| Results of
Vote On Jesse Jackson's Obligation To Negotiate compared With President
Bush's Obligation to NOT Negotiate with Terrorist Hostage-Takers
When you have read the two news articles
from the news article you can then consider the moral question: Where
does the rational "obligation" lay? With Jesse Jackson for offering to
negotiate with the terrorists, or with President Bush who says we never
negotiate with hostage-takers?
Bush Security Advisor: No Negotiations With
Hostage-Takers
President Bush's
national security advisor says the United States will not negotiate with
hostage-takers holding Americans in Iraq.
WSJ, April 17, 2004: Wife Of US Man Kidnapped In
Iraq: Jesse Jackson Offers Aid
JACKSON,
Miss. (AP)--The Rev. Jesse Jackson will contact religious leaders in
Iraq to seek the release of Thomas Hamill, the U.S. civilian truck
driver abducted in Iraq, Hamill's wife said Saturday.
Name:
MSR Ayyangar
email: emm
Vote: I would rather comment than vote.
Question: Page 5
Remote User:
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Time: 12:02:32 AM
CommentsMy Comments Are: I support USA's policy of not negotiating with the terrorists. This is absolutely right. But USA should recognize & apply the same rule for India & Pakistan, instead of asking India to negotiate with "Pakistan" - who is being rewarded periodically by USA -- financially and militarily -- preventing India from taking precipitate action against the chief terrorist promoter & abettor ... "Pakistan"... as otherwise USA will lose its credibility for its high moral ground in world affairs.
See The Questions That
Prompted These Results
|
