http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/18/bush.un/
Isn't this the problem? Not talking to each other? Isn't dialogue exactly what needs to occur right now? Forget a public debate. Bush told reporters this morning that he would not speak to him. How high school is that?! You're both elected leaders, though both countries might dispute the validity of each of those elections, that's the reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thats pretty sad too, since isolation is the easiest way to start a war. maybe thats why Bush doesn't want to dialogue with him.
I agree. I think it makes going to war easier to justify. Funny, some reports said Ahmadinejad was trying to avoid Bush at the UN conference. Other reports indicated that Bush was avoiding him. I think Ahmadinejad can smell the fear, and knows that should he ever have a real conversation with W, it wouldn't be hard to make him uncomfortable. We see that in press conferences in which Bush refuses to answer questions he doesn't like. We saw that in the last election campaign, when the Bush/Cheney team didn't just do a standard filtering of the attendees to their rallies. Nobody tell the emperor he's naked and he'll think he's wearing the finest clothes any man could buy.
you're right about that, lol, Bush mumbles through so many speeches and softball questions, its sad.
when you see people like Michelle Bachelet, and Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva sound so eloquent and knowledgeable about international affairs makes you look at your leader like "wow", this is our guy?
A man of the people, so to speak.
So the question for you is:
a)"What are the upsides of meeting"
b)"What are the downsides"
The Iranian pres will not negotiate on the point of nukes in good faith, we know this. He has broken the UN seals on enrichment facilities. He supports terrorists with money and arms. He has threatened to wipe out Israel, and to make the US bow to him. He is allied with the nutjob in N.Korea. He has been conducting intelligence gathering on US public places and giving the info to terrorists (Iranian embassy employees were caught filming bridges and tunnels, which supports this.)On no important point will he negotiate, or else he would have negotiated with the Euro-wimps that we let try to handle the issue, in the name of "multilateralism"
Downsides? This would give M.A. status, and would give him an opportunity to act without class and embarrass the president. As far as Bush being afraid of him, you are in fantasy land.
You liberals need to learn to do more than "feel", you need to start thinking. And stop thinking you are the smartest people in the room, usually you aren't.
It was very "nice" of Ahmadinejad to call for an open debate with Bush. If he is really so keen on free debate, perhaps he should give Iranian professors their jobs back, reopen all the closed newspapers and release all the political prisoners.
As things stand, he simply wants a show and a stage to air his poisnous views.
Look, there are loads of horrible leaders in this world who oppress their people, so I won't disagree about what kind of man he is. However, what we don't need is another war. What we do need is some dialogue to avoid future conflicts.
CG, you are not accepting the responsibility that comes with an opinion. How does dialogue with M.A. reduce the chance of war?
Will M.A. of Iran negotiate in good faith? If not, dialogue is pointless.
Then the question is, how far should we go to prevent a nuclear armed Iran?
Would you prefer to avoid war at ALL COST? The cost would be a nutjob regime with the ability to incinerate a city, and render a whole county uninhabitable. He WANTS armageddon. He would like to force the end of the world in order to bring Mohammed back to earth and bring about the end of the world. He has said so.
So how does a piss-ant war sound now? I say piss-ant because compared to a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv, NY or London, a 100,000 dead is nothing. Yes, some non-nutjobs would die, but afterwards, at least they wouldn't have the mullahs to control/destroy their lives.
"CG, you are not accepting the responsibility that comes with an opinion."
I thought my opinion was made clear. We need dialogue. We don't need a war. Not 2000 deaths, not 10,000 deaths, not 100,000 deaths.
dialogue about what? YOu made your FEELINGS clear, but your feelings matter only to you.
Why not do some hard work and answer the questions that I posed. Taking the easy way out and saying "We need dialogue. We don't need a war." is infantile.
I say we either have war, or we have a terrorist nuke detonated in a major city. Avoiding the choice doesn't help anyone.
dialogue about what? YOu made your FEELINGS clear, but your feelings matter only to you.
Why not do some hard work and answer the questions that I posed. Taking the easy way out and saying "We need dialogue. We don't need a war." is infantile.
I say we either have war, or we have a terrorist nuke detonated in a major city. Avoiding the choice doesn't help anyone.
"Why not do some hard work and answer the questions that I posed. Taking the easy way out and saying "We need dialogue. We don't need a war." is infantile."
I know this is hard for you to understand, Smarter, but not every blog posting is intended to be some personal attack on your belief system. I'm entitled to my opinion, no matter how infantile you perceive it to be. I've noticed your comments on many blogs are quite hostile. It would seem that you seek out conflict-here in the pages of a blog, and in general based on your 'nuke 'em' approach to solving international issues. If I thought you could engage in a sensible and non-confrontational exchange of ideas sans personal attacks such as 'you liberals' and the like, then I might be inclined to expound upon earlier remarks I made. You appear to be a troll. You visit blogs which represent ideas that directly contradict your own, demand that blog owners "[accept] the responsibility that comes with an opinion", and go so far as attack the basis the basis of their beliefs. A recent example was telling Carmen on Diasporic Discontents that her ideas about group work, though based in her studies, didn't mean much, since everyone knows that the school of Ed generally has a low quality of students. From her blog, your comment:
"The problem with Schools of Ed, is that they are very faddish, and the quality of the students and faculty are generally (but not always) LOW. People who major in Ed have the lowest standard scores of any major on campus, and upon graduation, only Socialogy majors are lower. Many of them do not understand why they are to do the things they are taught, but they are taught right and wrong ways to teach. "
I've never visited your blog, smarter, because based on your comments I can tell that you and I think very differently and that you are hardly the type to concede, no matter how compelling the evidence is against your argument. I'm not sure what's behind your desire to troll these blogs that so obviously contradict your beliefs and values, since it's not about an exchange of ideas. It's simply about your ideas being voiced.
"dialogue about what? YOu made your FEELINGS clear, but your feelings matter only to you."
Yeah, that's the funny thing about feelings. They're personal.
I guess I hope to get a liberal or two to actually THINK. I guess with some of you, it is impossible to penetrate the wall of feelings with mere facts.
As far as my conceding when the evidence is against me, few people actually present counter-facts. Read your posts on this subject, and those of the people that agree with you. Very little fact, just accusation and character assassination. You have yet to step out of your "talk is good, war is bad" mentality. You aren't the only one there who refuses to deal with the fact that we have to decide if a nuclear Iran is acceptable, or if we will survive as a nation and culture. Is there anything worth fighting for?
Seriously, I want to hear what an anti-war person thinks is worth fighting for. Would you rather have war with Iran now, or have a nuclear Iran in the near future?
So keep voting for treasonous politicians, keep supporting positions that put our country at risk. Keep providing moral support for others who utterly fail to apply fact and logic to issues.
Sometimes each vote, each voice counts.
See my previous comment.
OK
I guess you are content to be a typical liberal. This is why all opinions are not equal, why polls and public opinion matter not, because some people are stupid to start with, overly enamored with their own opinions, and can never be bothered to actually think, something that you obviously have great difficulty with.
Have fun with your blog about panties and periods. Deep thinker you are.
Ahhhhh......now THERE'S the Mr. Smarterthanyou that we all know and love. So here's the lesson to be learned from this:
a) Engage Smarter in a dialogue, and he'll attempt to debunk your opinion with a personal attack.
OR
b) Do not engage Smarter in a diaglogue, and he'll go straight for the personal attack.
This ain't the New York Times, you ass. It's a blog. Seek out a therapist to help you deal with your obvious need for conflict.
Post a Comment