"In my opinion,
The American Revolution was wrong. The colonists didn't have that right, and they weren't being oppressed as badly as is generally perceived. On the other hand, the results of the Revolution were good. The USA as it was shortly after the revolution was one of the best, if not the best system of government in the world at any time. (Not that it has stayed that way.) Unfortunately, the French and Russian Revolutions, which according to this thread, were influenced by the American, didn't work out as well because they replaced tyranny with another form of tyranny. A revolution is rarely the right way to fix the government, as it can go terribly wrong and a lot of people will die for nothing. However, in the rare case that it works out as it should, for example the American, it is worth it, although perhaps the wrong means to the right end."
How did the American revolution work out in a good way. It destroyed the worlds political theater, brought a new age of politics which is crap and time-consuming and doesn't do shit. And it didn't happen because the people were dissatisfied, it happened because the newspapers said that the people were dissatisfied.

"These are the views of a young Canadian who probably doesn't know what he's talking about."
GO CANADA!!!!

"The revolution became a revolution when the British used their soldiers to seize arms n march on Massachusettes"
Why did they do that, because Masschusettes was rebelling. The Boston massacre started when colonial civilians assaulted a redcoat, the redcoat responded by shooting him and the entire city started rioting, all because a redcoat shot someone in self defense.

"I mean hell why would the Colonies launch a pre-emptive strike with no real organized army or government in place."
because in 1975 Britain outlawed guns for any civilians, it was basically now or never.

"We know that the world would be very different without the American war of independence, but we can't know if it would be better or worst, so this can't be a good argumentation."
It would definitely be better, we would have a more united England and France. The colonial era would continue between the 3 world powers and the capitalist revolution happening in England would have happened, and the people of America would have remained their.

The French would not risk fighting the British again and Napoleon would never be Emperor, World War 1 and 2 would have been averted, or it would have been an anti-British alliance.

The Western World wouldn't be collapsing right now as we would actually have a competent government ruling rather then America's democracy .

"Appeasing terrorism rarely works. The concessions approach had been tried, it had failed. The most successful counterinsurgency campaigns were decisive and uncompromising - Sri Lanka, for example.


oh please because it was terrorism.

terrorism is:
"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

Tell me about when the Americans attempted to strike fear into the hearts of the British. When they tarred and feathered some dudes? Sure. Whatever.

Terrorism does not fit with what the american rev. was. Rebellion, sure, insurgency, sure, not terrorism.

Just getting that straight."
Thats true

"What's the point of all those examples? What they share in common is that they are rebellions or separatists conflicts that did not end on force of arms. Putting down a rebellion through force is the exception, not the rule."
Gaul, Britannia, Mongolian China, Mongolia Arabia, Chechnya, Tibet, American Revolution, French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Russian Revolution, Rebellions of 1837, Israel, Burma, 1959 Cuba, Iraq and many more.

"So where does that leave you. It leaves you with the unmistakable fucking notion that if the British government had reacted differently to the rebellion (or even before it was a rebellion, dissent) differently, you would certainly not have had a separatist war.

A case where this is not true is for instance the American Civil War. Compromise was tried over and over and failed. It was barely (not) tried with the colonies."
Thats true, which is why I do support the violent put down of the American Revolution. However, had the English government actually competently reacted to the revolution the Americans would have lost.
1 year into the war 9 of the 13 colonies had surrendered, then Washington crossed Deleware and the rest is history.
A fun fact is Col. Johann Rall, the guy in charge of the British forces was notified of the attack 2 hours before Washington set out.

He decided to finish his poker game before preparing the defenses, and by the time the poker game was finished the attack started and the troops weren't prepared. Had they been prepared they would have outnumbered Washington with superior forces.

"You can call it whatever you want. But charging interest on the issuance of money amounts to slavery. "Tarring and feathering, riding the rails, lynchings, intimidating people into leaving the country" all pale in comparison."
It was terrorism, no doubt about it.

"I'm beginning to see a theme here, Putin. All you've ever argued this past week in these threads is for one to just bend over and take it. You seem pretty educated, but I'm not convinced that education translates to any common sense."
I don't believe he says that, but what the common theme is, your superiors no more about politics then you do, so don't question their decisions.

No revolution, successfull or otherwise, is wrong if it is backed by the people. The people have a right to decide how they want to be ruled and no government (monarchy, dictatroship, democracy, republic, whatever) has a right to tell them how they have to be ruled. Revolution is *good*. A little blood letting now and then helps to keep the people in control of their governing body, not the reverse.

And fasces - I seriously hope English is your second language because your grammar is worse than a 3rd graders.

@Draug

I think you meant "grader's."

Yeah, a small typo I missed because I was rushing off to a 10 o'clock meeting that got cancelled as I made it to the conference room.

"No, it doesn't. Just because you state it is so does not make it so. If you are unable to comprehend the difference between fractional reserve banking and chattel slavery, you need to take a good hard look at a history book."

Strat, what part don't you understand here. When you issue money at interest, you have created more debt than there is money to pay that back. If I print up $100 and "loan" it to you for a $10 fee, where are you going to get the $10 to pay me back?

You have to borrow it. And you will have to continue to keep borrowing from me. You will NEVER be able to pay me back. It is impossible.

You are now a slave to me, cuz if you can't pay me back when collection time comes, you are fucked.

It really is that simple.

Wait, why is your only source of income loans?

"No revolution, successfull or otherwise, is wrong if it is backed by the people. The people have a right to decide how they want to be ruled and no government (monarchy, dictatroship, democracy, republic, whatever) has a right to tell them how they have to be ruled."

Well said Draugnar. :)

"Wait, why is your only source of income loans?"

Don't ask me...someone decided it's best to have a third party print money for a cost than to have the government do it themselves for nothing.

And that is precisely the point.

That makes no sense.

If I want to open a business and I need to borrow $10,000 to do it, so what if the bank charges me $2000 in interest over the coarse of the loan. I'll be making that money back from my new business.

woah, "course"

@abgemacht +1

@Darwyn - you assume a single incopme source, loans. I can (and regularly do just like everyone else) pay off my loans through income *earned* off the sweat of my brow (or, in my case, brain power applied to a problem, but whatever). So your analysis is an epic fail as it only works in a zero sum wealth and debt relationsship. There is not. Wealth is created through effort all the time.

Something got lost in the last part of that, but the essence is that Wealth and Debt are not in a zero sum relationship as Wealth can be created through effort and used to reduce and eliminate Debt.

"If I want to open a business and I need to borrow $10,000 to do it, so what if the bank charges me $2000 in interest over the coarse of the loan. I'll be making that money back from my new business. "

No, we are talking about issuing money. when I issue the government $1000 (or whatever amount), there is exactly that amount in circulation. No more, no less. But the amount in circulation is always lower than what is owed.

If there is only $1000 in existance and you, as the government, owe me, as the bank, $1100, how are you going to pay me back?

You cannot.

I guess, to put it simpler: Why should someone be expected to give me free money?

I'm sorry, clearly I missed part of the argument when I jumped in.

@Darwyn - Simple, me, as the government, will collect taxes and find other forms of income that do not require printing new money. As it happens, that same money will eventually find it's way back into my hands at which point I will transfer it to you, the Bank, as partial payment. This will happen a few times until I have giving you the entire amoutn plus interest without ever printing more money.

You confuse the issuance of money as actually having value. The notes issued are just markers for effort and goods put forth. While printing more devalues those already there, this has nothing to do with interest, which is a means of generating wealth based on the future wealth built by the borrower.

@Darwyn

OK I found your original post. I agree that was a serious problem for the colonists, but I certainly wouldn't call it "slavery."

@Darwyn - I just noticed your "government print money itself for free". So there is no cost to the printing presses and the paper and the ink and the labor of the people doing the physical work? You need to look beyond the hard cash costs (paying someone else) and look to the time and materials costs and evaluate which is the best return on your investment. Buying a printing press is much more costly than paying someone else to do it as your payment to someone else only covers part of the press. Other customers cover the rest of those costs.

Seriously, I don't even have a degree in economics and can see the numerous flaws in your statements.

"Why should someone be expected to give me free money? "

No one is being given free money. Here's an example...

Let me begin by explaining what money is. Money is a commodity that measures the value of all other commodities and services. Prices are a ratio of money to all other goods for sale. If the ratio remains constant then there is no inflation. For example, if the money supply were one trillion dollars and production increased by 4%, then we could increase the money supply by 4% without fear of inflation.

So, you ask, how do banks and governments differ in how they create money? Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation.

Now imagine you are stranded on an island with a New York or London banker. He would set up a private bank and create money which he would loan to you. Notice he is not loaning you anyone's savings. He is functioning as a counterfeiter. He is using loan agreements to pass counterfeit money. And he is requiring you to pay interest on his forgeries. This form of banking is nothing more than a theft

Suppose our banker runs low on paper to print money. He can create checking account money. You go in for a loan and he gives you a check book in which he gives you the right to write checks up to the amount of the loan. Notice again he is not loaning you someone else's deposit. He is creating money out of thin air and obligating you to work to repay him both the amount he counterfeited and the interest.

Yes, I understand what money is, although that was a nice work of blatant plagiarism. Please see my most recent posts. As I said, I initially misunderstood what you were talking about.

"although that was a nice work of blatant plagiarism"

Are we really concerned with plagiarism here? Sometimes I will copy/paste some things when those words are better

And in your copy/paste spree, is it really hard to say "Courtesy of www.Ididn'tdothismyself.com?"

lol...my apologies abgemacht.

btw - I wrote those words...and also these. and these...

"You are now a slave to me, cuz if you can't pay me back when collection time comes, you are fucked."

... and owing money is *exactly* like someone having the ability to beat you to death without consequences, separate you from your family at a whim, demand that you work backbreaking hours upon pain of death, and treat you as a disposable organic machine if you get injured.

Cut the buzz word bingo and taste the reality. I'm not going to even bother debating the correctness or incorrectness of your premise - which I disagree with I might note - if you're still going to insist that the situation you lay out is 'slavery'.

Actually, fuck it - I'm not going to bother debating this issue with you, period. I'm about the whitest of white men you're ever going to find, and I find your co-opting the word 'slavery' to equate with your whining about how we're not on the Gold Standard to be far worse than disingenuous and intellectually lazy. The only way I can interpret it is that you literally have *no fucking clue* what you're talking about, and would rather parrot talk radio than *think* about what you're saying.

If you're still going to insist you're a slave, then I'm not even going to spare pity for you.

"No revolution, successfull or otherwise, is wrong if it is backed by the people. The people have a right to decide how they want to be ruled and no government (monarchy, dictatroship, democracy, republic, whatever) has a right to tell them how they have to be ruled. Revolution is *good*. A little blood letting now and then helps to keep the people in control of their governing body, not the reverse."
Thats the exact opposite of what I believe. The people, allthough they deserve to be free, don't have the right to decide how they are governed. For example in a major corporation, when has the board of directors ever turned to the janitors to ask how the business should be run? It is just time consuming and does more bad then good.

"And fasces - I seriously hope English is your second language because your grammar is worse than a 3rd graders."
I play the dyslexia and insomnia cards. (A dyslexic has the right to bad grammar when he has gone 20 hours without sleep)
and besides you have made some spelling/grammar mistakes in your last few posts.

Typos, generally speaking. But I was referring to your regular use of "then" for "than" and "no" for "know" although I admit I'm bad about "there" and "their" and "your" and "you're". So excuse accepted as I'm not the right person to condemn others with my own flaws.

" I guess Americans are immune from the term. "

youre wrong there putin.

im not saying those awful acts didn't happen. i'm just saying theyre not terrorism. let me show you another example of evil acts that aren't terrorism: ethnic violence in africa or india, the rape of manchuria, etc. the main difference is the scale: the scale of the americans targeting civilians was very limited.

if you want to call it terrorism, fine, but i disagree, because terrorists usually premeditate their actions, whereas mob violence is, well, mob violence.

this is the main difference between say, what's happening right now in tunisia, and the kidnappings in Niger. the latter is terrorism the former is not.

but are americans immune to terrorism? hardly, i'd say jared loughner is a terrorist in the loose sense, and so was mcveigh, and here you go, a whoppingly controversial assertion: the hailfire drones in waziristan are terrorism. however the "cause" they are fighting for just happens to be one i agree with (anti-extremism, that is).

but its still terrorism because its the use of violence for political means, premeditated, and outside of normal warlike operations.

it was noam chomsky who first woke me up to the idea that just because it's a state actor doing the deed doesnt mean its not terrorism.