Non-Violent Response Urged to Oppose U.S. Aggression
People the world over must find non-violent ways to oppose American military force lest they suffer the fate of the Iraqis---hundreds of thousands dead and a nation in ruins.
Given the growing menace of the American war machine, non-violent soul force should be considered as a response in international conflicts just as it was used nationally by Mahatma Gandhi in India and by the Reverend Martin Luther King in America.
During the Sixties, the Urban League's Whitney Young Jr. said of American blacks, "We can't win a shooting war." He was right. He and other black civil rights leaders supported Dr. King's approach. The success of their non-violent movement made America a better nation in which to live.
Today, in response to U.S. arrogance and aggression, non-violent "soul force" must be seriously considered, particularly by small nations of the sort the U.S. has a history of overthrowing or attacking. It will require courage and restraint by the threatened nations but they will earn the sympathy and support of the world by displaying these traits.
Nations faced with illegal assault by the U.S.---here Iran is an example as the U.S. has criminally threatened it with nuclear war---could announce they will not fire back or oppose an invasion.
If this seems like a lot to ask, consider the alternative: the futility of stopping a sophisticated U.S. war machine funded with $800-billion a year. (Did you know the Pentagon spends more for war than all 50 American states spend for peaceful purposes?)
Does a small nation with a $5- or $10-billion defense budget think it can "win" against USA? Does it think it will not suffer horrendous casualties if it fights back?