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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.