|
Author
|
Topic: Iran: Negotiations?
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 21 April 2006 12:01 PM
quote:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Ah, an oldie, but a goody. That was Bush back in 2002 in Cincinnati. Remember those heady days? Good times, good times. That crappy WSJ article is just an old 2002 editorial, but they changed the "q" to an "n". The American media at its Goebbelesque worst. 911911911911911911911911. There is no threat from Iran. The fascists are cranking up the propaganda fear machine again, and fools are fooled again.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 21 April 2006 12:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
I think the real question is will negotiations work with the USA, or will they not? Iran has already made an effort or two over the last several years to enter relations with the USA, and the USA threw the attempts back in their faces.
What does Iran want? What does Iran want to negotiate about or for? What Iran wants is nuclear weapons and that’s not going to be negotiable with the US…or (ultimately) the Europeans. quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
The USA wants strained relations with Iran, and possibly even to go to war with them ... the US doesn't want to enter negotiations, or establish normal relations, so it really doesn't matter whether Iran wants this to happen or not.
I sure as hell don’t want strained relations with Iran nor do I want to go to war with Iran (and, quite frankly, I don’t think Bush wants to either). In fact, the USA has supported the European negotiations. But, like the negotiations Clinton had with North Korea, I’m not confident that they will be fruitful.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389
|
posted 21 April 2006 12:47 PM
No Yards quote:
...Iran has already made an effort or two over the last several years to enter relations with the USA, and the USA threw the attempts back in their faces.
You are right on the button, No Yards. The killer and war criminal, Bush (in the words of a U.S. talk show moderator) and his Administration have to have conflict, or threat of conflict, to maintain the multi-billion dollar U.S. arms industry. It helps, of course, if the nation contrived against is small and not well armed. Peopled by brown or non-white people is also a positive. You can kill so many thousands more before revulsion sets in - if at all. We have the evidence before us.
From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908
|
posted 21 April 2006 12:53 PM
What if both governments are controlled by hardliners who thrive on conflict because their narrow conception of "God" (Allah or money or Jesus or neo-conservatism or however they call their fundamentalism) requires that?Many articles report that factions within Iranian government circles disagree with the current Holocaust-denier President's escalation of the crisis. I am sure many government and Congressional circles in the US feel the same way about the pro-war White House group. It is possible the guys in power are all slightly nuts and dangerous. Oops, what am I doing in the Middle East forum? I need my head examined.  [ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GT Snowracer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12474
|
posted 21 April 2006 01:09 PM
There is NO negotiating with Iran.Name one time they have dropped the macho rhetoric and actually worked with an outside group. Name one. Totalitarians don't have much of a tracks record in the politics of peace. GT
From: In the echo chamber | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058
|
posted 21 April 2006 01:18 PM
If I was an Iranian, and I am not, I would be looking at Iraq and taking all means to defend myself, especially when the President of a nation who has imperialist aspirations talks of dropping a nuclear weapon on my 5000 year old culture.Did you know the American military placed a helicopter landing pad of concrete amid the ruins of Babylon, the remaining wonder of the ancient world. I can hardly imagine what ruin they could inflict on Irans national treasures. So I don't care for Irans record of human rights abuses, but it's late in the day for the US to speak out. It's most unfortunate that when the Shah's secret police were using electric drills upon those who didn't agree with the overthrow of the prior popular leader the US remained strangely silent.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389
|
posted 21 April 2006 02:36 PM
quote:
So I don't care for Irans record of human rights abuses, but it's late in the day for the US to speak out. It's most unfortunate that when the Shah's secret police were using electric drills upon those who didn't agree with the overthrow of the prior popular leader the US remained strangely silent.
To be fair I beleive most of the world was very silent on that issue as well as other atrocities around the world.
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 April 2006 02:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by virge47:
I think that ALL U.S. troops as well as Canadian troops should pull out of ALL foreign countries.
There is no moral case against real peacekeeping operations, in which our troops are deployed at the invitation of both sides in order to police a real peace agreement. I don't know if we still have troops in Cypress or the Golan, but those are honourable missions.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virge47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12389
|
posted 21 April 2006 02:55 PM
quote:
There is no moral case against real peacekeeping operations, in which our troops are deployed at the invitation of both sides in order to police a real peace agreement. I don't know if we still have troops in Cypress or the Golan, but those are honourable missions.
I must disagree. Countries should settle their own problems. Whenever an outside country becomes involved in another countries internal problems it has ALWAYS created more problems and in the end nothing has improved. What you consider honourable might not be honourable to another. Many of our problems stem from interfering in another countries issues. Let them take resposibilty for themselves.
From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 21 April 2006 02:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
S1m0nWhy would you say that Cypress and the Golan were honourable missions?
It's my understanding that Canada's participation in these operation comes at the invitation of both parties to the dispute, in order to enable the former combattants to find sufficient trust to make a cease-fire or peace agreement possible. That's honourable.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
