|
|
|
|
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
It is not a one size fits all situation. Iraq and Iran are different
animals. However, we did try the diplomatic route in Iraq, similar to
what we are doing in Iran, prior to the invasion.
Sometimes diplomacy and discussions work, sometimes not. They did not
work with Iraq. They may work with Iran.
So what is your point Jim?
Did you forget that last week Bush declined to join the Europeans in
negotiations. He was going to be the lone Cowboy who did things HIS
way?
No I do not remember. I am not saying you are wrong, but perhaps you
can provide a link.
Regardless, what is wrong with him deciding to join in with Europe in
the negotiations? You see this as a bad thing?
Convienent memory! --
No, I simply did not remember. Why the slam?
I see this as a good thing, but last week it was a bad thing. The
question asked was "is this a flip or a flop?
Nope, things change, especially when dealing with international politics.
Would you rather that a President have one and only one way to deal with
other Countries?
From your favorite news source
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148304,00.html
"The United States has refused to get involved in the bargaining with
Tehran or to make commitments about incentives, insisting that Tehran
abandon its program."
Thank you for the link. And what makes you think that Fox is my favorite
news source? Just because I am a political conservative? Again, another
attempted slam on your part. Can you discuss things without the
attempted personal attacks Jimcomma?
OK -- what IS your favorite news source? Tell the world.
I don't have a favorite. Why do I have to?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03564569.htm
Supporting Europe on the incentives would mark a significant shift in
strategy for Bush, who has been reluctant to consider them before to
avoid being seen as rewarding Iran for bad behavior.
Great. Bush is doing good....eh?
I'll give him this one
During his first term Bush branded Iran part of an "axis of evil," along
with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Nothing has changed. Your point is?
Now maybe we should negotiate with N Korea?
We already are.
And Tehran has been an antagonist of Washington since the 1979 Iranian
revolution and the seizure that year of more than 60 hostages in the U.S.
Embassy in a crisis that lasted 444 days.
Correct. And that would include Carter and Clinton during those years,
as it would Bush Sr and Jr, and Reagan
Your point is?
The question asked was "is this a flip or a flop? Bush made a big issue
of flip flopping during the campaign.
No it was not a flip flop. One *has* to remain flexible when dealing with
international politics. One has to, however, remain true to their core
beliefs.
Bush has, remained consistent with his core beliefs, including with the war
on terror, fixing social security, fixing the tax code, abortion, tort
reform and believing that forceful action will sometimes be called for in
his dealing with other countries.
Kerry on the other hand changed his core beliefs on abortion,
Pro Choice -- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm
the war on terror,
He was deceived by Bush, rice, et all
troop funding,
Again deceived
ANWAR,
Evidence please As I understand, he has always been against drilling.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ry-nafta_x.htm
welfare reform,
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_..._+_Poverty.htm
the death penalty
Not so http://deadlinethemovie.com/blog/joh...th_penalty.php
the Patriot Act,
Agreed
affirmative action
See http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403090827.asp
.....and on and on and on.
|