No of course not, but you’re working with aposteriori knowledge of the event. Such a comparison doesn’t hold here. Gandhi’s advice is there as is, as nothing more than advice, you are talking about nuaces within the human brain, and entering into phsyiology. But even in such cases, intent is identified and used when passing judgement. Intent cannot be written off completely, especially in the case of someone like Gandhi – unless you claim his advice was morbid and deplorable to the Indians as well

At no point did he state the British were uniquely susceptible to non-violent tactics, that their history as a civilization would permit them to “see the light” through such a human display of suffering. This is a western grafting and exrapolation, to rationalize their own violent tactics.

What I don’t understand is how Gandhi and King’s advice is applauded when given to their own people, yet is discarded as “impractical” and “ludicrous” when it’s suggested for others. That, is complete hypocrasy. If you plan to engage in debate, stick to the topic rather than bring in erroneous comparisons.

If I had been the one to write that phrase, I would have meant that the British believed themselves to be moral, and therefore could be shamed by the exposure of the immorality of their policies (and of the immorality in the behavior required to enforce those policies).

Vinod, Great Post!

Privately contracted troops – never reported in action, in casualties, in death.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/93.html

The Iraqis, obviously.

oh yes. thanks no von, i meant tenet. i guess i was feeling nostalgic for a real freedom fighter. RIP.

You wish Casey were at Langley don’t you? That son of a bitch is as dead as dead can be. Good riddance.

this is a 1/2 truth. the house vote reveals where the political reality is. troops cannot stay there too much longer, unless the iraqi people request them, as they may if conditions improve. either way, they’re gone in a few years at most. so that’s part of the connundrum of using passive resistence against a occupier that doesn’t want to occupy for long.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi nationalists (as they have yet to declare themselves) just tried twice in one day to assassinate the deputy PM of their puppet Govt, who was after all put in place through Occupation-monitored elections.

these nationalists are killing iraqis mostly. and it can be seen as a civil war as much as a fight against the occupier. as far as a puppet govt goes, its not that simple. the puppet just sighed an oil agreement with syria, among other signs of independence. either way, they represent the iraqi people better that the terrorist/ insurgents. sometimes the puppet pulls the strings.

Passive resistance would have worked, e.g., for those elections, if all or even most Iraqis refused to vote, but IIRC, they conducted their elections under threat of continued assault.

i don’t think the iraqi people wanted to resist the elections, and there is no evidence that they felt coerced into voting. the terrorists tryed to coerce them out of voting. but they did it anyway. you have to be inhuman not to be touched by the bravery.

The Bush Admin does not want actual self determination for Iraqis, just the appearance of self determination.

its hard to debate politics based on motive. but if we must, inside accounts help. bob woodwords book makes clear wolfowitz wanted self determination. rummy wanted to get out quickly. and casey thought wmds was a “slam dunk”.

The Bush Admin is still driven by elements from an older generation who think the Japanese Parliament is just wonderful, well adopted and adapted — for being so quick to pass legislation to support the Iraq war.

i think the iraqis would take a japanese solution. a healthy powerful rich independent state that used to be occupied by the usa. this is the connundrum i’m talking about. who want to resist an occupier who want this for you?

In any case, it was all for oil and Halliburton– you hardly need Iraqi cooperation for that. Leaving means losing control of the oil and probably construction contracts.

actually iraqi oil production has been stuck b/c of the security situation. much of it vulnerable to sabatoge. this partially acounts for high oil prices and why iraq has been unable to fund its own reconstruction.

so the connundrum facing the iraqis is that their occupier wants them to have freedom and wealth more than their resistence movements.