Third Party & Independents: Archives

Adam, I experienced this soul searching too. My solution was to make two contributions to the Kerry campaign while insisting that that I will vote for Nader. Now, my situation is that I live in Texas, so my vote for Nader has nothing to do with whether Kerry wins or not.

But, my two contributions Kerry’s campaign, (and one to Nader) I feel covers both bases. Kerry can use my money to seek votes in swing states, while I shore up non-duopoly votes on November 2. If enough folks vote off the duopoly party, 2008 will be a very different kind of race in which, neither the Dem’s nor Repub’s will be able to afford to take votes like mine for granted.

Adam,

You can also thank the good Lord that you live in a country where you have such choices. Much of the world would love to have the choices that we have. Much of the world would simply love ANY choice. Yknow, even that .01% of the Iraqi people who voted against Saddam (lol) liked having some semblance of a choice.

So, my advice to you is this: Vote with your conscience and your heart. Let your instincts guide you, but dont be fooled by the media, by outside influences (actors, celebrities, friends) or by slanderous accusations. Simply buck up and make your choice, pull the lever, and know that however poor the choice may seem, it is far better than having no choice at all.

>You can also thank the good Lord that you live
>in a country where you have such choices. Much
>of the world would love to have the choices
>that we have. Much of the world would simply
>love ANY choice

As a US citizen who has lived most of his life in Europe, but who is now back in the US, I am frequently surprised to hear Americans say things which indicate that they think that the majority of the world marvels at the level of democracy here.

That is simply not true. The majority of the world’s population does live in democracies, and many are far more functional than ours. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for being a democracy at all -i.e. comparing ourselves to places like North Korea and Algeria - we would do better to question why we aren’t as democratic as we ought to be. Most of the developed world has much higher levels of voter registration and voter turnout than the US, is perfectly able to count all the votes without rancour, doesn’t have a political system dependent on cast sums of money in the hands of lobbyists, and doesn’t advertise presidential candidates in the way they advertise soap powder.

I came back around the time of the 2000 election and was astounded to discover that Katherine Harris could be Florida’s chief election officer while also being chair of Bush’s Florida campaign.

Lets keep a sense of perspective - we should be comparing ourselves with the most democratic nations in the world - not the least.

“Yes. You will vote green party… Or Nader… Or independent,” he said as he waved his hand back and forth slowly in front of his monitor. “…mmmmhhhhhhhmmmmhhhhh….”

Did you feel that?

Fear is a much more important emotion that conscience when it comes to survival.

Conscience is a more imporant emotion when self-respect is the issue.

I say live and be little humble.

IvorWill, Exactly!

Adam Ducker,

The dems are in a tough place congressionally A; we would do more progressive if we were the power holders & B; there are a good number of Dems that side somewhat conservatively not just Zell “Mr. Insano” Miller but several others.

Help us get back the congress that’s what it takes! With atleast one house of congress we can block quite a bit and with both we can thwart the republicans almost entirely! And with the White House we can be more progressive without Clintonian republicanized leftism if we can just get the Dems out in force in November.

I like Nader’s ideas, especially on getting rid of corporate welfare which we need to do. Atleast cut it back by 50% or more. But nothing will come of it unless the Dems get the power back! We need to get the Dems back in power to move left again don’t you see that?!

If you want Nader, get the Dems in and it opens the threshold to Nader’s ideas to the general populace. If America sees that the Democratic proposals actually work, which they time testedly do, there will be more progressivism!

Progressivism is a pendulum that needs a push to get started.

Kerry and a Democratic house and senate bring Naders progressive ideas to the fore. HIS IDEAS aren’t going to the fore under this republican occupation are they?

See, unlike the republicans the Dems are responsively maleable to pressure. If they have the power again things will start the upswing out of conservatism and into Naders ballpark. Which is where they aren’t under republican occupation.

A democratic win is a Progressive win because it opens the door to the progressivism itself. If America sees progressive successes people will follow suit in bringing in more. That’s how it starts, not just busting into the saloon but LAYING THE GROUNDWORK for it to take place!

If you want Nader’s ideas get the Dems in there first then you can address and usher in Nader’s platform or the green platform itself.

But as it stands right now Greens DON’T HAVE A DOOR TO GO THROUGH YET, get it? The Dems are the door.

Without the Democrats in there the groundwork of progressivism can’t be layed. You need that road layed first.

Saloon busting works in movies the real world takes planning and structural thinking. You the greens do want into the conversation on the hill right? You want to be heard? Do you think that under a republican congress and Whitehouse they are going to listen to the greens or for that matter anything remotely progressive?

THEN GET THE DEMS IN THERE FIRST AND YOU COME IN ON tHE COAT-TAILS!

Hello?!! wakey-wakey! Saloon busting doesn’t work. Plan, think ahead.

If you want to have cities you’ve got to build roads! Get it?

Haha! I have to agree whole-heartedly with SB. :)

And Ivor is right. I’m in SE Asia, and all these countries (except China) have democratic governments. Most of the governments are even honest enough to hand over power when they get the boot.

Seriously though, America’s democracy is no longer the wonder of the world. Especially after 2000. We should be working harder to get more people engaged. Make sure all your friends are registered, have a basic knowledge of issues that concern them, and offer to drive them to the polls.

— I take no responsibility for your loss of friends through talking politics. :)

BTW, Adam. Which issue in particular keeps you from being a Democrat?

What I disagree with most is the War on Terror. Democrats support it just as much as the Republicans. Republicans have made it dirty not to. I believe the War on Terror is a joke and the only way to combat terror is to go on the defensive, protecting ourselves from the current waves of terrorists, but at the same time have realistic outreach programs which help these nations prevent poverty and tensions which lead to terrorism.

Our current offensive wars in my opinion only lead to more and more terrorists for years to come. I don’t believe terrorists are just out to get America but rather past actions by our government and allies has lead to hate towards us.

I believe rogue leaders capitalize on poverty stricken nations and fill their ranks with these people. Stop the leaders by not giving them people who will fly planes into towers. Look at Germany post WW I. Do you think a mass of people would jus t choose to follow a man like Hitler if they didn’t feel wronged, or oppressed? I don’t believe so.

I think the government pipes way too much money into the Defense budget at the expense of education and healthcare. I want a Democrat other than Kucinich to talk about this or to do something about it. How many uneducated people must we turn out in our education system before somebody does more than just talk about it though?

I need some time to think about supporting the Democrats like is suggested. I’m not sure if I believe yet that the Democratic party can be changed, but it’s something I need to think on for a bit.

There is good fear and bad fear. And there is good conscience and bad conscience.

I too have travelled the world, and while I don’t get so chauvinistic as to proclaim America to be objectively better than any other place in terms of “democracy”, it IS the place that suits my tastes the best. It is the best cultural “fit” for my personality. In that sense I identify heavily with America, and will admit to being quick to go on the defensive when snotty Europeans down it, even at times when their criticisms are valid. In the area of education especially, the criticisms are valid.

With that in mind, Democrats play a dangerous game when they cozy up to European elements which have a seething hatred for America which nearly exceeds that of the Arabs who have been murdering us lately. It forms a major factor of my visceral gut reaction to hate those who hate us, and when Democrats give even the perception that they hate America, it sorely tempts me not merely to vote “third” party, but possibly even Republican in a high priority effort to defeat them.

Adam,

the only way to combat terror is to go on the defensive, protecting ourselves from the current waves of terrorists, but at the same time have realistic outreach programs which help these nations prevent poverty and tensions which lead to terrorism.

You’ve revealed how precious little you understand about terrorism and even war in general. If you are continually on the defensive in war, you will lose. That is reality, and it will strike you in the face whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not.

And many of the terrorists are not poor in the slightest. Bin Laden himself is a very rich man. It is precisely the EXCESS of wealth in the Arab and Muslim world which gives rise to notions that they can go out on Jihad conquests and relive the adventures of Saladin, or Dragut, or Sinan Pasha, or Suleyman the Magnificent.

It is much easier to talk about the Sword of Jihad, when you can afford a sword.

The way to increasing peace in this post-cold-war world involves the exact opposite of what you state:

1) There should be very busy clandestine activity to proactively seek out and destroy terrorist elements. (The “clandestine” part is key, and for this reason I disagree with conventional wars like the one in Iraq.)

2) There should be full scale economic warfare waged on any of the financial backers of “Jihad”. Inflate their currency; sabotage their resources; and generally bleed them into powerlessness.

In addition to the above, establish madrassas that DON’T preach Jihad, but rather emphasize a peaceful, introspective, mystical aspect of Islam (such as Sufism). Provide economic incentives for those who enroll in and support those madrassas. If they want to be Sinbad let them be Sinbad, but let the monsters they fight be mythical or electronic in PS2 games.

And in addition to all of the above, jettison Israel. They are like the France of the middle east, doing nothing whatsoever in our favor. Without the “Zionist” linkage to America, it becomes more difficult for the Ulama to whip up the ignorant masses into a murderous frenzy against us.

Ciggy, you seem to be revealing how little you know about war or at least, how young you are. Remember Viet Nam? There was no lack of offensive power in Viet Nam save the use of nukes. We lost, my friend. In order to win an offensive war you must have a readily identifiable enemy, head director of that enemy, and superior forces in a designated and defined theater of operations. None of that exists in the fight against terrorism aimed at the U.S.

Though, I would counter Ducker and say that covert surgical strike offensive must be an integral part of a defensive campaign that is anchored in monitoring and protecting our borders.

Ciggy,

Bin Laden is exactly what I was talking about. You don’t see him flying planes into towers. You see the people he leads doing it. Cut off his funding, cut off his people resources, but don’t bomb nations and miss him so that the people devestated by the attacks can get in line and follow him some more. End the violent cycle before more attackers reach our nation.

When Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders no longer have people to control, are they going to get into the planes themselves? Of course they won’t.

The idea in America that violence is the answer confuses me. I may not have expertise in war but I tend to move towards a Gandhi type view when it comes to violence. This often gets me laughed at but that’s okay. The lessons that Gandhi taught should be explored more by our culture and not put on a shelf like they are foolish and wrong. From what I know of war, I disagree with it as a whole.

Adam, I think your heart is in the right place. But, whether fiction or not, when Gandhi was asked if non-violent methods could stop Hitler, Gandhi replied, perhaps not, but what does war beget but more war.

I used to believe in non-violence for nations and peoples, but, as I aged and took on the responsibilities of a family, I felt compelled to modify my position to allow defensive violence. Turning the other cheek is easier when one is amidst a supportive crowd all engaging in non-violent resistance. When one assumes the responsibility for children and keeping them safe, one is hard pressed to turn the other cheek when violence is headed their way.

Nonetheless, I absolutely believe that preemptory violence is simply a disguise for unbridled might makes right policy. War and killing should be a last resort and the circumstances justifying it should be apparent to any objective bystander. The very act of war, offers to the next generation an option for resolving their differences. How can the world ever become more peaceful if every generation is taught by example that war is patriotic, necessary and sanctioned by God being on both sides?

I am pleased to see Gandhi’s teachings are still alive and in circulation.

David,

There was no lack of offensive power in Viet Nam

Offensive weapons we had plenty of. Offensive TACTICS, however, were not the mainstay of the U.S. forces there. The majority of key targets were deemed off-limits because there was fear of Russia getting involved in the war. And because our troops on the ground had a difficult time navigating the jungles, and were at a disadvantage on terrain known better by the enemy, the modus operandi of the infantry unit was to sit in a firebase and wait for attack. Ironically, that’s pretty much what’s being done in Iraq (even down to the off-limits targets, like mosques), and people wonder why we’re losing there.

In order to win an offensive war you must have a readily identifiable enemy, head director of that enemy, and superior forces in a designated and defined theater of operations. None of that exists in the fight against terrorism aimed at the U.S.

The enemy identifies himself whenever he makes a speech in a mosque. The forces become superior when they are supported by AC-130U gunships. The theatre of operations becomes defined at times and places of the choosing of Special Operations forces. If they are not allowed to stay on the offensive and the attack, we doom ourselves to the entire non-Jihadist world becoming like Baghdad: scared toy soldiers waiting for car bombs.

Adam,

Cut off his funding, cut off his people resources, but don’t bomb nations and miss him so that the people devestated by the attacks can get in line and follow him some more.

Special Operations missions don’t result in the bombing of entire nations, regardless of what you’ve heard.

When key targets are identified as preaching hatred and espousing terrorist attack, they should become a little too dead to carry out such plans. Meanwhile alternatives to the terrorist lifestyle must be introduced, in the form of a less murderous approach to pious Islamic living. I think our only disagreement in that area is that you see a simple solution in shovelling a mountain of baksheesh to them, while I see the necessity of mimicking the way Wahabbi terrorists did their work to begin with: wrapping the economic aid in a thick crust of indoctrination before feeding it to the starving.

The idea in America that violence is the answer confuses me.

A European bedazzled with utopian pipe-dreams of lovey-dovey peaceful coexistence has not even come to terms with the typical soccer match in his capital city, let alone real situations elsewhere in the world.

I tend to move towards a Gandhi type view when it comes to violence.

The Gandhi approach only works when the enemy is civilized. In China if you stand in front of the tank, you get run over. In Iran if you peacefully protest their government you get arrested and tortured and pieces of your body are mailed to your relatives. In Wahabbi Islam, if you are not one of them, you get abducted and beheaded. It’s as simple as that, and it’s unfortunate that you still don’t understand how the world works.

David,

War and killing should be a last resort

The method of begging them to stop murdering us has not resulted in much success with the Wahabbi barbarians. Now the approach to try is to kill the killers.

From Sun Tzu:
Defend yourself when you cannot defeat the enemy, and attack the enemy when you can.

Warlord mentality - totally contradictory to democracy. Want feudalism Ciggy, try living in Yemen or the Sudan. They would find Sun Tzu laws of war far preferable to rule of law by civilians.

David,

Gandhi lives on indeed. I believe non-violent resistance is at the core of every culture just waiting to break free. It’s interesting you should mention family responsibility though. Gandhi wrote many letters on how to deal with family protection. He wanted to make it clear that it was more honorable to use violence to protect your loved ones than to be non-violent and allow atrocities to be committed against them. Violent actions are covered in that sense and are seen in a different light.

Ciggy,

Define civilized for us. The way the British acted in India was far from what I would call civilized. Non-violent resistance worked there because there was no other choice. As I stated before, there will come a time in the history of every civilization where non-violence becomes the only option. Like David quoted above, “what does war beget but more war.”

To reiterate my original point, if the Democrats gave me even a glimpse of hope that they would break free of the business of war and start acting like people who should be leading what is seen by many as the strongest nation on Earth, then yeah, I’d vote for them. What I’ve seen so far is a bit sad, and John Kerry is not helping. The war on terror is wrong. Corporate welfare is wrong. Things like NAFTA are wrong. The list goes on. I’m looking for a candidate who agrees with me on these issues and the Democrats are falling way short.

To the ABB crowd: This attitude is exactly why we end up with crappy, idiotic presidents. If we don’t start voting for REAL leaders (and Kerry certainly isn’t one) then we deserve the dolts we get and their terrible, short-term policies that are ripping the carpet out from under our feet.

If we don’t start voting for REAL leaders…

Name one, Daniel. Just taking pot-shots at Kerry and Bush isn’t helpful.

…protecting ourselves from the current waves of terrorists, but at the same time have realistic outreach programs which help these nations prevent poverty and tensions which lead to terrorism.

Adam, you should read John Kerry’s book, “A Call to Service”. The book is inexpensive, and it’s a quick read. Then you can decide for yourself.

David,

Warlord mentality - totally contradictory to democracy. Want feudalism Ciggy, try living in Yemen or the Sudan. They would find Sun Tzu laws of war far preferable to rule of law by civilians.

Sun Tzu wrote about how to win wars, not to advocate feudalism. If the U.S. is dragged into a defeatist approach to the people bent on murdering us all, then we are not long for the world, and Nick Berg’s fate is shared by all of us. You might want to watch your children die, but I’m going to work toward preventing that happening to mine.

Adam,

Gandhi wrote many letters on how to deal with family protection. He wanted to make it clear that it was more honorable to use violence to protect your loved ones than to be non-violent and allow atrocities to be committed against them. Violent actions are covered in that sense and are seen in a different light.

So Gandhi was a hypocrite. Now there’s a shocker.

Define civilized for us.

Capable of being shamed by atrocity at the hands of their troops. China isn’t. Russia isn’t. Al Qaeda isn’t. The U.S. is. If Al Qaeda were to switch to Gandhian peaceful protest, they would probably prevail against the U.S. But they’re taking a murderous approach, and forcing the U.S. into violent self-defense, which even Gandhi approved of when the squishy Eurotrash weren’t watching and taking notes.

Like David quoted above, “what does war beget but more war.”

It only begets more war if victory is less than total. How often since Hitler’s bunker suicide has Germany goose-stepped into Poland? Not many, you say? Well then it seems the victory against the Nazis was permanent, rendering your “war begets war” phrase transparently specious.

leading what is seen by many as the strongest nation on Earth

America is not really that strong. We are in debt up to our eyeballs and the best of our efforts at crafting a solid military have still let a few idiots pin eagles on their collars, as is evidenced in the way the Iraq war is being fought. We are not that WEAK, but we are not the omnipotent global power we’re painted to be in propaganda both for and against the U.S.

Now, with hints of aiming the weapons at Iran, I’ll be on the front line of protest against that if they try to make it happen, because we simply cannot AFFORD it. We’re overstretched in conventional forces and sending them out on foolish missions that aren’t appropriate for conventional forces to begin with. Send Johnny Reservist back home to his girlfriend and let him cry to his therapist for a while. What we have here is a job for real warriors, and for those real warriors to do that job without CNN documenting their every move as it happens.

What I’ve seen so far is a bit sad, and John Kerry is not helping.

I like Kerry’s ideas, but I can’t stomach the company he keeps. Wherever Michael Moore goes, I will not. And whatever mindless pot-addled rock bands ullulate as the proper election candidate, that is a sure sign to me of whom NOT to vote for. They jump on bandwagons without even caring where they’re headed. It’s seeming to me now that what we’re seeing here are a lot of election-year lies, and that when he’s in office, the mask will come off and he’ll walk a different walk than he’s talking today. A good deal of that will be to pander to his disgusting white trash base, the way Bush currently does with his (via stupid amendments proposed to ban gay marriage, as if that has anything to do with anything). (Yes, both mainstream parties have a disgusting white trash base—the ones on the right favor NASCAR and pro wrestling, and the ones on the left favor self-medication and government handouts.)

The war on terror is wrong.

You sorely tempt me to convert to Islam from time to time. At least they know who their enemy is.

Corporate welfare is wrong. Things like NAFTA are wrong.

I’ll agree with you there. And both mainstream parties will perpetuate both of those, hence I am a member of neither.

It seems (according to a new belief-o-matic test on the Internet) my domestic policy views are Green, while my foreign policy views are HAWK, so I suppose my new political identity is that of a Green Hawk, although even the hawkishness is qualified and oriented toward victory, not launching wars for the sake of launching wars.

Ciggy,

Protecting your children was not an open call for war when the “squishy Eurotrash” wasn’t watching. Gandhi was no hypocrite. A statement like that makes be think you haven’t even read a word he said. Check out “Gandhi on War and Peace” and tell me what you think.

It’s interesting where our thoughts cross paths though. The note about Kerry’s ideas being good but the company he keeps being bad is a sad thing surrounding many Democrats if you ask me.

I too will be protesting attacking Iran. Like you, the checks Bush has cut for these wars are more than I can stomach. The last thing we need is another one.

American Pundit,

I think I will try to pick the book up before November. Thanks for the suggestion.

Ciggy, WWII begat the Cold War !

Specious, I don’t think so. Gandhi was right. And the Cold war begat Viet Nam. And the Korean War begat the potential for war today with N. Korea. And the Israeli-Arab wars begat the Middle East conflicts of today… etc. etc. etc….

Adam,

Check out “Gandhi on War and Peace” and tell me what you think.

I think he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Maintain the moral high ground of “non-violence” when “non-violence” could prove effective, and then resort to violence when it won’t. And really, we are ALL that way to some degree. Negotiation and strategy are the primary ways of obtaining national objectives, and fighting is the unwanted option for when the negotiation and strategy break down.

Since we have so many here who revile Sun Tzu, I shall quote him some more:

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities.Attack cities only when there is no alternative…

David,

Ciggy, WWII begat the Cold War !

You are indulging in the post hoc ergo promptor hoc fallacy here. Given the nature of Soviet dictators, they would have jockeyed for world domination even if Germany hadn’t made them fight a “Great Patriotic War” first.

And the Cold war begat Viet Nam.

Vietnam was one of the skirmishes thereof. You can’t “beget” yourself. Not even in the cousin-marrying south.

And the Korean War begat the potential for war today with N. Korea.

The Korean War is not appropriately spoken of in the past tense, because that war didn’t really end. There was an armistice and a stalemate, but no peace treaty was ever signed. The present troubles there and the past ones, are all a part of the same conflict.

And the Israeli-Arab wars begat the Middle East conflicts of today

Unfinished business is ALWAYS unfinished business. But when you do finish it, it’s over and done. Hitler’s Thule Society’s pipe dreams were annihilated, and that was done. No more Nazis; no more flare-ups; no more annexations of the Sudetenland or rolling Panzers into Poland. Kaput, as they say.

It is for that reason that when you engage in war, TOTAL victory is the most humanitarian route because it prevents the flare-ups that you get with unfinished business. Now that we are engaged in a conflict with the radical, murderous form of Islam, there can be no peace unless or until it is absolutely annihilated, the way we did to Nazism.

David,
Gandhi was right about a lot of things. We was no hypocrite as Ciggy claims. It’s interesting to me how simple Gandhi’s ideas are and how well they worked against Britain. If only his examples were better accepted today. His statement that war begets more war works well with the idea that if an intruder like Britain was defeated through non-violent means then they would leave India as a friend and not an enemy. This goes well with the current conflicts in the Middle East.

Don’t anybody tell me these people are just evil or that their religion leads them to commit actions like they do. Religion is used by leaders like Bin Laden as tool to attract poverty ridden people to engage in terrorist activities. If non-violence were to be used to stop the conflict then these groups would no longer hold a grudge and continue fighting and there would be no more people hopeless enough to kill themselves for a cause.

Adam, I highly recommend you travel to Iraq and go visit with the followers of Zarqawi, and offer him non-violence and politely ask him to stop murdering people.

Nick Berg and Danny Pearle thought they could do something like that. Just sit down and talk and peacefully have tea, and everything will be alright.

I personally promise you they won’t hurt you. Cross my heart.

Ciggy,
Nick Berg was a businessman looking to make money in Iraq. Pearle was a news reporter. They were not in Iraq to have tea and be peaceful, and they are not an example of why non-violence will not work. It’s ridiculous to tell us that.

Yes, Nick Berg originally went to Iraq as a potential contractor, but he also had that entranced, breathless opinion that if only everyone could just sit down and talk about things, everyone could all get along. He wandered Iraq in search of insurgent groups to discuss things with, and did so carelessly. Iraqi police even took him into custody because he was wandering around without documentation of who he was. Well, the rebels found out who he was, and they showed him what they were made of.

And yes, Pearle was a news reporter who thought the terrorists were really just nice people, and that he could sit down with them and interview them as if they were Mumia Abu Jamal in a prison cell—get their “side of the story”. Well they told him their “side of the story” alright. It didn’t have a happy ending.

But I personally promise you that if you go to Iraq and meet with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his companions, and preach non-violence to them, they will treat you well. I urge you to go on this mission of peace for the benefit of the world.

Ciggy, perhaps you should read a biography of Gandhi to balance your view. Your argument that peaceful resistance in the face of Iraqi insurgents is prima facia rediculous reflects a lack of understanding of how and why peaceful resistance works. Because it can, and does in a number circumstances.

I have seen it work here in the civil rights movement. The Black Panthers had all of the systemic premises and organizational structures for peaceful resistance, and they grew and became potent on these. It was their guns in the Legislature that was their undoing. The mere threat of violence ended all of the years of good they had accomplished in their L.A. neighborhoods.

(I actually applied for a job a block down and across the street from their headquarters which were manned by rifled guards at the door, back in 1969 I think it was). It was a chilling sight and not conducive to a sympathetic view of their efforts.

David,

CIA Counterintelligence didn’t help matters for the Black Panthers either if you ask me. I know very little about the situation though so I can’t really make a strong argument there. As far as non-violence goes, there is a book called “A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict” that I think a lot of people need to pick up and read.

David,

Ciggy, perhaps you should read a biography of Gandhi to balance your view

I’ve seen a perfect balance of views coming from Gandhi himself: non-violence when the cameras are rolling, but if it gets down to the nitty gritty and you really do have to defend your family from attack, screw the non-violence schtick and FIGHT. And I’m not as critical of it as you probably think. It’s an effective methodology, WHEN the enemy is CIVILIZED. When the enemy is barbaric and backward, no amount of trying to shame the enemy into nicer treatment of you will ever result in anything except larger-capacity mass graves. You become as the Jews in Hitler’s Germany, simply piling into the freight trains with a nice chant of “We Shall Overcome” to serenade you to your final destination.

Your argument that peaceful resistance in the face of Iraqi insurgents is prima facia rediculous reflects a lack of understanding of how and why peaceful resistance works. Because it can, and does in a number circumstances.

In a pure physics perspective, there is already peaceful resistance to Zarqawi’s mass murder there: civilians peacefully go about their business shopping in Mosul or Fallujah, and as a car bomb goes off, the acceleration of gas and the car’s matter strikes them, the soft body tissues of the civilians peacefully resist that.

It’s been done many times now, and yet has failed to deter Mr. Zarqawi.

I have seen it work here in the civil rights movement. The Black Panthers had all of the systemic premises and organizational structures for peaceful resistance, and they grew and became potent on these. It was their guns in the Legislature that was their undoing. The mere threat of violence ended all of the years of good they had accomplished in their L.A. neighborhoods.

You are once again mixing up civilized with uncivilized—the evolved from the primate. In America people recoil at the thought of armed revolution because they are used to changing the government without bloodshed. This is not a typical way of life for people in a Wahabbi, Jihadist culture. For a political ideology that gives such great lip-service to taking cultural diversity into account, you seem to be absolutely void of cognizance of the fact that what would work in an American or European milieu simply WON’T in an JIHADIST one.

Adam, you haven’t left yet to go beg Zarqawi, in a non-violent way, to stop murdering people? So you never walk the way you talk?

Ciggy,
I preach non-violence, not idiocy. Don’t be a fool.

Adam, the problem is that you are not foolish enough to actually practice what you preach.

It’s difficult not to smirk when I see that non-practice in non-action, much as I understand the survival instinct non-driving it.

It’s not that I don’t practice what I preach. It’s just that I don’t go to Iraq to practice it. It’s not like we are non-violent in the United States, or even well educated in what that means. There is a lot to appreciate about this country but a lot of work to do. You can’t use the fact that I’m not in Iraq to attack my feelings of non-violence. Since we started this conversaton about Gandhi and non-violence you have done nothing but trash it with stupid arguments that don’t stand up. It’s just stupid.

Adam, your comments regarding idiocy and foolishness are stepping to the bounds of the intent of our guideline of critiquing the message, not the messenger. You are under no obligation to reply to comments that anger you or prompt criticism at other writers personally. Please observe the spirit as well as the letter of our guideline.

Thanks.

Ciggy, OK, you do seem to understand that Gandhi’s non-violence depends upon an enemy capable of empathy for other human beings. I think you may be underestimating that potential in the insurgents in Iraq and perhaps even in some al-Queda recruits. However, I concede that for some in those same groups, the potential for empathy for the plight of others likely is no longer there.

I do however, believe also, that if Iraq has any hope of avoiding civil war, non-violent resistance by the people backed by a proficient police under civil rule, is their only hope. Regretfully, that is absolutely not on the current Iraqi leaders agenda at all.

I did not vote the last time around but this time I will vote for Bush. Why? Because Bush is the first president to have the guts or courage to wage an all out war on butchering terrorists. Clinton did nothing for 8 long yrs about the terrorists.

In 1993 when the towers were first attacked, if Clinton had of went after Bin Laden maybe the towers would be standing today. He did nothing about the 95 car bombing that killed 5 Americans. He did nothing about the embassies in Africa when they were bombed. He did nohting in 2000 when the USS Cole was attacked and 17 US sailors were killed. The Democrats do nothing and the terrorists know who they can and cannot bully around. The terrorists are hoping Kerry will win because they know Bush will continue to hunt and destroy them.

Kerry has the same bloodline as Clinton, Carter, Charic, and most other democrats.

The democrats say America’s economy is in bad shape these past 4 yrs. I say it is in great shape since we are still recovering from 9/11 and we are at war in TWO countries.

The democrats and Kerry believe the United States should always have the approval of the United Nations. I thank God Bush did not allow Russia, France and Germany treat him like a puppet on a string.

We are also living in a time when many Americans want God taken out of this great nation of ours.
The democrats say Bush wears his Christianity on his sleeve. Well, isn’t that what a Christian is suppose to do? Let the world know he upholds God.

I think the upcoming election is the most important election of all times. I shudder to think what shape our country would be in had Gore won the election. We would have had 10/11’s, 11/11’s and so on.

It was the democrats that put us in the Vietnam war when Vietnam was no threat to our Nation. The terrorists are a threat and we must vote for the man who continue to hunt them down and destroy them.

If you want America to always be told what to do by the United Nations, then by all means vote for Kerry because he believes the UN should have their part in what we do about the terrorists.

Have a nice day and just think long and hard before you cast a vote.

p.s. I wish the American people would realize that Bush is the first president to ever be faced with such a task. He is trying to keep the fight off of American soil. Saddam was a bigger terrorists than Bin Laden..Saddam owned his own country. America should be thankful for Bush instead of Bashing him.

Adam,

You can’t use the fact that I’m not in Iraq to attack my feelings of non-violence. Since we started this conversaton about Gandhi and non-violence you have done nothing but trash it with stupid arguments that don’t stand up. It’s just stupid.

From a purely clinical and logical point of view, I was merely hoping to put your ideas to the test. You claim the idea of “non-violent resistance” works in all cases, in all times, in all ways, against all opponents. Well, such people as Moqtada al-Sadr and Musab al-Zarqawi are a part of the “all” universe, so let us put the idea to the test there, shall we?

…or shall we not?

Watchblog Manager, I hope that there is no perception that I felt any offense at all to Adam’s comments. I believe he considered my argument “stupid” in his quote above, not me personally. From what I understand of the rules, I don’t think he was in any violation of them.

David,

I think you may be underestimating that potential in the insurgents in Iraq and perhaps even in some al-Queda recruits.

The POTENTIAL to value human life is there, in truly devout Muslims at least as much as in any other group, but when Al Qaeda gets a hold of them, that potential is discarded. It’s a tale of “good Muslim, bad Muslim” as can be seen in the contrast of villagers working furiously to rescue some children trapped under the wreckage of a building car-bombed by insurgents, versus the inhumanity and depravity of the insurgents themselves who planted that car bomb.

Madrassas that encourage the good side of Islam should themselves be encouraged, and funded, and guarded, and those which are loudspeakers for a murderous world-view, and for whom Jihad takes the place of Allah Himself, should be destroyed. And the propaganda to support it is child’s play: they are perverting the true word of the Qu’ran.

I do however, believe also, that if Iraq has any hope of avoiding civil war, non-violent resistance by the people backed by a proficient police under civil rule, is their only hope. Regretfully, that is absolutely not on the current Iraqi leaders agenda at all.

Well, we don’t know that for sure. One thing that’s brewing is that there are anti-al-Qaeda groups forming that are sick of the car bombings of innocent people, and are planning to sort of play “terrorist on terrorist” a la the UDA versus the IRA. That can be a very bloody path down which to trod, and can be a huge problem for whatever government is in place. While I may not fully agree that “war only begets war, all the time”, I do say that “atrocity only begets atrocity, all the time”. To me, there’s a difference.

So yes, the element of Iraq who want their country to be democratic and respectful of the rights of all Iraqis, are in the difficult situation of having to show their objection to the current insurgency, while at the same time NOT becoming like the people to whom they object. A major part of that will be peaceful protest as you suggest, and another major part will be to form lawful groups that might support the police in some way, such as neighborhood watches and networks of voluntary informants to let the good guys know when the bad guys are on the move.

As for what’s on the agenda of Iraq’s current leaders, I don’t think any of us can be certain of what that is, although the talk they are talking is of a robust, muscular, yet independant government which will institute elections and turn power over to the elected government at the appointed time. My fingers are crossed for that, because when or if that happens, the argument for insidiously keeping conventional troops there becomes fully transparent as a vacuous decision. And if conventional troops leave, that removes one of the great selling points used by Al Qaeda to lure uninformed Arabs into their snake pit of disgusting ideas.

Venda,

The democrats say America’s economy is in bad shape these past 4 yrs. I say it is in great shape since we are still recovering from 9/11 and we are at war in TWO countries.

Well….. that’s complicated. For one thing, the Clinton “boom” was a paper boom and of false nature, and the “bust” was really more of a correction to a more accurate depiction of GDP at the time, although 9/11 accelerated the ability of many companies to claim excuses for why their books were cooked. The falseness of the boom wasn’t Clinton’s fault, but neither does he get credit for having “created a real boom” either. He was dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal responsibility by Newt Gingrich’s Congress, though, and for not having taken over as a dictator and disbanded said Congress, Clinton does indeed deserve credit.

But a Gingrich Congress would, if it were intellectually honest, be just as stalwart in dragging W toward fiscal responsibility as well. Deficit spending is a very good reason to be highly discriminating in how you launch wars, and while Afghanistan cleared the hurdle of urgency, Iraq did not. Instead of asking Bush to answer for his fiscal folly, Republicans today are simply playing “amen chorus”, and that impresses me almost as little as seeing Tom Daschle give Michael Moore a hug.

venda, Bush was doing nothing either prior to 9/11. If 9/11 had happened on Clinton’s watch, you would have seen war waged against the terrorists in Afghanistan as well.

David, Clinton did nothing for 8 long yrs.
The 93 attack on the towers and he did nothing.
The 95 car bomb and 5 dead Americans and he did nothng. The 2000 attack on the USS Cole and 17 sailors killed and the democrat did nothing.

Finally in 2001 they knocked them down.
Bush is the only president who has waged a war againist the butchering cowards who hide behind masks and hoods.

The American people better think twice before they vote against Bush.

Saddam was a greater terrorist than Bin Laden because he owned his own country. Saddam paid the families of the sucide bombers to kill the Israeli people. Does Israel mean nothing to the American people? Saddam was a terrorist and don’t think he did not jump for joy when he saw the towers fall.

He used wmd on the Kerds in northern Iraq and on the Iranians too.

Hey ciggy, you think America is not a strong Nation? They accomplished in 3 months what Russia tried to do in 10 long yrs.

They also removed Saddam from his evil power too in less than a month.

The mistake Bush made was not making sure they closed the borders so Iran, Jordan and the rest of the border countries. The bombing attacks keep coming because the borders were not closed and the rest of Saddam’s evil regime was able to get their hands on more weapons.

Iran fought 8 long yrs with Saddam and lost.
So yes, Amercia is strong.

The prime minister of Russia told putin he better start a draft. He told him he better pay attention to what the US had done in less than 2 yrs.

War is the only way that brings peace. A strong nation is a safe nation!

The people of afghanistan are glad to be free from the Taliban.

The Iraqi people and the new leaders are thankful to America and we need to stay in Iraq to keep the upper hand on terrorism. The headquarters of the terrorists are in the middleeast. Iraq will be more of true friend than France, Germany or Russia.

Venda,

Hey ciggy, you think America is not a strong Nation? They accomplished in 3 months what Russia tried to do in 10 long yrs.

Technology and tactics indeed played a part in that, but another big difference has been that we presumably don’t have the CIA supplying the Taliban remnants with surface-to-air missiles, guns and ammunition by the C-5-load, and so on.

A more accurate picture of what happens when Russians fight Islamic militants would be Chechniya. The gloves come off, and two years later the Al Qaeda wannabes are a little too dead to do much of anything else, so they settle right back down. And they managed to do that without pissing off France and Germany in the process, so they had some semblance of a diplomatic corps going at it as well.

Iran fought 8 long yrs with Saddam and lost. So yes, Amercia is strong.

Compared to Iran, yes. It’s amazing what a multi-trillion dollar credit limit can do for a country when it also acts as gun store to the world. But you see, physical power gives way to economic power; and economic power gives way to informational power (if you’ve read your Toffler).

War is the only way that brings peace. A strong nation is a safe nation!

Strong alone is not enough. A nation needs to be like a martial artist, in that the strength flows through lightning speed, and is guided by a practiced art, and where the mind is quiet and wise, and clever.

And the wiser and more clever a nation is, the more it’s able to find ways to achieve goals without war. Sun Tzu says:

Generally, in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this. To capture the enemy’s entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.

Back to Venda,

Iraq will be more of true friend than France, Germany or Russia.

We used to think that about France, my friend.

Ciggy,

My view of non-violence for places like Iraq hinges on the idea that the common people in these places are in fact civilized. (I do not agree with you that non-violence only works on those who are civilized though, but that’s a different argument.) I believe the focus should be on the leaders who chose violent means to achieve their goals. Most of these people I would wager will not strap on the bombs and head out into the crowded streets to murder more people themselves. Instead they capitalize on the hopelessness and the poverty-ridden populations of places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. I do not believe there is an inherent evil among these terrorists, but rather a sense of being wronged. Culture and religion becomes a tool to manipulate these masses of people and it works really well as we have seen for several decades.

The idea that these people are not evil but instead are just oppressed is essential to my thought process. Let’s face it. The United States’ involvement in the Middle East has never been as great as our leaders let on. It’s been a source for manipulation and profiteering for many years. I don’t believe we have ever been involved in Middle East affairs when it didn’t mean huge profits for the United States. Of course this angers the population there. Of course this gives them reason to hate us. Of course this gives the violent leaders fuel to stoke the fire with. These are the people who have seen children blown up in the streets, mothers shot dead trying to protect their children, whole families killed in bombings, and countless other tragedies. This is why these people hate enough to fly planes into towers and kill themselves and thousands of other people. You know what we do to fix it? We strike back and we bomb more innocent people. We kill thousands and thousands more men, women, and children. Somehow though, people in our country expect this to work?

It’s time we listened to Gandhi. War begets more war. Violence leads to more violence. That is the way it works and it’s time people wise up. How do we stop this cycle? We must stop killing more people. We must stop funding violent people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein who murder countless people under our watch and with our tax money. We must stop thinking of the Middle East as a resource center for our own private gains. We must give real humanitarian support to oppressed peoples. Invasion and bombing campaigns are not the answer. Let these people turn their eyes to a nation that can and will really help those in need, not to a nation that cares only for money and profits. It’s time for a new approach to foreign policy. Through non-violence, we can derail this destructive cycle.

To sum up, I will restate what these ideas hinge on. First that the leaders are the problem, not the people they lead. Second, that these people, poor and oppressed, disheartened and angry by the wrong doings of nations like the United States, are not inherently evil but instead commit violent acts under the guide by violent leaders. Third, if we restore hope and trust to these people and they will be useless as terrorists. Teach them that non-violence is the path to peace, not war. Give them back their lives and their freedom, not through violence and war but instead by understanding and charity. These are things Gandhi taught, and they still apply today.

I promise not to call anybody dumb though if they disagree. In my mind though I can see no other way to lasting peace except by putting away violent actions that have only created a temporary state of peace leaving a bubbling cauldron below the surface waiting to erupt in the distant future. Gandhi believed in it. I believe in it. It has worked before and it will work again.

My view of non-violence for places like Iraq hinges on the idea that the common people in these places are in fact civilized.

You and I both know that it would be simplicity itself to put that theory to the test: present yourself at the mercy of the common people who follow Musab al-Zarqawi and offer them non-violent resistance to his program of murdering innocent Iraqis with car bombs. If you fear too much for your life to experiment thus, perhaps you could find a person who suffers from terminal illness, and who might volunteer?

The idea that these people are not evil but instead are just oppressed is essential to my thought process.

What I think they are is seduced. They are under the spell of hatred woven by puppeteers, and have drunk from a fountain of negativity. The puppeteers and the maintainers of that fountain of negativity especially should be identified, located, and eliminated just like you would a disease. You can’t just form a picket line and protest a cancer spore. You must eliminate it before it eliminates you.

The United States’ involvement in the Middle East has never been as great as our leaders let on. It’s been a source for manipulation and profiteering for many years.

It’s entirely specious and dishonest to claim that the U.S. is the only nation in the world that implements a strategy in their own national interest. What sort of Kool-Aide have your German brain-washers poured into your beer bong, anyhow?

I don’t believe we have ever been involved in Middle East affairs when it didn’t mean huge profits for the United States.

Israel costs the U.S. enormous sums of money to support. There is no profit in that, and if anything I favor cutting them loose for it. They’re a liability to us, and always have been. But do you know what motivates U.S. support for Israel? When Pat Buchanan suggested dropping them as allies, he was thrashed in the media as “anti-semitic” and compared with the Nazis. Now we see this same media having switched sides, and failing to apologize to Mr. Buchanan for having been right all along. Zionism no longer has a grip on the American media, but that development is very recent. I wonder, will the media thrash themselves as “Nazis” now?

We kill thousands and thousands more men, women, and children. Somehow though, people in our country expect this to work?

If I were living in ancient times I would have said “their blood is on Bin Laden’s hands”. But here in modern times I would say it was a mistake to send weekend warriors to do a job better suited to SEALs and Green Berets, who are expert enough at their weapons to avoid the women and children casualties far better. You know: gun control.

It’s time we listened to Gandhi.

You yourself have admitted that he condoned violent action when defense of one’s family is at stake. Well guess what: it IS.

Invasion and bombing campaigns are not the answer.

I agree, actually—they’re not. Surgical strikes done on key figures who act as agitators of the terrorist attacks are preferable.

Through non-violence, we can derail this destructive cycle.

Show me. Go there and try it out and bring back the results you promise. If you succeed, I will follow suit. If you don’t succeed, I will understand that you were simply mistaken, and reading a little too much into what Mr. Gandhi wrote, or misapplying what he did into the wrong situations.

I can see no other way to lasting peace except by putting away violent actions that have only created a temporary state of peace leaving a bubbling cauldron below the surface waiting to erupt in the distant future.

It’s erupting today. What you suggest is that we stick bare hands into the boiling liquid and offer ourselves as human sacrifices so that the liquid will be shamed into ceasing to boil. I suggest that won’t work, but you are certainly welcome to prove your concept in a test case, where conditions are apples to apples with the terrorists.

My suggestion is to kill the flames that are heating the cauldron, namely, the ulama who preach Jihad. It won’t instantly cool the liquid, but it will halt the process whereby its heat is maintained.

Ciggy,

I think we are very close in our beliefs of why these things happen, but only our means to end it differ. I do not advocate covert strikes as you do, but I would take those over massive bombing campaigns that boost our president’s job approval rating. I believe the very actions we take to end terrorism, such as the War Against Terror, are the actions that create more terrorists and fill up the recruitment rosters. This is my whole dilemma, you see?

You keep telling me to go and try it, head on over there and work it out, as if Gandhi himself could have defeated Britain alone without the help of the people. It will take an effort on both sides to implement non-violent strategies to defeat this disease. It’s not simple at all, but it is essential. I also do not deny other countries involvement in the Middle East. I simply state that ours is not one lacking of blame for some of the anger towards other nations. I agree that Israel is an odd situation but I still believe it is one of advantage to the United States no matter how much money we spend there.

The statements about condoning violence deal with situations where there is immediate danger. In modern times I would consider it to be a situation such as when a burglar breaks into your home and in fear for the safety of your family you use violent means to disarm the intruder. Gandhi did not condone violence, but he merely stated that in certain situations honor would be lost in doing nothing. In certain situations honor must be considered before ahimsa. Gandhi speaking in the subject said, “My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.”
It is easy to stretch situations into this mold but most are not true. I do not believe our families are in the kind of immediate danger that allows for wars or even covert strikes. I don’t believe these things count.

I have a lot to learn about Gandhi, and I have a lot to learn about politics. I have a lot to learn about a lot of things in fact, as I’m sure is clear to most people reading my words. I will accept the idea that I might wake up one morning and believe the same as you, Ciggy, but right now I am not in that state of mind. I think you attack my message by making it sound overly simple when it is far from simple. It is not something I can do alone. Gandhi also made it clear that each situation was different. While the very heart of Ahimsa and Satyagraha stands true, what worked for India won’t work for everywhere. Furthermore, what good would it do to run off to Iraq to preach peace there when the United States misunderstands non-violence almost as much as anyone in the world? There is too much to be done here first. I only give opinion on Iraq. My actions take place in America. If that makes me sound like a hypocrite, so be it.

I’m keen to sum this up and save some time, as it gets increasingly late when I come around to these posts (busy as my job has me lately).

The Gandhi method is this: if you are up against a civilized opponent, no violence is necessary because you can non-violently resist in a way that gives him an uneasy choice to make: either commit atrocities and lose home support, OR do your will. The British chose to do Gandhi’s will.

The question is how Al Qaeda would react to such an approach. My theory is that Al Qaeda wouldn’t give a damn, because in their mindset any atrocity at all is permitted if it’s in the interest of Jihad. Jihad is a catch-all and forgive-all qualifier for atrocity in the Muslim world. It’s the escape clause in the human contract with his own conscience, in that part of the world. Beheadings? Well, if Jihad demands it, then it is to be done. Period. Murder 3,000 innocent civilians in a single directed attack against them? Allah’s will. Must be done. I posit that there is no Gandhi pious enough and no crowd large enough that could shame such monsters away from any genocidal act they could plausibly link to doing the will of their religion. This is why I somewhat sarcastically say “well go there and try it”. In shorthand it’s a challenge to state that it CANNOT be done that way. That which you fear would happen to you as an individual, would happen to fifty thousand just like you, as long as AlQ had enough ammunition and/or explosives to make you snuff it.

The statements about condoning violence deal with situations where there is immediate danger

Indeed. And there is.

I do not believe our families are in the kind of immediate danger that allows for wars or even covert strikes

I think that could change. What’s the tallest building in Germany? You still have family there, right?

I think you attack my message by making it sound overly simple when it is far from simple

I illustrate your message’s simplicity and how that simplicity doesn’t fit the complexity of what we’re faced with. A simple “non-violence” approach doesn’t work when you have an attacker who believes his God will reward him for murdering you and your children and your neighbors and anyone else who doesn’t submit to what they perceive to be the will of their God. That is a complication you are not yet willing to face. But it’s reality.

what worked for India won’t work for everywhere

And I’ve explained to you why that is.

what good would it do to run off to Iraq to preach peace there when the United States misunderstands non-violence almost as much as anyone in the world? There is too much to be done here first

In that case I think you simply want to weaken American resolve so that terrorist atrocities can more easily succeed. You are one-sided in your approach, and now you have revealed clearly who and what you are.

If that makes me sound like a hypocrite, so be it.

What clever hindi word did Gandhi cook up again, as an excuse for hypocrisy?