Clinton says Russia is going to cause a civil war in Syria, as Rice raises possibility of action 'ou - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36159853]Well it is rather true that a revolution ends up with more or less the same government as before. Examples of which are the American, [B]French[/B], Russian, German, English. They had a revolution to overthrow the real or perceived oppression of them, and ended up with the same people in power as before.[/QUOTE] I'd like to contest that since my specialization in history is the French Revolution and Napoleonic era. Napoleon wielded autocratic power to be sure, but his reforms were progressive for the time, and a huge improvement over what the last few Bourbon kings did. If anything I'd call him an enlightened absolutist. The best example is the Napoleonic Code, which is the basis of law for many countries around the world. The Code had several key concepts at its core: Equality of all in the eyes of the law No recognition of privileges of birth (i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors.) Freedom of religion Separation of the church and the state Freedom to work in an occupation of one's choice The Code in effect did several things: -It preserved the social aims of the Revolution. -It protected the interests of the rising middle class. -It guaranteed civil liberties. Despite these strengths, in the eyes of the modern world the Code had several weaknesses, particularly when it pertained to women and minors: -A woman could not vote. -A wife owed obedience to her husband, who had total control over their property. -A unmarried woman had few rights and could not be a legal guardian or witness wills. -It was easier for a man to sue for divorce on grounds of adultery, while a man had to cohabit with his mistress for two years for his wife to justify a divorce. -If a man surprised his wife in bed with another man, he could kill her legally. If a woman did so, she could be tried for murder. -Minors had few rights. (A father even could place his child in jail for up to six months.) -Illegitimate children had no rights of inheritance. And don't get me started on his economic, administrative, and educational reforms. Now I hold that Napoleon was one of the greatest people in history and I see him in a fairly positive light, but he was no saint, and certainly wasn't modest, as some of his more hardcore worshipers like to claim. Basically what I'm saying is the French nation didn't get the "same people as before", they got a man who was arguably the most important French leader up to that time and implemented reforms that are still felt in much of Europe, particularly France, to this day. I can't say anything of the other revolutions because I don't know much about them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36156366]Russia's value of life is even shown in strategy games. Generally, their armies and units are much cheaper to recruit than Western ones, along with tending to die easier.[/QUOTE] Didn't they send tons of troops right towards their enemy without any plan? I think they ran straight at machine guns at one point.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36157385]Russian value of life isn't lower. They just tend to have difficulties keeping their soldiers alive either through bad logistics or bad leadership. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] I mean, numbers alone can't win a war. The Soviets didn't win their war against Germany simply because they had a higher number of soldiers(they didn't at the beginning).[/QUOTE] In the beginning it was because most German soldiers froze to death, in the end it was a numbers game.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36160077]I'd like to contest that since my specialization in history is the French Revolution and Napoleonic era. Napoleon wielded autocratic power to be sure, but his reforms were progressive for the time, and a huge improvement over what the last few Bourbon kings did. If anything I'd call him an enlightened absolutist. The best example is the Napoleonic Code, which is the basis of law for many countries around the world. The Code had several key concepts at its core: Equality of all in the eyes of the law No recognition of privileges of birth (i.e. noble rights inherited from ancestors.) Freedom of religion Separation of the church and the state Freedom to work in an occupation of one's choice The Code in effect did several things: -It preserved the social aims of the Revolution. -It protected the interests of the rising middle class. -It guaranteed civil liberties. Despite these strengths, in the eyes of the modern world the Code had several weaknesses, particularly when it pertained to women and minors: -A woman could not vote. -A wife owed obedience to her husband, who had total control over their property. -A unmarried woman had few rights and could not be a legal guardian or witness wills. -It was easier for a man to sue for divorce on grounds of adultery, while a man had to cohabit with his mistress for two years for his wife to justify a divorce. -If a man surprised his wife in bed with another man, he could kill her legally. If a woman did so, she could be tried for murder. -Minors had few rights. (A father even could place his child in jail for up to six months.) -Illegitimate children had no rights of inheritance. And don't get me started on his economic, administrative, and educational reforms. Now I hold that Napoleon was one of the greatest people in history and I see him in a fairly positive light, but he was no saint, and certainly wasn't modest, as some of his more hardcore worshipers like to claim. Basically what I'm saying is the French nation didn't get the "same people as before", they got a man who was arguably the most important French leader up to that time and implemented reforms that are still felt in much of Europe, particularly France, to this day. I can't say anything of the other revolutions because I don't know much about them.[/QUOTE] There were certainly reforms, sure, but ultimately, power was still held by a singular despot that to a large extent used the army to suppress dissent and maintain his grip on power.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;36160092]Didn't they send tons of troops right towards their enemy without any plan? I think they ran straight at machine guns at one point.[/QUOTE] Not really. What people don't tend to realize is that, despite the Great Purge, the Red Army still possessed some remarkable individuals. While I detest Stalin and everything he stood for, he at least had the wisdom to give his commanders exceptional freedom, at least beginning from winter 1941 onward. Compare to his counterpart, Hitler, who had a tendency of micromanaging everything and his grip on his generals became tighter as the military situation worsened for the Axis. The Soviet military did use tactics and planning, just like any other military did. I don't think people should oversimplify them as just "human waves", because if that was the case they simply would not have won against the Axis juggernaut.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36160128]In the beginning it was because most German soldiers froze to death, in the end it was a numbers game.[/QUOTE] Nope and nope. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] In the beginning the invasion failed because the Soviets resisted with unexpected tenacity. In the end it was because the Soviet Army was mobilized and properly lead by competent officers. They outfought and outsmarted the Germans in numerous battles.

"outside council authority" Wait, a nation who wants to aid Syria's people needs the UN's [I]permission[/I] to act? So much for sovereignty.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36160131]There were certainly reforms, sure, but ultimately, power was still held by a singular despot that to a large extent used the army to suppress dissent and maintain his grip on power.[/QUOTE] So revolutions produce similar governments to what they overthrew when you oversimplify how you examine governments. Here's a thought for you: all governments are identical when you oversimplify how you examine governments.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36160131]There were certainly reforms, sure, but ultimately, power was still held by a singular despot that to a large extent used the army to suppress dissent and maintain his grip on power.[/QUOTE] Could you cite some examples where the army was used to maintain his power? I never understood why people called Napoleon's regime a "military dictatorship". Certainly it was no democracy. I'd call the Consulate an authoritarian republic, and the empire more or less an absolute monarchy. From John Elting: [quote]‘Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver, and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systemized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a might heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and canals. He planted trees along his roads; set up a government office to protect France’s forests, lakes, and rivers; gave Paris better water and sewer systems, its first public fire department, an improved opera, and the modern system of street numbers. Wherever his rule ran, there was freedom of religion, basic human rights, better hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation…He encouraged vast improvements in French agriculture and built up an enlarged system of public and private education. Just as important was his emphasis on competence and honesty in his officials. All careers were open to men of talent who would serve loyally regardless of family background or political orientation. Also, he balanced his budgets; even in 1814 France had practically no national debt. [B]And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator.’[/B][/quote] Again he certainly weilded dictatorial powers, especially as emperor, but at the end of the day as a civilian ruler, not as a military dictator. I hope this isn't de-railing the thread too much :v

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36160297]So revolutions produce similar governments to what they overthrew when you oversimplify how you examine governments. Here's a thought for you: all governments are identical when you oversimplify how you examine governments.[/QUOTE] Looking at how a Tsar maintained power, and how Stalin maintained power, there is little difference. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36160309]Could you cite some examples where the army was used to maintain his power?[/QUOTE] During the coup when he kicked out the Directory he used military force extensively.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36160389]Looking at how a Tsar maintained power, and how Stalin maintained power, there is little difference.[/QUOTE] This isn't rational thinking. A is a letter. B is a letter. Ergo, A is equivalent to B! Back the fuck up and take a history class.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36160454]This isn't rational thinking. A is a letter. B is a letter. Ergo, A is equivalent to B! Back the fuck up and take a history class.[/QUOTE] I guess the use of secret police, Siberian prison camps, a large and inefficient bureaucracy, the restrictions upon various freedoms, the cult status of their leader, etc before and after 1917 showed the massive change in governance.

[quote]During the coup when he kicked out the Directory he used military force extensively.[/quote] Let's put this into context for a second. The Directory had grown increasingly unpopular, corrupt, and in general incapable of running the country. Their piss poor diplomacy dragged France into another war, the "War of the Second Coalition". France's economy, the poor performance of which was a root case of the Revolution, had not improved much at all. Inflation destroyed the value of French currency, roads, bridges and other infrastructure were in sharp decline, and businesses were in serious trouble. If a government's primary duty is to provide economic and military security for its people, then the Directory was a failure of the first magnitude. Set this against the general chaotic political situation of France and of course you have a recipe for coups. The coup Napoleon was involved in was not started by him, but by Sieyes and Roger Ducos, the former of which was a major player in the Revolution and now believed it was his mission to give France a more stable and effective government. He let Napoleon in on the coup because the conspirators needed a "sword". To put it short, while Napoleon eventually became the driving force behind the coup (although he lost his cool and may have been incoherent more than once), he was certainly not alone in wishing to replace the Directory with something better. So yes, military force was achieved to gain power, but in the end, the government that replaced the Directory was far more popular, efficient, and stable, something the French needed after nearly a decade of bloodshed and violence. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say "extensive military force". No bloodshed occured during the coup and the forces available were certainly not extensive.

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;36160724]Let's put this into context for a second. The Directory had grown increasingly unpopular, corrupt, and in general incapable of running the country. Their piss poor diplomacy dragged France into another war, the "War of the Second Coalition". France's economy, the poor performance of which was a root case of the Revolution, had not improved much at all. Inflation destroyed the value of French currency, roads, bridges and other infrastructure were in sharp decline, and businesses were in serious trouble. If a government's primary duty is to provide economic and military security for its people, then the Directory was a failure of the first magnitude. Set this against the general chaotic political situation of France and of course you have a recipe for coups. The coup Napoleon was involved in was not started by him, but by Sieyes and Roger Ducos, the former of which was a major player in the Revolution and now believed it was his mission to give France a more stable and effective government. He let Napoleon in on the coup because the conspirators needed a "sword". To put it short, while Napoleon eventually became the driving force behind the coup (although he lost his cool and may have been incoherent more than once), he was certainly not alone in wishing to replace the Directory with something better. So yes, military force was achieved to gain power, but in the end, the government that replaced the Directory was far more popular, efficient, and stable, something the French needed after nearly a decade of bloodshed and violence. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say "extensive military force". No bloodshed occured during the coup and the forces available were certainly not extensive.[/QUOTE] Part of the economic revival under Napoleon was due to a belief by many that he brought stability to France, and a fall in the price of bread further added to his popularity. He helped to control grain prices when in 1802 the price of bread rose, and he took every measure to import bread to quell public dissent. The laws he established allowed for employers decision to be always upheld, and no workers rights were in the laws themselves. His education reforms saw that there should be subordination to the state. He set up the University, a supervising body that ensured schools turned out citizens who were "Attached to their religion, their ruler, their native land and family". The Code Napoleon however was still very forwards for its time however, he set up major roads (Such as the Alpine ones) and ports (Cherbourg, Antwerp, Brest) along with many other positives that led to a good deal of popular support. France was still a military dictatorship. He ruthlessly cracked down on political opponents such as Madame De Stael, whose salon opposed Napoleon, and when she criticised the new constitution she was exiled from Paris. Abbe Sieyes was kept under house arrest while Barras was exiled from France entirely. He did not hold absolute power however, since he would be unable to do Stalinist-like purges without pissing off power bases such as the wealthier peasantry and the army.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36160513]I guess the use of secret police, Siberian prison camps, a large and inefficient bureaucracy, the restrictions upon various freedoms, the cult status of their leader, etc before and after 1917 showed the massive change in governance.[/QUOTE] If you're entirely ignorant of russian history, it appears really simplistic. If you're not, even in how the rulers were perceived alone there are vast differences. Comparing even attitudes towards leadership in Tsarist and Stalinist periods like this is insane. You'd fail a basic history course the way you're talking.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36161475]If you're entirely ignorant of russian history, it appears really simplistic. If you're not, even in how the rulers were perceived alone there are vast differences. Comparing even attitudes towards leadership in Tsarist and Stalinist periods like this is insane. You'd fail a basic history course the way you're talking.[/QUOTE] Well I haven't failed a basic history course. I actually did quite fairly well in history in school but then again I don't discuss things as well as I should online.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36160513]I guess the use of secret police, Siberian prison camps, a large and inefficient bureaucracy, the restrictions upon various freedoms, the cult status of their leader, etc before and after 1917 showed the massive change in governance.[/QUOTE] All this really proves is that 1917 produced another state, not that it was the same one.

Xenocidebot's mad. Dis gon b gud.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36161644]All this really proves is that 1917 produced another state, not that it was the same one.[/QUOTE] Another state was produced, but the people were still repressed the same way as they had been before.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36161690]Another state was produced, but the people were still repressed the same way as they had been before.[/QUOTE] You could say this about a lot of revolutions, including the american one. Why would a state just stop using a kind of force? Who's 'the people' anyway and why are they so homogeneous?

[QUOTE=Conscript;36161881]You could say this about a lot of revolutions, including the american one. Why would a state just stop using a kind of force? Who's 'the people' anyway and why are they so homogeneous?[/QUOTE] The peasantry, proletariat, etc. If a revolution occurs, they generally tend to still have the same quality of life, but with a short violent interlude which sees many hardships put on them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36161027]Part of the economic revival under Napoleon was due to a belief by many that he brought stability to France, and a fall in the price of bread further added to his popularity. He helped to control grain prices when in 1802 the price of bread rose, and he took every measure to import bread to quell public dissent. The laws he established allowed for employers decision to be always upheld, and no workers rights were in the laws themselves. His education reforms saw that there should be subordination to the state. He set up the University, a supervising body that ensured schools turned out citizens who were "Attached to their religion, their ruler, their native land and family". The Code Napoleon however was still very forwards for its time however, he set up major roads (Such as the Alpine ones) and ports (Cherbourg, Antwerp, Brest) along with many other positives that led to a good deal of popular support. France was still a military dictatorship. He ruthlessly cracked down on political opponents such as Madame De Stael, whose salon opposed Napoleon, and when she criticised the new constitution she was exiled from Paris. Abbe Sieyes was kept under house arrest while Barras was exiled from France entirely. He did not hold absolute power however, since he would be unable to do Stalinist-like purges without pissing off power bases such as the wealthier peasantry and the army.[/QUOTE] I still don't get why it should be called a "military dictatorship" though. There was nothing "military" about his government, and the army took little, if any part in governance at all. Two examples: General Cervoni, commanding the 8th division, ordered that "anyone found carrying arms will be imprisoned in the Fort St Jean in Marseille;" on March 7, 1807, Napoleon reproved him: "a general has no civil function unless specially invested with one ad hoc. When he has no mission, he cannot exercise any influence on the courts, on the municipality or on the police. I consider your behavior madness." When cadets in the Metz artillery shcool rioted and insulted townspeople, Napoleon called them to order: "The Prussian Army used to insult and ill-treat burghers, who were later delighted when it suffered defeat. That army, once crushed, disappeared and nothing replaced it, because it did not have the nation behind it. The French Army is so excellent only because it is one with the nation." [url=http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/lentz_dictatorship.asp]Here's a good essay questioning whether the term "military dictatorship" would be appropriate for the Napoleonic regime.[/url] The point is, I'm not denying that Napoleon had a sour relationship with Mme. Stael, and crackdowns were not unheard of. But again, nothing about that says it was a "military" dictatorship. On top of that, the running of the government was not kept behind closed doors, and public debate was allowed, even criticism of the government...up to a point, as in the case of Mme. Stael as you pointed out. Napoleon didn't just dictate the Civil Code all by himself for example; he hired civilian lawyers and specialists and the debates that ensued were long and lasted well into the night. And for Barras being imprisoned? Paul Barras was involved in a major effort to bring back a Bourbon monarchy. He was a corrupt womanizer to his very core. Hell I could even say he was less a royalist than a man seeking additional power and wealth. By the time the Consulate was beginning to be set up he was in the last stages of a plot to bring back Louis XVIII to the throne for 12 million francs. And there was honestly little point in him trying to perform "Stalin-like purges". If he wanted to do that then he certainly wouldn't have welcomes the emigres back into France. But I'm not sure about Sieyès being put under house arrest. I know he did go into retirement, but never house arrest. But I don't know a whole lot about his life so I honestly have no idea.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36160053]Islamist government is banned eh? [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_%28Libya%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Libya)[/URL] So if these guys get into power they won't be able to act? Also, the Libyan Constitutional Declaration is actually inherently Islamist. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_interim_Constitutional_Declaration[/URL][/QUOTE] I do believe that there was a thread a few months ago that stated that Islamist Parties were banned. I could be completely mistaken, and I will have to do further research. Thanks for bringing this up. [QUOTE=Marbalo;36160087]Ive never justified Russia vetoing anything. In fact I never justified any of their wrongdoings in any way and I still do not understand why you're under the assumption that Im some hardcore Russian patriot who assumes Russia can do no harm and the West is shit. Maybe it's because I explicitly reply to only Russia-related news threads - but that's simply because I hate people circlejerking over things they do not understand. I have always operated under the obvious assumption that [I]'yeah Russia is quite bad when it comes to X, but hey, the west isn't all that better in that regard either, here's why'[/I]. For some reason people take that as if Im 'justifying' Russias fuckups or using the tu quoque fallacy but all Im trying to do is to bring some sense of perspective to the table that many people seem to lack - especially in Sensationalist Headlines. Just wanted to clear stuff up because we seem to both frequent SH and often get into arguments in the same thread.[/QUOTE] I am sorry. I thought that you had already said that you supported Russia's position. I thought it was in a thread that was about Russia having a naval ship in one of Syria's ports. I could be wrong, though. I also despise that fallacy, or any fallacy for that matter, and I do not unconditionally support "the west" (I don't understand why you use that term, it is irrelevant considering there are many "western" nations and they operate and act completely differently and separately) or unconditionally hate Russia. It does seem, though, that you usually support Russia's moves, so I just assumed that you would here too. My mistake.