So what's your point? That you condone only revolution without violence? Has there ever been a revolution that didn't depend on violence or the threat of violence? The American Revolution sure did.
Sure there is. The existing government is the legal authority, at least until it's overthrown. After that, the new government assumes legal jurisdiction and responsibility.
"The governed" is not a monolithic entity. Some consent to be ruled by one side, some by the other, some consent to neither, and no party to the conflict has the consent of all.
In a war, there's always plenty of immorality to go around, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, but your argument that nonviolent civil disobedience is morally inferior to revolution as a means to redress of grievances is preposterous. Give it up.

You really don't have a clue do you?

More than you know. Now get back to screaming 'get off my lawn' to those pesky kids. :)

Free speech is not only the personal right of individuals to have their say; it is also the right of the rest of us to hear them. Unfortunately, not everyone else thinks this way.

Many universities have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation; that's the wrong response, more speech -- not less – is what is needed.

DC and Speech,

You might find this amusing and interesting: Digg - Pitzer Student Creates 'Masculinist Coalition'
The link at the top takes you to their edict.

Now all we need is a Male Studies degree program in all of our universities. Someone has already come up with a curriculum.

Oh well, I didn’t get a degree in Male Arts either.:p

Think of Gandhi. The reason democracy is so firmly entrenched in India, is because of Gandhi's legacy of non-voilent resistance, while the Dalai Lama is a huge embarrassment to the Chinese government.

Just a thought ;)

Oops, just noticed I've jumped in at the end of a long conversation...