Nope. The same can apply to Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter.
YET...your criticism was specific towards Bush. You did not mention the other fellas that created this policy. You targetted Bush.
Yes, theoretically they could. And the United States could theoretically withdraw from the entire Middle East, and Israel could theoretically allow all Palestinian refugees the right of return. But the people demanding those things, in ALL of those cases, know perfectly well that they aren't going to happen.
Oh give me a break. You are being desperate to prove an invalid point. No...theoretoically, America can not give into such demands. The demands were not to see Israel give back some land. It was to stop supporting Israel. Is America supposed to start choosing its allies in accordance to the demands of others? When do we start not supporting the Kurds? I hear the Arabs hate the Shia. When do we **** on them? Algerian terrorists, who hate France for their colonial BS and blatant public torture of hundreds of thousands of people just decades ago may as well make demands upon America to stop supporting France. Surely, we can allow all of them to choose our friends for us. And completely leaving the Middle East invites hell on earth. During the Cold War, we had the dictator and economic sanctions. As soon as the Cold War ended the dictator began a campaign to disrupt "peace" in the Middle East. Now, we are stuck making them behave for everyone's sake. Even ridding them of their dictators will see them destroy each other over barbaric stone age tribal conflict.
These, among others, were demands impossible to meet. Somali pirates have a better chance of getting millions of dollars out of America before America could possibly even think about giving into Arab demands. The demands towards Iran and North Korea was about nuclear power and rocket launches. Something even the UN and the EU were actively engaged in. Our demands were and are not in the same category as those spewed out by those who's goal is destruction. Our demands are practical and are in keeping with global interests...not just our own. And our demands are meant to stay off destruction. Their demands gurantee it. There's your difference.
You can replace the name Bush with Bill Clinton if you like. The point still stands.
Yet....your chose to put Bush on blast. And in a few sentences you will go on to state "previous administration" and "last 8 years." Once again showing that Bush is your point, not decades of necessary foriegn policy.
You are absolutely right, they make impossible, impractical demands. Which does not sound particularly different that what the US government does whenever it demands another nation abandon all its interests and do what the US wants before we'll even talk to them.
The impractical demands by a terrorist organization vesus the practical demands of the world are no where in the same vicinity of being the same. And I know you seem to want to place Bush and America on blast, but your complaints are more about decades long policies and global demands.
This is not a world absent of enemies. We do not live in a warm, cozy environment where everyone's intentions are pure or even fair. America is
the superpower and Russia is not because we saw the world for what it was and "fairness" is not a part of the equation. "What we want" is aleways in the world's best interests. You and others may complain that the immediate deals and diplomacies is about America's interests, but our interests have benefitted the world for over two centuries.
I could care less about the interests of nations, which won't even ultimately serve to benefit the world's prosperity but just their own oppressive agendas over others in their region.
Uhh well it's been all of, what, 100 days? The truth of the matter is that it's probably too late. The previous administration ......
And here it is again. Despite your attempts to re-define your criticisms towards not just Bush, Bush continues to be on your agenda to blame. In 100 days, North Korea launched a rocket. North Korea and Iran have been thorns for a very very long time. To suggest that "Bush" made everything too late, thereby setting Obama apart from every President before him with his hands tied is pointless....unless your point is to place Bush on blast.
It was too late the moment Iran chose to place their religion and destiny in the hands of a madman instead of the future. The ball has always been in their court.
Nations are like people. We all have natures about us. Iran's nature has always been to control the region. This is historical. Our nature is to control the world's path. To think one can change the nature of another simply by having a few good conversations is stupid. North Korea's nature is to disrupt the feeling of security in their region. Russia's nature is to pretend to power.
President after president has dealt with these issues over and over and all have come to same conclusions. Simply blaming the world's policies and natures on the one single President you lose sleep over does not reflect honesty upon the subject. And considering that they have insights and intels far beyond the FOX or CNN news channel, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Obama has stipulated that we should talk with Iran.....but nuclear power is not acceptable. Talks after they comply or talks with the understanding that they are going to comply is very much the same thing. The only difference is that Europeans and weak Americans get to have their warm false feelings about America's openess to compromise on these matters. Illusion is for the weak.
Fine, replace "Bush" with "Bill Clinton" in my previous post then.
Replace "Bush" with "decades of policy" and you would have been accurate instead of merely head hunting.
And what did we accomplish by shunning them for the past eight years?
The same thing talking to them will. And didn't the UN and the EU talk to Iran? You mean to tell me that without America doing the talking that the UN and the EU are useless? Don't tell them that.
It certainly didn't help that the United States was not a part of those negotiations.
You mean "conducting" the negotiations. Screw that. The world wants their UN in charge and the EU fancies themselves better than the US. They spent 8 years proving incapable to the task. Let the UN take responsibilities for its failures for a change.
What exactly do you want to do about Iran? Shun them some more until they cry and give up their nukes?
Short of a bombing campaign and invasion there's nothing anybody can do to stop their quest. All this BS about talks, negotiations, and diplomoacy is fruitless effort. Ahmenadejed knows this. America knows this. The only ones that don't seem to know this are the UN, the EU, and the average earth citizen waiting to blame America for not talking or for not invading.
Some things are inevitable. Change from this current path will only come from within Iran and no one else.
