with threats? Why can't world leaders sit down and talk so they can reach an agreement when there's conflicts? don't you think it's better that way?
2007-10-28 03:40:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That would lend legitimacy to the Iranian President. Talking face to face with a terrorist never works. Especially since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only a figure head who is controlled by the Islamist leaders behind the scenes.
2007-10-28 03:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No one's really "going back and forth" here. No one can negotiate with Iran, because Iran's not interested and there would be nothing to gain. The US does not want to fight with Iran, it's just not under our control. If Iran does act in an agressive manner in the middle east, the US will be forced to protect its interests. It seems black and white that Iran's push for the extermination of Israel is a bad thing, and the US will probably just be bringing up the end of the pack if Iran chooses to make a move of that type. Until then, there's nothing to discuss, and Iran is unwilling to negotiate. There isn't anything anyone can do at this point.
2007-10-28 10:56:26 · answer #2 · answered by justin r 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a vary complex situation going back to the beginning of the 20th century.
To sum up it has to do with every government playing the same ball game and not trying to start there own.
When the pillars of civilization falls those at its base are harmed the most.
Iran wants to be the super power of the middle east this would destabilize more then support the global game. It really is in the global economies best interest that Iran suck it up and pay second fiddle.
2007-10-28 10:58:31 · answer #3 · answered by contact_wraith 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, you just made me pale.
Sending Bush to talk to world leaders who aren't wrapped too tight to start with would be like throwing a lit match into a gas tank.
Bush has shown a disdain for diplomatic means and hes far from diplomatic himself. His language is awkward and easily misunderstood and he reveals a lack of knowledge about other cultures that make it easy for him to insult them.
In other days, with other presidents, they did meet, sometimes, as with Carter, at Camp David, other times in summit meetings.
Bush doesn't do well at these events and the world in general does not respect him.
I think most here don't realize that even with a country that you don't like you start by diplomatic means, it is, after all a sovereign country, and its leaders could be assassinated tomorrow given its instability, then you could be dealing with people with a whole other agenda who might be more amenable to your way of thinking. What you don't do, right out of the box, is declare the whole country rogue and terrorist when you just got finished showing the whole world that you said that the last time and it was proved false.
2007-10-28 10:50:58 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why talk with a terrorist? This is the same guy who was one of the leaders if the 1979 "situation" that Jimmy Carter had to try to deal with. He is also responsible for training the "insurgents" killing our troops and arming Hamas and Hezbollah. How could any one trust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
2007-10-28 10:53:18 · answer #5 · answered by stupidcaucasian 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's probably a better way, but it won't happen. Probably with those two, that is a good thing. One can't talk unless his speech writers give him something to say, and the other runs around saying "There are no homosexuals in Iran". Which one of those two do you think would have the most relevant, rational comments?
2007-10-28 10:46:04 · answer #6 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Sure . . .and the police should have just met with Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer to try and talk some sense into them and come to an agreement. I'm sure that would work!
2007-10-28 10:46:40 · answer #7 · answered by KRR 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush doesn't want to reach a compromise. He already has his mind set to launch air strikes or invade
2007-10-28 11:00:53 · answer #8 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure.. But real life is not that way.
There are some people who you just cant reason with.
Nevil Chamberlain "sat down" with Hitler and came back with a letter that Nevil thought would bring "Peace in our time!"
Well, you know what happened next.
2007-10-28 10:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ahmedinjad is a terrorist.... he wants to finish the job hitler started...he wants to destroy isreal...and he wants the world to convert or die.... the man, quite frankly, is a nutcase!
would you have the president of the US sit down with him and give him credibility?
2007-10-28 10:46:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋