Comments on: 'We don't talk to evil'

'We don't talk to evil'

Jimbob — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:38:40 -0800

'We don't talk to evil' - in 2003, during the term of former president Khatami, Iran contacted the United States, and offered to end support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and help stabilize Iraq. Cheney said no. Skip forward to the present, and Iran are having tea and crumpets with North Korea.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:41:46 -0800

'We don't talk to evil' ...because it would be redundant.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:48:19 -0800

Sigh. We are governed by people with the mentality of five year olds. Either you're a good guy or a bad guy. And if you're a bad guy we're not going to lower ourselves to talk to you.

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:50:43 -0800

Because talking to people about possible arrangements which would be in our own self-interest is... rewarding them? Ditto on the five-year-olds comment. Next: Bush threatens to hold his breath till he passes out.

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:00:53 -0800

Either it's the end of our world, or it's time for a really good surprise. What I am looking for here is Something Wonderful. Whatever could it be, to make everything good again? Remember, when the women are dancing, everyone is happy.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:01:28 -0800

It's a lot more sinister then that, Cheney et al require an enemy such as Iran to get rich. Remember that $$$ is the primary motivation-- not your safety, not the United States, not anything. And their business isn't breeding cute puppies, it's oil, war, and services to support oil and war.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:04:11 -0800

I know it is easy enough to dis Cheney and Bush, but do you really believe Iran would have got rid of Hebollah, a creature of its own making, sent, in part, to occupy Lebanon and run the show there?

By: LooseFilter

LooseFilter — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:05:26 -0800

Yeah, this is the same kind of reasoning that makes sense to people who think that we can't withdraw from Iraq because bin Laden or "the terrorists" would like that, and consider it a victory. (Also, to address the broader, metaphysical point: it sure would be nice if we, as a culture, could get past this notion of 'good' and 'evil' as things unto themselves. Actions and words can be good or evil; I don't see how 'evil' can exist outside of actual actions. Thus, Cheney's reasoning--such as it is--is specious both practically and philosophically.)

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:06:53 -0800

BTW, I refuse to go to war with Iran, regardless what all the good guys and bad guys are doing. But the ING Bank seems to believe that's exactly what is on the immediate horizon. At least, that's what they are telling their "60 million private, corporate and institutional clients in 50 countries with a workforce of over 115,000 people." Like I said above, unless the women are dancing and everyone is happy, count me out.

By: herc

herc — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:07:21 -0800

Makes sense. Otherwise we may have been tempted to sell them even more weapons.

By: LooseFilter

LooseFilter — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:09:15 -0800

Postroad, I think that talking with them is an end unto itself. The only way to avoid military conflict in tense diplomatic situations (like a "rogue state" developing nuclear weapons) is to talk to those with whom you're in conflict. The talking may or may not work, but it's at least an attempt at avoiding war. Which Cheney clearly does not want to avoid.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:13:02 -0800

I for one am glad Cheney didn't talk to them. That way, this administration still has a shot of leaving office with their unbroken chain of fucked-up decisions intact.

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:14:13 -0800

...a shot at ...

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:21:25 -0800

War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. War with Iran. Just so everyone realizes we are talking about war with Iran. That's Iran, with an "n." And war is what it is.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:35:36 -0800

The Dark Side

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:41:41 -0800

Iran gets army gear in Pentagon sale

By: The Confessor

The Confessor — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:46:03 -0800

What really upsets me is that this prolonged fuck-up of an administration will probably be forgiven (at least in a bygones-be-bygones sort of way) in less than a decade. Disagree? Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, excusing him from the consequences of his criminal behavior, when it was a well known fact that Nixon had run a gang of burglars from the oval office. Whether Ford did it out of 'deep abiding friendship' or to fulfill his role in some sort of 'corrupt bargain' is immaterial; neither provide anywhere near sufficient moral grounds. And a few short decades later, that fucktard is damn near beatified upon his death for 'healing the nation' by setting the criminal free! Bullshit! Justice may have begun the healing process; the pardon was more akin to bandaging a malignant cancer.

By: Sukiari

Sukiari — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:52:39 -0800

It's because war with Iran is foreordained. What would talks accomplish? They would perhaps put us off the war track.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:56:44 -0800

Oh by the way, the infamous redacted NYTimes op-ed on Iran which we discussed here is now available on the author's website: What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:00:11 -0800

'We don't talk to evil', because we might be seen with evil or worse, photographed with evil. That could raise some uncomfortable questions. Instead, we quietly fund evil, propping up a dictator here, ignoring a genocide there. Basically we nurture the evil from a distance. That way, in a few years, when it's evil fruit has ripened, we can harvest it with a nice profitable war. But we never, ever talk with evil.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:08:27 -0800

"War! What is it good for? It's good for business." -- Billy Bragg Nixon also had perjurers, justice obstructors, money launderers, election fixers, and ratfuckers, plus he had the head of the FBI destroying evidence in a criminal investigation. Iran are having tea and crumpets with North Korea. See! They are an Axis of Evil!

By: edgeways

edgeways — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:20:51 -0800

See, in regards to the Ford comment, I think Nixon's behavior at least partially contributed to this admins behavior. Many of the same people from then are running the show now. if we had gone down the line and convicted everyone of those sonsofbitches then there would be a lot more reticence to act how they are acting now. Healing? hardly. Enabling? Yes.

By: katice

katice — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:36:28 -0800

get past this notion of 'good' and 'evil' as things unto themselves. This is an interesting brainwash for most of us. At this point in time, we as a nation don't know who our enemy is. Our seeming lack of trust for our political representation in external affairs causes us to question "intent" big time. It gets even worse when our government requires interpreters to speak to its own people (god bless the media). We need a new way to measure honesty! Then we could attempt to communicate with our neighbors without thinking "good" or "evil".

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:40:07 -0800

Talking with your enemies is indeed a necessary step in ending conflict. If you refuse to talk, to negotiate, to come to an agreement, the only other option is to continue down the road of attrition until one side is defeated. One can assume, then, that the refusal to talk is an admission that your ultimate aim is absolute destruction of your enemy. The only caveat to that is, what if your enemy changes? You might wait it out and see if your enemy changes into someone you do want to talk to; of course, in the case of Iran, that certainly hasn't happened. I doubt the president they have now is making similar offers. And it's clear that the US attitude towards Iran isn't making it any friendlier in the future.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:40:53 -0800

As Bush's War Strategy Shifts to Iran, Christian Zionists Gear Up for the Apocalypse

By: nola

nola — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:41:50 -0800

Hebollah? no. Hokky Pokky? never. the steaks are to high. what we need are booze on the ground.

By: katice

katice — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:04:45 -0800

Maybe it's time for us to change, to internalize... to fix ourselves. If our intent is "clear", then we'll better be able to understand the intent of those that fear us and why. Communication happens when the fear is set aside. Better yet... come to an understanding of why we fear Iran.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:14:02 -0800

This was the subject of the famously censored NYT op-ed

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:21:09 -0800

At this point in time, we as a nation don't know who our enemy is. That's easy. It's everybody.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:39:56 -0800

So we wouldn't talk to them and now they're cozying up to Kim Jong-Il. Iran is such a whore.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:44:00 -0800

Sigh. We are governed by people with the mentality of five year olds. Either you're a good guy or a bad guy. And if you're a bad guy we're not going to lower ourselves to talk to you. sad, but true

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:55:58 -0800

You know, I'll be glad when we attack Iran. Then the oil will stop flowing, and the US will collapse, and maybe, just maybe, something decent will come out of the ashes. I doubt it, to be honest. But right now, we're fucked no matter what. We appoint an Admiral to run Centcom and send an extra CVN group to the Gulf. We're going to attack Iran.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:51:25 -0800

I think Nixon's behavior at least partially contributed to this admins behavior. Many of the same people from then are running the show now. That's exactly right. Cheney in particular feels that the executive branch should be more powerful than the judicial and legislative branches.

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:17:42 -0800

We're not a phoenix, eriko. If we go into your dream/nightmare scenario with Iran, then China rises out of the ashes, and for all of our faults as a nation/world leader, China would be worse. We've become, if we weren't already, our worst image of Russia during the cold war, believing that anybody who doesn't have our own systems and beliefs is an enemy who must be destroyed or converted. However, we're stuck in Iraq because to leave would be ceding Iraq to Lebanese/Iranian/Syrian control. Sure Bush's ego is a big part of the decision making even now, but it's the part that doesn't matter at all. We broke it, and we have to fix it in a way that doesn't cause further war. So we're stuck. Maybe if Cheney'd been willing to talk a few years ago we'd be better off.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:25:33 -0800

So we're going to engage in a war of aggression against Iran? Didn't someone get in trouble for doing that back in the 1940s? It would be nice if We the People could look at the history books and, as soon as the first shot is fired in the attack, pull the plug and ready the gallows ourselves. It'd be a lot better than waiting for the international community to do it, years and mountains of corpses later.

By: amyms

amyms — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:29:01 -0800

'We don't talk to evil' Then how do they ever hold a cabinet meeting?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:09:11 -0800

HEY, IRAN CAN GO FUCK ITSELF.

By: pax digita

pax digita — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:37:45 -0800

I've said these elsewhere but the're apropos here too: My dad to me, describing the pipeline built north from Marseilles to fuel the First and Third Armies' drive on the Rhine in 1944-45: "I fought the war for Standard Oil." Me to my dad, musing about the Cold War: "An enemy is a useful thing to have."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:10:57 -0800

Senate Intel Chairman warns of Iran drumbeat.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:18:00 -0800

Biden: Name One Single Time Cheney's Been Correct

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:51:07 -0800

Lizzie Cheney - The Pride of Lockheed Martin - Speaketh

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:30:25 -0800

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link