Faustine wrote:

...

Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such.

Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day.

What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail.

And while

...

Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for

Of course they didn't. The bottom line is that their organizations were torn apart by operations conducted against them, I'm sure I don't need to give you a lecture about all that. Maybe the Panther party is making a comeback, but you can't deny they're a long way from where they were before the intel community went to work on them. Look what's happening to the radical environmentalists today, they're up for exactly the same kind of treatment. You declare open war on the state, and the state is going to declare open war on YOU as "a threat to public safety." the

...

rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi).

Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's a side issue when youre talking about what made his tactics a success.

Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it. Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the "Protestants" along with them.

Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and

Of course!! Proof that violence only works when it's more than symbolic. I should have been more clear about what I meant: if they really engaged in an all-out prolonged conflict (the way the original Irish Republican Army did)it would have been a totally different issue than a march here, a bomb there etc. The government never just "gives in" out of the goodness of its heart in recognition of superior "spirits" or something vague like that. And at the very least, you have to admit they aren't relying on bloc noirs, vinegar hankies and catapults. the

vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story. God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just "nonviolence" -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO protesters.

But he wasn't an anarchist. My point is if you're out to overthrow the state (as opposed to fighting for your rights within the system like the causes above) you better have more than turtle suits and golf balls.

What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their officers and NCOs in Nam.

I still think it's too complex to boil it down to a single element like that. Have you heard the newest batch of Nixon tapes? The Kissinger transcripts from the National Archives? Worth a listen.

What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it?

He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what

I can't believe you don't think he had an impact... they deserved. How can you even talk about civil rights (or rights at all) when you think something like that.

...

The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered, and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, there aremore than enough people who would come back with guns the next day and wipe them out.

Dream on. This isnt the 60's anymore...read about preparations for urban operations (keyword MOUT) and see what you're in for. It's a whole new ball game.

If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison, there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that very same day.

But it didn't. These days, people get a little pepper spray in the face and the next thing you know they're on TV gasping and whining about those nasty old cops. What the hell did they expect? Some revolution, when they think it's worth crying around about the terrible injustice of getting non- vegitarian baloney sandwiches in jail. Ten years from now, those weakminded fuckers are probably going to sell out just like their pothead stock- options smug yuppie parents did. Everybody pats themselves on the back about how great the 60s were, but things didn't fundamentally change all that much. If they were so successful, than why is the state more bloated, more repressive and more intrusive than ever? We got out of Vietnam, but turned right around and sent the same special ops people into Central America and a hundred other places we don't even know much about. And so it goes. Committing violence in the US isn't the answer, working within the system to change it from the inside is. What came out of the Church Committee in terms of congressional oversight, the creation of the Freedom of Information Act, writing PGP and developing other privacy enhancing technologies--they all made a difference. Wouldn't you rather look back and know you spent your time on something real?

Geez, just look at the what those Pakistani kids are doing to the cops in England. And they have no access to guns.

Not only is there a big difference between the US and the UK, there's a difference between local and federal approaches to handling conflict. And given the huge push toward federalizing law enforcement, there's nothing at all to rest easy about. ~Faustine.