WHEN HAS DIALOGUE EVER DEFEATED EVIL?

Iconoclast ^ | unk | William Grim

[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?