Subject:
|
Re: I'm just going to take a back seat.... Re: You Can Lead A Horse To Water....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 06:06:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
625 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for this cite, David, it's interesting and thought provoking reading.
>
> > http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0209&article=020910
>
> The problem I have with the approach advocated is that, just like every
> other approach, it isn't always the best choice.
>
> Let's assume for this post that it's our problem to solve Iraq (I don't
> think so, as you know). If so, what's the right approach? 12 years of
> sanctions failed, badly. All they got was time for the regime to tighten the
> security apparatus, time to rearm, and time for hundreds of thousands of
> citizens to die. (not very non violent, was it?)
Well of course many people think we shouldn't have placed the sanctions
on Iraq. Of course I'm not sure what they think we should have done to
convince Iraq to "play nice". Of course there is a point that perhaps we
weren't justified in intervening in Kuwait at all (1).
> If you want to make the case that a non violent populace resistive the best
> choice here, you've got a tough row to hoe, I think. One of the reasons I
> feel it is NOT is the rather shameful way the US and other allies behaved
> just after the cease fire... we left a lot of the groups that might well
> have been willing to revolt out to dry, badly. Google for "marsh arabs" if
> you want to read about it.
>
> Further, how much time are you willing to wait? In some cases, the non
> violent approach takes decades (the Soviet Union took 70+ years and a LOT of
> violence and the will of a president to win an arms race) or centuries...
I have also been thinking that the non-violent approach really isn't.
Fundamantally, I think it still banks on violence. It just depends on
someone else being willing to use violence to punish the target when
they don't respond to the non-violent protest with capitulation. I don't
think I'm explaining myself well, but I think this is the why of the 2nd
amendment.
(1) But don't try and claim that the fact that we supported Iraq wrongly
in the past means that we have lost the moral justification to take a
different path this time. If you use that argument, then NO ONE in the
world has any moral ground to stand on, because everyone is standing on
ground that was taken by force at some point in it's history (I'm
willing to concede that there may be a small number of people living in
remote areas that were never taken from other humans by force (of course
if you believe in evolution, they were taken by force from something)).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
