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?
|
Thanks for the Webster's 3. definition.
At first glance, yes, it makes sense to have talks and Obama seems to be right.
On the other hand Obama appears to be fresh and uncorrupted within the political arena. This is what America needs these days.
Yet I see, where he could possibly get too lofty in his presentation.
Persians are no wild animals, even though protrait this way at any given time.
They are not stupid either, maybe sleazy, if one may think of them that way.
I got to know many during my life so far and all of them being in possession of a pretty rational mind, next to being Muslims.
They want to make business just like anybody else, without commiting suicide.