Iran leader in US this week. He'll be in the same building as Bush, yet Bush won't meet him. Instead, Bush will address the UN about him, but not work with him MAN to MAN. Do you agree with Bush, or think he is a coward? Would Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton have met with the Iranian leader face to face to avoid possible war?
2006-09-18 17:50:57 · 11 answers · asked by Kelly A 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The answer is one has to have a vision before they can take bold steps. Which Republican president in recent times had vision? They are mere Neo Con/ Neo Nazi. Everybody is so fond of Regan, while they forgot that he is the one who actually started this " Jihadi " and Taliban problem in Afghanistan by providing training camps. OBL was trained in such CIA training camps. When Regan/ Bush Sr, left economy was in Choas. Real estate had depressed value. Only Clinton could fix those problems.
In todays political scene China, Russia and France has made it impossible to get any UN sanctions on Iran. After current Israeli attack on Leabnon, all neighbouring gulf countries are siding with Iran. Iraq has litereally become a Shiite extention of Iran. Iran is quite capable of blocking Gulf. Bottom line we can't attack them without paying a big price. With military and financial resources stretch so thin in Iraq we can not fight them. We did not leave doors open to talk to them.
The real issue is not if Bust will talk to Iran. The real problem is that with current scenario does Iran need to talk to us!! They are gaining popularity in world everyday while keeping rivalary with us. By closing all diplomatic doors, now if Bush talks to them it will be taken as same humiliation as israel is taking now by following every UN order to get his soldiers back. I think we need a new president, only then any progress is possible.
:Peace
2006-09-18 18:12:25 · answer #1 · answered by WISEMAN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any of the American presidents would meet with him. I do think Bush is a coward but that is not why he won't meet with him. If this wacko from Iran wants a peace plan they need to make peace not war and statements of how he wants the USA and Israel wiped out.
Iran is one country that needs to be taken out and fast. At first I was thinking that they have the rights to have Nukes just like we have the right. But we will only use them if forced and it would take a lot to get us to use ours because it would mean the end of the world. Well Iran would use theirs because they believe if they kill us and they die while doing it, It just means they go to heaven. So I do feel they are making a bomb and they plan to use it. If they can make Russia think we bombed them to get them to fire on us they would do it. It don't matter if the whole world ends as long as they kill the non believers it is worth it.
Man Oh Man this religion thing of all kinds needs to be eradicated.
2006-09-19 01:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by Don K 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Whether Mr. A engages in a war is entirely up to him. The choice is his and his defiance until now does not seem to be a good indicator of what is to come.
Why meet with the guy? To what end? No need to legitimize him and his other looney tune cronies.
He is close to needing a public spanking for the world to see.
Clinton probably would have net with Mr. A. Bush is on the right track.
2006-09-19 01:09:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan is the one who put the order in place to avoid any contact with Iran. Clinton probably would, just to get the publicity. But would accomplish nothing. In case you are not aware of the situation, no one is able to dissuade Iran from the world domination plan. so why waste the time. They have been planning this for half a century and now are creating the tools to have it accomplished.
2006-09-19 01:06:24 · answer #4 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt that Reagan would have met him since it would help to dignify Ahmadijinad and make him seem more mainstream. I'm not saying Admadijinad is not mainstream, but 'our side' wants to make him out to be an extrements.
Difference between Bush and Reagan in this regard that nobody would have questioned Reagan's ability to go face to face in debate or speech and end up looking good. Bush does rather poorly in non-scripted or debate-like environments.
2006-09-19 01:06:38 · answer #5 · answered by larry n 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maybe Clinton,, but then again he would not have found himself in this situation,, largely caused by the Bush Doctrine,, Iraq,, the failures, the lies,,, the mess,,,the deaths,, US troops,, the innocent Iraqis,, children,, hundreds of thousands,,,,
Bush will actually see Ahmadinejad tomorrow in NY at the UN,, he says he will not meet with him face-to-face,, but if Bush wants to save his legacy,, he would be wise to work for peace,, it's called diplomacy,,, Bush could take some classes perhaps.
2006-09-19 01:07:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't negotiate with terrorists - said by Reagan after the 1983 bombing of the Marine base in Lebanon.
The answer would be no for all the presidents.
2006-09-19 00:54:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton would have tried to "understand" him. Sr. would have scolded him, and Reagan would have punched him in the nose !!
2006-09-19 00:54:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
MAYBE Cllinton would have. I don't think the others would tho. Not without something concrete like a treaty signing.
2006-09-19 00:54:07 · answer #9 · answered by Scott L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I do not believe Reagan would have lowered himself to meet such a vile world figure.
2006-09-19 00:52:24 · answer #10 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋