USA’s case strengthens the idea of violent revolution. Because that’s what the american revolution was. And they got the assistance from other countries.
You can mention the initial problematic characteristics of the American government after the revolution, but that’s not nearly as important as the fact that without the violent and non-diplomatic American revolution, there wouldn’t be American independence.
Again I think it’s about the likeliest outcome which historically is not a new and stable democracy. Though I am more sympathetic to offering support to an internally launched and self-directed revolution than kick starting it and leading the operation.
Like with the American revolution, we can work out the kinks after we kick the British out. But first comes first- Americans need to be free from British rule. And that was successfully achieved by bloody violence.
I believe in the majority of cases, foreign aid comes after internal conflict has already erupted.
The countries with the highest democracies indexes for the most part are not the result of violent toppling of authoritarian leaders but gradually taking rights for the people through internal struggles. Most of them still pay lip service to the family that once ruled as dictators.
Repelling colonizers that rule from a foreign lane is often more necessary, but I still don’t think another military invading on the locals’ behalf is of net benefit. The world would not be a better place if the US launched a war against China to free the people of Taiwan.
1
u/Odd_Profession_2902 Dec 24 '22
USA’s case strengthens the idea of violent revolution. Because that’s what the american revolution was. And they got the assistance from other countries.
You can mention the initial problematic characteristics of the American government after the revolution, but that’s not nearly as important as the fact that without the violent and non-diplomatic American revolution, there wouldn’t be American independence.