that jumping to the rebellion that's doomed to failure wagon.

LordofHats wrote:
They probably wouldn't. The US Army would send a standing unit to do that. The PANG is only the PANG because it recruits from PA. It takes orders from the Army, and the Army would likely try dealing with such a threat itself before calling up a reserve force (ignoring that before any military force became involved it would likely be police and state troopers doing it). Ignoring that Pittsburgh is probably the last place to start a rebellion

Except that's not how it works. The initial response would the governor calling out the national guard (assuming the Police were unable to control the situation). For the Army to be deployed, Congress would have to act. The PANG however, can be called up by the Governor in an emergency without the approval of the Fed or the other governors. The DoD has created something of a oddity when they tried to join the NG with the Army in that they have two sets of superiors on paper. And you totally ignore the possibility of the NG going over to the other side. My point is that you're making a lot of assumptions about the loyalties of NG troops. Telling them to shoot their neighbors might just cause some problems.

As far as Pittsburgh and rebellion: Visit Homewood sometime. Or anywhere in the city after a Steelers Superbowl win. I picked it because it occurred to me that it would be slow and difficult to get armor into the city, and the unusual street layout would make FIBUA that much more difficult.

LordofHats wrote:
Civil disobedience by its own essence doesn't threaten the existence of the state or attempt to remove it. It's not a rebellion or a break down of social order.

Actually civil disobedience is a breakdown of social order, just a non-violent one. It was viewed as a serious enough threat because they brought a major US city to a stop.

LordofHats wrote:
It's virtually impossible to starve in the US. We have this thing called food stamps for that. And like I said, when things actually get bad enough, inevitably people might start voting intelligently. I find it far more likely that jumping to the rebellion that's doomed to failure wagon.

LoH I don't know what I find more appalling: that you think food stamps are free, or that, like the leaders of the Soviet Union, you assume that the military is 100% loyal no matter what.

Food Stamps still cost the government money. There's a limit. I know people think the government has unlimited money, but they don't. The more and more people that are forced to turn to the government for aid, the harder and harder it is for the government to meet that demand.

Eventually, both with the military and government hand outs, you reach a breaking point.

OP, I think you want this to happen and are trying to make the facts fit your desires.


LordofHats, While I don't think it will happen I will say I don't believe bad times have a better chance than good times of seeing the electorate voting intelligently.

BaronIveagh wrote:For the Army to be deployed, Congress would have to act.

Legally, yes. Practically, no. A major insurgency would see the deployment of the Army, Congress could bitch if it wanted, but it isn't practically significant.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The PANG however, can be called up by the Governor in an emergency without the approval of the Fed or the other governors.

And Title 10 has precedence.

BaronIveagh wrote:Telling them to shoot their neighbors might just cause some problems.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for police.

BaronIveagh wrote: Actually civil disobedience is a breakdown of social order, just a non-violent one. It was viewed as a serious enough threat because they brought a major US city to a stop.

No its not. It's a willful decision to disrupt civil process but not to stop it, destroy it, or become anything more than a very big annoyance. There's also a difference between civil disobedience and a riot, the later of which isn't really a rebellion so much as a typical angry mob. Tear gas usually solves that problem.

LoH I don't know what I find more appalling: that you think food stamps are free, or that, like the leaders of the Soviet Union, you assume that the military is 100% loyal no matter what.

I honestly find it more appalling that you assume we're going to Balklanize over such silly issues. You make massive leaps based on false analysis and a poor understanding of social issues and history. This just isn't something that's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

Even in the Great Depression, not many people died of starvation. They often suffered malnourishment, but the government effectively maintained a system of feeding the populace that could not buy their own food. Why would now be any different? This is no where near that bad.

I'll also point out the USSR's problem (and modern Russia as well) is that their political system is practically a feudal system in almost every way but its name. Everything in it is patronage based. Generals side with the politicians who support them, and politicians support the generals who back them up. This doesn't happen in the US. If anything, we have an opposite situation, where the military and political system are very united in their goals, not divisive. Its a difference between a fully modernized state and a transitional state pretending to be a modernized state.

Food Stamps still cost the government money. There's a limit. I know people think the government has unlimited money, but they don't. The more and more people that are forced to turn to the government for aid, the harder and harder it is for the government to meet that demand.

Unless the entire population suddenly ends up without work, which is so improbable as to be ignored as a possibility, its not going to be an issue. You assume that the government and society will break apart because the balloon is a losing a little helium.

LordofHats, While I don't think it will happen I will say I don't believe bad times have a better chance than good times of seeing the electorate voting intelligently.

Meh, your probably right. My belief is mostly that if the system becomes endangered we'll likely see a shifting priority in corporate interests that will effect the political sphere, resulting in potentially, a reform in the system.

Alternatively, I honestly don't see the economy being that bad at any point in time. Europe is worse off than we are right now, and no one in Europe is rebelling. The worst I know of is the riots in London a while back. People assume that bad economic times, or oppression, etc etc will result in angry people rising up against the establishment which is a very silly assumption because its usually not true.

d-usa wrote:Why not actually make a post about what happened, instead of some convoluted rage-poll?

Maybe a "I saw cops from x PD beat up a woman" instead of "OMG the US will fragment because we all hate each other".

That's just me though...

becaue it would have turned into yet another "cops bad vs. cops good"/ "left good vs. right good" debacle within a few posts. Not that it won't anyway...

LordofHats wrote:Tear gas usually solves that problem.

Really? Because it didn't this spring throughout the middle east.

LordofHats wrote:
I honestly find it more appalling that you assume we're going to Balklanize over such silly issues. You make massive leaps based on false analysis and a poor understanding of social issues and history. This just isn't something that's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

A fifth of your population unemployed is hardly a 'silly issue'. A lower percentage of the people of France were 'starving' before the revolution then are now in the US. (It should be pointed out that the mass famine of The Great Fear never really actually materialized, though the harvest was still poor.)

LordofHats wrote:
Even in the Great Depression, not many people died of starvation. They often suffered malnourishment, but the government effectively maintained a system of feeding the populace that could not buy their own food. Why would now be any different? This is no where near that bad.

For sheer numbers of unemployed people, we have never been higher then we are now. Percentage wise, atm the worst struck areas are cresting 20%. The worst part of the Great Depression the record was 23%. That's not a real big difference, and as far as can be seen, we have not yet reached bottom.

LordofHats wrote:
I'll also point out the USSR's problem (and modern Russia as well) is that their political system is practically a feudal system in almost every way but its name. Everything in it is patronage based. Generals side with the politicians who support them, and politicians support the generals who back them up. This doesn't happen in the US. If anything, we have an opposite situation, where the military and political system are very united in their goals, not divisive. Its a difference between a fully modernized state and a transitional state pretending to be a modernized state.

From the sound of things, you are of the opinion then that the United States is hte only 'modernized state' in the world. Further, Major Evdokimov was hardly acting in his political best interests when he switched sides and ordered his tanks to support Yeltsin, as , at the time, he was facing the possibility of having to fight the entire rest of the soviet army.

LordofHats wrote:
Unless the entire population suddenly ends up without work, which is so improbable as to be ignored as a possibility, its not going to be an issue. You assume that the government and society will break apart because the balloon is a losing a little helium.

... ok, yeah, now I'm aghast. Do you understand how much even 25% costs? There's a difference between 'the balloon losing a little helium' and 'the balloon has just shrunk by a fifth, approaching a quarter.'

LordofHats wrote:
The worst I know of is the riots in London a while back. People assume that bad economic times, or oppression, etc etc will result in angry people rising up against the establishment which is a very silly assumption because its usually not true.

Might want to pay more attention to the international news then, LoH. You missed some silly assumptions that usually are not true in places like Spain and Greece. Granted, it has not yet reached full on armed rebellion (though Greece is getting pretty iffy on that issue with people committing suicide on the steps of their Parliament and mass resignations by government ministers who were voted into office only a few months ago. Neo Nazis won 18 seats in the Greek Parliament over this, so, again, things get bad and people vote smarter?).

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really? Because it didn't this spring throughout the middle east.

You mean Spring 2010, not "this spring". Honestly, if you can't even get that date right, I don't know what you're doing attempting any greater degree of analysis.

Either way, aside from Egypt and Tunisia, the Arab Spring was characterized by armed rebellion featuring well organized groups, not riots. And, in the case of Egypt, the government was overthrown in name, but not in effect. In all likelihood the military will still be in power.

You're also talking about a place that is much, much worse off than the US. To compare the two is laughable, and betrays a lack of experience with the region.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A fifth of your population unemployed is hardly a 'silly issue'. A lower percentage of the people of France were 'starving' before the revolution then are now in the US.

Which French revolution, and how many people do you think are starving in the US? Also, what do you mean by "starving"?

BaronIveagh wrote:
For sheer numbers of unemployed people, we have never been higher then we are now. Percentage wise, atm the worst struck areas are cresting 20%. The worst part of the Great Depression the record was 23%. That's not a real big difference, and as far as can be seen, we have not yet reached bottom.

The national U6 is ~15%. There is a huge difference between a national 23% unemployment rate, and ~20% U6 in select areas. Note also that the Great Depression did not feature an armed rebellion.

BaronIveagh wrote:
From the sound of things, you are of the opinion then that the United States is hte only 'modernized state' in the world.

From the sound of things you know absolutely nothing about how Russian politics work, or even what the phrase "modernized state" means.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Might want to pay more attention to the international news then, LoH. You missed some silly assumptions that usually are not true in places like Spain and Greece.

Neither country has an especially stable history. Spain in particular has a checkered past, with numerous separatist movements and clear subcultures (Basque and Catalan are the big ones). Only 40 years ago it was ruled by a dictator, and since 1959 ETA has been a feature of Basque life.

Greece, on the other hand, was governed by a military Junta between '67 and '74 and only started to prosper in the '80s.

dogma wrote:
You mean Spring 2010, not "this spring". Honestly, if you can't even get that date right, I don't know what you're doing attempting any greater degree of analysis.

Actually it was Spring 2011, so we both have no business in analysis. The point however remains, that using Amercan made and supplied tear gas did not do much to dissuade them.

dogma wrote:
Which French revolution, and how many people do you think are starving in the US? Also, what do you mean by "starving"?

The one followed by the Reign of Terror, and, according to the US department of Commerce, almost 15% of households were what they referred to a 'food insecure' (it sounds so much better then 'we might not be able to buy food') based on data collected in 2010. So, no, we're not talking Ethiopia, but 15% is hardly an insignificant number.

dogma wrote:
The national U6 is ~15%. There is a huge difference between a national 23% unemployment rate, and ~20% U6 in select areas. Note also that the Great Depression did not feature an armed rebellion.

We've already said that, Dogma. There were several passive events, and the government was gaking little diamonds that there would be, but there was not.

dogma wrote:
Neither country has an especially stable history. Spain in particular has a checkered past, with numerous separatist movements and clear subcultures (Basque and Catalan are the big ones). Only 40 years ago it was ruled by a dictator, and since 1959 ETA has been a feature of Basque life.

Greece, on the other hand, was governed by a military Junta between '67 and '74 and only started to prosper in the '80s.

Yes, I'm actually quite familiar with Franco, and his oppression. However, it should be pointed out that Spain under him was one of the most prosperous nations in Europe. So, I'm not quite sure where the relevancy of his dictatorship fits in.

*sigh* I have the feeling that this is one of those discussion. Nothing either side says will convince the other, so we should probably just agree to disagree before this thread turns into a flame war.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Actually it was Spring 2011, so we both have no business in analysis. The point however remains, that using Amercan made and supplied tear gas did not do much to dissuade them.

The Arab Spring, as people generally consider it, was Spring 2011, but the actual start of the series of revolts was Spring 2010 with the Kyrgyzstani Revolution

BaronIveagh wrote:
The one followed by the Reign of Terror, and, according to the US department of Commerce, almost 15% of households were what they referred to a 'food insecure' (it sounds so much better then 'we might not be able to buy food') based on data collected in 2010. So, no, we're not talking Ethiopia, but 15% is hardly an insignificant number.

Food insecure doesn't mean "starving". During the Great Fear French peasants could, generally, afford one loaf of bread a day. That is a far cry from modern America in terms of available calories and nutrition.

But anyway, 15% is insignificant statistically when we consider the causes of past (organized and effective) armed uprisings, especially given that the betters of the starving are doing just fine. The poor are irrelevant in nearly all political calculations precisely because they have no resources, and are easily marginalized or killed.

In short, no one cares if the peasants are mad, because no one important will miss them. At least until you find someone in middle class that is sufficiently outraged, then things might happen.

BaronIveagh wrote:
We've already said that, Dogma. There were several passive events, and the government was gaking little diamonds that there would be, but there was not.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be ranting, which is fine, but useless.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, I'm actually quite familiar with Franco, and his oppression. However, it should be pointed out that Spain under him was one of the most prosperous nations in Europe. So, I'm not quite sure where the relevancy of his dictatorship fits in.

Really? You're going to talk about Balkanization and not recognize what happens when a dictatorial state transfers power?

Wow, man, that's impressive.

Also, no, even with the Spanish Miracle Spain was poor by Western European standards. And lets not forget the human rights violations.

BaronIveagh wrote:
*sigh* I have the feeling that this is one of those discussion. Nothing either side says will convince the other, so we should probably just agree to disagree before this thread turns into a flame war.

This isn't a discussion, this is me baiting someone I consider to be an alarmist with no practical knowledge of politics or history.

dogma wrote:
Food insecure doesn't mean "starving". During the Great Fear French peasants could, generally, afford one loaf of bread a day. That is a far cry from modern America in terms of available calories and nutrition.

I hate to be the one to let you know this, but where I'm at right now, there are quite a few people who can't afford a loaf of bread a day. Granted, it's a native reservation, but...

dogma wrote:
In short, no one cares if the peasants are mad, because no one important will miss them. At least until you find someone in middle class that is sufficiently outraged, then things might happen.

Let them eat cake.

dogma wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be ranting, which is fine, but useless.

I meant that LoH had already pointed that out and I already admitted he had a point. Please read posts before posting.

dogma wrote:
Also, no, even with the Spanish Miracle Spain was poor by Western European standards. And lets not forget the human rights violations.

If by Western European you mean England and France at that time, sure. Compared to the rest? No, not really. As far as human rights go... compared to other fascist dictatorships of the time... again, not really. Not tha they didn't happen, but compared to similar governments...

dogma wrote:
This isn't a discussion, this is me baiting someone I consider to be an alarmist with no practical knowledge of politics or history.

Well, first of all, I'm more an agitator. And, I also hate to point this out to you, but historically, not all serious rebellions started with the middle class. The Third Servile War, for example, was initially highly successful, and it took a great deal of effort on Rome's part to put down.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to be the one to let you know this, but where I'm at right now, there are quite a few people who can't afford a loaf of bread a day. Granted, it's a native reservation, but...

And? What you personally experience has no bearing on the data which does not suggest Great Fear levels of famine. I also suspect that you're exaggerating, because there are plenty of government programs that allow one to secure more than a loaf of bread per day.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Let them eat cake.

Do you know how many successful revolutions, solely based on peasants, there have been in modern times?

None. Every single one has required some support from the middle class.

BaronIveagh wrote:
If by Western European you mean England and France at that time, sure. Compared to the rest? No, not really.

No, I mean basically every country that might possibly be referred to as "Western European" that isn't Portugal, Ireland, or Greece. Spain's economy was absolutely awful in large part, lest we forget, because much of their infrastructure was destroyed in the Spanish Civil War.

BaronIveagh wrote:
As far as human rights go... compared to other fascist dictatorships of the time... again, not really. Not tha they didn't happen, but compared to similar governments...

So what you're saying is that, compared to a group of governments known for their disregard for human rights, Spain wasn't awful.

High praise.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And, I also hate to point this out to you, but historically, not all serious rebellions started with the middle class. The Third Servile War, for example, was initially highly successful, and it took a great deal of effort on Rome's part to put down.

Not all, but most, and by far the Lion's share in the modern era. Note also that Rome won. Peasants rarely revolt, and even more rarely win. In fact I can't think of a case in which, after we moved beyond swords and shields, any peasant revolt was successful.

I hate to say it, but if you're poor your best bet is to try and be not poor by means other than violence. Relatively wealthy people have more influence than you do, and more money to spend on guns.

dogma wrote:
Do you know how many successful revolutions, solely based on peasants, there have been in modern times?

None. Every single one has required some support from the middle class.

I'll have to ask how you define 'modern times' then.

dogma wrote:
No, I mean basically every country that might possibly be referred to as "Western European" that isn't Portugal, Ireland, or Greece. Spain's economy was absolutely awful in large part, lest we forget, because much of their infrastructure was destroyed in the Spanish Civil War.

Yes, because Denmark, Austria, Germany, and Finland were not in the toilet for the very same reason. Oh, wait, they were, and Spain's infrastructure got rebuilt a lot faster then some of those. The real thing that kept Spain's economy down as the US and UN doing their best to isolate Spain with embargos that were not lifted until the early 1950's when the US decided they needed bases in Spain, at which point Spain's economy largely recovered from the slump it was in.

dogma wrote:
Not all, but most, and by far the Lion's share in the modern era. Note also that Rome won. Peasants rarely revolt, and even more rarely win. In fact I can't think of a case in which, after we moved beyond swords and shields, any peasant revolt was successful.

Rome won only because they were able to move in fresh legions and win the war in maneuver rather then on the battlefield.

Oh, and for a peasant revolt after the sword and shield phase, I submit the Communist Revolution in Cambodia.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I'll have to ask how you define 'modern times' then.

1500 forward.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, because Denmark, Austria, Germany, and Finland were not in the toilet for the very same reason. Oh, wait, they were and Spain's infrastructure got rebuilt a lot faster then some of those.

And yet they still ended up with higher GDPs than Spain after the Spanish Miracle.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The real thing that kept Spain's economy down as the US and UN doing their best to isolate Spain with embargos that were not lifted until the early 1950's when the US decided they needed bases in Spain, at which point Spain's economy largely recovered from the slump it was in.

Yes, after the embargoes were lifted Spain grew quite rapidly, but it still was behind all of Western Europe, save a few exceptions.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Oh, and for a peasant revolt after the sword and shield phase, I submit the Communist Revolution in Cambodia.

Not a peasant revolt. Pol Pot and ilk were not peasants. Peasants joined them eventually, but they did not spark the revolution.

Also, Cambodia in 1953 is not like the US in 2012. At all.

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with albatross

What's a donkey cave?

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:
Do you know how many successful revolutions, solely based on peasants, there have been in modern times?

None. Every single one has required some support from the middle class.

I'll have to ask how you define 'modern times' then.

dogma wrote:
Not a peasant revolt. Pol Pot and ilk were not peasants. Peasants joined them eventually, but they did not spark the revolution.

Also, Cambodia in 1953 is not like the US in 2012. At all.

Didn't say it was like the US. You demanded an example of a successful peasant revolt, you got one. And what sparked it was the arrest of the leadership (and murder of several members) of the Pracheachon party. Pol Pot was quick to capitalize on the power vacuum at the top and make himself leader with his 200 hard core guys, but he wasn't what inspired 150,000 Cambodian peasants to rebel. He did contribute to it's success, however, by convincing other powers to support it.

Pol Pot et al did not start the Cambodian revolution, he just highjacked one already in progress.

BaronIveagh wrote:Really? Because it didn't this spring throughout the middle east.

Another pointless comparison to third world countries?

LordofHats wrote:A fifth of your population unemployed is hardly a 'silly issue'. A lower percentage of the people of France were 'starving' before the revolution then are now in the US. (It should be pointed out that the mass famine of The Great Fear never really actually materialized, though the harvest was still poor.)

It kind of is (in the sense of suggesting it'll cause the country to fall apart).

LordofHats wrote:For sheer numbers of unemployed people, we have never been higher then we are now. Percentage wise, atm the worst struck areas are cresting 20%. The worst part of the Great Depression the record was 23%. That's not a real big difference, and as far as can be seen, we have not yet reached bottom.

The higest unemployment nation wide was 35%. You really want to compare that to 8-10%? Please. Stop being hyberbolic. The Depression and the Recession are not the same thing. We've had high unemployment at this level in the past numerous times. At least three times in the past 50 years.

LordofHats wrote:From the sound of things, you are of the opinion then that the United States is hte only 'modernized state' in the world. Further, Major Evdokimov was hardly acting in his political best interests when he switched sides and ordered his tanks to support Yeltsin, as , at the time, he was facing the possibility of having to fight the entire rest of the soviet army.

No. You just keep comparing us to unmodernized states as if the things that happen there will most definitely happen here while completely ignoring the differences between the US and the Balklands, or Russia, or the Middle East.

And Evdokimov btw made a very shrewed changing of sides, because he realized that using tanks against the mobs was insane, and when Yeltsen then stood on a tank in front of international news and started speaking, stopping him was impractical for himself and Russia. But then that's kind of my point. Evdokimov and the Russian military as a whole eventually realized they needed to change sides (not that they stayed on Yeltsin's side for long).

... ok, yeah, now I'm aghast. Do you understand how much even 25% costs? There's a difference between 'the balloon losing a little helium' and 'the balloon has just shrunk by a fifth, approaching a quarter.'

The situation is no where near that bad. Again, you're being hyperbolic.

LordofHats wrote:
The worst I know of is the riots in London a while back. People assume that bad economic times, or oppression, etc etc will result in angry people rising up against the establishment which is a very silly assumption because its usually not true.

Might want to pay more attention to the international news then, LoH.

I don't automatically see news of the Arab Spring jump to my feet and scream "The same thing is going to happen here cause unemployment is a little high for our tastes." Try actually seeing why those things happen and you might realize why suggesting it'll happen here is silly.

Granted, it has not yet reached full on armed rebellion (though Greece is getting pretty iffy on that issue with people committing suicide on the steps of their Parliament and mass resignations by government ministers who were voted into office only a few months ago. Neo Nazis won 18 seats in the Greek Parliament over this, so, again, things get bad and people vote smarter?).

Greece hasn't been a stable state in... Well ever. They're still living the ramifications of the early Cold War, and neither their government or their economy has never been very strong. It's not like things were all hunky dory and then there was a hiccup and now there's chaos. Greece has been in deep for several decades.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Didn't say it was like the US. You demanded an example of a successful peasant revolt, you got one.

But it wasn't a peasant revolt. Peasants were involved at a point, but the driving force was, as usual, the lower-upper class.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And what sparked it was the arrest of the leadership (and murder of several members) of the Pracheachon party. Pol Pot was quick to capitalize on the power vacuum at the top and make himself leader with his 200 hard core guys, but he wasn't what inspired 150,000 Cambodian peasants to rebel.

There was no peasant rebellion following the murder of Pracheachon members in '62. In fact, that pretty much killed the party (the legal face of the Khmer Rouge) until Lon Nol expelled Sihanouk. At which point the Khmer Rouge (Pol Pot's ilk, key word there.) started a civil war.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Pol Pot et al did not start the Cambodian revolution, he just highjacked one already in progress.

No, he pretty much was the architect of it.

LordofHats wrote:
Another pointless comparison to third world countries?

A pointless comparison to what any people do when you pile on enough stress. Any people, first, second, or third world, will start to lash out in any way they can when pressed hard enough.

LordofHats wrote:
It kind of is (in the sense of suggesting it'll cause the country to fall apart).

There's an old saying: any society is three missed meals away from anarchy.

LordofHats wrote:
No. You just keep comparing us to unmodernized states as if the things that happen there will most definitely happen here while completely ignoring the differences between the US and the Balklands, or Russia, or the Middle East.

I think the fundamental difference of view we are having is that you seem to think that people in the US respond differently from other human beings to situations. The 'It Can't Happen Here' world view. I used to hear that a lot about Terrorism. Gee, look how that turned out.

I think, however, that the discussion is going nowhere. I'll remain cynical about the US and you'll keep insisting that it can't happen here.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I think the fundamental difference of view we are having is that you seem to think that people in the US respond differently from other human beings to situations.

No, the problem is that you keep insisting different situations are notably comparable, when they plainly aren't. You also have a terrible grasp of world history, which may be informing your poor comparisons.

dogma wrote:
No, the problem is that you keep insisting different situations are notably comparable, when they plainly aren't. You also have a terrible grasp of world history, which may be informing your poor comparisons.

Dogma, baiting me by insulting my grasp of world history isn't going to get me to press the issue any more. The only responses you gave were the typical internet 'you're wrong and I'm right' so why should I believe that you know more then I do on the subject of history?

Your only real response was pretty much the same as LoH: 'But those aren't Americans or a people I believe to be similarly sophisticated!'

BaronIveagh wrote:
Dogma, baiting me by insulting my grasp of world history isn't going to get me to press the issue any more. The only responses you gave were the typical internet 'you're wrong and I'm right' so why should I believe that you know more then I do on the subject of history?

Your only real response was pretty much the same as LoH: 'But those aren't Americans or a people I believe to be similarly sophisticated!'

I'm not baiting you at this point. I'm wondering why you cannot seem to consider that being "American" also entails a certain set of circumstances that are not comparable to being "Egyptian". And, further, why you can't seem to grasp that the material states of the countries you have cited as comparable to the present American material state are not the same, or even similar.

And yet further, you've gotten many, elementary, historical facts obviously wrong; to such a degree that the only reasonable response if a mixture of "You're wrong." and "Go read a book." Calling the Cambodian Civil War the result of a peasant rebellion is just flat out wrong. To the point where it smacks of delusion.

You can't even produce reasonable statistical evidence, you seem to be going off some nonsense qualitative judgment and attempting to wedge support in so you can feel good about that, likely unconscious, decision.

dogma wrote:
I'm not baiting you at this point. I'm wondering why you cannot seem to consider that being "American" also entails a certain set of circumstances that are not comparable to being "Egyptian". And, further, why you can't seem to grasp that the material states of the countries you have cited as comparable to the present American material state are not the same, or even similar.

Because the behavior of people is universal in certain circumstances. If you place an American and an Egyptian in the same set of circumstances, the two will behave similarly. Not exactly the same, but comparable. Claiming that the Material state of a country will produce two different outcomes is not entirely factual. It will influence the outcome, but will not dictate it utterly. This is due to basic human nature.

dogma wrote:
And yet further, you've gotten many, elementary, historical facts obviously wrong; to such a degree that the only reasonable response if a mixture of "You're wrong." and "Go read a book." Calling the Cambodian Civil War the result of a peasant rebellion is just flat out wrong. To the point where it smacks of delusion.

Actually, several historians have argued exactly that. One of the first things Pol Pot took over was the peasant revolt along the boarder with Thailand in 1967, which he then turned on an army base south of Battambang (seriously it's name) on January 11 1968. The fighting in that area had already been going on for two years before Pol Pot showed up.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Because the behavior of people is universal in certain circumstances. If you place an American and an Egyptian in the same set of circumstances, the two will behave similarly. Not exactly the same, but comparable. Claiming that the Material state of a country will produce two different outcomes is not entirely factual. It will influence the outcome, but will not dictate it utterly. This is due to basic human nature.

If human nature is a fundamental concern, then the only variable is material condition, which means you're now arguing against yourself.

The reality is that certain conditions produce certain personalities at certain rates, and further that you still refuse to admit that the comparisons you have been drawing are entirely inappropriate. This is most likely because you are having a rough time and want to feel like some outside force can sweep you upwards, but that's highly unlikely because most of the rest of us aren't having nearly so rough a time.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Actually, several historians have argued exactly that. One of the first things Pol Pot took over was the peasant revolt along the boarder with Thailand in 1967, which he then turned on an army base south of Battambang (seriously it's name) on January 11 1968. The fighting in that area had already been going on for two years before Pol Pot showed up.

Pol Pot took power in '63. Battambang was not one of his first actions.

Either way, the attack was composed of Khmer Rouge loyalists, not peasants.

dogma wrote:
Pol Pot took power in '63. Battambang was not one of his first actions.

Either way, the attack was composed of Khmer Rouge loyalists, not peasants.

That's funny, considering that was the year he fled into the jungle to escape Sihanouk's police. He gained upwards of 100 followers while in hiding and convinced the North Vietnamese to set them up a training camp. After spending a year in North Vietnam trying unsuccessfully to convince them to support him further, he returned in time for the peasant uprisings of 1965-1966. While the majority of the peasant rebellion was quickly put down, terrain in some areas led to a protracted insurgency. Pol Pot was quick to convince several bands of them to support him, before launching the attack on Battabang.

While, you're right, their loyalty was to the khemr rouge, a few months earlier they had been peasant fighters.