It seemed to work out okay for Ghandi when his country was invaded and occupied, coincidentally by one of the same countries that is invading/occupying Iraq now. On the other hand, what good has come of the insurgency? The occupation continues. The process the occupiers were trying to put in place is moving forward. In the end, the insurgents are killing a lot of there countrymen and a far smaller number of the occupiers, and getting nothing else out of it. I guess for a pissed off guy the catharsis of killing some small portion of those he perceives to be his enemies is an end in itself, but that seems like a small man to me, and is certainly someone whose life is on the wrong path. I guess you are not big on non-violent resistence. Whatever. It seems to be one of the more effective tools available to the weak side of a conflict, but I guess it doesn't float everyone's boat. Like every American, I am represented by 2 senators (Boxer and Feinstein), I don't know from where you got 14. I am idealogically opposed to much of what they stand for, but writing them would be one avenue that I can and have taken when the spirit moves me. California blacks are represented by this same pair. Races are not represented in government in the US, states are. I don't know what you mean by my having a dominated media backing me up at every turn either. Both locally and nationally I don't really feel that the media serves me particularly well. I didn't really follow the Rita situation, so I will refrain from comment there, except to say that anyone who was issued a mandatory evacuation order should have evacuated by whatever means were at there disposal, including, but not limited to there own two feet. The French, as far as I am aware, are not facing a life threatevning natural disaster, but rather, a public upheaval. In this situation, I would say the best advice I could give would be to avoid areas where riots are taking place, if possible, and if not, to remain in your home and prepare to defend yourself/family if it becomes necessary.
Completely different circumstances. The British had ruled India since 1840. Gandhi came onto the scene to a people who had already been under occupation for decades. Furthermore, India was not invaded through a "shock and awe" direct military attack. She had already been colonized and deceited through the guise of trade. It was through duplicity that the British came to power. India did attempt an insurrection in 1857 but that failed. On the other hand with Iraq, we are talking about a sovereign nation coming under direct military attack. In essence, the very beginning of the conflict when violent resistance is always present - especially in comparison because Iraq was militarily attacked as opposed to the fall of the land of India. For your comparison to hold remotely true, we would have to be talking about atleast 20 years down the line after Iraq has been under occupation for the entire duration and THEN the insurgency beginning as opposed to a "peaceful demonstration." Doesn't quite work that way. Now you tell me. If another nation came tommorrow and attacked this nation under the cause of a higher morality would you have a "peaceful demonstration?" For some reason I don't think that would work.
While it is by no means an exact parallel, the very fact that India had a violent insurrection that failed before Ghandi succeeded is kind of the point. There was no way for India to beat the British Empire militarily. There is no way for the insurgency in Iraq to beat the US military. The best they can hope for on this course is a situation like Vietnam, where the United States decides that the costs outweigh any benefits and decide to pack it in. That method cost the Vietnamese 2 million people and Vietnam did not have the worlds second largest supply of oil. What will it cost them to make it too costly for us, keeping in mind that Vietnam was incredibly unpopular and had many many more American casualties? You do know I am not a Jewish woman, don't you?
Which group (A or B) are the Iraqi insurgents more like? A Tim McVeigh Eric Rudolph Ted Kozinski David Berkowitz Al Capone B Barak Obama Evan Bayh JD Hayworth Harold Ford Payton Manning
Uh oh....due to your inadequate Senate representation, you might just have to go the media route then...here's a few who might help.. Phil Bronstein Peter Goldmark Bruce Nussbaum Peter Chernin Martin Peretz David Reznik Peter Kalikow Peter Kann William Kristol Michael Ledeen Gerald Levin Ron Rosenthal David Gergen Wolf Blitzer Al Franken Bernard Goldberg Jeff Greenfield Roger Iger Alan Colmes Matt Drudge Mike Eisner Walter Isaacson Rick Kaplan Larry King Michael Kinsley Jonathan Klein Morley Safer Michael Savage Tony Kornheiser Ted Koppel Les Moonves Neil Shapiro Jerry Springer Carl Bernstein Aaron Brown Howard Fineman Thomas Friedman Frank Rich Steven Rosenfeld William Safire Mike Wallace Jimmy Kimmel Jon Stewart Maury Povich David Westin Mortimer Zuckerman Roger Simon Joel Stein Dennis Prager Geraldo Rivera Charlie Rose Joel Siegel Howard Stern
History takes a holiday. Which violent insurrection are you referring to? If you are referring to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, that revolution was largely beaten back with British Indian (mostly Sikh) troops. So yeah, it was the british Army, but it wasn't the Coldstream Guards or the Royal Fusiliers, it was with Indian mercs who did there fighting for them (along with Gurkhas from Nepal) 90 YEARS LATER, british military might, after 2 world wars and decades of decline, had ebbed a bit, and the Brits could no longer hold on to India had they wanted too, largely because their tactics were so-heavy handed that they could no longer recruit Indian (Sikh) mercenaries after the 1919 Jallian Wala Bagh massacres in Amritsar, the sikh holy city. (though they still had some Nepali Gurkhas brigades and still do). There was no viable way for a comparatively tiny british detachment and a few Gurkhas to maintain military occupation of India after WW2, which is why the British army fearfully guarded British interests during the withdrawal in 1947 and pretty much let everybody else kill each other unmolested in horrific fashion in the Punjab right after Independence.
I'm not a Jewish man either gimp, try again. That's not really the point though. I have adequate senate representation. I have two senators representing me. If I have a concern, I can voice it to one of my senators. If enough other people have the same concern, then she will take action, if not, then I will either have to take a different route, or live with the fact that my way is not the way that other people want to go and just try to adapt to the way things are. For example, I am against abortion. The majority of the people in California are not, so my senators are not going to do anything about my concern. I can then try the media (not likely to help here) or protest, or live with the fact that my state representatives are not going to be serving me here and go on with my life, even though an important issue to me is not resolved to my satisfaction.
Uhmm... New Yorker, please read my posts again. I never said that the rioting was an ok thing to do. I said that since we all know it is bad, I wanted to go beyond that, and look at some of the things that bred the climate where such riots happened. I didn't say that the Watts riots were justified, I said the only reason they didn't happen more is because people put forth measures and tried to get things done that eliminated the climate where those riots took place. So you are wrong in one thing. Looking at those conditions is the exact way to put a stop to those kinds of things. Looking at the conditions that bred a climate where those riots happened is exactly what Andrew Young, MLK, and others did. They also weren't successful because they spoke about peace. They were successful because they caused a confrontation, and remained peaceful while their oppressors used brutal inhumane tactics, and once that was on the news it was clear which side was in the right. Talking about larger issues in the face of these things has worked in the past, and is in fact the only thing that works over the long haul.
Maybe our coutnry could do the same to ingrates who advocate Tieneman Square authoritarian tactics. Anyone who does that clearly doesn't appreciate freedom, and liberty and should be deported. It doesn't really matter what country that person is in even, they should still be deported.
I hope not, considering I have an aunt named Orenstein No, going back to the previous page I was just trying to show Hydra that it's easy for him to say "write to congress or the media" when you are actually counted and represented. But it's not that easy for most minorities, here or in Europe. Case & point, following the 2000 Presidential Election, disenfranchised Black voters in Florida were dissed and ignored by their own party when they complained. You might have seen footage of this at the beginning of 'Fahrenheit 9/11." A few Black representatives lobbied on their part at the congressional meeting, but it wasn't nearly enough to get the issue even heard on the floor. One of the biggest gripes of the French rioters is the discrimination and racial profiling they are subject to by local police. And Wnes has already confirmed that they hold little to no representation in French government. So they are not really represented in a representative form of government. And their media probably never cared much or wrote much about them before they started torching cars. Not unlike the media here never having cared much or having written much about the inner city poverty of Blacks prior to Katrina. On the contrary, the images and realization that there were actually Americans living under such circumstances in the year 2005 turned out to be quite eye-opening to most around the country. I'm not sure if all the violence, vandalism, and mayhem is the right thing to do......but it's probably working better for them than just going to the police or writing to the government since the country is going to be forced to deal w/ some of their issues now.
This is similar logic to the idea of crime. That some commits a crime not because they are a criminal - but because of something that happened when they were 4 years old. Talking never does much. You can talk about how it's the fault of society that a bunch of poor people in New Orleans rioted - because our society shouldn't have poor people. But you know what - there's an education system in place. There is opportunites for jobs by your own argument they don't want so illegals take them. The opportunities for upliftment in this country are there. Society isn't responsible for people's impoverishment - to blame them for their rioting is ridiculous. The wider problem - the larger issue as you like to call it - will never go away with talk. It takes someone to stand up and say "Hey, stop blaming society and making excuses for your own plight - Stand up and grab your rights". MLK and other civil rights leaders succeeded because they encouraged people to do the right thing, not anything else. They didn't tell people to burn cars or riot. They didn't tell people to steal. They told people to respect themselves first. People who riot don't respect themselves. They blame their problems on others and thus excuse their own actions. They feel entitled to something "I have a right to set this fire, break this window, or whatever". And when you say it's the result of some larger problem to be examined, you're thinking just like they are. The only problem is their view of the world. You can't save them from that - society can't do that. But one of them can lead themselves to a way of thinking that will be more productive and empower them to have what they truly want. Society's job is to keep the peace and enforce the rules.
I never said that the people who do this aren't criminals. Read again. However when large amounts of people are angry it might be because they aren't being treated fairly to various degrees. The leading feeling among youths that turn to crime is one of hopelessness. So by providing hope you might be preventing crime for future youths. I did not say they are rioting as the result of anything. But there are things that create the environment where large amounts of disenfranchised citizens begin rioting. You are correct that MLK didn't tell people to burn cars and riot, nor am I suggesting that anyone in France burn cars in riot. But MLK addressed the problems one way, and the rioters in Watts addressed the problems in a different way. One was obviously better than the other. But that doesn't mean that anyone talking about the problems relevant to both MLK and the rioters was in anyway excusing riots. They were just talking about related problems. That is all I am doing. It doesn't make sense for you to try and argue that I am saying that these rioters have an excuse to do what they are doing, I am not.
Do you realize that you second statement directly contradicts your first? If you can say that the rioters in Watts were "addressing" a problem. I'm not arguing that you are - I'm pointing out how you are. I'm sorry you don't see it - but it's plain as daylight to me.
I will try and make this as plain as daylight too. Does the group in power go out and riot? During the civil rights marches did Beverly Hills erupt into a huge riot where things were burned down to the ground? If North African immigrants had a share in power, were accepted as being part of the nation they lived in and treated fairly by police and authority would they still riot? Is it your contention that these riots would have occurred no matter what conditions people live in or how they are treated? That is the first step to understanding what I am saying. Here is the second step, and I will try and make it as clear as I can. Because those conditions exist, it does not excuse rioting! I can't state it any more plainly than that. Here is the third step Some people make criminal judgements under certain situations. Those people are criminals but if you reduce the situations under which they commit those poor decisions and commit crimes, you will prevent crime. If your only solution is to go after the rioters, but don't do anything about the conditions and injustices that they face, you will eventually have more riots. If you go after the rioters AND address the conditions that inspired the riots you greatly increase the chances of preventing further riots. The American Civil rights situation is an example of where some people did the right thing and addressed the situations of injusticec. Consequently we didn't experience continual rioting along the lines of the Watts riots. Modern day Israel is an example of where all they do is go after the terrorists and don't sufficiently address the injustices Palestinians face. As a result they could get all the terrorists that have engaged in terrorism now, but there will only be more tomorrow. The more comprehensive a solution, the better the solution is.
The fundamental flaw in your case is that there is an underlying "reason" for the rioting. When a team whens a championship - often there is rioting. It's not because the people were oppressed - it's because left to their own devices and with a certain absence of police vis-a-vis a large number of people - bad people tend to do bad things. That's it. There is no other "underlying reason". People search for a reason because humans want to understand why such behavior exists - another flaw. Look, someone who is either young and stupid, or just doesn't have a lot to live for is probably more likely to riot. Why? because who cares if they get arrested. So if you answer is to give everyone a reason to not get arrested - well, you're asking for some kind of universal coaching or therapy for these people. You can't force someone to go to school or work...it's got to come from within. But I knew you'd tie this back to the Palestinians and all. I'll let you something - as much as the Israelis don't help the situation - there's little they can do to "uplift" the Palestinians. You see, the real oppressor of Palestinians hasn't been the Israelis - it's been the Palestinians own failed government. They are the ones who need to address the conditions there. And frankly, had that been their focus instead of bombing Israel and making excuses for the Palestinian people to live on - they might have made a viable state by now. Palestinians are the perfect example when you have leadership that is built on making excuses and playing the blame game instead of trying to make a difference. And yet you wish to play the blame game as well and fault the other side. There really is no prison imposed on these people...no injustice that's anything but perceived - it's an illusion - these people are caught in a prison that only exists in their own minds. I encourage you not to follow suit.
