Iran And Us

[Matt]

We've had a few topics about the economy, but the real reason I voted for Obama was foreign policy. Here's an interesting article:

Iran's president said Tuesday the world was "entering an era of dialogue" and that his country would welcome talks with its longtime adversary, the United States, if they are based on mutual respect.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement comes a day after President Barack Obama said his administration was looking for opportunities to engage Iran and pledged to rethink United States' relationship with Tehran.

"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect," Ahmadinejad told hundreds of thousands of Iranians during a celebration marking the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah and brought hard-line clerics to power.

World at a 'crossroads'

The hard-line Iranian leader said terrorism, the elimination of nuclear weapons, restructuring the U.N. Security Council and fighting drug trafficking could be topics for the two sides to talk about.

"If you really want to fight terrorism, come and cooperate with the Iranian nation, which is the biggest victim of terrorism so that terrorism is eliminated. ... If you want to confront nuclear weapons ... you need to stand beside Iran so it can introduce a correct path to you," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29115094/

[Bubba Bob]

You are too nieve my freind. You can't negotiate with Ahmed Imanutjob. He spews rhetoric then fuels global terrorism. Iran needs to be taken out. If only we had invaded them instead of Iraq...

[Matt]

You are too nieve my freind. You can't negotiate with Ahmed Imanutjob. He spews rhetoric then fuels global terrorism. Iran needs to be taken out. If only we had invaded them instead of Iraq...

In my opinion, your comment is nieve. Iran is the one offering talks, aren't they? So why can't we negotiate--because the media makes him look like Hitler? I can't believe anyone would "prefer" any invasion over another. It isn't our job, our place, or our privilege to invade another country just because we don't like how they run things.

[sultan_emerr]

We've had a few topics about the economy, but the real reason I voted for Obama was foreign policy. Here's an interesting article:

Iran's president said Tuesday the world was "entering an era of dialogue" and that his country would welcome talks with its longtime adversary, the United States, if they are based on mutual respect.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement comes a day after President Barack Obama said his administration was looking for opportunities to engage Iran and pledged to rethink United States' relationship with Tehran.

"The Iranian nation is ready for talks (with the U.S.) but in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect," Ahmadinejad told hundreds of thousands of Iranians during a celebration marking the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah and brought hard-line clerics to power.

World at a 'crossroads'

The hard-line Iranian leader said terrorism, the elimination of nuclear weapons, restructuring the U.N. Security Council and fighting drug trafficking could be topics for the two sides to talk about.

"If you really want to fight terrorism, come and cooperate with the Iranian nation, which is the biggest victim of terrorism so that terrorism is eliminated. ... If you want to confront nuclear weapons ... you need to stand beside Iran so it can introduce a correct path to you," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29115094/

Yes, I agree that President Obama and President Ahmadinejad can meet for talks and agree in recognizing that the questions of terrorism, the elimination of nuclear weapons, and restructuring the U.N. Security Council are of the first importance for our two countries and for the world.

I would regard an agreement signed by them as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another.

The method of consultation should be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we should be determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace.

I believe this would give us peace in our time.

[JDoors]

Any improvement in relations between Iran and the U.S. would be welcome.

[hitest]

Any improvement in relations between Iran and the U.S. would be welcome.

Agreed.

[Bubba Bob]

Iran is the one offering talks, aren't they?

Ahemd wants talks on "equal footing". Complete BS. Imanutjob sees Obama as a little kid and is treating him as such. As far as he is concerned, Obama is a pawn in his chess game. If Obama isn't carefull, "talking" to him WILL make him Ahmed's pawn. Ya'll will see. Imanutjob is a VERY smart person.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Bubba Bob

[jcl]

In my opinion, your comment is nieve. Iran is the one offering talks, aren't they? So why can't we negotiate--because the media makes him look like Hitler?

Ahmadinejad's possible flakiness aside, there are two problems:

1. Iran is holding a presidential election in a few months. That raises the possibility that the Ahmadinejad's government will be replaced before the talks could accomplish anything and the possibility that Ahmadinejad is only reaching out to the US to win votes.
   
2. It's not clear how much influence Ahmadinejad has in the Iranian government.
   

[hitest]

It's not clear how much influence Ahmadinejad has in the Iranian government.

He has as much influence as the Grand Ayatollah gives him. You raise an interesting point, jcl. However, Ahmadinijad is the face of the government that the US will negotiate with. I suspect if Ahmadinijad is in favour he will be given a longer leash.

[jcl]

He has as much influence as the Grand Ayatollah gives him. You raise an interesting point, jcl. However, Ahmadinijad is the face of the government that the US will negotiate with. I suspect if Ahmadinijad is in favour he will be given a longer leash.

We might not know where he stands until after the election. On the bright side, if he loses he'll likely be replaced by a moderate and if he wins and genuinely wants improve relations with the US he might be able to use national unity as leverage against the powers that be if they don't support him.

Anyway, I don't think there's any need to resolve the situation before the election.

[hitest]

Anyway, I don't think there's any need to resolve the situation before the election.

Agreed. Then the US will know who they're dealing with.

[martymas]

george bush labeled them axis of evil

soon after he became president

oil was what he wanted

and if his gove had been reelected

he would have attacked them like he did in iraq

then north korea and so on

can any one tell me why there is a war in afganastan

they have nothing other than wildeness

a barren and forlorn country

mabe the poppy industry

who gets payed for pruducing the arms of

war - big bizness

if a country is

so worried about

another being not so nice why dont they produce the arms for nothing

i see american companys are selling arms to both sides

good luck to them

dosent that make them hypocrits

marty

[jcl]

and if his gove had been reelected

he would have attacked them like he did in iraq

If Bush had been reelected this would likely be a parallel universe where Iran was the US's strongest ally.

can any one tell me why there is a war in afganastan

Seriously?

i see american companys are selling arms to both sides

good luck to them

dosent that make them hypocrits

No.

[JDoors]

george bush labeled them axis of evil

soon after he became president

oil was what he wanted

and if his gove had been reelected

he would have attacked them like he did in iraq

then north korea and so on

can any one tell me why there is a war in afganastan

they have nothing other than wildeness

a barren and forlorn country

mabe the poppy industry

who gets payed for pruducing the arms of

war - big bizness

if a country is

so worried about

another being not so nice why dont they produce the arms for nothing

i see american companys are selling arms to both sides

good luck to them

dosent that make them hypocrits

marty

The "axis" remark was a homage to Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech, which actually got results. Are you saying they're not involved in any terrorism or guilty of ruthlessly suppressing their citizens?

We get the vast majority of our oil from Canada. No plans yet to invade.

Afghanistan is where Bin Laden suppposedly resides and is where the Taliban are concentrated. Do you know what they're guilty of?

Arms sales are a touchy subject all right. I wonder how, for example, a teensy po-dunk country in Africa can be armed to the teeth. They can't eat, they don't have clean water, they crap in the street, they're dieing of disease, but they've got rifles and ammunition. I don't get it.

*****

Edited February 24, 2009 by JDoors