WinCrimson 61 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Wait, no bombs? That just ain't American enough for me. Call me when the blood letting begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUHonors 0 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The question was clear: I would like to hear your reasoning as to how the president meeting with a leader differs in effect from the secretary of state meeting with one on behalf of the president. Look, you are side-stepping the intent of my original post, that this is not any different from the Bush foreign policy. Sorry if I lead us in the wrong direction with my additional personal beliefs. But to answer your question with an example, there is a reason why your boss meets with certain clients, and sends others under him to meet with the rest. Plain and simple, it's perception. Not to mention a set foreign policy. I don't think it would stretch to say that the perception of America's foreign policy abroad is exactly stellar at the moment. Actually, it's not too hot on the homefront either. I understand your example of a boss in a business situation. I suppose what it comes down to is, I believe that we need to give Iran attention. It doesn't mean we are helping the radicals in their government, it doesn't mean we're recognizing anyone in their government as a good leader, or in the case of Ahmadinejad, a leader at all. It just means (or it should, at least) that we are interested in resolving conflict. Because military threat, force, or a "talk to the hand" policy is not going to work - it isn't, and it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.