Naomi Klein has observed (I'm paraphrasing) that political systems which seek to tell others what is 'moral' generally fail to succeed. If we also consider the French Revolution had its "reign of terror" as an after effect, this further complicates the question of a justified revolution, or war (if you mean it in the same context of revolution). I believe revolutions must occur organically and actually be dictated by the powerful (politicians/corporations/business leaders). Because law enforcement is also a necessary aspect of social order (or coercive pressure), it can only carry out what masters dictate. Personally, the only alternative for radical change works on the basis of subjective survival, as we see in places like Iraq, where people have to just do what they can to survive because there is no predictable political system because of the terrorism from both the intelligence communities and native resistance. In short, morality is subjective to our environment and preferences for survival.
It is immoral.
During the "COLD WAR"; the Vietnam War was immoral to most people...who believed that war was "immoral" to begin with. Example: During WWII, which was a "clear case" of self defense (the Pearl Harbor Attack), people in the US still protested US involvement in that war. The "...reasons about the Vietnam War", would be the same; war is immoral, for those that choose to believe it. For many people there is NO JUSTIFICATION for war.
Because it was immoral.
the revolution was before the civil war
Henry David Thoreau.
American Revolution
War of 1812.
A war is just fighting, technically. A revolution changes everything, but it doesn't really have to be war.
The citizens started a revolution when they were unhappy with their government.
yes family fight in the revolution war
Russia's new government took them out of World War I after their revolution.
The war of 1812.