If George W. Bush, invites the leaders of the countries that criticize the United States and his leadership such as Hugo Chavez, the president of Iran, Kim Jung Il, etc. and works to resolves issues between both countries, and perhaps come up with a plan for peace and normal relations with the criticts of the US, wouldnt that solve alot of issues, and maybe make peace in the world a more attainable goal? I am sure there are complicated reasons why that cant be done, but I would think that if President Bush invited some of the leaders to the White house for a one on one talk, the US would get more out of it rather than sanctions, or threats of Military action. It would also make him more popular. Why cant it be done?
2007-06-16 20:57:20 · 11 answers · asked by kris76 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What do you call the G-8 Summit? A vacation?
What is the U.N. for? They are a worthless mouthpiece for the Libs around the world and inept as a world political body, but yes they are supposed to be able to deal with these issues.
And most of the countries you are talking about are Muslim. Do you know how low a value they place on the woman in society? Can you see Condi Rice going to any one of these Muslim countries and being taken seriously?
How are we going to diffuse the situation with Iran without sanctions and military force? We are an ally of Israel like it or not! God holds Israel in high esteem according to the Bible. One of the main reasons, I believe, that the U.S. is so blessed is that we have supported Israel through thick and thin.
If Kim Jong II would agree to talks as we have tried to set them up instead of trying to wring concessions out of us, there would be no issue with him.
Finally, Hugo Chavez is not worth talking to. He is a dictator that seized power by force and is steadily becoming a tyrant.
2007-06-16 21:08:06 · answer #1 · answered by cadcommando2003 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he has fallen for his own big lie. Those countries are "evil" and "can't be reasoned with". If he had talked to them long ago we might be in a better situation with them today.
I've never ever understood why anyone would think talks - informal or otherwise would do any harm. Bush stays the course no matter what - and look where we are.
*Clinton never used the phrase axis of evil. Don't lie.
2007-06-16 21:10:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
You have been listening to Hillary's rhetoric. She forgot to mention that her husband hadn't talked to Iran for the last 5 years of his administration and also, that his last words to them were notice of the worse trade restrictions placed upon them in our history.
Now, that Iran has threatened nuclear weaponry, Bush has broken the ice laid by the Clinton era and we have had talks. The question that should be asked is whether Bush was wrong for continuing Clinton's policy, but don't rely upon Hillary to delve into that subject.
2007-06-16 22:11:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is viewed as "appeasing" the enemy. These governments have made their positions clear. They are opposed to ours. And how many more decades of negotiations will change that? Do you know?
Because Clinton referred to the "axis of evil," a fact many seem unaware of. And negotiations were ongoing for years.
And on a personal note, as a divorce attorney, I am laughing at the naivete of your question. Two people who were once head over heels for each other cannot even do what you are suggesting.
2007-06-16 21:13:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Do you think that talks have not been tried? Our views are radical to them and theirs to us, so no happy median will ever be found.
Don't know if you have ever been out of this country or not, but believe me it's not as easy as it sounds. I mean it sounds simple, sit down and talk about it, but it doesn't work that way. It's not so black and white.
2007-06-16 21:02:53 · answer #5 · answered by bigdaddy33 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush's unilateralist cowboy approach is that these heads of state must agree to all of Bush's terms before he'll talk to them. He and Secretary of State Rice are frequently say "they know what they're supposed to do".
2007-06-16 21:13:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
because the people that oppose him have good and valid reasons for opposing him. Would you want to sit down with a bunch of people who knew you were a liar?
2007-06-16 21:01:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
He would rather invade them. If he talks to them they might make him sound stupid. His Presidency in one word "Strategery" Quote George Bush
2007-06-16 21:01:03 · answer #8 · answered by The real Ed-Mike 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
that wouldn't promote making them appear as the enemy.
2007-06-16 23:04:25 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because he doesn't know how to talk in complete sentences
2007-06-16 21:00:08 · answer #10 · answered by The Shadow Knows 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋