On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > 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?
And how did that come to pass? Because the white minority *led* the nation to end apartheid? Or was it the leadership of Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and the countless crowds who refused to go along with it any longer? Are you giving credit for the end to apartheid to the white minority just for going along with it??? Are you saying that the British are responsible for an independent India and Pakistan? That shortchanges Gandhi rather dramatically and is contrary to what most of the world saw there, including me. Must the credit for peaceful change rest in those in positions of power? Will you concede that ordinary people can and do bring about change? Or that supporting their efforts, rather than replacing their leaders with ours, a more lasting peace can result? Look how Iraq came to exist -- how much peace has western intervention in the Mideast brought so far? At what point do we stop putting our faith in humanity's ability to bring about peaceful change and launch an attack? I'm having trouble figuring out in what situations you *don't* think war is the answer, although I am certain that you must not think it always is. > 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. You're arguing my point! *Despite* British atrocities, India won its independence without a war. Why did the British decide to pull out? Was it their good-hearted nature? Was it because of fear of violence? Or did it have nothing to do with anything they did? Did they not resist until they recognized that resistance was futile? > It is a fact that George Bush was peacefully elected a > few months ago, but that doesn't make the situation > comparable to Iraq. It seems to me that one could certainly look at the language of Pax Americana and so forth and believe that we have had a peaceful overthrow of our democracy. But democracy has been described as institutionalized revolution, so the meaning is blurry, at best. > I don't know. In Cambodia Pol Pot killed two million > people. This doesn't _look_ much like Iraq. > > As long as anybody in the world is insecure, so are > > we, which is why a peace > > based on fear is always an illusion. > > What a wonderfully empty statement. I'm sorry you don't understand. > Actually, I'm under the impression that you suggest we > sit around and talk about how much better we are than > the people who are doing something, because we want a > "more intelligent dialogue" while they, the nasty evil > people, are making decisions and getting things done. Ah, well, there's the ad hominem. > Yes, we _definitely_ had the ability to address > poverty and injustice in an Iraq ruled by Saddam. > Really, what the hell are you talking about? Poverty > and injustice are the product of a lot of things, and > one of the most important of those things is bad > government. To fix them, you have to _change_ the bad > government. I did my best, in this last election. But the choices weren't very good, so I'm hoping for a real third option to emerge, so that we can have a government that is committed to the American values of equality and justice, concern for the poorest. And yeah, I know you were talking about some other government, but we can't give away what we don't have. Peace and justice start here, right here in my heart, where the battle for good and evil rages. > If you think it's important to change a > government quickly, and not wait 150 years (because > all empires fall The empire I was talking about is the Pax Americana stuff. Do you mean to characterize Iraq under Saddam as an empire??? > exceptional circumstances. Under your standard, as > Dan pointed out, we could not have intervened in > Rwanda, for example. Stop twisting in the wind and > admit that. Admit it? What, am I in the principal's office after getting caught at something? I don't need your permission slip to know my values and opinions. > Basic intellectual honesty requires you > to admit that there are costs and benefits for both > sides. Just pretending otherwise is the essence of > disrespect. While it is true that you can see things about me that I cannot, isn't it just a bit... what's that word you always use? ... arrogant to say that you know that I'm "pretending"? Of course there are costs and benefits to various approaches. I'm not suggesting that there aren't. War is failure. Ignoring genocide is failure. Poverty and injustice are failures. The problem is not that these things exist, it is that they are getting worse instead of better, which means the old ways are not working. The fact that I don't have all the answers doesn't mean that new strategies are not needed. It is time to move beyond partisan politics, which is what I'm doing my best to accomplish. I don't imagine that there will be no more of these things, but I do believe we are called to have a vision of a world at peace and to do our best to try to get there. If that is fantasy and pretending, I'll take it. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
