NationStates Jolt Archive

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.

You have funded a few though

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.

Doesn't the American Revolution count as a coup?

Nor has Australia or New Zealand, not sure about South Africa either.

Clearly the solution to solving violence is for the British to invade every other country, kill off the natives and populate the land with themselves.

Peace all round.

Nor has Australia or New Zealand, not sure about South Africa either.

Clearly the solution to solving violence is for the British to invade every other country, kill off the natives and populate the land with themselves.

Peace all round.

Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.
Transferring executive authority from one President to another 44 times in a row isn't a trivial feat. Not to mention all the orderly elections to national, state, and local office. Despite the war against the South, this nation has done pretty damn well in upholding this part of the Constitution.

Its because the American Constitution was created by angels sprinkling magic pixie dust on a blank sheet of paper. The document had divine inspiration, and created a perfect set of institutions so finely balanced that no group would ever have a grievance they felt they could not address democratically. Despite numerous tinkerings with the constitution by lesser beings, enough of the holy original document has been maintained to ensure that societal conflict has remained relatively low. God did it. Because he loves America.

Transferring executive authority from one President to another 44 times in a row isn't a trivial feat. Not to mention all the orderly elections to national, state, and local office. Despite the war against the South, this nation has done pretty damn well in upholding this part of the Constitution.

which is relevant...how?

I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.

As did Cuba, Mexico, The US, and probably several others.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)

Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

Indeed, in fact the only problem we've had is when we didn't properly kill of the natives, that and America and I suspect we simply didn't manage to populate it with English only, I remember hitting the population button in Ellis Island and being surprised at how many people of German origin there were in America, there's your culprits for the War of Revolution. Another thing to remember is American sports, each so similar yet so different to those you should have adopted, rugby,football, cricket, hockey on grass, that it almost seems a calculated anti-English slap, only the Germans could devise games so obsessive over statistics.

Same for South Africa, too many Dutchies, trouble the lot of them.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)

Ooh, I forgot Canada, and where does the trouble there come from? The French, that's who.

Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

Is "great nation" status achieved via territory, demography, or some other means? Also, which ones do count as such?

Indeed, in fact the only problem we've had is when we didn't properly kill of the natives, that and America and I suspect we simply didn't manage to populate it with English only, I remember hitting the population button in Ellis Island and being surprised at how many people of German origin there were in America, there's your culprits for the War of Revolution. Another thing to remember is American sports, each so similar yet so different to those you should have adopted, rugby,football, cricket, hockey on grass, that it almost seems a calculated anti-English slap, only the Germans could devise games so obsessive over statistics.

Same for South Africa, too many Dutchies, trouble the lot of them.


Well, the difference between the US and South Africa is that SA was Dutch and then the British decided to conquer it. It's your own fault then, you should have left the Dutch there alone :p The US wasn't German when the British first conquered parts of it.

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.
There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?


Well, the Civil War can be seen as a military attempt of sorts.

Also, why go for a coup when you can rig elections? 2000 and 2004 come to my mind.

Well, the difference between the US and South Africa is that SA was Dutch and then the British decided to conquer it. It's your own fault then, you should have left the Dutch there alone :p The US wasn't German when the British first conquered parts of it.

We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:

We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

Quite, we had a poor record against guns.

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(

Indeed, I think if people considered the price paid for where we are in the world, there'd be less slapping ourselves on the back about having peaceful transitions as though that meant we were some form of superior being.

Prosperous stability often comes at a heavy price paid by others.

Well apart from the issue of the civil war, an of course the revolution to begin it all (as previous people have mentioned) there is the slight issue that the US is a LOT younger than, for example, most European nations. The UK (and it's precurssors) haven't had a revolution or coup since the Glorious Revolution (which was really parliament inviting in a new King more than anything) in 1688.

In contrast, when you're looking at nations of (more or less) the same age, well Canada, Australia and New Zealand haven't had coups either. Nor has Belgium since it's founding as an independent country in 1830 (though of course there was the issue of the world wars, those were outside invasions).

Indeed, I think if people considered the price paid for where we are in the world, there'd be less slapping ourselves on the back about having peaceful transitions as though that meant we were some form of superior being.

Prosperous stability often comes at a heavy price paid by others.

Yup, wise words :) We got so far by blood, sweat and tears. But especially blood, lots of blood :(

Doesn't the American Revolution count as a coup?
There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.

There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

that depends on who you ask though. Some would say the US existed the moment it declared itself independant.

Does the Belgian revolution count as a coup in the Kingdom of the Netherlands? :p

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.

us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.

Now that's just sheer laziness.

Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.

Or technically the United Kingdom since prior to 1707 it was the seperate Kingdoms of England (which included Wales), Scotland and Ireland. It didn't become the United Kingdom of Great Britain till the act of the union (later Great Britian and Ireland then Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

The OP just said America.

Its because the American Constitution was created by angels sprinkling magic pixie dust on a blank sheet of paper. The document had divine inspiration, and created a perfect set of institutions so finely balanced that no group would ever have a grievance they felt they could not address democratically. Despite numerous tinkerings with the constitution by lesser beings, enough of the holy original document has been maintained to ensure that societal conflict has remained relatively low. God did it. Because he loves America.

awesome sarcastic post, my friend :hail:
sigged.

Now that's just sheer laziness.

we got tired out invading places ;)

we got tired out invading places ;)

That's hardly an excuse... France invaded places and still had time for a revolution. We obviously weren't trying hard enough.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)


OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.
This. ^

You have funded a few though
Also this. ^

Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?
And this. ^ And he wasn't the only one.

Revolution, civil war, and multiple assassinations, plus instigating the same among our neighbors, yet we're getting bitched at because we haven't had a coup at home yet? Geez-gods, there's just no pleasing some people.

Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

What do you mean for our own good? I still consider myself English...and Irish...and Scottish. You insenstive clod!

We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

I see a new meme abourning. :D

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(

Psh! My great grandfather lived through the Boer wars! Sure, he was on the British side, but he also went to Galipoli, and the only reason he got sent home is because he was too old!

America

Is overrated.

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

Who cares?

Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.
Germany was already an independent, unified country when Hitler took over. America, on the other hand, was just a batch of rebellious colonies.
that depends on who you ask though. Some would say the US existed the moment it declared itself independant.
Those are the same jerks who think it is clever to say that George Washington wasn't the first president.
Until the American Revolution was complete and the Constitution was ratified, there was no US. Just a handful of colonies with pretensions of nationhood.
The OP just said America.
Well, then I've already lost the argument based on the 1 million+ South American coups.

Germany was already an independent, unified country when Hitler took over. America, on the other hand, was just a batch of rebellious colonies.


It was a country, but it wasn't the country that the Bundesrepublik is today. Neither in geology, nor politically.

Psh! My great grandfather lived through the Boer wars! Sure, he was on the British side, but he also went to Galipoli, and the only reason he got sent home is because he was too old!

I'm currently living in a street named after a Boer, and all streets around my are named after Boeren :eek:

I don't know why I just told you that, but it's quite irrelevant as well :p

Well, then I've already lost the argument based on the 1 million+ South American coups.

I've pointed that out on page one, but it got ignored :(

That's hardly an excuse... France invaded places and still had time for a revolution. We obviously weren't trying hard enough.

clearly not enough tea back then *nods*

Those are the same jerks who think it is clever to say that George Washington wasn't the first president.
Until the American Revolution was complete and the Constitution was ratified, there was no US. Just a handful of colonies with pretensions of nationhood.

Well, people can split that hair if that's what turns them on. I would argue that, if the colonies could be considered part of Britain (as in territories subject to British rule and largely populated by British citizens), then the revolution was a disruptive action against Great Britain. And as that act was committed for the express purpose of creating a new nation, and said new nation was created by the exact same people who committed the revolutionary action, then it is valid to include the revolution as part of US political history. If the revolutionaries had been superseded by other people who had not participated in the revolution, maybe it would be different, but they weren't, so it isn't.

us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.

And, as usual, San Marino pwns all.

It was a country, but it wasn't the country that the Bundesrepublik is today. Neither in geology, nor politically.

There was no kryptonite in Germany before the FR.

Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

And, as usual, San Marino pwns all.

Ssshhh, we don't like to talk about San Marino, it's like the really smart kid at the back of the class which always has the right answer but everyone tries to ignore because he makes them look bad :p

clearly not enough tea back then *nods*

Of course not... the Americans threw it all into the sea. :mad:

Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

There have been several civil wars and revolutions. They're worse.

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.

I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.

Actually, Hitler was appointed. And I'm almost positive there would have been some shady stuff in there. Didn't he burn down the Reichstag.

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.
What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

Actually, Hitler was appointed. And I'm almost positive there would have been some shady stuff in there. Didn't he burn down the Reichstag.

Well, his party got elected and German protocol then demanded that the president appoint the leader of the winning party as chancellor... a technicality that's still in effect, I believe.

As for the Reichstag, if you have any conclusive evidence either way, please do publicise it, historians would be forever grateful to have that case solved.
The Nazis accused the Communists, the Communists accused the Nazis, and all evidence got buried in polemics.

Besides, it's hardly a coup to burn down a parliament building after you've been elected, is it?

What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

The Junta in Greece deserves mention as well, I would say.

Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

Czechoslovakia 1948. Greece 1967. Chile 1973. Argentina 1976. None of these countries was an underdeveloped nation when the coup happened.

As for the Reichstag, if you have any conclusive evidence either way, please do publicise it, historians would be forever grateful to have that case solved.
The Nazis accused the Communists, the Communists accused the Nazis, and all evidence got buried in polemics.

Ah yes, a dutch communist was convicted for it, Marinus van der Lubbe. Quite recently he has been pardoned for it.

What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".

Besides, it's hardly a coup to burn down a parliament building after you've been elected, is it?

It's still illegal.

Ah yes, a dutch communist was convicted for it, Marinus van der Lubbe. Quite recently he has been pardoned for it.

I don't assume he lived to see his pardon, did he? :(

People have been accusing the Nazis because they gained the most from the event politically. But to my eyes that's the same as blaming Bush for the planes hitting the WTC. It got him re-elected, after all.... that still doesn't mean he planned it.

It's still illegal.

So is stealing chewing gum. It's still not quite on the same level as violently overthrowing a government...

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

The French Revolution wasn't technically a coup d'etat (it requires, generally, the involvement of a restricted group having control on part of the military).
Franco: the process was too long to call it a proper coup: civil war, instead.
As for Salazar's Portugal, I cannot remember.
Mussolini and Hitler became dictators through more or less legal methods (Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the parliament through the Enabling Act, and Mussolini was appointed PM by the King and won a parliamentary confidence vote).

...you can also argue that Canada has a political civil war...

It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".

It was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time.

I don't assume he lived to see his pardon, did he? :(


Not really, he got the death sentence and died in 1934. The pardon happened in 2008 :(

It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".

Wait: when the Bolshevik Party seized power, Russia wasn't a monarchy anymore. It was a republic.

wiki:Russia

The February Revolution overthrew the Russian monarchy, which was replaced by a shaky coalition of political parties that declared itself the Provisional Government. The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia...

It was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time.

At the time of the revolution, 10% of the population were workers. Almost all the rest were peasants.

Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

depends on what you call developed.
The us in 1777 was a backwards country striving to survive British efforts to retake us. At the time the North American colonies were worth less then Caribbean colonies (we won only because the French threatened those colonies and the Brits decided to focus their effort where it was more important.)

Wait: when the Bolshevik Party seized power, Russia wasn't a monarchy anymore. It was a republic.

wiki:Russia

The February Revolution overthrew the Russian monarchy, which was replaced by a shaky coalition of political parties that declared itself the Provisional Government. The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia...

Even so.

What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

I wasn't trying to make an exhaustive list :P but yes, Russia too (even if it was an absolutist monarchy at the time, it was still developed)

I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.

Arguably banning other political parties could be taken as a coup, yes it was all done 'legally' but then a lot of coups are, using populist policies and legalistic loop-holes. I guess it depends on how you want to define a coup. But, agreed, it wasn't a military coup as such.

At the time of the revolution, 10% of the population were workers. Almost all the rest were peasants.

How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.

How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.

That makes them a developing nation, not a developed nation.

That makes them a developing nation, not a developed nation.

I never claimed it was a developed nation.

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

1967 Greece.
1981 Spain. Attempted.
1974 Portugal. Bloodless and installed a democracy.
1970 Italy. Attempted.
1958 France. Threat of violence only.
1923 Germany. attempted.
1926 Portugal
1910 Portugal.

Plus what you found.

I never claimed it was a developed nation.

Then what's the point of this argument?

The French Revolution wasn't technically a coup d'etat (it requires, generally, the involvement of a restricted group having control on part of the military).
Franco: the process was too long to call it a proper coup: civil war, instead.
As for Salazar's Portugal, I cannot remember.
Mussolini and Hitler became dictators through more or less legal methods (Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the parliament through the Enabling Act, and Mussolini was appointed PM by the King and won a parliamentary confidence vote).

Certainly the first two were violent transitions of power, if you start arguing about technicalities of coups aren't we going to effectively restrict coup so much as to be an effectively meaningless term.

The latter two were accompanied by bloodshed and rioting... which I believe is what the OP was talking about, though I will admit they did come to power legally.

Then what's the point of this argument?

You claimed it was a feudal society which I disputed.

You claimed it was a feudal society which I disputed.

It was! What do you call the fricken serfs!?

It was! What do you call the fricken serfs!?

Uh, serfdom was abolished in the mid 19th century because the government wanted to undertake free-market-oriented reforms allowing peasants to migrate to look for wage-paying jobs in industries. Peasants were no longer tied to the land, and freedom of migration is essential to any modern free market economy. The situation in 1914 Russia was analogous with the recent Chinese attempts at free market reform. There's no feudalism in it.

Uh, serfdom was abolished in the mid 19th century because the government wanted to undertake free-market-oriented reforms allowing peasants to migrate to look for wage-paying jobs in industries. Peasants were no longer tied to the land, and freedom of migration is essential to any modern free market economy. The situation in 1914 Russia was analogous with the recent Chinese attempts at free market reform. There's no feudalism in it.

1860's if memory serves. However, the peasantry were hardly free; whatever nominal liberties they were accorded, the interest rates, and rate of repayment, exacted by the national bank ensured that the peasantry were required to remain on their original lands for much of the following 50 years.

It's been too long since I did the Russian Rev. But then, what the hell were the peasants annoyed about?

It's been too long since I did the Russian Rev. But then, what the hell were the peasants annoyed about?

The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.

1860's if memory serves. However, the peasantry were hardly free; whatever nominal liberties they were accorded, the interest rates, and rate of repayment, exacted by the national bank ensured that the peasantry were required to remain on their original lands for much of the following 50 years.

That's why free market reforms were stepped up by the Stolypin administration in the early 1900s.

which is relevant...how?
I just restated the OP's thesis. I'm sure you'd like to have a different nit to pick.

The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.

It might have. It was a long time coming.

As did Cuba, Mexico, The US, and probably several others.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)

Canada has also not had a Civil war.

How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.

Also I wouldn't call "underdeveloped" Tsarist Russia. Think of the culture and of the science. Scientifical conquests we're living on still today: Mendeleev, Lobac'evskij, Tsjolkovskij...

Yes, they were the most socially backwards of the european powers, but the top fringes of society were on par with the rest of Europe.

The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.

Dunno. What about 1905?

Is "great nation" status achieved via territory, demography, or some other means?
"Whether we have invaded, thus causing friendly rivalry / horrific bloodshed forevermore."
Also, which ones do count as such?
Most of Europe, the US, China sometimes, India I suppose. Not Canada, its accents are too whimsical for it to be a real world player, eh.

Dunno. What about 1905?

1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing.

Since when are threads like this anything but? Some people cant help it.


Its sad, I know.

1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.
Not really, no. It caused the extremely authoritarian Tsar at the time to slightly liberalise society, which basically paved the way for the Bolsheviks.

Since when are threads like this anything but? Some people cant help it.


Its sad, I know.

Agreed.

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

How is this thread bashing America? Yes, a few posts (there always will be dicks) but mostly it appears to be refuting a false statement by indicating other circumstances which go against it. In fact currently we seem to be discussing modern coups and whether Tsarist Russia could be considered "developed".

Unless of course indicating that a statement about the awesomeness of the US is probably wrong or at least a false comparison is bashing it?

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

I'm not bashing America, I (among some others) am merely pointing out the incorrect claims of the OP. If you call that bashing, go ahead, I call it discussion :)

1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.

Not to bolshevik revolution, but maybe to a republic. Like in March 1917.

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
Canada

Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?

1. War Between The States - the Presidency never changed hands, in fact Mr. Lincoln was reelected in a free and democratic election.

2. American Revolution - No president to exchange leadership to.

3. Presidential succession from #35 to #36, all according to the constitution.

1. War Between The States - the Presidency never changed hands, in fact Mr. Lincoln was reelected in a free and democratic election.

Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....

Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....

Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.

Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.

your point being? You argued that "the presidency never changed hands". The fact that there was quite strong disagreement over exactly who was president over those 11 states seemes to make some trouble for that point.

your point being?

Refuting post #99

Refuting post #99

Post #99 stated:

Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....

Your statement of:

Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.

Does nothing what so ever to refute that. I'm not sure you know what the word "refute" means.

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
I'm not sure I understand what you want to debate...

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

- "America has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful."
- "Well, actually, that's debatable..."
- "STOP BASHING AMERICA!!!"

Huh? :confused:

I'm not sure I understand what you want to debate...



- "America has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful."
- "Well, actually, that's debatable..."
- "STOP BASHING AMERICA!!!"

Huh? :confused:

why do you hate freedom?

erica rhymes with america. we are not a racist country. look at us BO is our president now and he is half-black. a minority race member as head of state. no more bush!:D that's the best part

I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.

You are being intentionally dense I think...

He was listing countries and you decide that when he says America he is referring to 2 continents? :rolleyes:

Well, the Civil War can be seen as a military attempt of sorts.

Also, why go for a coup when you can rig elections? 2000 and 2004 come to my mind.

Care to provide proof of those elections being rigged?

You are being intentionally dense I think...

He was listing countries and you decide that when he says America he is referring to 2 continents? :rolleyes:

Serves him right for not being clear, ain't it? America is not a nation, as far as I know. But then I'm amazed that a decent discussion emerged from that particular OP.

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

I fail to see the "America bashing". Care to point it out.

Also, kindly refrain from starting threads saying that America is great and we'll refrain from starting threads saying America sucks.

Serves him right for not being clear, ain't it? America is not a nation, as far as I know. But then I'm amazed that a decent discussion emerged from that particular OP.

Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.

Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.

United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.

erica rhymes with america. we are not a racist country. look at us BO is our president now and he is half-black. a minority race member as head of state. no more bush!:D that's the best part
He barely passes the paper bag test.

United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.

No. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. The Americas is the geographic region comprised of the lands of the western hemisphere, which includes North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

No. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. The Americas is the geographic region comprised of the lands of the western hemisphere, which includes North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

Before it goes farther, let me just say that there's no consensus on continents as America is seen as one or two continents depending on where you live. The number of continents is also up for some debate and I don't feel like going toe to toe with y'all about it. Check wiki, you'll be surprised. I always learned it as ONE continent so I'm not convinced.

Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developped in 1905.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

Which is why parts of California are not considered part of the NA continent, but large parts of Russia are.

Oh, wait...

The number of continents is also up for some debate

I am well aware of that...

The seven-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, Iran and some parts of Europe including Iberian Peninsula and Greece. This model may be taught to include only the five inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica)[20][21] — as depicted in the Olympic logo.

Which is why parts of California are not considered part of the NA continent, but large parts of Russia are.

Oh, wait...

Take a gander...

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Plate_tectonics_map.gif

Nice try though

Take a gander...

...snipped image...

Nice try though

And that image confirms that parts of Russia are on the NA plate, while those portions of California west of the San Andreas fault line are not.

Yes, it was a nice try on my part. And a successful one!

Before it goes farther, let me just say that there's no consensus on continents as America is seen as one or two continents depending on where you live. The number of continents is also up for some debate and I don't feel like going toe to toe with y'all about it. Check wiki, you'll be surprised. I always learned it as ONE continent so I'm not convinced.

Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developped in 1905.
As in a developed country or as in created as a nation in 1905?

Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developed in 1905.

I'd have to say that no it wasn't... It at the least was not an industrialized nation at that point.

why do you hate freedom?

Because it violates the first principle. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the amusing writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher and "Playboy of the year 1979" Ayn Rand. :wink:

Care to provide proof of those elections being rigged?
You could dredge in the graveyard for threads about the topic if you are really interested, which I doubt you are. I am one of those who is convinced that Bush was never the rightful President in the first place, but there never seems to be enough common ground even on basic facts let alone principles for discussions about it to get anywhere.

You could dredge in the graveyard for threads about the topic if you are really interested, which I doubt you are. I am one of those who is convinced that Bush was never the rightful President in the first place, but there never seems to be enough common ground even on basic facts let alone principles for discussions about it to get anywhere.

So I should have to search for proof of someone else's claim?

Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.

It's United States of Mexico. Just like it's United States of America. For short hand, most people call USA "America" and most people call USM "Mexico".

There will always be people out there who claim that America is not a legit nation just like there will always be people who claim that Israel has no right to exist.

Still, using the word "America" to infer the continents, rather than the country was clever. Then again, Latin America, except for the canal, was never part of the US, even though we illegally intefered there a few times. Past is prologue????

There was no one bashing America in this thread.

I posted this topic because I wanted to know what people thought.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

What were they considered before continental plates were discovered? South America does connect to North America via Panama. Or it did until we Americans dug a nice little ditch there and filled it with water whereby seperating the two.

I am well aware of that...

Actually then it would be 5 continents because Europe connects to asia and NA is connected to SA. But then again you have to bear in mind that Africa is connect, by land, to Asia also. So we actually have only 4 continents.
Australia
Antartica
America
Eurasia/Africa Supercontinent.

However, that does not seem to be how people are taught anywhere.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.

Good one, but I was thinking of Aaron Burr's Conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy)

Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

I once saw the last few minutes of a serious movie not a comedy movie where America had been taken over by a fascist military dictatorship. I dont know the name of the movie as I have never been able to find the movie.

Still, using the word "America" to infer the continents, rather than the country was clever. Then again, Latin America, except for the canal, was never part of the US, even though we illegally intefered there a few times. Past is prologue????.

Actually I think this argument started off from me using the word, and I was referring to the area historically, including when they were the colonies etc.