[sharktrager]

The analogy, it should go without saying, overlooks major differences between the two cases. Whereas the 20th-century British were far too benign an imperial power to choose to slaughter peaceful resisters to their rule, there’s no evidence that Saddam Hussein, already responsible for the massacre and torture of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen (to say nothing of the many more who died in his aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait) would likewise have succumbed to friendly persuasion — Jacques Chirac to the contrary notwithstanding. (It’s not that we didn’t try!)

The 400+ killed a Armistar in 1919 would disagree. The British in this case, to gain revenge for the deaths of four of their countrymen 2 days earlier. trapped between 15,000 and 20,000 in an essentially enclosed area, and opened fire. These were not the people responsible for the earlier murders, by the way. These people were involved in a peaceful protest.

Are the British equal to Saddam? Not even close. Was their rule always benign? Not even close.

[GATOR NAVY]

Was their rule always benign? Not even close.

I agree, but let's face it-Gandhi's tactics worked only because the British were reluctant to do something like Armistar again. Gandhi wouldn't have lasted 2 minutes against true ruthlessness like Hitler, Stalin, Mao or even Saddam.