And that was really too much to be taken by someone like me.
So I said to him that it was wrong to occupy the country and enjoy its wealth, however that is a long sight from murdering wholesale thousands of people, didn't he think so? He seemed not to be able to notice the difference. He went on about powerful leaders such as Gandhi and how peaceful resistance brought an evil western power to its knees....blhah blah blah
That's not what happened at all. Britain could have wiped Gandhi and all his followers out without breaking a sweat. It was through their own kindness that they didn't.
The trap you fell in was acknowledging that America was "invading and occupying Iraq." You should be uncompromising in saying that we are there to liberate them, and also throw in there is Al-Zarqawi as good a resistance leader as Gandhi? Let him think about that one.
So I looked him in the eye and told him that that exactly is the difference between Western civilization and despots such as Saddam. In the west, civilized governments can be banished from a country because they are civilized.
In Iraq Gandhi would have been nothing. He would have been fertilizer. No revolution, no sit ins, just fertilizer. That IS the difference between the USA and Britain and despots such as Hussein and Stalin.
The liberal was so shocked hearing the idea of Gandhi as fertilizer that his mouth just openend and shut like a fish.
Another listener standing by jsut said, "Too bad for you fella."
I grinned.