This does not seem very logical to me.
Bush claims he will not speak with Ahmadinejad until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad won't give up his nuclear ambitions without coaxing.
Would holding direct talks not make this process easier? Is it simply arrogance that will not allow Bush to meet with him?
As an analogy, if Reagan had never held talks with Russian leaders, would the Cold War still have ended in 1989 or would it have gone on longer?
It just seems that it couldn't hurt anything to at least talk, maybe not promise action, but talk with Ahmadinejad.
2006-12-09 07:25:29 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I will concede that Ahmadinejad isn't exactly the most logical person in the world, but nonetheless, what would talking hurt?
2006-12-09 07:27:36 · update #1
Jim - they did talk
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/
2006-12-09 07:31:02 · update #2
For as bad as the Russians were they did not make a habit of sponsoring terrorism and threatening to destroy their neighbors. Ahmedinejad is a dangerous radical and has placed his nation back into the status of a rogue state. It is not just the United States that thinks that Iran's actions are destructive, but rather most of the civilized world. For the leader of the free world to speak with a man who espouses terrorism would only elevate the radical's position. If Iran is truly interested in dialog they will discontinue their nuclear goals and discontinue support for terrorists. Short of some show of good faith there is no reason why the United States should meet with them individually.
Jim H: Just an F.Y.I. Gorbachev and Reagan met on a couple of different occassions, and while it is true that we outspent the Russians the effect of concessions received during these summits cannot be denied as a contributing factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.
2006-12-09 07:32:34 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Obama does now not have the authority to waive the Jones Act right now; only Congress does. as well, if a union stood to income, this is a nonexistent union. in diverse words, Obama wasn't the component to contact for soliciting for a waiver, it truly is the pastime of Mary Landrieu and David Vitter---the residing residing house state Senators for Louisiana---to finish that with techniques from potential of introducing a bill that ought to favor to specifically waive the Jones Act. As for Bush, he worked lower than a diverse version that became into repealed the subsequent 3 hundred and sixty 5 days; the replace is the only in each and every of right now. the truth that the Jones Act became into replaced between Katrina and now must be what makes John Fund incorrect.
2016-11-30 09:01:15 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the President won't talk with Ahmadinejad because Iran's president is crazy and obsessed w/ destroying the west. Iran's president wants to drag things out and appear that he wants to talk, after all, his first nuclear bombs aren't quite finished yet.
It didn't do any good talking w/ Hitler either, did it?
2006-12-09 07:35:49 · answer #3 · answered by jeffpsd 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
You mean like Jimmy Carter did?
Please.
You have now revealed your true agenda. It is neither rational nor conservative. Just another liar, huh?
Former President Reagan won the cold war by arming the US and by piping Western propaganda into the USSR via radio free Europe.
When Amadiranian allows US radio and internet into Iran, maybe the US will allow him to send us a letter... Until then, he's a liar and not to be trusted.
2006-12-09 07:33:10 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Talks demand diplomacy, and diplomacy takes time. GWB is a petulant and impatient person. Therefore, he is incapable of talks with Iran.
Be mindful that the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis, and we talk to the Saudis.
In the words of Churchill, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war."
2006-12-09 07:33:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You cannot reason with someone like ahmedinejad
you cannot trust someone like ahmedinejad, he will lie to your face and keep doing what ever he wants. we saw this with Hitler, we saw it witht he USSR (Regan walked away from talks with the USSR, and that was when they started to cave) we've seen it most recently with N. Korea who promised the clinton admin and former pres carter that they wouldnt pursue nukes, and then all of a sudden now they have them!
When people are determined to kill you or take over the world you cannot negotiate with them.
2006-12-09 07:34:18 · answer #6 · answered by TLJaguar 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Since Bush isn't a very logical person either, nor a very reasonable one, may be it's better for everybody if they stay apart.
2006-12-09 07:31:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
What can you say to someone who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened and wants Israel wiped off the earth?
2006-12-09 07:38:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your second paragraph answers your first. Reagan never talked to the Russians. He outspent and scared the crap out of them. Read History.
2006-12-09 07:29:32 · answer #9 · answered by Jimfix 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Good question! I don't know any answer to this.
2006-12-09 07:54:20 · answer #10 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋