On its own, certainly not. But it is a means to an end which you can't ignore. To put it simply, there are no peaceful revolutions.
You failed to say what the objective of the revolution is. If it's a Communist revolution I'd probably join arms with the government. If it was a libertarian revolution, I'm all aboard. Now I'm on a list.
This world, as it now stands, is ugly. Like the elegant flower that reaches out from the ashes of lava, I believe beauty will only be reborn through chaos first.
People say violence isn't the answer. You all don't seem to say what is though. Pretty sure civil disobedience got John Lennon killed. Public outcry at the status of the Government got MLK and JFK killed. When a forest grows too large and the trees too old, young saplings are unable to get light for all of the bigger trees taking their resources. A fire comes through and clears space for them. The smoke from a fire helps them germinate, showing it to be a beautiful and natural process. From destruction comes new life, rebirth. Keep in mind everyone I didn't say an American revolution. I'm talking global.
Violence is sometimes the answer. What about WWII? People couldn't just sit back and let Hitler conquer the world. And there was no amount of reason that could have reached him. Occasionally violence is the ONLY answer.
WWII was technically an international case of defense of third-party. We were stopping Hitler from wiping out the Jews. Hitler initiated the aggression, so our violent response was warranted in defense of the victims. Being that initial aggressor, like Hitler, though, is never the answer.
I doubt anything I could do to the Governments of the western world would be considered initiating aggression.
Fair enough. But my point remains valid. Sometimes the only response is violence. We didn't initiate, but the only way to stop what was going on was through violence.
Violence exists, we can't get rid of it. But I think we can change it to be a good thing. I personally think that clinical killing with consent is more humane and beneficial to human population control than it is to have senseless wars and think that a solution.
I would but really there isn't anything to rebel against in my area except for 3 military bases all of which have armed tanks, apaches, blackhawks, humvees, artillery all gassed and ready to go. So i probably wouldn't join in on a rush to take em out. edit: also one thing you all forget is some form of government has to pick up where the abolished one left off. Who's to say some sick fuck won't end up in power militarily and turn the world into 1984 style.
I agree for the modt part. However, I tend to think that the majority of our military would have enoigh common sense to not turn on their own people. Attacking one countries' citizens is one thing, but attacking your own? I just couldn't fathom it. Not in America at least.
You'd be surprised what Americans are capable of doing to their fellow citizens when you label them with "authority" and tell them they're better than those they have authority over. Just look at cops and how often they abuse their power, use excessive force, etc. You think the kids in the military are any better when they're also much more conditioned to follow orders without question? That's a lot of faith I'm not willing to risk innocent people's lives over. You'd think Americans would have enough common sense to figure out our debt problems, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.
I don't think 10,000 would be enough. That being said I'm the mother of a young baby so no, I probably would not go out but I would be helping any way I could while keeping him safe. If it was a different time or another life then yes I would be out there easily, but I have a young human to care for at the moment and it's too soon for me too leave this life right now so I wouldn't fight. I of course am assuming a hostile situation, which is a negative outlook but the only one I can realistically see.