Being naive and wrong is a bad thing, and it seems to happen more often than not. Being skeptical and being wrong usually means there is a good result.
Which broadly speaking seem to be more naive than skeptical, Dems or Repubs?
Do you think bi-lateral negotiations with a terrorist is naive or skeptical?
2006-10-12 08:12:43 · 4 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
well... overall I think dems are skeptical of Bush's policies... and I think it's naive to think that the war on terror is being won in Iraq... or even making much of a difference in Iraq...
as far as terrorists... I've not heard many people that really know politics mention talks with terrorists... this seems to be much more Republican propaganda than what dems want to do... I want to go AFTER the terrorists... which we aren't doing... which I consider to be very naive...
the "libs" that want to talk seem to be the minority... about the same number of cons that want to nuke the entire middle east into a field of glass... I think both are laughable... both from a political perspective and a logistical prospective..
2006-10-12 08:27:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're confusing and side-stepping central issues.
First, the US did not work with the UN and other countries to resolve the crisis in Iraq - we acted unilaterally, which harmed our relationship with most other countries. Our credibility was also dealt a fatal blow when it became clear that the intelligence on wmd's was innaccurate at best, and fabricated at worst.
Second, the war in Iraq has fueled anti-American sentiment and increased rather than decreased the terrorist threat against the US.
2006-10-12 08:18:33 · answer #2 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure what "bi-lateral' means ~ I know I could look it up, but I'm lazy right now... I BELIEVE IN FACE TO FACE MEETINGS between certain leaders of nations and coming to terms with things in a TRUTHFUL WAY.
More-over I believe in responsible freedom.
What is the definition of a "terrorist"? ~ to man , to mouse....
It sucks to be wrong by either skepticism or by naivity... but it even sucks more when you DO NOT ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG when the TRUTH stares you right in the face.
-----
www.facing-abc.20fr.com
2006-10-13 11:32:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it is a dumb approach - completely naive.
2006-10-12 08:28:25 · answer #4 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋