Old Blue Collar Joe
And whether it was 'good' or 'bad' is based on whether those that started such a revolt felt that their ends were achieved, i.e. breaking away from what they feel is a tyrannical government that is stripping more and more rights away while demanding more and more from them.
Well no, it would be "bad" because it is "bad" to sacrifice the lives of your fellow citizens before exhausting peaceful and democratic resolutions to your grievances. That is "bad" whether or not you are able to seize power and enact whatever agenda you've revolted over; even in victory one would have to acknowledge that the chosen means are not ideal ones to achieve the chosen end. To justify those means, it is necessary that what was gained is worth more than the lives and property that would be irreparably lost or damaged during the conflict, and that it could not be gained through less extreme measures.
Quote:
The military would more than likely fracture as well in such a situation, depending on the reasons behind said revolution.
Maybe. I don't personally consider that a good thing; the split in Libya hardly produced an organized and well-equipped rebel faction and an orderly transition of power. Nor do I consider the possibility of a military coup and junta rising in the United States to be remotely, even
theoretically desirable under
ideal circumstances. The ensuing spate of summary executions of counter-revolutionaries would certainly wash out the taste of victory over a tyrannical regime that wants to ___________, if ______________ was not more summary execution.
Quote:
But simply rolling over and saying 'gotta get dirty' as an excuse not to do something means you wind up with something like Mexico, where the best solution is to run like hell.
Mexico you get by wealthy and heavily-armed criminal syndicates having decades to bribe the military and police to see things their way.
Somalia you get by fighting a civil war, 'course.