Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like most things, the definition of conservatism, for that matter liberalism is relative and changes over time.
I may be wrong by your standards, but Ronald Reagan was considered a conservative by many.
He thought...
I guess, It would something new for those of you who support this administration.
For those who don't follow current events, the Bush administration has continuously denounced talking to Iran as weak as he did with North Korea.
North Korea then set off 2 nukes, then Bush decided to talk and worked a deal with them.
Having apparently learned a lesson Bush has now decided it may be worth talking to Iran.
There's talking and then there's talking. Madaleine Albright talked up a storm with the little dictator of North Korea and then toasted him with a glass of champagne even as her pocket was being picked. Presumably that is the kind of diplomacy that Obama would use as a model. On the other hand there is diplomacy that yields real results and I don't mean a propaganda coup for our enemies. I don't think Obama, as naive as he is, knows the difference.
There's talking and then there's talking. Madaleine Albright talked up a storm with the little dictator of North Korea and then toasted him with a glass of champagne even as her pocket was being picked. Presumably that is the kind of diplomacy that Obama would use as a model. On the other hand there is diplomacy that yields real results and I don't mean a propaganda coup for our enemies. I don't think Obama, as naive as he is, knows the difference.
This is all "I don't think" and "presumably."
"Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
How is this a bad thing. Bush is trying it now as we speak. For a change.
There's talking and then there's talking. Madaleine Albright talked up a storm with the little dictator of North Korea and then toasted him with a glass of champagne even as her pocket was being picked. Presumably that is the kind of diplomacy that Obama would use as a model. On the other hand there is diplomacy that yields real results and I don't mean a propaganda coup for our enemies. I don't think Obama, as naive as he is, knows the difference.
Maybe things could have been done without so much yacking but Madaleine Albright did keep him from exploded any nukes. Bush did not.
Another point I think is essential is every time you put the big tough guy of threatening war & then back down as Bush has done twice. The US looks weaker because of it.
The argument can easily be made that this type of threat then talk motivates those around the world, since they perceive the US as having back down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
