SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (117370)10/22/2003 12:06:56 PM
From: aladin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Jacob,

Your passion on this issue is in conflict with some of your other passions.

If a population is guilty of their regimes actions, then obliterating civilians is ethical. This is so because a logical follow-on to your thesis is that there are no civilians. All members of a society are responsible for that societies actions.

Now this insistence on sovereignty flies in the face of the fact that starving, poorly educated people do not revolt. What the Russians forgot was that by feeding and educating their populations they initiated the eventual demise of their authoritarian model.

John



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (117370)10/23/2003 3:45:27 AM
From: frankw1900  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
In war, you win by breaking the discipline, command structure, and unit cohesion of your opponent's armed forces.

However you do it, you win by destroying the enemy's will to continue fighting.

Satyagraha does the same thing, but without killing the opponent or his followers. Successful Satyagraha takes as much discipline, and is as risky, as making war.

The form of combat you advocate has serious downsides you don't discuss.

It may not kill the adversary but can have great mortality for its practioners.

If you think it will work against the likes of Stalin, Saddam or Kim, you are whistling past the massed graves. These are police states in which no one is safe. I posted more of this before and for good reason. This is the reality under Saddam and Kim:

We have been happily born ? or perhaps have unhappily dragged our weary way ? down the long and crooked streets of our lives, past all kinds of walls and fences made of rotting wood, rammed earth, brick, concrete, iron railings. We have never given a thought to what lies behind them. We have never tried to penetrate them with our vision or our understanding. But there is where the Gulag country begins, right next to us, two yards away from us. In addition, we have failed to notice an enormous number of closely fitted, well-disguised doors and gates in these fences. All those gates were prepared for us, every last one! And all of a sudden the fateful gate swings open, and four white male hands, unaccustomed to physical labor but nonetheless strong and tenacious, grab us by the leg, arm, collar, cap, ear, and drag us in like a sack, and the gate behind us, the gate to our past life, is slammed shut once and for all?

At any talk of refusal the gates open and the talkative find therein exile, torture and death.

(Of course, a Saddam might dispense with the jail stuff and gas a few towns pour encourager les autres. He did do that you know. Dubya didn't make it up.)

Satygraha requires organization and communication, and security services repeatedly break that down and folk must start over again from the beginning.

Time waits for neither the enlightened nor the unenlightened. Events succeed at an ever increasing pace and by the time practioners of your style of combat finally can move, years even decades, may have passed. And all the while the archaic, criminal regimes exile, torture and kill millions.

But this is OK, I suppose, since the the surviving descendents of the tyrannized victims finally get to practice satyagraha and the archaic, murderous regimes creep into the night.

Rubbish.

There's no decent reason to curtail the lives of millions of folk because there's some possibility the creeps responsible for the misery might be killed.

This idea, that non-violent resistance only works against "humane" rulers, is a variation on the theme of calling pacifists cowards

Whether they're cowards is irrelevant. They're often mistaken, that's the problem.

When the ruler's self-confidence finally cracks, it happens precisely because he sees his orders no longer being obeyed, he realises he is not feared any longer.

The orders of the Soviet rulers were obeyed. They lost confidence because the orders carried out had no significant effect. At the end they were trying to run a dysfunctional system. They had no old blood on their hands and no heart to spill more more to support what even they saw as a rotten system.

See: Message 19422381