What do y'all think of unilateral nonviolence as a straight path to peace?

[rucky]

I ask because of all the "who started it first" stink going on regarding Israel...and pretty much see a similar cycle of violence starting up in Iraq.

It's the only thing I can think of that will break the cycle: Nonviolence on one side, until there is peace on both sides. There's a big "what if the other side doesn't stop" involved with that, of course, but I'd like to take a leap of faith by saying that the simple existance of such a policy will bring peace in a relatively short time.

To quote a fellow DU-er, "Peace takes courage."

[Skidmore]

1. The only time violence begets peace of any sort is when it becomes

on a scale so horrific that no justification can be made for its continuance. I'd embrace unilateral nonviolence wholeheartedly.

[whistle]

2. Neo-cons do not want peace, they want power and autonomy to use

...military force to maximize their power around the world

[rucky]

3. kick

[niyad]

4. THIS is one of the reasons we need the Department of Peace at once

[bryant69]

5. It would be hard

It woudl be hard to get people to go along with it, and it'd be hard on those who tried it until it was successful (or wasn't, depending).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AngryAmish]

6. I think nonviolence on one side will lead to peace

When a group is wiped out then there is peace. Ceasr imposed peace on Gaul, etc.

[rucky]

8. It worked for Gandhi n/t

[leftofthedial]

7. when the nonviolent obtain about a 25:1 majority

some of the more serious ass kickings will stop

It can win short-term objectives, but those objectives (and the passionate nonviolence that won them) are difficult to maintain over time.