Announcing a Formal Doctrine on Revolution

I am utilising the ethic stated in the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant that one must act as an individual in such a way that one must be determined to act as one would want all mankind to act, and that is to be applied as a universal law. A doctrine on revolution needs to be developed. There is unrest among people all over the world. They are dissatisfied with the governments that rule them. The rogue governments respond to such an extreme that protesting citizens are being killed as they peacefully demonstrate against those govrnments.

I am asserting that categorical imperative to state that our national doctrine, and in the present instance the Obama doctrine in foreign affairs, should proclaim that each nation has a right to fight and own its own revolution and the civil war that shall naturally follow, without interference by forces outside that nation.

But is it permissible that the only acceptable interference with that doctrine shall be necessitated when an extremely brutal extermination of any revolutionaries is threatened or actually applied in order to put down an insurrection that is seen to be supported by most of the population? In the present case, the issue of humanitarian aid gave the U.S. grounds for entering the conflict to protect rebels facing the overpowering force of the dictator’s superior armaments, ruthlessly applied and deemed “criminal” in the eyes of all humanity and “immoral” by every known standard of social and political law.

Such a doctrine requires discussion everywhere in order to formulate, promote and enact such a rule guiding practice everywhere.

A Big “But” Drawback to U.N. Nations Entering National Uprisings, Rebellions, Civil Wars

The “rogue” nation that uses its armaments against its own people, to quell any uprisings, will certainly invite international forces to even the battle by taking the side of the rebels, who are usually ill equipped to survive the superior arms held by the dictator. International forces are usually standing against dictatorial powers because the international policy generally favors democracies. The assistance provided by such as the U.N. is mostly air power flying their combat air forces to enforce a no-fly zone over the anti-democratic leader’s country. In such an operation, the U.N. nations are able to use the dictator’s country as a proving ground for training pilots and ground forces and for testing weaponry. Don’t tell me that that is not one pretext for military leaders’ wanting to enter the fray, aside from the humanitarian motives. What do you think?

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  1. I am so impressed with this article. It’s not only well-written it’s also motivating and smart. Few writers have the talent to make this topic exciting, but you’ve managed to do it. Really great job.

  2. Thank for sharing this useful and informative article. I enjoyed reading your views on this subject matter. It’s a pleasure to read such well-written content.

  3. I just want to say I love your article. This information is useful to me and you made it interesting to read. Really good job!

  4. I am impressed with this writer’s content. This content is engaging, thought-provoking and motivational. There are many unique ideas shared in this article that I can relate to and understand.

  5. I have a project that I am just now working on, and I have been looking for such information… Regards�

  6. One of the top ten informative posts ever.

  7. This is helpful, thanks for the post man.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: