Message from @3v6en8
Discord ID: 631613413163794433
I’d say they both fit the definition
Okay, I could agree that fits in a peaceful revolution; not the first american revolution
The stances of the federalists and republicans was vastly different in many ways
eventually the republicans adopted some federalist stances and vice versa though
Like the republicans had a hard on for france and the federalists had a hard on for the british
*Bipartisan politics*
that's one reason why they declared war on britain later
in the war of 1812
the republicans were in power
and also why france sold them louisiana
one of many reasons
The casus belli was the impressment of american sailors into the british navy
there were lots of causes for them to declare war
that was one
it was estimated that over 10k american sailors had been impressed
because they had been fighting france for like over 20 years
and were low on manpower
Casus belli = war justification
there were also native americans with british weapons
and lots of conflicts
paranoia about the british arming the natives was also a big part of it
How does this relate to syria?
talking about how revolutions usually fail
or end up in a bad way
i mean
especially when you support terrorist organizations
we only really have reason to believe that those chemical attacks were literally staged by the rebel groups themselves
they are quite literally terrorists afterall and none of this is beyond them
Its more about middle eastern stability
If middle east = stable: america = less war
less war = less war spending
yes and wouldn't it make sense to support the most stable option
assad himself
he has an established state
and is the most secular option
he also has pretty broad support in the nation as a whole
most of the rebel factions only have local support
in particular regions
not any national appeal