Iran Wants Direct Talks....Don't They?

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Aimster
All Obama has to do is lift sanctions and Iran will stop their nuclear program. Otherwise a bunch of 747s and other crap is laughable when Iran can just turn to China/Russia.

:roll:

& this is confusing to you how?

What has the U.S offered Iran for them to end their nuclear plans? Nothing. Bunch of stuff Iran can just buy from Russia/China. It might be cheap but it will work.

The leadership of Iran cares about their economy. Not what kind of plane can fly people around.

The fact that you think Iran would give up its weapons program for anything is laughable.

Their GDP would double in 3-4 years.
I think GDP growth of 20-30% a year is plenty for the Iranian leadership to give up their nuclear plans.

Wait, they didnt care about getting the sanctions in the first place, why would they give up the program to remove them?

They want the bomb. They dont give a flying sh*t about their GDP when it comes to being in the exclusive "club." They are going to have to be stopped by force.

Do you even know about the history of Iran? It was controlled by a U.S puppet who spent 40% of the GDP on U.S military equipment. Everything inside Iran was about the U.S.
Of course the new regime was going to kick the U.S out of Iran. They were poor while the rich were running around acting like they were Americans.
U.S didn't protect their puppet and the end result was a new regime run by the poor.

The hate for the U.S inside Iran has gone away. The U.S still believes that the Iranian regime can be overthrown and by allowing them to remain poor a new revolution will happen.

The leadership of Iran is more concerned with remaining in power than having a bomb at their disposal. The economy in Iran is going back to the way it was in the 1990s. Those were the days riots were widespread. Soon it will start again. A bomb is meaningless.

So if the U.S wants to play their little game, Iran will get the bomb in 2 years and then in 3 years their regime will collapse and nobody knows what will happen to that bomb.

 

[justly]

"In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government."


Sounds like Iran now has preconditions, if they want to talk at all.

So what counrty has the alpha leader now?, here is a hint, its not the one under an Obama rule.

I can hardly believe people didn't see this comming.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: justly
"In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government."


Sounds like Iran now has preconditions, if they want to talk at all.

So what counrty has the alpha leader now?, here is a hint, its not the one under an Obama rule.

I can hardly believe people didn't see this comming.

Ahmadinejad doesn't rule the country of Iran. He's a tool who is going to be kicked out of office soon.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: justly
"In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government."


Sounds like Iran now has preconditions, if they want to talk at all.

So what counrty has the alpha leader now?, here is a hint, its not the one under an Obama rule.

I can hardly believe people didn't see this comming.

What are you talking about? Okay, so now Iran is imposing preconditions on us before they want to talk. All it does is demonstrate to the world that they're crazy and unreasonable. They're on the defensive now. They are the ones who look bad for being uncooperative, not us.

"No preconditions" is a two-way street. If Obama actually cops to Iran's demands as they have laid them out above, I will switch parties, as would many other people.

 

[palehorse]

LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

No, believing that they *are* pursuing nuclear weapons is the most ignorant statement, particularly when there's no evidence that they are currently doing so...

Does having enrichment technology and reactors make it *possible* for them to develop weapons? Theoretically, yes, but there's that small matter of the IAEA inspectors overseeing their activities.

The article in the OP deliberately sets up the story to follow an agenda. The problem with that is, besides being an agenda, is that the Iranians aren't exactly a unified front, and they're currently doing their own posturing for domestic consumption because their presidential election is next June...

The one sure way to convince the Iranian electorate that they need their hardliners and nukes is to keep screaming in their faces... keep threatening to attack, keep finding ways to hinder their development... keep painting them as irrational, when they're clearly not.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

Dude you're not bright. You went to a university where the admissions requirements are opening the door.

Show me where they are building nuclear weapons. Yawn.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

Dude you're not bright. You went to a university where the admissions requirements are opening the door.

Show me where they are building nuclear weapons. Yawn.

I think they can officially admit to a weapons program and you would still say they are not probably give the excuse they are just posturing.

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

No, believing that they *are* pursuing nuclear weapons is the most ignorant statement, particularly when there's no evidence that they are currently doing so...

Does having enrichment technology and reactors make it *possible* for them to develop weapons? Theoretically, yes, but there's that small matter of the IAEA inspectors overseeing their activities.

The article in the OP deliberately sets up the story to follow an agenda. The problem with that is, besides being an agenda, is that the Iranians aren't exactly a unified front, and they're currently doing their own posturing for domestic consumption because their presidential election is next June...

The one sure way to convince the Iranian electorate that they need their hardliners and nukes is to keep screaming in their faces... keep threatening to attack, keep finding ways to hinder their development... keep painting them as irrational, when they're clearly not.

IAEA only applies so long as Iran doesn't abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Once they do, the inspectors go bye-bye. Didn't the IAEA cheif have an interview earlier this year where he said Iran could be as little as 6 months away from developing a nuclear weapon if the inspectors weren't monitoring? Didn't their report on Iran also say the Iranians are not being fully open with the inspectors? Now I don't know about you, but I would have to guess you must be doing a hell of a lot more than just trying to produce power if you are an estimated 6 months to a year away from having a potential weapon. Chances are they have stuff going on where the inspectors arent being allowed to look too.

Beyond that, do I believe they would actually use one? No. Despite the talk of "wiping Israel off the face of the planet" and all, I believe they want a nuclear weapon for leverage. They want a nuclear weapon to be used as ours are, as a deterent. If they happen to get the balls to launch an attack on Israel, Israel will know they can't resort to using a nuclear weapon unless they are fine with getting one in exchange. Ahmadinejad might talk a big game, but I am pretty sure Iran is smart enough to know anyone who launches a pre-emptive or unprovoked nuclear attack against another country is sure to see massive offensive launched against them.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

Dude you're not bright. You went to a university where the admissions requirements are opening the door.

Show me where they are building nuclear weapons. Yawn.

I think they can officially admit to a weapons program and you would still say they are not probably give the excuse they are just posturing.

& why would I do that?

Aren;t you the ATOT Islamaphobic person who always creates Islamic bashing threads?

 

[Lemon law]

Its really a question of who is crazy. And that sad to say has been the USA. First the US stages to coup to replace Iranian democracy with a monarchy, then we saddled them with the Shah of Iran, training the Shah's secret police with how to torture. When the Iranian people finally threw the Shah out, the USA as a collective country have still never gotten over our snit as Dick Cheney has made it his life;s motivation,
oh the Humanity, all the lost Halliburton oil revenue. Our next step was to make a deal with the devil, and make Saddam Hussein our man in the mid-east, get him to use all of the Iraqi peoples oil revenues to buy an army, and then help him start an unprovoked war on Iran. A war Iran barely survived and it came at the cost of the slaughter of the better part of two generations of Iranian men. Then lucky Iran, Saddam wore out his welcome by double dealing with the Russians, nothing worse than a tin pot dictator that will not stay bought, and Iraq got to join Iran on the USA number uno shit list. And finally a nutty GWB decided that Saddam had to go, and after starting a war of lies, the deed was done in the most incompetent manner imaginable. And suddenly Iraq was plunged into instant anarchy, and ole crazy George, rather than fessing up and taking the blame, blamed Iran. While continuing a policy of saying what ever is good for Iran is bad for the USA.

From the Iranian perspective, having a crazy batshit insane country like the USA dislike you is one thing, but when that totally bat shit insane country is a super power, its a real problem.

And the real question is somewhat from an Iranian perspective, if Obama is willing to make peace with Iran, its the USA who must admit its been wrong, and to some extent its up to Obama to make the first move. After that all kinds of good things can follow, the US and Iran are more natural allies than natural enemies, and the Iranian future lies more to the East than to the West. Iranian moderates made significant peace overtures in 2002, Cheney kicked them in the face, and as a result we got got an extremist in Ahmadinejad. Now we have another chance because the Ahmadinejad term expires 8/2009, and what we do can and will influence what Iran does. An Iranian gas pipeline to India would do much to completely solve the Afghan problem while being a win win win for the entire region.

Once we get over our snit and realize the Shah is a never coming back, we can turn a new page in history. And gasp reject, what is good for Iran is bad for the USA. And that should not be a knee jerk stupidity compulsion to drive our foreign policy.

 

[fskimospy]

So are people going to still whine about Obama talking to countries without preconditions? He isn't even in office yet and he has Iran off balance and retreating, something Bush failed to do for eight long years.

All he had to do was call their bluff, and agree to meet with them. Now they are scrambling to cook up excuses for why they can't, a significant portion of their international sympathy is evaporating, and if we DO need to take any actions against Iran they just got ten times easier to justify and build support for. Agreeing to take the path of diplomacy has already yielded dividends before his first day in office, or the first plane ticket to Tehran.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

Dude you're not bright. You went to a university where the admissions requirements are opening the door.

Show me where they are building nuclear weapons. Yawn.

what's with the random stab at my education!? Do your diplomas define you and make you a man? My three degrees don't define who I am...

Anyways, I wish I could show you... but I can't.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

Kill the jews, arabs take Israel out, peace in the middle east?

LOL - ... But seriously there will never be peace in the middle east. It has been in cnstant turmoil since the dawn of civilization. Always an enemy, and when the enemy is defeated, they trun on themselves and fight themselves. This is not a new thing, its been going on for over 5000 years. Nothing we can do to change it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Iran sounds more afraid of Obama than Bush! Hilarious . . .

Well, Bush was easy to classify. Obama is taking them seriously but it isn't what they want. If what this article is true (regarding their mindset), it looks like they were just stalling for time all along and have been exposed. The only question is, what will Obama do.

I think anybody who looked at this situation rationally knows Iran is stalling for time. Just like the N.Koreans did. Just like Al Sadr did in 04-05. Just like any despot regime or organization does when they need time to bring their plans to action. Hell even the Nazi's presented the allies with different terms of peace in return for continuing their holocaust and war against the Soviets. The key imo is realizing when you are being played and making a decision based off that.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

Heh how much? Peace in the ME is a pipedream. Even if Israel was wiped off the face of the earth there would be a new struggle.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

LoL, so Obama is going to end 4000+ years of fighting in the middle east?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

LoL, so Obama is going to end 4000+ years of fighting in the middle east?

Wow... I am extremely confident in Obama's abilities as a leader and a diplomat... But even I dont think he has a shot at that... The middle east has been hell on earth since before civilization began. The only way it will see peace is if all Humans are forced to leave the region.

Nuclear?

 

[JEDIYoda]

jonks is quoted as saying ---"(Obama doesn't have enough on his plate, I thought promising world peace would keep him busy) "

jonks show me one place just one itsky little tiny sentence where Obama actually came out and promised PEACE.........link p[lease...thx

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse
LOL.. I love it when Aimster shows up to defend Iranian lunacy at all costs... it's so cute! :laugh:

Believing that they would stop pursuing nuclear weapons if we simply lifted the sanctions is perhaps the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this subject -- and that's saying a lot!

Dude you're not bright. You went to a university where the admissions requirements are opening the door.

Show me where they are building nuclear weapons. Yawn.

what's with the random stab at my education!? Do your diplomas define you and make you a man? My three degrees don't define who I am...

Anyways, I wish I could show you... but I can't.

3 degrees.....OK.....it`s easy to be anything you want to be on the internet!! rofl

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

LoL, so Obama is going to end 4000+ years of fighting in the middle east?

Wow... I am extremely confident in Obama's abilities as a leader and a diplomat... But even I dont think he has a shot at that... The middle east has been hell on earth since before civilization began. The only way it will see peace is if all Humans are forced to leave the region.

Nuclear?

So you're saying that there hasn't been conflict over there for the last 6000 years? I don't have an answer, but neither has any world leader for a long time, and I find it comical that people who are asking for the US to leave the middle east alone think that Obama can intervene and make something happen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: justly
"In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government."


Sounds like Iran now has preconditions, if they want to talk at all.

So what counrty has the alpha leader now?, here is a hint, its not the one under an Obama rule.

I can hardly believe people didn't see this comming.

do the words NO Clue have any meaning??

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Obama responded with hardline outrage to the remarks made last by Ahmadinejad before the United Nations General Assembly. Obama issued a statement saying:

"I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad's outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views." He added, "The threat from Iran's nuclear program is grave." Obama then called on his rival in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain, "to join me in supporting a bipartisan bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran."

Those who think Obama will handle Iran with "kid gloves", I think is sadly mistaken. I do think he will be less divisive than Bush and open dialogue through 3rd partys, which is a different and possibly a positive approach.

America, the World, and even Iran would be considerably better off if Ahmadinejad would have kept his trap shut for a couple months at least. His words help right-wing extremists in both America, and also in Israel, where Tzipi Livni is trying to put together a sane Kadima government, in the face of the looming threat of the insane Netanyahu and Likud's militarists.

Khamenei could have chosen this occasion to keep Ahmadinejad, his yappy little terrier, on a short lease, or even locked in the house. I don't fault Obama for regretting that the unruly children are monopolizing the microphone to no good purpose.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

Heh how much? Peace in the ME is a pipedream. Even if Israel was wiped off the face of the earth there would be a new struggle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the implicit delusion in the Genx87 post is that the mid-east is some sort of special hell hole, when war fare wise, the people of the European continent have been historically at each others throat for thousands of years. And the same history of war fare applies to every inhabited continent on earth.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that the mid-east has been in the warfare game longer than anyone else in the Western world, and that while glaciers were just starting to retreat in Europe, the mid-east was already advanced in spreading its warfare Northward to the empires that would later civilize Europe. And at the same time the rains that formerly nutured the mid-east left the mid-east an semi-arid desert.

But it is oil that has changed the mid-east again, transforming it from a backwater
to a rich prize to be squabbled over by every country in the world.

So of course the Genx87 premise is false, Obama can do much to defuse the tensions that have been building in the mid-east, Europe has seen 63 years of peace, there have been no major wars inside of the USA since our civil war, but South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, and other areas are also powder kegs. Wise countries can do much to defuse tensions, dumb ones do not.

Its a case where the world keeps on a changing for the better or the worse, from the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse. As GWB foreign policy may have caused, mostly indirectly, the violent deaths of a million people and the dislocation of another two million.

And we must always ask, who are the the real savages?

In the case of Iran, it has a UN sanctioned right to develop nuclear energy for electrical power generation, and Iran is committed to that, as another 40 nations also join in. The question is, will Iran go on to develop nuclear weapons? What we in the USA now do can have a very large impact on that decision.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
jonks is quoted as saying ---"(Obama doesn't have enough on his plate, I thought promising world peace would keep him busy) "

jonks show me one place just one itsky little tiny sentence where Obama actually came out and promised PEACE.........link p[lease...thx

If I told you I'm a democrat does that change the tone of that line in your head at all?