WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

Iconoclast ^ | unk | William Grim

[Chancellor Palpatine]

WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

by William Grim, Iconoclast Contributing Editor

You see it on the news almost every evening. It might be an aging hippie, a disaffected college student majoring in "undecided," or an Episcopal bishop overwrought by a lifetime of denying the divinity of Christ. They stand before the camera and generally accuse President Bush, in his prosecution of the War on Terror, of being (1) a war criminal, (2) beholden to "big oil," (3) systematically destroying the Constitution of the United States, or (4) some combination of (1), (2) and (3). Then they almost always end their diatribes by stating that terrorism will not be stopped by military action, but by "engaging in dialogue."

It sounds very nice. Talking is very often a pleasant activity and it sure beats marching through the desert in 120 degree heat carrying 75 pounds of equipment in your backpack.

In fact, talking is essential to conducting business, perpetuating human relationships, and healing the psychic and spiritual wounds that are part and parcel of existence. Very few people really doubt the importance of dialogue between business associates, husbands and wives, or within the therapist/patient or priest/penitent relationship.

But is dialogue effective in dealing with evil? First of all, let us define evil. Simply put, evil is a conscious and rational commitment to the breaking of moral law by one who knows the difference between right and wrong. The evil person generally conceals his evil actions because he is aware that they flaunt centuries of accumulated human taboos. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-Tung were evil. The bulk of their crimes were committed not in the public eye, but in dark prisons or remote locations like Auschwitz or the jungles of Cambodia.

The man running naked through the streets brandishing a knife menacingly at a cat whom he believes to be a demon is insane, not evil. He is unaware that his behavior breaks moral laws or normative bounds, and he acts within full view of the public.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, however, are evil.

Now let me repeat the question. Is dialogue effective in dealing with evil?

Well, let's look at the historical record of just the twentieth century for the answer:

June 4, 1989 -- In the midst of negotiations and dialogue with student protesters seeking democracy, the government of Communist China begins a ruthless military suppression of the peaceful protest.

April 2, 1982 -- Although it has been planning the Falklands War for several years, the Argentine government is in the midst of negotiations with Britain when it begins the invasion of the British territory.

January 17, 1973 -- After years of negotiations and dialogue, the United States, South Vietnam, the Vietcong and North Vietnam sign the Paris Peace Accord. The North Vietnamese government agrees to the following statement in the treaty: "The South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination is sacred, inalienable, and shall be respected by all countries." The North Vietnamese invade South Vietnam on December 26, 1974.

July 1968 -- Alexander Dubcek and Leonid Brezhnev engage in four days of dialogue about Dubcek's reforms in Czechoslovakia. Dubcek agrees to concessions. The Soviet Army occupies Prague on August 20, 1968.

April 19, 1961 -- In an ongoing series of communications, Soviet Leader Khruschev informs President Kennedy that the Soviet Union "does not seek any advantages or privileges in Cuba." One year later Khruschev makes the decision to put Soviet missiles in Cuba, and the Berlin Wall is built -- the latter action violating agreements stemming back to the end of World War II.

October 31, 1956 -- During the Hungarian Revolution, the Soviet Government states: "The Soviet Government is prepared to enter into the appropriate negotiations with the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and other members of the Warsaw Treaty on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of Hungary." On November 4, 1956 the Soviets launched a military attack on Hungary and quickly crushed the Revolution.

June 25, 1950 -- Following three years of UN-sponsored negotiations and dialogue, North Korea, with the support of the Soviet Union and China, attacks South Korea.

February 1945 -- After much dialogue with Roosevelt and Churchill at the Yalta Conference, Stalin agrees to a "broadly democratic" government for Poland after the conclusion of the war. Not long after, Polish democracy is squelched by the Soviets until the disintegration of the Soviet Empire.

December 7, 1941 -- In the midst of negotiations (and an earnest dialogue) to resolve the political crisis in the Pacific region, the Empire of Japan commits a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

September 30, 1938 -- Concluding three different attempts at negotiation and dialogue, British Prime Minister Chamberlain, along with Hitler, Mussolini and French Premier Daladier, sign the Munich Pact, thereby ceding effective control of Czechoslovakia to the Germans. Hitler claims that this is the last of his territorial demands. Germany then stages a sneak attack on Poland on September 1, 1939, which starts World War II in Europe.

September 1935 -- In the midst of negotiations between Italy and Ethiopia, Mussolini orders the invasion of Ethiopia. Haile Selassie appeals in vain to the League of Nations for assistance.

1928 -- After much dialogue among international powers, the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlaws war as a component of national policy. Germany and Japan are signatories to this accord.

So the question now is: When has dialogue ever defeated evil? Why is it that the proponents of "engaging in dialogue" never give one concrete example of its success? It is because no such examples exist?

Let's get realistic. We cannot negotiate away the cancer of Islamic terrorism. We cannot talk our way out of the evil that confronts us. We must destroy it utterly through the judicious use of our military might.

Peace conferences and treaties mean nothing to our enemies. Indeed, even the Prophet Mohammed himself signed a ten-year peace treaty with the Koreish, an enemy tribe. But after two years into the treaty, Mohammed's military position improved, and he invaded and slaughtered the Koreishites. Significantly, the abrogation of the treaty with the Koreishites is often mentioned by Yassir Arafat and other Muslim leaders as a model for Islamic "diplomacy."

Again, I ask the question: When has dialogue ever defeated evil?

[ericthecurdog]

bump for Monday

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Kay Soze]

If the democratic communists beleived in talk why then did they get us involved in the Viet Nam war?

Or WW2

Or Korea

Or Haitai

Or Somalia

Or Kosovo

Or Croatia

Or Waco

If talk is good why does Robert Scheer write in "The Courage to Kill" its ok to murder for politcs.

"If our modern and very expensive weapons cannot be used against terrorists," he wrote, "what good are they in this post-Cold War world?"- Robert Scheer- Communist
Why did they support the Black panthers?

[thetruckster]

"Is dialogue effective in dealing with evil?"

Maybe we need to go a little farther back in history.

I remember a story about 40 days in the desert between the Son of God and Satan. Because Jesus' commitment was so deep and so profound (and what we would consider arrogant nowadays), his dialog was pretty darned effective.

[thetruckster]

"I suppose the Indians looked at the British occupation as evil, at the time."

Not at first.

[LibertarianInExile]

There were a couple other chapters in that book.

One of my favorites involved a dialogue that was particularly ineffective until force was applied:

And Moses said unto Pharaoh, "Let my people go."

[thetruckster]

"There were a couple other chapters in that book."

Moses was Old Testament. Jesus is New. Jesus said to love your enemies. "For even the hypocrites love those who are their friends." (paraphrasing)

And if you will notice, it was GOD who took care of the Pharaoh through mysterious death and pestilence from nature.

[dead]

WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

The Bush/Gore debates led to directly to an unemployed Albert.

[_Jim]

Or Waco

WHO was president in 1992?

(THAT'S when the case began to be 'put together'.)

[dead]

The Waco standoff began more than 13 months after Bush left office.

I really doubt he was sitting in the oval office reviewing the BATF's pending weapons violation investigations for the coming year.

What is your point?

[dead]

I'm sorry it was one month, not 13.

Still, it was an simple weapons violations investigation at the time Bush was in office. I'm sure he never heard a thing about it.

[katana]

Even Ghandi admitted that if the colonial rulers of India had been almost anybody but the British (say, Germany or France) he and his non-violent campaign would have been crushed in a pool of blood.

[LibertarianInExile]

And if YOU will notice, I didn't disagree with you at all. In fact, my post SUPPORTS you!

And I understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments, but they are wedged between the same cover, usually, i.e., the same Book--the Good One.

[_Jim]

The Waco standoff began more than 13 months after Bush left office.

You're joking right?

Or are you JUST that poor with your dates on these events? (The answer, of course, is the latter.)

These photographs of President Clinton's first inaugural in 1993 ...

... and ...

Why did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms raid the Branch Davidian compound on February 28, 1993?

And YOU contend:

The Waco standoff began more than 13 months after Bush left office.

Time to change your 'brain oil' - you've finally skipped a cog friend ...

[dead]

Hey retard, I corrected myself in the next post.

Your very impressive use of large fonts does not address my point.

Why do you think the President of the United States would have any idea that the BATF was conducting a weapons violation investigation against Koresh? Do you think the president monitors all investigations in every federal office? Might that be just a little bit time consuming?

And again, I ask, what is your point?