Is Bush afraid to use diplomacy to solve the problems in Iraq & Iran because that would completely undermine..

Question

his use of military force & make him look foolish/reckless & make his critics look like geniuses?

Answer 1

Yes that is one reason .There are other reasons such as achieving personal purposes .He wanted to be hero of war regardless the bloodshed of Americans and Iraqis.

Answer 2

That's a fair question.
I strongly suspect that Bush does not rely too heavily on diplomacy with the terrorists because of the dismal failures encountered by Jimmy Carter when he tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the terrorists holding American hostages in Iran. And, further, history has shown that when we initiate policies of no effective response to their terror and slaughter of innocent people, it only leads to more of the same, finally culminating in the events of 9/11.
In order for diplomacy and negotiation policies to work, both sides must be ready to compromise - obviously, the terrorists have made their threats, demands and objectives very clear and there's really no middle ground here - unless you are willing to convert to their interpretation of Islam and surrender to a government ruled by Islamic and sharia law. I am not.
Unfortunately, sometimes military force is the only real solution.

Answer 3

you mean diplomacy like is being used with North Korea? Where we sanction them repeatedly and then finally pay them off? That sends a great message to the rest of the world doesn't it? And then in 3 or 4 years NK will be building nuclear warheads again and we'll sanction them and then pay them off again. Same thing that will probably happen with Iran.

Diplomacy does not work when you are dealing with the type of people that rule these countries. The past has shown us this. Look at Hitler's Germany and the policy of appeasment. That diplomacy worked wonderfully didn't it. Or what about the diplomacy shown to Napolean's France...once again just perfect. In fact there are very few examples of times when diplomacy worked in a rogue country without causing more problems than it solved.

Answer 4

I believe the US government is trying to use diplomacy in Iran and N Korea it wasnt an option in Iraq or Afghanistan seeing that we need a large amount of troops there if diplomacy fails with Iran and N Korea

Answer 5

You nailed it. Though I think that Bush is simply not competent enough to employ diplomacy effectively. Condoleeza Rice has to be one of the most ineffective Secretaries of State that we've ever had. Plus, if a diplomatic solution were reached, all of the war profiteering opportunties would go away for all the war contractors.

Answer 6

No, I don't think he is afraid to use diplomacy. In fact, I would say that he has tried and continues to try diplomatic moves. The problem is that he cannot deal with all fronts equally and much of what is going on cannot be resolved diplomatically. It is difficult to resolve a civil war when the US doesn't really have a horse in the race.

Answer 7

Well, what would YOU propose - having everyone sit in in a circle holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"? In the meantime, the murderous Jihadists can be cutting your mommy's throat.
Do your homework and you will learn that the hatred for infidels is a thousand years old and bred into these twisted enchiladas.

Answer 8

We are using diplomacy in both. As a matter of fact, the EU has the lead in the diplomacy in Iran.

The assumption in your question is flawed.

Answer 9

Diplomacy: I see, allright, I will play the role of Iran and Iraq.

We want Israel to cease to exist and we want all people in the US to convert to Islam and We want America to lay down their weapons and acknowledge that Allah is God!

Ball is in your court give me a diplomatic answer!

Answer 10

Yes, and because his real goal is to take over the entire middle east.