Originally Posted by valanhb
So can anyone tell me why we should be the ones leading the charge against Iran? This is seriously one of those "damned if we do and damned if we don't" situations. Since Bush hasn't made the outreach to him, we aren't trying. If we had led the coalition talks, then we would have been trying to control the world and warmongerers.
I think there is a certain validity to this argument - the US is in a difficult situation when it comes to handling foreign policy - especially sticky foreign policy such as with Iran.
However, the current approach (i.e. war) hasn't proved to work very well, and regardless, if you want real change in the world, you need to change the way you do things. Sometimes that means radically
changing the way you do things. And keeping on doing them the new way until change is achieved. In the words of the wonderful Mahatma Ghandi, we need to `be the change we want to see'.
There's something very noble about being the instigator of more peaceful approaches to things. Even if it is hard. Even if it seems like it won't work.
We live in dangerous times - there are many issues facing the world and they need to be handled with diplomacy and statesmanship, not bullying, war and aggression. For the US to step up a level, and take responsibility for attempting peaceful means of resovling issues is a HUGE opportunity and would be a very, very impressive undertaking.
To simply write off these means because it might be a bit tough is never going to change anything.