Vive la republique!

[Edric O]

Well, I'm a little late, to be sure, but I couldn't let the 14th of July go by without any mention from anyone!

On the 14th of July 1789, the symbol of autocratic tyranny and despotism that had loomed over the French people for centuries was conquered and razed by the free citizens of Paris. The fall of the Bastille, the royal fortress-prison, marked the beginning of the end for absolute monarchy in France and in the whole of Europe.

214 years ago today, the first nail was hammered into the coffin of aristocratic tyranny. And what began in July 1789 in Paris was finished in November 1917 in St.Petersburg. Absolute monarchy was dead. Human rights and democratic constitutions triumphed over slavery and arbitrary rule!

Yes, the world still faces many problems and challenges. Human beings are still not completely free and their full equality is still not recognized. But compared to 214 years ago, we have made immense progress. Looking back to the victories of the past gives us strength to carry on the fight, until the day when freedom and equality will deliver the final, crushing blow to oppression and slavery.

Vive la republique!

Libert

[Caid Ivik]

Seeing yesterday's show of French military might, I was nearly laughing. French revolution was the a classic one: some days of anarchy, looting homes of aristocracy. Then was made some kind of new "democratic" government, which was to stop looting. As it failed, french movement called "jacobines" made another revolution, setting their own "Council for common good", which ruled de facto by guillotine. Well, two years, and jacobine mastermind Robespierre loses his head too.

New half-democratic "Directoriate" tried only to distract people from inner problems by imperialistic aggression against Italy and Belgium. Here they made also one fatal error. Corsican general Bonaparte made here a very good career, after he seduced wife of one Director, he was sent more far to Egypt, where he made even more glorious deeds.

How the story ends we all know. End of Holy Roman Empire, half of Europe in ruins and over everything mighty tyran Napoleon I.

[Davidu]

I really respect France for its economic independace, its military idustry independance. France is self-sufficient. Also, I respect the Germans for managing to forget the differences with France, as France itself did. ( forgot its differences with Germany)

[Dude_Doc]

Bah, the Frensh revolution is only a cover up. The aristocrats is still working behind one or another scene...

8)

[Hawat]

What a great revolution! Over all the "hooray-another-victory-for-the-people" one might forget that the revoluzzers slaughtered the families of aristocrats. Though understandable through the years of frustration and humiliation, it doesn't make this any better.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Democracy, 70% of the voting needed to change things in the goverment.

Votes of politics are more valuable than a civilian vote.

Today's politics looks more like Monarchy to me....Except, the king corrupts immediately when he is chosen.

Etc.

Well, I'm not really a huge fan of Franch's developments and history.

The only thing that they are great in, is building the Naughty house with Naughty girls.

[nampigai]

I really respect France for its economic independace, its military idustry independance. France is self-sufficient. Also, I respect the Germans for managing to forget the differences with France, as France itself did. ( forgot its differences with Germany)

I wouldn't say any country is totally self-sufficient today.

[Acriku]

No country can rely on its own for long, that's why we must trade with our brothers and have wonderful sex with our sisters...metaphorical of course ;)

[Sardauker-Kirov]

A country can last on it's own, but T'is more harder and takes much more effort to support the stability.

And that is POPPYCOCK, Acriku actually made a joke?

ARGGGGGGHHHHH *Twilight zone theme*

:D

[nampigai]

Kirov wake up, no western, modern country can cut the ties to the surrounding world and just live on like nothing happened.

[Dude_Doc]

It could, but that would require all other countries to commit mass-destruction :) .

[nampigai]

It could, but that would require all other countries to commit mass-destruction :) .

?

[Edric O]

Caid, do you mean that it would have been better if the French Revolution never happened and we all still lived under the murderous tyranny of absolute monarchs? ::)

You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. Revolution is a bloody, messy business. But without it, we'd still be ruled by corrupt all-powerful monarchs, who could sentence people to torture and death simply because they felt like it. Democracy would not exist.

Revolutions often kill the innocent together with the guilty. Just like wars do. After all, the Allies killed a lot of innocent civilians in WW2, far more than the French Revolution (or indeed, ANY revolution) ever did. But does that mean that fighting against Hitler and the nazis was wrong?

[Caid Ivik]

They turned to same tyranny, even worse, because they exported it. Slow democratisation process after Vienna Congres brought more than spontaneous revolution. You know, process FOR something, is always more productive than revolt AGAINST something. Sometimes we have to use weapons, but infiltrating government and changing it from inside was always more succesful. Just patience is needed.

Omlette is chaotic food. I prefer ham-&-eggs, with egg interior precisely placed on stable meat core...

[Hawat]

I didn't want to say that the French Revolution was wrong. I just don't like the heroic depiction of the uprising people. Undoubtedly it was a brave act and paved the way for future democracies, but the cruelties shouldn't go unmentioned. When the young daughter of an aristocratic politician is dragged out of the mansion and boiled in hot water, that is not just "collateral damage" as it happens in a war.

[Edric O]

Caid, you need to learn more about the history of the French Revolution and what followed it. Napoleon was an emperor, to be sure, but he spread the ideas of the Revolution (such as human rights, and the supremacy of the law over the whims of the monarch). Napoleon was extremely different from the kings of France, because he was born as a common man and always remained a "man of the people".

Basically, Napoleon was more like a modern-day dictator than a medieval king. And that's a big difference.

Ever heard of "La d

[Caid Ivik]

I'm sorry, but my french isn't enough developed to understand it, but still I can't say that modern dictators (as well as Napoleon I.) spread ideas of human rights. Difference between him and Bourbons was only that he was much more aggressive. Bourbons drowned in decadence caused by pasivity, Napoleon in his lust for power. Comparable to Hitler.

Freedom of who? As said Orwell in 1984, revolutions are about replacement of rulers by middle class. Poorness of proletariate is always used as "cause" of revolt, but it remains always same as before. Today we don't see such feudal stratification, so the revolts aren't needed. Don't forget that unions fought their way for higher pays without weapons.

Such demonstrations are very different. Napalm bombardment is pointed against enemy defences, i.e.forests or outposts. Wind can blow that shit on some civilians (hijacked? living shields?) near the target. But that's considered as a mistake, altough it is very BAD mistake. When band of enraged revolters attack a house of aristocrat, against whom they have pointed their irrational hate, loot it, burn it and then hunt, disgrace and kill his family, that's not a miss of targeting. With bomb from 5000 m you can miss; with knife in melee not.

[Edric O]

THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS

A document of the French Revolution, which forms the basis of the modern Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[Caid Ivik]

Ah, this. Marat's revision of the Commandements. It is pity that preambule thinks only about French. Whole revolution turned to some ubermenschistic demonstration of the "power of humanism" - which ended in battles for Leipzig and Waterloo.

[Edric O]

And I must once again advise you to read more about the French Revolution. Napoleon DID spread ideas of democracy and human rights, even though he himself did not follow them. This was very similar to the way in which Stalin spread communist ideas, even though he himself did not follow them.

However, Napoleon CANNOT be compared to 20th century dictators like Hitler or Stalin, because he did not build concentration camps, and he did not commit any mass murders. He was a mostly harmless dictator.

And George Orwell is not the supreme authority on all revolutions in all human history. ::) Yes, some revolutions were about the replacement of the aristocracy with the middle class (which, at that time, was the bourgeoisie). These are the bourgeois revolutions, such as the French Revolution. Others were about the proletariat rising up against its oppressors and abolishing class distinctions. These are communist revolutions.

And the napalm I was talking about was INTENTIONALLY dropped on civilians. By American forces in Vietnam, for example.

Not to mention the nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

The point I'm trying to make is that innocent civilians are intentionally slaughtered in wars even more than in revolutions.

[Edric O]

Ah, this. Marat's revision of the Commandements. It is pity that preambule thinks only about French. Whole revolution turned to some ubermenschistic demonstration of the "power of humanism" - which ended in battles for Leipzig and Waterloo.

You know, Caid, sometimes I get the feeling that if it were up to you we'd still be living in some sort of theocratic Dark Age tyranny...

[Caid Ivik]

Napoleon spread only war. He came to a country with his Grande Armee, marched triumphally on largest square, maybe burned down all fortresses, and get further to east. What his warriors did on civilian population and property just isn't mentioned. Maybe because he had no idea what to do with conquered lands, they united against him and brought him down. All united: protestants with catholics and orthodox, like WW2.

Well, I would like to see one proletar revolution, which brought up a succesful communist state. First there had to be some "proletariate" how Marx thought.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic seaports. They choosed as first Kyoto, but decided it has too much citizens and cultural legacy. In Vietnam they were fightning against paramilitaries, which can be considered also as civilians. Civilians with artillery, of course. As we can see, liberal interpreting of Geneva Conventions still less and less occurs. But when some band of marxists take law over, no one is safe. Of course, not only marxists, see Fatah in Israel and other such stuff.

Dark Age was the era of barbarian, not theocratic rule. Instead of maybe ancient Israel and today's Iran there weren't much theocracies.

[Edric O]

Caid, you're hopeless. And frankly, I couldn't care less what you think about Napoleon. Historical facts remain historical facts, and if it hadn't been for the French Revolution, you wouldn't be living in a democratic country right now.

Many proletarian revolutions were successful. The Paris Commune, the 1917 October Revolution, Fidel Castro's rebellion... and that's just naming the 3 most famous ones. The fact that the Soviet Union was hijacked by Stalin more than 7 years after the revolution doesn't mean that the revolution itself wasn't successful.

And finally, I have had enough of your insults. I do not take lightly to having my comrades called "some band of marxists", and having their struggle for liberation compared to terrorist organizations. If you cannot show even the slightest bit of respect towards me, then we have nothing more to say to each other. How can I talk to a man who thinks my very life is worthless, and that it's perfectly okay for me and everyone who shares my beliefs to be brutally slaughtered? And if we fight back, Caid calls us warmongers!

I'm starting to feel like a Jew talking to a nazi.

I have never kept anyone on my ignore list before, Caid, but if you do not apologise, I will be forced to put you there.

[Hawat]

lol Edric. Why do you draw this line to the present? Again out of question: dropping napalm on civilians is cruel. I never claimed that it is not. If the Vietnam war would be praised as a great act in future i would also speak out against the cruelty.

[Edric O]

You have a very good point, Hawat. The difference is that the French Revolution is considered a great act of heroism, while the Vietnam War is obviously not...

Then again, the Vietnam War wasn't the foundation of modern democracy, like the French Revolution...

I suppose that the answer is to look at all historical events objectively, and to see both the good and the bad parts.