supporting gandhi vs supporting bush

[dub]

according to a resident poster, it's the same thing.

your thoughts?

[bush_cheney2004]

At a practical level, these are just personal convictions and affirmations with little relevance. Parsing the difference to identify a superior or moral position with respect to the man or his policies is a sideshow left to historians. Leaders don't have the luxury of waiting to see how things will turn out.

[dub]

At a practical level, these are just personal convictions and affirmations with little relevance. Parsing the difference to identify a superior or moral position with respect to the man or his policies is a sideshow left to historians. Leaders don't have the luxury of waiting to see how things will turn out.

you support bush.... so i guess you support gandhi.

that's according to the resident poster.

[bush_cheney2004]

you support bush.... so i guess you support gandhi.

that's according to the resident poster.

It's not a new question.....I recall the same proposition with Ghandi vs. Patton over 10 years ago in a documentary that contrasted leadership and the cult of personality. Ghandi remains a favorite over someone like a train bombing Mandela, despite his more compelling story.

Lincoln is also "supported", despite the sordid attributes of his tenure. In the end, it's results that matter.

Edited July 23, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[dub]

It's not a new question.....I recall the same proposition with Ghandi vs. Patton over 10 years ago in a documentary that contrasted leadership and the cult of personality. Ghandi remains a favorite over someone like a train bombing Mandela, despite his more compelling story.

Lincoln is also "supported", despite the sordid attributes of his tenure. In the end, it's results that matter.

so what you're saying is that we can equate gandhi to hitler or bush to hitler because, in the end, they drove out the group that they wanted to and it's results that matter?

[KrustyKidd]

you support bush.... so i guess you support gandhi.

that's according to the resident poster.

Attention all those who can read and understand English.

I. being the resident poster referred to in Dub's mistaken thread would like to clarify my contention in the hopes that one of you who reads and understands the written English language may discover Dub's native language and re explain for him so that he too may join in on rational thougt in order to add to this issue.

Recently, Dub said something about Gandhi being a man of peace and should be looked up to as an example. I made note of the fact that in his leadership tenure, Gandhi actually and deliberately sent his followers into harms way knowing that they would be beaten, maimed or even killed. In this way, he was responsible for thousands of deaths. As well, his followers went on rampages and in one instance killed twenty police officers. After he achieved his goal of independence, more deaths occurred with millions being homeless and displaced, As I pointed out to Dub, as a man of intelligence and peace, he certainly was a catalyst for violence. I then even requested that he bone up on this issue a bit and understand why Gandhi was never given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gandhi had many critics in the international peace movement. The Nobel Committee adviser referred to these critics in maintaining that he was not consistently pacifist, that he should have known that some of his non-violent campaigns towards the British would degenerate into violence and terror. This was something that had happened during the first Non-Cooperation Campaign in 1920-1921, e.g. when a crowd in Chauri Chaura, the United Provinces, attacked a police station, killed many of the policemen and then set fire to the police station.

I in no way wished, or even alluded to Bush being like Gandhi nor Gandhi being like Bush. my contention was as follows;

1. If you believe that it is perfectly fine, and even admirable for Gandhi to be responsible for the deliberate maiming and killing of thousands if it achieved independence, then you must feel that the end justifies the means.

2. If you believe also that a world without Saddam Hussein in power is good and that the end justifies the means then you would have to agree with Bush's actions in Iraq.

So, if both ends justify the deaths of thousands fine, if not, what is the difference?

Note for Dub: As I have stated earlier, both on this thread and others, I am not comparing Bush with Gandhi but rather the rational of 'the end justifies the means' would be equally applicable to both.

Edited July 23, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[dub]

Attention all those who can read and understand English.

does this mean that you can't read or understand english?

because you just said:

I in no way wished, or even alluded to Bush being like Gandhi nor Gandhi being like Bush.

and the title says:

supporting gandhi vs supporting bush

what say you, krusty?

Edited July 23, 2009 by dub

[KrustyKidd]

and the title says:

supporting gandhi vs supporting bush

what say you, krusty?

I was responding to this post which referred to me and wished to clarify what I said;

Dub

you support bush.... so i guess you support gandhi.

that's according to the resident poster.

Nowhere did I say that if you support Gandhi you support Bush. I did say that if you support concepts such as the end justifies the means then, you more than likely supported Bush's invasion of Iraq as it, while also violent, did achieve a great many good things.

[dub]

I was responding to this post which referred to me and wished to clarify what I said;

Dub

Nowhere did I say that if you support Gandhi you support Bush. I did say that if you support concepts such as the end justifies the means then, you more than likely supported Bush's invasion of Iraq as it, while also violent, did achieve a great many good things.

oh? is that what you said?

okay. then it's perfectly understandable.

perfectly understandable if you're mentally slow.

[KrustyKidd]

oh? is that what you said?

okay. then it's perfectly understandable.

perfectly understandable if you're mentally slow.

So taking this step by step, you think that it was fine for Gandhi to send people out to get beat up for no reason whatsoever then?

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, non-violent civil disobedience is basically the same things dropping bombs on people to solve problems.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nowhere did I say that if you support Gandhi you support Bush. I did say that if you support concepts such as the end justifies the means then, you more than likely supported Bush's invasion of Iraq as it, while also violent, did achieve a great many good things.

You think the ends will justify the means in Iraq? It would have probably taken Saddam and his sons quite a while to kill 100,000+ of their citizens and blow up tons of infrastructure.

But then again, Bin Laden and Saddam were in constant contact so i guess you win.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[KrustyKidd]

Well, non-violent civil disobedience is basically the same things dropping bombs on people to solve problems.

It is hardly non violent civil disobedience when the violence that is sure to come is predictabel by those carrying out the disobedience. As for being the same, it is not however, to somebody that would consider non violent civil disobedience that is sure to become violent 'non violent' I suppose anything is possible.

You think the ends will justify the means in Iraq? It would have probably taken Saddam and his sons quite a while to kill 100,000+ of their citizens and blow up tons of infrastructure.

But then again, Bin Laden and Saddam were in constant contact so i guess you win.

Given that Saddam was responsible for ten thousand deaths per month on average throughout his tenure it would have taken ten months give or take a few for his next lethal move to kill more of his own people either by state sponsored terrorism in administration, another invasion, more sanctions or, just simply in adherence to UN resolutions as he did.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, non-violent civil disobedience is basically the same things dropping bombs on people to solve problems.

Then of course you would espouse such non-violence in lieu of military actions during WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, GWI, Kosovo, etc. ???

Furthermore, non-violence would not include aggressive actions like UN sanctions that punish and kill innocents.

Edited July 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

so what you're saying is that we can equate gandhi to hitler or bush to hitler because, in the end, they drove out the group that they wanted to and it's results that matter?

We can certainly entertain such a comparison on the merits of power, but this example automatically invokes Godwin's Law.

[KrustyKidd]

We can certainly entertain such a comparison on the merits of power, but this example automatically invokes Godwin's Law.

Really!

Gandhi was a guy who saw a way to get something done and sent people to do it despite the certainty they would be harmed. It was a pure propaganda ploy in that if the British did nothing, he would have been standing there with nothing himself with nothing to show the world so, he counted ono violence occuring. Just like Hamas does by sending over rockets ini order to garner a response and then, being ready to reconrd any and all percieved and real (hello Dub, note that I said real) war crimes. In effect, they co,mmit war crimes so they can record war crimes for morons to hate Jews even more.

So, was Gandhi was right to send people into a situation that he knew, at the time, when the British ruled India and insurrection and disobedience was against the law? It was a crime and a lot of people got hurt.

The end justifies thge means to some I suppose.

[M.Dancer]

okay. then it's perfectly understandable.

perfectly understandable if you're mentally slow.

That's why he explained so simply for you. He's very sympathetic to you.

[dub]

Well, non-violent civil disobedience is basically the same things dropping bombs on people to solve problems.

yes. basically the same.

[KrustyKidd]

yes. basically the same.

Not at all. Dropping bombs to kill your enemy is called warfare and, has been done in similar ways for tens of thousands of years. Sending your own civilians out to be beaten to a pulp and slaughtered in order to make a political statement is somewhat fucked up, yet very new comparably.

Edited July 25, 2009 by KrustyKidd

[dub]

Not at all. Dropping bombs to kill your enemy is called warfare and, has been done in similar ways for tens of thousands of years. Sending your own civilians out to be beaten to a pulp and slaughtered in order to make a political statement is somewhat fucked up, yet very new comparably.

i'm embarrassed for you.

[KrustyKidd]

i'm embarrassed for you.

Don't be. Everybody, even your pals understand that you are out of your depth here and have been unable to articulate a flaw in my contention and instead, attempting to misrepresent without substantiation of same. That you keep bringing it up without proof is rather entertaining.

And no, I in turn am not embarrassed for you as this is exactly where you belong - the zone of babbling irrelevancy.

[dub]

Don't be. Everybody, even your pals understand that you are out of your depth here and have been unable to articulate a flaw in my contention and instead, attempting to misrepresent without substantiation of same. That you keep bringing it up without proof is rather entertaining.

And no, I in turn am not embarrassed for you as this is exactly where you belong - the zone of babbling irrelevancy.

your flaw is that you equated my support for gandhi's approach to supporting bush's approach.

that's a big flaw.

[M.Dancer]

your flaw is that you equated my support for gandhi's approach to supporting bush's approach.

that's a big flaw.

Your flaw is you take a gandhian approach to a battle of wits.

You come unarmed.

[dub]

Your flaw is you take a gandhian approach to a battle of wits.

You come unarmed.

gandhi won.

[M.Dancer]

gandhi won.

And got shot by a co winner...