Would you use violent or democratic means to achieve your political aims?

Answer 1

USA and UK has used so called democratic means regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and it appears the violent method and the Democratic method are so similar that it seems to make nonsense of your question.

Answer 2

Change can only be bought about by using the means available to make those changes and to the western world that is the ballot box. No, I personally would not physically fight to bring about the changes I would like to see, that is why it is essential open debate is encouraged on all subjects however controversial it may be. Immigration is a subject that was suppressed by the three major parties for some years and the media also suppressed the subjecte. On this subject we were a 'One Party State'. Reverse racialists like PhillipL may not think the same but one must remember that the BNP warned many years ago of the problems of Mass Immigration and possible 'Ethnic Cleansing' and they were right. It is now clear cut to me; You either think the Ingenious people of this country have a right to exist or you don't? It is now up to the new young Britain's to decide our future. Like I said see you at the Ballot box.

Answer 3

If i were a terrorist then id use violence or the treat of violence to achieve my aims. Since I'm a regular bloke with no axe to grind then ill stick to good ole democracy to bring about political changes.

Answer 4

It depends ...

I remember reading once, I think it was a Polish intellectual who said:

One night they came for the jews, and I did nothing, as I am not a Jew.

Later they came for the Communists, and I stood by, for I am not a Communist

Later they came for the University Lecturers, and I kept quite, for I am not a University Lecturer.

Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything!

My point is, it's a moral obligation to fight and defend certain rights, preferably within the legal framework of a democratic society.

But in the event an extremist party like the National Front or the BNP came to power, and that legal framework begun to be eroded along with democracy, I'd consider it my duty to fight them using any and all means

But I can't see it ever being necessary.

interesting question

Answer 5

That would depend on what my political aims were. Are we talking about overthrowing a corrupt, maniacal dictator who doesn't give one about democracy or are we talking about some foreign land?

Answer 6

It would depend on what my political aims were. If I wanted to modify I would used democratic means. If I wished to destroy I would use violence.

Answer 7

It would depend on the problem, if the problem requires to show might in terms of military (the show of force) then I would use it to resolve the problem, but if the problem can be resolved using diplomatic means (talk), then I would use that type of means. But it would be logical to first use di[lomatic means to solve the problem and then use military force if no peaceful terms can be reached.

Answer 8

Oh - an agent provocateur in our midst - that's a surprise. I personally believe in democracy. I just think our present government is completely inept, corrupt and incompetent. All legal means should be used to remove them.

Answer 9

I would definitely not use violence. Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi showed the effectiveness of non-violence. Violence only brings more violence, and on and on.

Answer 10

I have no political aims.