TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US offers direct talks with Iran
US offers direct talks with Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5034228.stm
| quote: |
| US offers direct talks with Iran The US says it is ready to join direct multilateral talks with Iran on its nuclear programme if Tehran suspends disputed nuclear activities. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US would join EU nations in talks if Iran suspended uranium enrichment and reprocessing work. President Bush said he believed the issue could be solved diplomatically. The Iranian state news agency dismissed the offer as a "propaganda move", in the first official reaction from Iran. EU countries and the UN nuclear watchdog welcomed the offer, which is seen as a significant US policy shift. Washington broke off diplomatic ties with Iran in 1979 and the two sides have had little official contact since. Proposal Ms Rice said "as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table". The move was to show US commitment to a diplomatic solution and "to enhance the prospects for success", she said in a statement. Ms Rice also urged Iran to "thoroughly consider" a package currently being agreed by the US and EU nations aimed at persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear plans. She is set to meet the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Vienna to discuss the package. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I'm going to give it every effort to do so Ms Rice recognised Iran's right to a civilian nuclear programme, but condemned what she called Iran's support for terror. When asked about the possibility of pursuing a military option against Iran, she said Mr Bush "was not going to take any of his options off the table". Speaking to journalists after Ms Rice's statement, Mr Bush said America was ready to take a leadership role on the issue. Correspondents say the US move emphasises diplomacy rather than confrontation. Analysts believe that in one bold move Washington has regained the diplomatic advantage, with the onus now on the Iranians to respond. 'Added weight' In Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohammed ElBaradei welcomed the US move. It was also backed by the EU foreign policy chief and talks participants France, Germany and the UK. Iran's first nuclear reactor in Bushehr There has been no official reaction from Iran Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he hoped the "way will be open to a political solution" after the talks in Vienna, while the Chinese envoy to the UN praised Washington's offer, but urged the US not to attach conditions, the AFP news agency reported. But the Iranian state-run news agency IRNA said Ms Rice's comments could be considered a propaganda move "given the insistence by Iranian authorities on continuing uranium enrichment". An Iranian security official who did not want to be named called it a good opportunity for Iran. He indicated Tehran might consider suspending its enrichment work for a limited time period during negotiations, but he ruled out an unlimited suspension of enrichment. Iran says its nuclear programme is aimed at energy production. But the US and Western allies suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon. |
Reading the Have Your Say on the bbc website in regards to the story many are claiming its a hoax by the U.S. to invade Iran, etc. I agree with you however better they talk with conditions than have a war with no conditions. I however believe that Europe has to step up their game on this issue if any tangible result is to be achieved as far as meeting Iran's needs of "nuclear energy" Iran is counting on Russia and China to make life difficult at the UN and they will do so, producing either watered down sanctions that have no strength or no action at all that affects iran.
Call me out there but I say let Iran have its nukes as long as they keep it in Iran, that is of course the issue I guess, will they do so ultimately. The U.S. is in no position of strength, their motives are distrusted, their policy seems lacking ideas and Bush will be out before this issue is resolved. With a president however who says whether rhetorically or not Israel should be wiped off the map and the Holocaust is questionable I understand Isreals' concerns about such a man having nukes.
I welcome the multilateral approach because I want to see how the other nations of the world will deal with this issue, because the U.S. can do no right at this time in their eyes. Iran so far has rejected all European proposals to guarantee nuclear technology but not weaponry. You tell me where this leaves the issue.
Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Hopefully it will help too |
We need henry clay, the great compromiser to be brought back to life, if we want this situation to be resolved.
And why don't we make ourselves good examples, and destroy some of our nukes?
Re: Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo that's nice but Iran will just use this to embarass my country someway, somehow. in some ways it's a game to them. the attention, the spotlight, the stage given to them to do just that, b/c they know the game is in their favor. for now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Marc Summers And why don't we make ourselves good examples, and destroy some of our nukes? |
Re: Re: Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer oh please your country is the master of all political games and you know it. |
Re: Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo that's nice but Iran will just use this to embarass my country someway, somehow. in some ways it's a game to them. the attention, the spotlight, the stage given to them to do just that, b/c they know the game is in their favor. for now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer ... and they hate your freedom. |
Re: Re: Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew Your country would look more stupid if you didn't try this path though. The Iran situation is in no way a win win situation. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Marc Summers And why don't we make ourselves good examples, and destroy some of our nukes? |
Re: Re: Re: Re: US offers direct talks with Iran
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo oh this is about appearances now? |
| quote: |
| how stupid does the EU3 look after 3 yrs. of nothing but their dick in their hand? pretty stupid if this was about how one looks, but it's not. at least not to people who are serious about dealing with Iran. |
| quote: |
| nothing has really changed when and if the US comes to the table. either they stop enrichment and embrace tranceparency like a fat kid loves cake or they don't, and we go from there. the conditions that have been set by my country already have a pre-determined set of outcomes given whatever Iran's rhetoric is on a daily basis. |
I don't think Iran will suspend the enrichment to hold talks. Firstly Iran wanted to talk much before America wanted to even negotiate talks, and also Iran won't suspend the enrichment because America told them to. Whats the difference between a bully coming up to you and saying "Give me your money and i'll stop picking on you" Or something similar to that.
Also a package was already offered and that was denied, and i think Iran knows that America won't attack, and has no case against using the Chapter 7 resolution.
It's all a way for America to feel like they still control most countries interests and that's what they want everyone else to see, however with Iran it will never happen.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lemonad It's all a way for America to feel like they still control most countries interests and that's what they want everyone else to see, however with Iran it will never happen. |
is that why "we've let" three other nuclear powers to do all the talking all this time?
maybe this breakdown of the "Der Spiegel interview of Ahmadinejad" will give you some insight into the moral relativism and historical revisionism we are up against here.
| quote: |
| The Iranian Challenge Face to Face with Ahmadinejad By Michael A. Ledeen Posted: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad interview in Der Spiegel has its moments, to be sure, but overall it�s about what you would expect. He�s an uncultured fanatic who will never admit error but simply reassert his lies. He�s not at all interested in what we call �the pursuit of the truth,� so there is no real interview or dialogue ](the crowd calling for negotiations with this regime ought to study this text, because if they do it seriously they will realize that you cannot negotiate with these people). He constantly projects Iranian political culture onto the rest of the world, which is what you would expect from an uncultured ideologue. And it�s astonishing to watch the Spiegel interviewer fall into one rhetorical trap after another. In many ways, the interview is noteworthy for its exposure of the fecklessness of a German interviewer facing an Iranian bully. Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen When Ahmadinejad says �I don�t know what all the excitement is about� concerning the possibility he would attend the World Cup in Germany this summer, he�s told that it�s because of his remarks about the Holocaust. �So you were surprised...?� the interviewer says. Uninterested in what he said a sentence before, Ahmadinejad tosses out a new version: �No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active...� And that pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the interview. It�s always �heads I win, tails you lose.� Or rather, the Jews lose. Early on, he says �if (the Holocaust) did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from.� And a bit later he says �If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe...� So he wants to ship the Jews to Europe, period. Talk about the Holocaust is neither here nor there. When the Spiegel interviewer tries to suggest that there is abundant evidence for the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad first tosses off one of his great gag lines (�Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison�), as if his regime had not arrested, tortured, and murdered thousands of Iranians who tried to tell the truth about the actions of the regime. Then he assaults the poor German: Why do you have to support the Zionists? Why do you Germans still feel guilty about the Holocaust? �Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?� The Spiegel journalist doesn�t have the wit to ask Ahmadinejad why jihadis like him base their actions on events that took place centuries ago, and then have the chutzpah to condemn the Germans for feeling guilt about the actions of their parents. The use of �humiliation� tells us a lot about the way the mullahs think about the world; they look at international events as a matter of domination or humiliation, and he hammers away at this theme: �Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that...the German people would be humiliated for another 1000 years. Do you think that is the correct logic?� You can be quite certain that the mullahs are not going to accept anything less than the humiliation of the West, and Ahmadinejad�s hatred for the Europeans oozes from every verbal exchange. When the Spiegel interviewer asks him whether he wants nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad treats him with total contempt. If you know how to parse the language, you will see that he says �yes. Hell yes!� But instead of putting it in the context of the pursuit of Iranian national interests, he treats it as part of his hatred of the West: In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable...there are a number of countries that possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons to threaten other peoples...What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and unsustainable. That ought to be clear enough for anyone who cares to see it. As for the rest, it ranges from outright lies (�we�re concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there?� This from a regime that is doing much of the killing) to the usual denunciation of free societies: It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can�t solve the problems of the world that way...we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance�such as justice. Iran and the West agree on this. They don�t, because the West believes, (at least I hope it still believes), that individuals must be free to think freely, while the Iranian regime demands subservience (anyone who thinks that the ayatollahs� regime is based on justice should take a refresher course on basic legal principles). And he ends with an open threat: If the Europeans continue to side with the Americans (would that it were so!), they will lose their position in the Middle East, and �ruin their reputation in other parts of the world. The others will think that the Europeans aren�t capable of solving problems.� I wonder if there are many who believe the Europeans can solve any serious problems nowadays. They certainly can�t manage the Iranian challenge. Can we? Michael A. Ledeen is a freedom scholar at AEI. |
some of the stuff this President said makes sense, except the whole part about the Holocaust, but his stance on global issues today concerning America make sense.
If Iran truly does want nuclear plants for peaceful purposes I don't see why not. They are a growing country and need it. Seems like America is just scared it might lose its reign as king of the world. I like the idea of disarmament of nuclear powers and an unbiased organization, although this sounds a lot like the U.N. which proved to work wonders
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Haunted some of the stuff this President said makes sense, except the whole part about the Holocaust, but his stance on global issues today concerning America make sense. If Iran truly does want nuclear plants for peaceful purposes I don't see why not. They are a growing country and need it. Seems like America is just scared it might lose its reign as king of the world. I like the idea of disarmament of nuclear powers and an unbiased organization, although this sounds a lot like the U.N. which proved to work wonders |
I saw this on the evening news and it concluded that the U.S. is trying as much as they can to avoid using the word 'sanctions' in order to gain Russia and China's signature for the U.N. to allow them to invade Iran and shut down their nuclear plants.
If this indeed does happen does that mean we stop all nuclear activities as well?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stevieboy32808 If this indeed does happen does that mean we stop all nuclear activities as well? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo okay, indulge me for one minute and put aside your contempt for our country and whatever reasons you have justifying that we're just "scared to lose our reign" and really focus on what this guy is saying and why he is saying it. i'll assume you already know what Iran represents and has represented for the last 30 yrs. to the jihadist movement. for starters he believes, and is on many records saying that "Hizbolah is the purest thought of Islam" and that Israel will be wiped off the map. the man stood in front of the UN and said that his Shiite revolution is paving the way for the return of the "Medhi" or the 12th Imam. he claims to summon him with an apocolypse. for you to sit there and dimiss the insight into the thought processes that he believes or wants people to believe that the holocaust didn't happen, and dismiss this governments history within the global Jihad, and believe this cat only wants nuclear power for peaceful puposes when he sits on the third largest proven oilfields in the region and can literally make you pay $4.00 a fuckin gallon for gas as easy as trimming his beard, is really dangerous. if you don't believe me or just don't want to listen to some guy on the internet tell you that your trust in this asshole is dangerously ignorant, then look at the six nations (China, Russia, UK, France Germany and the country you love to hate) that have just bent over backwards for the last three years to appease this jackass. forget the UN these people from these countries are arguably some of the most intelligent and capable diplomats in the world backed by teams of hundreds that have access to information that no one, even you, will ever see or understand. do you still want to say "fuck it! let'em do what they want". "they deserve it." "give'em the benefit of the doubt" "America sucks anyway"? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Haunted lol I live in America why would I hate it? i just hate gas prices and war. I want peace |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.