Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: U.S. to talk with Iran

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like

    U.S. to talk with Iran

    OMG! How naive! Appeasement!

    [QUOTE]

    Official: US envoy to meet Iranian nuke negotiator

    US diplomat to meet Iranian nuclear negotiator this weekend

    MATTHEW LEE
    AP News

    Jul 15, 2008 20:29 EST

    In a break with past Bush administration policy, a top U.S. diplomat will for the first time join colleagues from other world powers at a meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, The Associated Press has learned.

    William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the AP on Tuesday.

    Official contacts between Iran and the United States are extremely rare and although Washington is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing uranium, the administration has shunned contacts with Tehran on the matter.

    The senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement of Burns' plans expected on Wednesday, acknowledged a shift in the administration's approach but stressed that Burns would not meet Jalili separately and would not negotiate with him.

    "This is a one-time event and he will be there to listen, not negotiate," the official said.

    U.S. contact with Iran has recently been limited only to discussions about the security situation in Iraq, where Washington accuses Iran of supporting insurgents. The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.

    Saturday's meeting comes at a time of acutely heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, particularly after Iranian missile tests last week prompted President Bush's top aides to warn that the United States would defend its friends and interests in the Middle East.

    The gathering in Geneva will be led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who is seeking a definitive answer from the Iranians to an offer of incentives that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany presented last month.

    The package of incentives was accompanied by a letter from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of the other five countries and sets out a scenario in which Iran would get a temporary reprieve from economic and financial sanctions in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities.

    Preliminary negotiations over a permanent halt could then begin, although the United States would not join them until after Iran agrees to fully suspend uranium enrichment, which can produce the fuel needed to make nuclear bombs.

    The senior U.S. official said Burns would be at the meeting with Jalili to demonstrate the unity of the countries making the offer of incentives but also to reinforce Rice's signature on the letter from the foreign ministers.

    But Burns will also "reiterate that our terms for negotiations remain the same: Iran must suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities," the official said.

    Iran has responded to the offer through the European Union but has indicated it has no plans to stop enriching uranium the key demand. But there are hopes that Iran may refine its response at Saturday's meeting.

    Iran says its nuclear program is purely energy-related, but the United States accuses it of trying to develop atomic arms.

    On Monday, hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he will not accept any conditions on his country's disputed nuclear program during the weekend talks. He said the talks will focus instead on "common" points.

    At the same time, though, he said he would welcome direct, bilateral talks with the U.S. if both parties are on "equal footing" and told state television such talks could happen "in the near future." He did not elaborate nor say whether any definite plans were under way.

    Source: AP News [/QUOTE]

    I am glad to see us opening up some channels here. Not talking gets us nowhere. Talking may not either, but the possibility of progress is much greater than the opposite approach.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder if Bush would have us talk with Hitler too had he been around? :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2629146]OMG! How naive! Appeasement![/QUOTE]

    It's only appeasement if Iran gets what they want, and we get nothing in return.

    Stay tuned on that......

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2629786]It's only appeasement if Iran gets what they want, and we get nothing in return.

    Stay tuned on that......[/QUOTE]

    Correct.

    There is nothing inherently appeasing about holding talks, only in making free concessions.

    Now that Bush is willing to talk, I suspect that nuance --which escaped his supporters when Obama said we ought to be talking-- will suddenly be apparent to his minions.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2629786]It's only appeasement if [/QUOTE]

    it's only appeasement if democrats do it

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2629920]it's only appeasement if democrats do it[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, the posturing by the "John Wayne For President" crew here was pretty arrogant, and thoroughly naive, in a schoolyard bully sort of way. I wish the world was a simple as some of these cases of arrested development would have it....

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2629975]Yeah, the posturing by the "John Wayne For President" crew here was pretty arrogant, and thoroughly naive, in a schoolyard bully sort of way. I wish the world was a simple as some of these cases of arrested development would have it....[/QUOTE]

    Hey LIL, reality is a mean one. See all the backpedaling now?

    At some point even the neocons finally get it:D

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Annoying Chowd

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,264
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2629920]it's only appeasement if democrats do it[/QUOTE]

    Billy BJ talks to N Korea, N Korea gets 4 billion in US aid and nuclear reactors which helps them to propel their nuclear programs, meanwhile N Korea laughs at BJ.

    Bush talks to N Korea, N Korea destroys tower at nuclear complex and it's nuclear weapons program....

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2630198]
    Bush talks to N Korea, N Korea destroys tower at nuclear complex and it's nuclear weapons program....[/QUOTE]

    if you believe Kim Jong Il really destroyed his nukes i've got a bridge to sell you

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,910
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Sharrow;2629734]I wonder if Bush would have us talk with Hitler too had he been around? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Stop watching FOX for just a week and you'll see the world more clearly.

    This is how it all starts (see below) and you unfortunately are another victim.

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k[/url]

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2629915]There is nothing inherently appeasing about holding talks, only in making free concessions.[/quote]

    I agree completely, well said.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2629915]Now that Bush is willing to talk, I suspect that nuance --which escaped his supporters when Obama said we ought to be talking-- will suddenly be apparent to his minions.[/QUOTE]

    What I don't think you understand, however, is the criticism of Obama's desire to "talk" isn't the talking part, it's the anticipation that he would, in fact, appease Iran.

    Et tu Nuu? Are you too going to go down the road of "Those silly Conservatives, they're just too dumb to understand nuance".

    Why is so hard for you to believe that we simply do not trust or have faith in the abillity of a extremely inexperienced politician to get what it is that Conservatives (and others) want to see out of such talks?? Especially when we see said inexperienced politician as something of a Marxist in his ideals, and a one-worlder-we're-all-equal-and-good guy in his beliefs?

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2630226]if you believe Kim Jong Il really destroyed his nukes i've got a bridge to sell you[/QUOTE]

    Interesting, you sound just like a republican Pre-Iraq Invasion.

    Guess we can only trust deals made by Democrats, eh?

    And Bit, if he's not living up to the deal we negotiated in good faith, using that vaunted Diplomacy all you Dems love, what do we do now? Ignore it?

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2630251]Interesting, you sound just like a republican Pre-Iraq Invasion.

    Guess we can only trust deals made by Democrats, eh?

    And Bit, if he's not living up to the deal we negotiated in good faith, using that vaunted Diplomacy all you Dems love, what do we do now? Ignore it?[/QUOTE]

    He is living up to the deal - it wasn't as good a deal as people thought.

    Nowhere in the deal does it say he has to destroy his existing nukes or fissionable material. They destroyed the plant that can make more.

    [quote]
    None of which means the overall deal gets the U.S. free and clear of the North Korean nuclear threat. On the contrary, that threat is as bad as it has ever been, practically speaking. For starters, the North still has, by most estimates, between six- and ten-weapons worth of plutonium, obtained since the Bush Administration in 2001 abandoned negotiation in favor of confrontation. The U.S. has a long and hard road to negotiate that plutonium out of Pyongyang's hands. Just as bad, the North very likely has an equally threatening uranium-enrichment program separate from the plutonium program, and though no one knows where it is or how much, if any, highly enriched uranium it might be capable of producing.

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080628/wl_time/bushwinsinnorthkoreadeal[/url]
    [/quote]

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2630274]He is living up to the deal - it wasn't as good a deal as people thought.

    Nowhere in the deal does it say he has to destroy his existing nukes or fissionable material. They destroyed the plant that can make more.[/QUOTE]

    Not good enough for you? What are you suggesting then Bit?

    Better yet, what will Obama do to improve this situation?

    [QUOTE]the North still has, by most estimates, between six- and ten-weapons worth of plutonium, obtained since the Bush Administration in 2001 abandoned negotiation in favor of confrontation.[/QUOTE]

    So it's Bush's fault they "obtained" the material, eh? Interesting no mention of Clinton at all.

    Do you think that is a valid piece of journalism Bit, that the N.K. situation is 100% Bush's fault, as the article implies?

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2630250]I agree completely, well said.



    What I don't think you understand, however, is the criticism of Obama's desire to "talk" isn't the talking part, it's the anticipation that he would, in fact, appease Iran.

    Et tu Nuu? Are you too going to go down the road of "Those silly Conservatives, they're just too dumb to understand nuance".

    Why is so hard for you to believe that we simply do not trust or have faith in the abillity of a extremely inexperienced politician to get what it is that Conservatives (and others) want to see out of such talks?? Especially when we see said inexperienced politician as something of a Marxist in his ideals, and a one-worlder-we're-all-equal-and-good guy in his beliefs?[/QUOTE]


    Well, on the first part, you're simply wrong. John McCain himself mocked the act of talking. Of Obama's desire to talk with Iran, McCain said "what does he want to talk about?" and Bush raised Neville Chamberlain in an obvious reference to Obama before the Israeli parliament. In both cases, it was the act of talking that they mocked.

    Also, a small pet peeve. If you are going to use hyperbolic exaggerations to refer to Obama's policies, use the right ones. Marxism is a philosophy that calls for government to seize the means of production. Obama has not proposed anything that could remotely be caricatured as such.

    What you mean to reference, I think, is socialism, a philosophy that tends toward redistribution. Now, worth noting, there is already a fair degree of redistribution in the American tax system. Obama might incrementally increase it, back to 90s levels or so. McCain might incrementally decrease it. I did not consider America a socialist country during the 1990s. But perhaps you did.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2630278]Well, on the first part, you're simply wrong. John McCain himself mocked the act of talking. Of Obama's desire to talk with Iran, McCain said "what does he want to talk about?" and Bush raised Neville Chamberlain in an obvious reference to Obama before the Israeli parliament. In both cases, it was the act of talking that they mocked.[/quote]

    What makes you think I speak for McCain in this thread?:confused:

    Nuu, I speak for me. Not Republicans.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2630278]Also, a small pet peeve. If you are going to use hyperbolic exaggerations to refer to Obama's policies, use the right ones. Marxism is a philosophy that calls for government to seize the means of production. Obama has not proposed anything that could remotely be caricatured as such.[/quote]

    You can choose to be peeved all you like. I believe Obama, and Democrats in general, have Marxist leanings. Witness Ms. Waters words about Nationalizing the Oil Industry. Or Clinton's words about "taking profits away" and her ideals on nationalizing teh Heathcare Industry.

    Sadly, Obama has such an extremely limited resume and voting record, it would be hard to prove definitively that he agrees with Waters and Clinton. But his rhetoric in his speeches that I have heard and seen do nothing to tell me he does not.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2630278]I did not consider America a socialist country during the 1990s. But perhaps you did.[/QUOTE]

    No, I do not, but that does not mean I support any increased movement of this Nation in that direction.

    I know it offends you Nuu that I do not support Socialism, but you'll just have to make peace with the fact.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us