[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez Is that anger enough to push people into insurgency?

What I find fascinating about your snippet, rm, are all the qualifying statements.

Lots of cars... but no gas.

Lots of election posters... but no government.

Joy that Saddam is gone... but deep anger at us because we've "made them even worse off in so many ways than they were before."

Not to mention that the "old terror authority" of Saddam has been replaced by another, and in many ways, worse one. So it seems that whatever progress we seem to achieve, we're constantly taking two steps backwards for every step forward, and that strikes me as a glass half empty.

Quote by: Zeebadee The Gandhi/MLK/Aquino model will only work in places where there is a social conscience, or where outside political pressure can bring tangible consequences to ignoring that pressure. By demonizing our "enemies" bush is effectively assuaging our social conscience. Our enemies are so bad that ANYTHING we do to them is acceptable, even "collateral damage" is an acceptable cost, as long as we can put it into the context of "unfortunate, but necessary" actions.

I think this is an interesting discussion. When I said "benevolent democratic societies" I was refering specifically to the U.S. and Britain.

I'll start out by saying that, despite it's flaws, I am a passionate believer in the superiority of democracy. And I know what you're going to say, but I truly believe that, in the end, true democratic governments are eventually answerable to their people, which is why I believe that any given administration can only get away with just so much before they have to start answering to their constituents.

However, what you said bears a lot of truth. If the people in a foreign country we're dealing with act in such a way that they can be demonized -- vile, evil terrorists -- then Americans will go along with that characterization. But this is where the Gandhi model comes into play, particularly in the age of global media. If those people are seen as holding the moral high ground, the bascially benevolent American people will eventually gain their respect and pressure their elected leaders to act honorably.

For examples:

Gandhi -- the British Empire ruled India with an iron fist, as long as the Indians could be characterized as savage heathens. But when Gandhi took the moral high ground with patient, peaceful civil disobedience, eventually he gained the respect of the British people, who pressured the British government.

Gandhi could never have survived under Hitler, Stalin or Mao, where the will of their people was irrelevent.

King -- Likewise with Martin Luther King. In the Soviet Union, King would have disappeared into the Gulag, never to be seen again. But because America is, at it's core, answerable to the people and the rule of law, and because King took and held the moral high ground... the government eventually had to submit.

Aquino -- In the Phillipines, the people peacefully demanded that we take our bases and get the hell out. Our government had no choice but to get the hell out, because American public opinion sympathised with them.

My favorite example is Israel and the Palestinians, and for the life of me I'll never understand why the Palestinians today can't see this. The closest the Palestinians ever came to their own state was during the first Intifada, when the major resistance was comprised mostly of kids throwing rocks. When the Israeli government reacted brutally, world opinion and, more importantly, Israeli public opinion began to sympathise with the Intifada because of their willingness to endure repression without resorting to major violence. Alas, only to tragically end with Rabin's assassination.

With the second Intifada, with it's proliferation of suicide bombers, the Palestinian resistance could once again be portrayed as evil savages, and Israeli public opinion set against them. However, if the Palestinians were to simply abandon their bombs and guns, take the moral highground and peacefully hit the streets enmasse to protest their treatment, I'd bet they'd have their own state in a year, becaue at it's heart, Israel is a benevolent, democratic society.

.