----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: Re: Change without war (was something else)
> --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 00:10:57 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > > Mukunda wrote > >> I was talking about him immediately stepping down > or > > cooperating with the > > inspections. I find it hard to have a conversation > > when the subject changes > > so abruptly. > > Then _stop changing it_ to confuse the issue. > > > I'm feeling rather frustrated to even hear that > > question. He could also have > > given up, of course. What's different, that his > > home is in the same country? > > So what? A tyrant is a tyrant whether it is a > > nation or an individual, > > whether it was born locally or invaded from abroad. > > Yeah, I'm sure Saddam really thought and said, on his > list of options, I think I'll just go home and garden > in Tikrit. > > > Yes, the leadership changed. Without war. That's > > the point! > > Nick,. do you know _anything at all_ about South > Africa? I mean, like how the governments were chosen? > I'll give you a hint - F.W. De Klerk was the > _elected_ President of South Africa. You think that > might have made a difference? > > > If he were just one man, surely. If the German > > people were behind him, as so > > many in India were? The difference is not in the > > nastiness of the despots, it > > is in the people who stood against them. There has > > never been a tyrant who > > could stand up to the united will of a people, if > > only because endless murder > > eventually destroys the empire itself. > > You just keep saying things like this, but, you know, > that doesn't make it less absurd. During the Indian > Mutiny, the British fired insurgents out of cannons > and there were celebratory cartoons in the British > press. After the Amritsar massacre, the officer who > commanded it was thanked by the Parliament and given > an enormous sum of money by subscription from the > public. And this was the _British_, not the Germans > or Belgians. Public support for violent methods isn't > really much of an issue in a lot of governments. I have a question for you. It appears to me that there were changes in British public support for violent methods between 1919 and 1949. If there were not, why not run over Ghandi? From what I understand from Neli, there were also changes over time in South Africa. Genocide on a massive scale was undertaken with public (white) approval early in the century. But, bounds on the repression began to appear by mid-century. And, in the end, the white government agreed to full democracy. In a sense, one could use India and South Africa as indications that, when confronting elected governments where public opionion matters, multi-decade passive resistance campaigns can be sucessful...especially if a reasonable out is given to those in power. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
