please explain why or why not, as in my thinking direct dialogue can only benefit all sides, for example when Kennedy and Krushav installed the hot line, we may have avoided a nuclar war.
2006-11-28 01:54:02 · 10 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It'd be a great idea to set up a regular schedule for this sort of stuff.
Dialog can't make it worse.
2006-11-28 02:01:47 · answer #1 · answered by mmd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a very difficult question... because a meeting between the President and anyone else is far different from a meeting between, for example myself and another person. In 2003 a member of the NSC told our class that Bush had ceased dscussions with Chavez after the failed coup. At the time I thought it was ridicukous given Venezuela's oil supply.
Now, I am not sure. A Presidential visit legitimizes the visitee. Visiting Ahmaninajad would implicitly extend support to an extremist government. I do think it was a polciy failure to not visit or help his predecessor, Khatami, a moderate academic.
As regards North Korea, being a stone's throw away from the DMZ, I don;t think we should award Kim Jung Il's brinkmanship with a presidential visit. It would be far too powerful a propaganda tool, legitimizing the regime within North Korean society.
A key difference between negotiations between the Soviet Union and the U.S. was the nature of the relationship... equal. It was a bi-polar world. Today we live in a uni-polar world and the dynamics are very different.
2006-11-28 02:10:59 · answer #2 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Abbas (Palestinian) seems willing to work with him but Abbas has too many obstacles in his way. Hamas is getting closer to working with Abbas, so maybe something can work out there. So Bush should meet with Palestinian leaders eventually, but only after they've worked out some kind of stable cooperation between themselves.
Kim Jong Il is too unstable himself. He is just playing games in his attempts to gain power. Working with someone who is just there to play can be rather frustrating. Bush can try but I doubt he'll make any headway there. Jong Il is just too out there and is only willing to compromise after threatening the world on a regular basis. He threatens with various things like war or nukes, then wants to talk when he has that advantage. Someone like that is dangerous and a waste of time.
Mahmoud Ahmadenijad is different from those though. He is way too intelligent and knows too well what he is doing. Bush is trying and he can hold his own with some, but I believe this one will blow Bush completely out of the water. He will embarass Bush and therefore weaken the United States in any real interaction between the two. Bush's current tactic of denigrating Iran and president Ahmadenijad may not be great, but it is better than direct talks. Bush can still convince Americans Iran is dangerous and headed by a dictator, but direct talks I believe will only convince Americans Bush is on another warpath and lose him support.
So all three no for now, but maybe something with the Palestinians in the future, if they can come up with a government worth something.
2006-11-28 02:08:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. But, I don't think he has the guts to do that.
Why do you think he refuses to talk to Syria.
Bush really is the worst kind of leader. The man doesn't even have any leadership. The world deserves a lot better leader, not some day dreaming war mongerer.
2006-11-28 02:07:11 · answer #4 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America should send someone smarter. Also I think Bush'll have a hard time sitting down to have a talk with Stephen Harper kissing his @$$. Bush is old news. Send Clinton, he's a much better diplomat. Clinton helped end the war in Ireland--it had been going on for hundreds of years.
2006-11-28 01:58:58 · answer #5 · answered by AJ F 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Considering the way he acted in front of Merkel from Germany, that could be a very bad moment, lol.
2006-11-28 02:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iran speaks of peace, yet it spends millions on terror.
N. Korea cries that is mistreated, yet it builds nuclear weapons, mistreats its citizens and can't be trusted by its best friend China.
The Palestinians, they are still attacking Israel and don't want peace. They want all of the land and they want dead Jews.
The only talking they care about is at the end of a rifle.
2006-11-28 02:07:04 · answer #7 · answered by Edward F 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think this is an excellent idea. Even better they could have a battle royal....winner takes all.....rules the world.
2006-11-28 02:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by U can't b serious 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think he should go AND STAY!
2006-11-28 02:20:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why wouldn't he?
2006-11-28 02:10:33 · answer #10 · answered by T S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋