he's been asked over and over to talk but stubornly refuses
isn't he really just a coward playing armchair warrior with toy soldiers. what are we going to do when the coward is told to get out of Iraq by Iran, Syria and whoever else....why won't he go to voice the opinion of our country?
2006-11-22 05:26:32 · 18 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
how is he any better he claims to have orders straight from God to invade Iraq
2006-11-22 05:32:28 · update #1
First is he is afraid that he would not be safe. I think any such discussion would have to take place on Neutral ground. Second, I don't think Bush would know how to respond. He, like the Iranian, is very much controlled by those around him. Bush has no idea what he is doing when it comes to the middle east. He is clueless about how to handle governments he disagrees with that have power (believe me Iran has power). You can say what you want about Ahmadinejad.....he is a politician and a military man and will treat others as such. I think Iran and N. Korea are and have been the bigger threats in the world for the past decade. Now they are proving it since the US is having so much trouble subjugating the Iraqi people. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next four or five years as these two "Axis of evil" members grow in political clout and military strength.
2006-11-22 05:33:10 · answer #1 · answered by ThinkingMan2006 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If president Bush were to have talks with Ahmadinejad, it would signal the rest of the Arab nations that Iran has some sort of International status and would legitimize rants about Islam taking over the world, at least to other Muslim nations. It would also lend credibility to Ahmadinejad and give him more power in Iran. Currently, if he upsets the controlling Imam's, they'll have him removed or simply kill him. Iran is a Theocracy!
With out a doubt, the best policy with respect to Iran and the world is to take a wait and see attitude. One possible benefit would be: The citizens of Iran may get a case of the nerves and start protesting. Another, The controlling clerics may just toss him out or, Israel might just take care of the whole mess.
By the way, "thinking M" is wrong! Ahmadinejad is a thug, liar and kidnapper. Raising him to the level of politician is illogical.
2006-11-22 05:42:14 · answer #2 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First let me say that I am not a fan of this President. I believe President Bush is the worst President in my lifetime (which covers the period back to the Eisenhower administration), and one of the worst we have ever had.
Having said that, I can also say that I think you are being unfair. I do not believe Bush's refusal to talk with Iran, Syria, or even North Korea is based in any way on cowardice. This administration really seems to see the world in black and white. IAhmadinejad has been labeled as one of the bad guys. The Bush administration has been consistent in refusing to have dialogue with any nation they consider to be 'evil'. this is a very naive view of world affairs and unfortunately precludes diplomacy as a tool to use inorder to avoid conflict. Due to this view the President has been more willing to resort to threats than to discourse. How many times have you heard Bush and Cheney offer variations of 'you are either for us or against us'? If only the issues facing the world today were really that simple.
I believe you miss one very omportant point (and one that must be galling to the President). It is very unlikely that Iran and Syria will be telling us to get out of Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report makes it appear very likely that in timfe the US will have to ask Iran and Syria to step in and take over 'peacekeeping' in Iraq. Their presence may be the only thing that can stop the Shia insurgents. That possiblity must give President Bush nightmares.
2006-11-22 05:37:33 · answer #3 · answered by toff 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it has all been political posturing between bush and ahmadinejad. the unusual ingredient is hardline conservatives positioned ahmadinejad in potential after the bush axis of evil speech. he has no real potential and the media only sensationalizes and misinterpets what he says to sell papers. he won't be re-elected and in some unspecified time sooner or later the U. S. will ought to talk with,not at,iran. meanwhile we are in a position to basically desire the U. S. or israel would not attack iran,it can be a stupid circulate and could reason greater harm than stable in the region. look at lebanon,a democracy headed in an outstanding direction,derailed by utilising the acts of hezbollah and israel. neither have been harmless.
2016-10-12 22:19:33 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He doesn't want to waste his time like Jimmy Carter did for 14 months trying to reason with a religious hardliner who supports the Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, Humas and the Islamic radicals' Jihad.
Remember, this is the nut bag that publicly denies the Holocaust, calls Israel the "little devil" and constantly threatens total annihilation of the Israel state - along with his support of all the groups that promise death to the infidels. Add to that, the real power in Iran now lies more than ever with the Shiite clergy and their supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Kkamenei.
What possible positive results could come from a meeting with this jerk and his circus of supporters? Reasonable talks need reasonable people on both sides of the table.
2006-11-22 05:42:14 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Coward? Bush won't give Ahmadipshit a face to face because Ahmadipshit doesn't deserve it. He is not a respectable or reasonable person and is thus unworthy of being granted an audience with the leader of the free world.
Ahmadipshit should be shunned by all rational and peace-loving people in the world.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
2006-11-22 05:34:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Bush is cowering away from Ahmadinejad because he knows that he is not intelligent enough to take him on face to face and point to point. Bush would be shown to be the unintelligent, incompetent leader that he is.
Ahmadinejad has proved himself time and time again to be a well educated, intelligent leader with the ability to hold his own in reasoned conversation, this is a quality that Bush sorely lacks
2006-11-22 23:44:41 · answer #7 · answered by tony w 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding me? I'm scared to believe that your question is actually serious!
The U.S.'s stance right now seems to be not to negotiate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong IL. Basically cuz they are nutjobs that only want to talk to apply threats and get what they want.
You (and the rest of us) can't possibly know what is going on behind the scenes of situations like this, with our limited information.
I'm shocked everyday that I talk to Americans that defend the actions of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong IL, Syria, Hezbollah, and even Al Queda. Its pretty disgusting.
2006-11-22 05:35:13 · answer #8 · answered by wizexel22 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Talk with a guy who preaches the Prophecy of the Caliphate?
You are kidding, right? You have studied this religious belief, right?
Probably need to if you are going to judge our President. Just be glad he hasn't bombed the heck out of the place, which is what some of us think he should do.
2006-11-22 05:42:40 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is worried about the saying "The Gennie is out of the bottle" Bush fears being offered a drink from a bottle that has a Gennie in it.
Go big Red Go
2006-11-22 05:35:00 · answer #10 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋