Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (39232)	8/21/2002 6:35:06 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi stockman scott; Re Sean Gonsalves column: "It's been said non-violent tactics are hopelessly naive because the adherents will be crushed by their enemies and many innocent people would die. If that were skeptics' true concern, why not apply the same logic to war? In the 20th century -- the bloodiest century in human history -- anywhere from 80 percent to 90 percent of all war casualties were non-combatants. Some will say non-violent action works with democracies but not against dictators. Well, they'll have a hard time explaining how in 1944 dictatorships in Nicaragua and Guatemala fell in a matter of days by way of Gandhian methods. So I still hope against hope that "regime change" in Iraq can be brought about through non-violent means." Where Gonsalves is using an inapt analogy is in the fact that Ghandian methods are expressed by the people of the country which the dictator is master, not by people from outside that community. If the US shows it won't support Saddam Hussein it doesn't mean shit. If, on the other hand, the people of Baghdad show that they won't support Saddam (and by implication, are not afraid of his forces) that's a whole different problem for him. All politics is local. -- Carl