On the Validity of Non-Violent Resistance

On a friend of mines status via Facebook, which was "Personally, I prefer the Army over the Marines," I made the pointed response of: "You know what would be cool? No army, no marines."
A person of pro-military sentiments responded just as pointedly, and this is the debate that ensued:
Pro-Militarist: There are wolves and there are sheople...
Me: There are dudes who like to follow orders and kill people.. sheople.. and the people who refuse to follow orders and kill people, because they see it as barbaric and pointless.. wolves.
Pro-Militarist: Keep living that dream.
Me: The only ones stopping me are the fools pulling the triggers.
Pro-Militarist: That's admitting that people that pull the trigger have some kind of control on your peaceful existence... no argument there...
Me: and vice-versa.. the people that don't pull the trigger have some kind of control on your violent existence. When the British were trying to consolidate their control over India following World War II, the Indian's took all of the abuse without fighting back in any way, shape, or form save for words and showing the world how the British abused them. Under Ghandi's leadership, the world rallied behind the peaceful and abused Indian's, and after not much longer, the British were forced to withdraw and grant India its independence due to the worlds growing hate for them.
Pro-Militarist: You forget, the world is a different place... QED someone pulled the trigger on Ghandi, took a great man and peace and morality with him...
Me: Not true.
Although Ghandi was killed, even after death he became the most powerful man in the history of the world. During the 1980's and the decline of the Soviet Union, the oppressed Polish, Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian peoples all read Ghandi's idea of non-violent resistance. Every night, they would gather, en masse, with candles outside every major church in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and then they would refuse to work the next day. Although the Soviet's attempted re consolidating their power militarily in each country, the populations would simply take the abuse in stride without fighting back. Eventually, the Soviets were forced to withdraw due to international pressure and the fact that the lack of co-operation in these countries was causing the Soviet economy to rapidly decline. This is the straw that broke the camels back, and caused the Soviet Union to dissolve in 1991, amongst other internal factors.

Pro-Militarist: Sweet, that's a pretty picture, too bad the UN was involved, a little NATO, Soviets of that time, the early 80s already had one front against a group allied and armed by the US... Reagan was president... he told the Soviets to tear down that wall...

Me: 

NATO and the Western Allies of the time had been trying to tell the Soviets to tear down that wall since it had been built. It wasn't NATO, the United States, or Reagan that caused the Soviet Union to fall. It was this non-violent resistance within the Soviet empire that caused the Soviet Union to weaken to the point that they finally listened to NATO and the Western Allies. Had it been NATO or the United States that caused the Soviet empire to fall, it would have fallen years ago.

Pro-Militarist: 

Russians have killed unarmed peasants for centuries...

Me: Different political regimes and different times play into the mix. It's not really fair to generalize the Russians. But don't get me wrong, they DID use violence to try and stop the non-violent revolts, and some people DID die as a result.. but they weren't gonna commit genocide and murder the millions in opposition to them. That was a tactic used during the Stalin years, which no one wished to return to. As well, had they attempted that, it's likely the West would have intervened in support of the protesters.

Pro-Militarist:  The threat of injury stops the most violence hence people don't go around spanking porcupines too often.

Me: In the case of non-violent revolt, the threat of injury only stops the coward. It's stronger to face the threat of violence with non-violence then it is to face the threat of violence with violence.

Pro-Militarist: You're just silly, if armies thought they didn't have the advantage they leave the field. You're saying you will allow yourself to be beaten to death without fighting back, guess you would non violently resist while they haul your family off in a truck to do whatever with them? Pretty fantasy world you have there... go to one of these countries in turmoil and help save the people, be their Ghandi, time to play this poker hand that's so perfect.

Me: Violence is necessary in very extreme cases.

In the modern world, very rarely is a government going to haul off your family.. and very rarely, if they did, are they going to kill them. Although modern governments don't seem too afraid to kill protesters, both violent and non-violent, they aren't going to find out who the protesters are related to and murder or imprison them. North Korea is probably one of the last places on Earth where the government would go so far.
For example, violent revolt to the Nazi regime during World War 2 was necessary, as the Nazis were not at the whim of international pressure or bad opinion.
But in most (if not all) of the conflicts worldwide since about 1993, non-violence could have (and has) been used effectively and with eventual success.

Also.. I would be very willing to do such a thing. And depending on what it was, I would be willing to be beaten to death without doing anything about it.. but honestly, it'd REALLY depend what it is, and I'll cross that bridge if I ever get to it.

Pro-Militarist: You say this while safe at home, take the chance.

Me: I've been wanting to for awhile. I'm considering, after I make some more money (as I just graduated recently), of going to Libya and documenting what's occurring there. It would most definitely be a huge risk.. but I think it's worth it. First, however, I would probably pay a visit to Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and see if there's any potential in non-violent protest there, as it seems violent resistance has only caused the vortex of vengeance to create a dangerously volatile stalemate between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Pro-Militarist: Now you're talking! But hey, how bout helping the Palestinians, the half million Israel pushed into the 13 camps! They have been trying to take back the Golan Heights which is their land unarmed being shot tangled in the barbed wire. They need food and education in those camps!

Me: Agreed. :)

This post will be added to if and when there is more material available.