Quote:
Originally Posted by dculkin
The first definition given by Mirriam-Webster is "to bring to a state of peace or quiet", which sounds OK. I think the definition that W intended in his recent comments to the Israeli legislature was the third definition: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles", which doesn't sound OK.
I don't see how talking to someone necessarily results in concessions at the sacrifice of principles. So, my question remains. Isn't Obama clearly in the right on this issue? If not, why not?
|
Bush and supporters have a flag draped over the shoulder and a bible in the hand. Jesus spoke of loving one's enemies. Bush and McCain are not willing to accord them even the respect of having the right to live or to have an opinion on matters that affect them directly, such as, oh, little things like being bombed.
Iran is not a small country -- bigger than Texas, California, Montana, and Georgia combined, with a population of more than 60 million. Their borders have not changed significantly since the 1600s. We think they're evil? Newsflash, they think the same of us. Not good enough reason to assume we can bomb first, talk later.