So much for my comments earlier that Huckabee sometimes manages to come off sounding saner than his fellow Republicans. Huckabee, along with Brownback and Tancredo, flunked the sucker question. These three were the only ones to answer that they don’t believe in evolution at the Republican debate. The question of a flat versus round earth did not come up.
It is pretty pathetic when even three candidates do not believe in one of the fundamental principles of modern biology, but for a party which frequently expresses a world view which is counter to reality, this was better than expected. (Hat tip to Crooks and Liars for the screen capture.)
It was a similar non-violent movement that ended apartheid in South Africa.
If the Iraq people would march peacefully into the green-zone and picket, march and protest US presence there in a non-violent manner then the Iraq debacle is over…
The same is true for Palestine. Israel knows if the Palestines stop protesting violently and with the press demonstrate peacefully, the Israel desires are done. Same with Lebanon…
The only way repressive regimes can exist is by violence and forcing violent responses.
Now back to Hillary…
Does anyone realy know where she stands on anything. She flip flops back and forth on any issue – especially the war – depending on her audience of the day and what her large group of advisors decide is the necessary message.
She doesn’t exist anymore. She is the cumulative total of constant advice because like her husband, she doesn’t have the strength of character to trust her own positions.
It has nothing to do with her sex; it has everything to do with here lack of character strength.
Wanna know who the best person and politician is?
Governor Janet Napallatono of Arizona. She has more strength of character and integrity then all those running for President combined.
Battlebob,
Substituting peaceful demonstrations for violence by one party is difficult when ohters are engaged in violence, but the present course certainly isn’t effective for anyone.
Michelle obviosuly has absolutely no idea what we are talking about. Separation of church and state is a basic principle upon which this country was founded, and has been respected by most politifcal leaders beyond the extremists in control fo the GOP, yet she tries to twist it to mean something totally different from what it means. She has in her mind the idea that we oppose any expression of religion and that anyone, such as Martin Luther King, who cites religion must be opposed to our beliefs.
Maybe the problem with Hillary is that, instead of gaining support for the views her political handers advise, she just alienates more people. When she has positions people agree with, it is still hard for many to support her because she doesn’t show any strong adherence to basic principles. However, if in her attempts to please everyone, she takes a position someone disagrees with, they will still oppose her for the stand.
Ron,
There are two factors needed for non-violent protest…
1 – People willing to do it.
2 – A press willing to report the outcome.
Dr. King didn’t operate in a vacuum. After the beatings and dogs in Alabama were publisized, the press showed up and his movement took off. By the weight of the sheer number of people involved and the honor and integrity of the mission was it sucessful.
The same with apartheid in Africa. There was a lot of coverage in Europe and the rulers finially saw the economic and political advantages for ending it.
They still have a long way to go.
The problem with Palestine, Israel is able to pull public opinion at least away from the Palestinians whenever a suicide bomber strikes.
The non-violent idea is not solely mine. Wallis has a chapter devoted to non-violent response in God’s Politics.
There are many factors which made nonviolent protest more successful here than in some of the other countries you mentioned. On the other extreme, nonviolent protests would have been futile in the Soviet Union during most of its history, or under Nazi Germany.
It will be quite difficult to get nonviolent protest to replace violence in the middle east for a variety of reasons but, as I noted above, their present tactics are certainly not working for them.
Another problem is the goals. Goals such as those pushed by Martin Luther King, or an end to apartheid in South Africa, work well with nonviolent protest. In much of the middle east we have a combination of true protest over injustices along with groups whose motivations might not be so pure and use violence for increasing their own power.
Ron,
One of the necessities to change is a free press – which was absent in Germany and Russia.
The only way nonviolence works is if the desired outcome cannot be met using violent means.
For instance, when blacks were burning their cities, they were seen as violent criminals and most of us said they were wrong. With a press that captured the actions, violence was the wrong weapon for social change.
In Germany and Russia, with no press, the state was able to show that Jews(Germany) and the Czarists(Russia) were the cause of their problems. The first thing Goebells did was take over the communication outlets.
Part of the problem in Iraq is there are actually two battles: US vs. everyone and Shiate vs Sunni.
Suppose the Sunni march on the green zone. The Shiate may see a chance to attack the Sunni and cause more anger against the US. The main job of an occupier is to keep the occupied save. If Shiate attacks the Sunni and vice versa this shows the US cannot provide security.
If the Sunni and Shiate could stop killing each other long enough to execute non-violent demonstrations against the US then the Iraq war debacle is over.
Iraq would be an entirely different situation if it was simply a case of Iraqis wanting to get the US out. The civil war there has made it more complicated for both the US as well as for most Iraqis. This is something which was predicted before the war but ignored by those who pushed for this war.
Ron,
You are correct. The Iraq people have to eventually come to the conclusion that killing each other is wrong.
But they did have one instance of cooperation; it was against the building of fences. It is at least a start.
Article after article written by Iraqis states that we should leave ASAP and let the locals sort it out. With us gone, it may not be the firestorm we think it is.
We are the catalyst for violence.
The reality is we can’t do anything about it anyway so we may as well leave.
Battlebob,
We’ve yet to see any evidence that staying longer will ultimately reduce the risk of a firestorm, while there’s already plenty of evidence that our presence inflames the situation. It may be a firestorm, but if we stay we’ll probably have an even worse firestorm down the road. Plus we’d still have all the needless American deaths until then.
I have this insanely hopeful dream that the Iraq factions hate us more then they hate each other. With us gone, peace has a chance to prevail.
Also, the Iraqis dislike al Queada as much as we do as they cause problems with all factions. If we are gone, al Queda will be eliminated in Iraq.
u guys voted in the dems to get us out of iraq and look what they do.Tell u want u want to here but acting on the true feelings of this nation.if they did hold back those funds the american people would be looking 4 blood. so today i aplaud the dems 4 making it seem like they are gonna end the war,but realy funding it full steam ahead.as they should. they voted 4 it.better give it a real chance.how many democrocies were up and running in 4 years starting from scratch.none.how many years on planet earth has there not been war.none.we are not the cause of all the wrong on planet earth bush said this would be a long (let me repeat that) long hard fight.
Actually the backers of the war claimed we would be greated with flowers by the Iraqis and we’d be in and out quickly.