Would Gandhi have made a difference in Iraq? This guy says no

[GreenPartyVoter]

but I think he might have. (Note I was thinking of pre-invasion Iraq, not necessarily blown-all-to-heck Iraq.)

http://www.livejournal.com/community/christianhippie/133641.html?thread=1046281#t1047049

[carpetbagger]

1. I agree, but not with his blanket statement.

Gandhi's movement, as well as King's movement, was predicated upon eventually making the responsible party disgusted with their acts, or the acts done in their names. It works better with democratic goverments, places with free press, and the like.

Gandhi would have been shot. There were, in fact, good numbers of clerics who, over the years, attempted without violence to defy Hussein. They didn't succeed at all.

There are, however, places in the Muslim world where Gandhi's methods can work well. I think Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are probably the two places where nonviolent protest for change could work.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. So does that mean, then that violence was the only way to get rid of

Saddam?

[kevsand]

5. 'Fraid so.

But it should have come from within. And we should have supported it. That way we really would have been defenders of freedom, instead of imperialists.

[carpetbagger]

9. Yes.

Violence or Hussein's death. I'm not arguing that we should have done it ourselves, or that things would have gotten better if someone else did it.

However, Saddam Hussein would have ordered, and his guard would have carried out, orders to open fire on nonviolent protestors. And more to the point, they would have done it again and again.

[leesa]

3. Oh please. He was small and brown...we would have shot him on sight.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. No I meant before the invasion, but carpetbagger is probably right.

[durutti]

6. Gandhi didn't make a difference in India.

And I mean that in a few senses:

1. The onset of World War II was what provided the needed pressure to get the British to let go of India.

2. 1. Great Men do not make history. Social movements do. Glorifying Great Men is detrimental to current and future social movements.

3. Indians did, in fact, oppose British rule violently as well as nonviolently.

4. India has acheived only formal political independence. Economically, it is still in thrall to the imperialist countries.

[gratuitous]

7. Yeah, we all saw how badly his methods worked in South Africa

And the white minority folks in South Africa were more ruthless than anything Gandhi or King dealt with. Desmond Tutu's book "No Future Without Forgiveness" detailing his work on the Truth and Reconciliation Committee is downright horrifying. And yet nonviolent resistance ended the apartheid regime.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. All right, that's another good point in favor of nonviolence

[wli]

10. of course not; a few bombs is all it takes to kill crowds

Seriously folks, avoid showing up in large groups. Instead, use boycotts, buycotts, silently going on strike, etc.

Secret channels of communication should be erected just to carry out fully legal forms of political action. Rest assured the neofascists are perfectly willing to bring out the death squads to kill even those, because they already have. Pervasive surveillance and COINTELPRO affairs are a big problem and getting tremendously worse.