A new civilization from the bottom of the world.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by JCG
EDIT: It's an analogy, so don't take it literally.

okey

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by Yanghead
Yeah, but India used to be a part of the commonwealth. And why is Gandi so aggressive, I mean this is the man who ended the Raj with PASSIVE resistance.

yeah, but who knows how Gandhi would be if in one of his borders Panzer tanks take Bombay and in the other Roman guerilla destroy the indian roads.

[Master Zen]

When Civ3 came out, the magazine ad had Gandhi wrestling with Lincoln!

(same guys Brad Pitt and Edward Norton said they would like to fight in Fight Club)

[Underseer]

Originally posted by Chilean President

yeah, but who knows how Gandhi would be if in one of his borders Panzer tanks take Bombay and in the other Roman guerilla destroy the indian roads.

According to him, he would not respond with force. He even stated that it was wrong for Europe to go to war even to defend itself from Nazi Germany. He took his pacifism very seriously.

This is about the only point I disagree with him on. Passive resistance like he successfully used only works if

1. You have a particularly good leader with a very rare combination of qualities and
2. Your oppressors have some shred of human decency in some dark corner of their hearts

In WWII, none of the allies met the first requirement and Hitler definitely didn't meet the second.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by Underseer
This is about the only point I disagree with him on. Passive resistance like he successfully used only works if

1. You have a particularly good leader with a very rare combination of qualities and
2. Your oppressors have some shred of human decency in some dark corner of their hearts

I agree with you Underseer (BTW thanks for helping in the other thread, that guy really get mi ) but is hard to believe that Gandhi would leave, for example, nazis to take the control of the country with passive resistance... ehmm.. well maybe he would stick to the passive resistance strategie, but loosing a lot of popular support. After all in every place of the world, during wars, strong leaders take the control of more "pacifist" ones. I know this is an extreme example but, Chamberlain was indeed more pacifist (yes, yes.. and more nazist) than Churchill.

Anyway is really hard to find some "enemies" that have the second requirement that you've pointed, and that's sad. Historically the "good wars" were fight by men with honor.