Ghandi's situation is different, he believed in Civil Disobedience, which works well against establishments that rely upon your cooperation. Yes, it worked for him, but the situations are radically different between the U.S. now and Ghandi's India movements.

First off, nonviolent disobedience is largely just a nonviolent rebellion, which isn't a possibility because the United States would not be rebelling against a governing body, because we're a sovereign nation.

Reasoning with fanatics usually doesn't work out that well, but I'm unsure as to how we've attempted to reason with them thus far. That kind of thing doesn't make the news.

The nation's interest is retaining sovereignty, saving as many of our lives as possible, and deterring any other threats of this type. None of that works if you're being gunned down, bombed, or whatever by fanatics. You'd gain a moral victory, but you'd still be dead. It takes fanatics of your own to find that an acceptable solution. Even the Samurai of Japan had a saying (I forgot where I read it); "Honor is a thin cloak against the chill of the grave."


I'm not saying I don't agree with nonviolent solutions, but there are times where there is no other option. It is always, ALWAYS the last option.