--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Gautam > Mukunda wrote > 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???
Well, gee, Nick, there were other options. My point is that the world is complex and situations dependent on many different factors. I really don't think that's too hard a point to grasp. Gandhi's tactics worked against the British in the 20th century. Obviously I give credit to Mandela. But the countless crowds who went along with it? They could, you know, _have been shot_ by the armed forces. Somebody decided _not to do that_. > > 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. No. I'm saying that it was British decency that allowed it to be accomplished non-violently. You see, not all governments are the same. Some see peaceful protesters and think - we need to listen to what they have to say. And others see peaceful protesters and think - time to bring out the machine guns. If you're dealing with the first type (Britain) you'll get some useful results with peaceful protests. If you're dealing with the second, the results will be less welcoming. Tianamen Square might suggest something to you, for example, and the Communist Chinese government's grip on Chinese society in no way approaches that of Saddam. > > 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? Will you concede that your incredibly simplistic model of the world might not reflect reality instead? That Saddam Hussein <> Clement Attlee, for example, and that the tactics that work against one man might not work against the other? Also, in case you noticed, "our" leaders in Iraq right now were elected by the Iraqi people. That's kind of an inconvenient fact mixed in with your diatribes, isn't it? Is any leader who is the product of an election ours if it took American force to make that election possible? If so, does that make Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac ours as well, since _their_ elections were the product of American (and British, Canadian, Australian...) arms? I somehow don't think that Hitler would have left France if FDR had asked him really nicely to do so, come to think of it. > > 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. I've addressed this _extensively_ on list. Dan has even quoted me on several occasions. As far as I can tell, the only situation in which you think we should go to war is if we were directly attacked - which, I point out, excludes the First World War, the European Theatre of the Second World War, Korea, and Desert Storm, among many others. > 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? Nick, _when did the Indian mutiny happen_? Do you have any idea? I mean, really, you're just kidding at this point, right? First, the Indian mutiny was very much a war. Unfortunately, the Indians lost. The British didn't leave for _90 years_ after that. The reason we talk about Amritsar was because it was an _isolated event_. Read a little bit about how the Belgians acted in the Congo some time - and they were a democracy! Or, for that matter, how Hitler acted in Poland. Different governments act differently. It takes different tactics to defeat them. Stalin would not have given up power because of peaceful protesters inside Russia - he would have just had them shot without blinking an eye. Stalin <> F.W. De Klerk. > 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. Luckily for me, democracy, and the country as a whole, democracy is not defined as Nick Arnett getting what he wants. > > > 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. I'm sorry you substitute empty platitudes for thought, but we'll just both have to live with ourselves, won't we? > 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. Wow, this is taking moral equivalence to the level of performance art. Even in the academic world I don't see it done that well that often. It's so subtle, and so seemingly reasonable on the surface. Congratulations. "We can't give away what we don't have"? Do you think that maybe the American and Ba'athist governments might be a bit different? Maybe, even if we're not perfect, we can still improve the situation over there just a tiny bit anyways? > The empire I was talking about is the Pax Americana > stuff. Do you mean to > characterize Iraq under Saddam as an empire??? Well, the Kurds surely thought so. I was making the mistake of adopting your terms - definitely a mistake, since their meaning seems to change so quickly. And, again, you're changing the subject. > 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. I should have said - the basics of intellectually honest debate require it. Are you even interested in that, or is this an exercise in preening again? > 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. It sure doesn't seem like that. Pretending to be non-partisan is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Maybe you're not doing that. But how come you only critcize one side, and do so in pretty much exactly the ways of the most partisan people? That doesn't look very non-partisan. Lots of things are failures. We live in a fallen world. One of the things that means is that we have to choose between failures. > > 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 No, fantasy and pretending are wanting things _and not doing what is necessary to make it happen_. As always with you, Nick, you both disconnect your goals from any conceivable means of attaining them _and_ suggest that everyone who disagrees with you doesn't share goals of such vagueness that no decent person could disagree with them. An impressive twofer. The difference between us isn't that you want peace and I don't. It's that I have realistic ideas about how to get there and you don't. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
