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: jttmab who wrote (166579)	7/20/2005 10:48:21 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Several good points jttmab. "The point is: Which happens more often? In the overwhelming number of cases, where there is substantial and long term conflict the ones that rise to power are nearly as bad as the ones that are overthrown. Freedom is living without coercion from religious authority, political authority, or social authority … all of which are corrupt. They may appear to be in contention but in reality are thoughtlessly striving to be one another. The noble cause is found in the struggle not in the destination.

To: jttmab who wrote (166579)	7/20/2005 10:57:53 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Ghandi is a great example. To the best of my knowledge Ghandi was never armed by foreign countries to overthrow Britain. An exceptional case. And his timing was great. 1947. Britain was recovering from WWII, paying it's debts to the US and contributing to the Marshall Plan. They couldn't afford to fight in India." They could have fought a military war with India and easily won. They were already in India and had Indians under their Military rule. Ghandi's approach was exceptional for another reason. Ghandi was a man of conscience and he was lucid. He had lived in and been educated within the British culture. He understood the hearts, minds, and conscience of the British people. There was no way that the British people could consciously support their military marching across passive British subjects while beating them to death with clubs. The circumstance was highly publicized in Great Britian, which brought the whole matter to a close. If it had been the Russians who were ruling India at the time, Ghandi would have needed a completely different strategy than civil disobediance paired with passive resistance. Ghandi was very cognisant of the consciousness of the British and was successful for that reason.

To: jttmab who wrote (166579)	7/20/2005 11:03:30 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"In Iraq, there's an entire generation that has known nothing but oppression and corruption. That is "normal" for Iraq. It's going to be decades before Iraq becomes a true democracy. That's long enough to suggest that you won't know whether the war in Iraq hastened the transition or delayed it." I agree with you that it could take three generations to finally inculturate democracy. Intellectually the people of Iraq seem to understand democracy and that it is in thier best interests to establish it as a government system. Their cultural behavior will not match what they say they want to do. There are also some strange irrational reactions to the changes. I heard an anectode about an Iraqi woman driving down the wrong side of the road screaming, "look at me, I live in a democracy now so I can do what ever I want."

To: jttmab who wrote (166579)	7/20/2005 7:56:32 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Gandhi moved from South Africa to India in late 1910s to participate in the Indian Freedom movement. And India got its independence in 1947. So his timing was not that great! >Ghandi is a great example. To the best of my knowledge Ghandi was never armed by foreign countries to overthrow Britain. An exceptional case. And his timing was great. 1947. Britain was recovering from WWII, paying it's debts to the US and contributing to the Marshall Plan. They couldn't afford to fight in India.>