olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 why do they mainly happen in poor countries and never in the west? and would it be accepted by the rest of the industrialized world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Depends on what you mean by 'Western'. Portugal had a near-bloodless coup in 1974 overthrowing an authoritarian government with the aid of low-ranking military. There was one in Greece in 1967 that led to a right-wing military government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 who do you think we should kill first in the coup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Depends on what you mean by 'Western'. Portugal had a near-bloodless coup in 1974 overthrowing an authoritarian government with the aid of low-ranking military. There was one in Greece in 1967 that led to a right-wing military government. didn't know that, I will read further into that, thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 who do you think we should kill first in the coup? The roosters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) double post Edited October 11, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 what is defined as "west", what is the definition of "poor" and how far back do you want to go? Argentina? Chile? Central american states?...even France if I recall had a near coup after WW2...was the Spanish civil war a coup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 what is defined as "west", what is the definition of "poor" and how far back do you want to go? Argentina? Chile? Central american states?...even France if I recall had a near coup after WW2... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think he's implying that Canada should have a Coup d'etats because he hates the Harper Government. The attempted takeover by the Liberals/NDP/Bloc in 2008 seemed kinda Coupish to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world The Western world, also known as the West and the Occident (from Latin: occidens "sunset, west"; as contrasted with the Orient), is a term referring to the countries of Western Europe(plus Greece, Cyprus)and the countries of the Americas, as well all countries of [1], Northern, and Central Europe, Australia and New Zealand. so the americas then...then there's a very long list of multiple coups in western countries...probably nearly every country south of the USA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 so the americas then...then there's a very long list of multiple coups in western countries...probably nearly every country south of the USA... You could say the US Civil war was an attempted Coup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 You could say the US Civil war was an attempted Coup it was more an attempt at separation/division Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 We have something that works better than a coup.... it's called a vote. Nearly half stay home lounging on their sofa eating potato chips and watching TV rather than vote when they are given the opportunity to truly affect change. Talk of a coup in "the west" is a bit ridiculous when all you have to do is get off your ass and cast a ballot to change the gov't. Way easier than picking up a pitchfork and invading Parliament Hill. Getting enough people excited about performing a coup might be a bit of a challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 The attempted takeover by the Liberals/NDP/Bloc in 2008 seemed kinda Coupish to me. If it is allowed by law, then it is not a coup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Depends on what you mean by 'Western'. Portugal had a near-bloodless coup in 1974 overthrowing an authoritarian government with the aid of low-ranking military. There was one in Greece in 1967 that led to a right-wing military government. Add to it the Spanish Civil War, and if you consider Turkey to be Western, their many coups. And Latin America.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 why do they mainly happen in poor countries and never in the west? Umm, the answer should be obvious. People only go out and revolt when their lives suck really badly, they don't have much to lose, and radical change seems to them the only option. In Western countries, people are generally content and comfortable. Why would they revolt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Umm, the answer should be obvious. People only go out and revolt when their lives suck really badly, they don't have much to lose, and radical change seems to them the only option. In Western countries, people are generally content and comfortable. Why would they revolt? I think your analysis suffers from a "chicken and egg" problem. I believe that the Western tradition of lawful, orderly change of government has promoted prosperity and contentment. Inventors and creators of jobs can do their work with only limited risk of expropriation or destruction by physical violence. Care to invest in lasting structures or factories in Gaza? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I think your analysis suffers from a "chicken and egg" problem. I believe that the Western tradition of lawful, orderly change of government has promoted prosperity and contentment. Of course. And we got where we are after a long and violent history which included many coups, wars, and revolutions. But now that we're here, it's obvious why there aren't coups in Western countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Of course. And we got where we are after a long and violent history which included many coups, wars, and revolutions. But now that we're here, it's obvious why there aren't coups in Western countries. Neither the U.S. nor what is now Canada suffered a particularly large number of coups. The only exception was the attempted coup coalition of December 2008. Even Britain's last experience was Oliver Cromwell, and Charles' "going out of his head". The Glorious Revolution pretty much brought Britain's turbulence to an end. Continental Europe is a different story entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) I think he's implying that Canada should have a Coup d'etats because he hates the Harper Government. The attempted takeover by the Liberals/NDP/Bloc in 2008 seemed kinda Coupish to me. Not at all.It was within the laws for our democracy. If the election-winning party loses the confidence of parliament - a non-confidence vote - then either an election is triggered or other parties, separately or together, can try to form a government. Edited October 12, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Not at all. It was within the laws for our democracy. If the election-winning party loses the confidence of parliament - a non-confidence vote - then either an election is triggered or other parties, separately or together, can try to form a government. Yeah OK Yet No mention was made of even considering a coalition during the election about a month earlier. Only when the Harper government wanted to yank their funding did they want to take over the government. To think that the country rebuked the policies of Stephane Dion so harshly during the election but he could still be the PM propped up by two other parties seemed so anti-democratic. Which is why, after giving them a break the coalition fell a part. Ironically, I remember the late Jack Layton was so critical of Iggy after backing down on that coalition yet 2 years later he ended up taking over from the Liberals as opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah OK Yet No mention was made of even considering a coalition during the election about a month earlier. Only when the Harper government wanted to yank their funding did they want to take over the government. To think that the country rebuked the policies of Stephane Dion so harshly during the election but he could still be the PM propped up by two other parties seemed so anti-democratic. Which is why, after giving them a break the coalition fell a part. Ironically, I remember the late Jack Layton was so critical of Iggy after backing down on that coalition yet 2 years later he ended up taking over from the Liberals as opposition. Yeah OK. Because coalition governments in a parliamentary system are so "anti-democratic." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah OK. Because coalition governments in a parliamentary system are so "anti-democratic." This one would have been. Not mention was ever made of it in the election campaign previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 This one would have been. Not mention was ever made of it in the election campaign previously. So to be "democratic" in our parliamentary system, is must be mentioned in an "election campaign" as opposed to, say, a vote of non-confidence in Parliament? Is this what you are saying to qualify a coalition as "democratic?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 This one would have been. Not mention was ever made of it in the election campaign previously. That doesn't ever happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.