Obama says US must try talking to Iran
 

From here.

I don't know the true intentions, I don't have much trust either, but this is at least a step in the right direction.

Only those who want war do not talk to their enemies. That fact is not even disputable.

And they would stall, go on talking, and continue to build.

Not according to El Baradei on Charlie Rose (and from other sources). But, there is also a consensus that Iran will not longer talk to George Jr. Appreciate why. This is the same mental midget who destroyed slowly warming relations by lying. The Axis of Evil speech that is regarded by many as the list of countries that the US intended to attack unilaterally - without reason. As we now well know - that axis of evil list was based only on lies created by an extremist poltical agenda.

Only a fool thinks Iran will change actions whether we start talking or not. After all, American threatened Iran with war for no reason. The only way to create a change is to first start talking - as China finally forced the US to do in N Korea. Only wacko extremists would impose conditions before talks begin.

El Baradei also notes a long list of things Iran wants to discuss - far beyond nuclear issues - if only Iran could find someone in America who could talk and be honest. Honesty is not George Jr.

So you don't believe that Iran supports terrorism through both monetary and material support?

I don't believe anything from this administration. Yes, Iran supports terrorism just as the US supported IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. Who was the largest supplier to IRA terrorism? United States.

To prove any worldwide conspiracy by Iran to destroy the US, first, one needs sources that don't routinely and intentionally lie to promote a political agenda.

Given statements from George Jr and from El Baradei, El Baradei wins every time. Wacko extremsits with a poltical agenda can never be trusted.

Very good reason why El Baradei got the Nobel peace prize. He was honest. It is rather surprising how many conflicts Iran wants to start discussing well beyond uranium enrichment. But honest discussions cannot happen when the American leader is a pertinacious liar. Honest talking cannot happen when the American leader violates even the most basic rules of diplomacy. Which president would not talk to his adversaries? Not on that list are every great American president including Eisenhower, Kennedy, both Roosevelts, Truman, Reagan, ...

Reagan said only a fool does not talk to his enemies. So again George Jr meets the defintion of a fool - as defined by Reagan.

Not to repeat after tw (which I seem to be doing more and more often), but that makes them different from whom, exactly? We're giving money and weapons as we speak to non-government militias in Iraq. Throughout the history of modern war, the US, it's allies, and it's enemies ALL seemed to have thought that paying some extremists who hate you a little less than the other guy is a viable option for war. We can't possibly condemn someone for following in our footsteps.

The government of Iran supports terrorism, a small number of people in the US illegally supported IRA terrorism

fixed that for you, our sweet lil muffin

The conflict in Iran is just about power and influence. Iran wants to be the regional power and nuclear power and weapons will do that for them. I honestly don't think Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists because being blown back to the stone age by the US doesn't help their goals.

When I look more into this it seems that nuclear weapons aren't the sole focus but the nuclear power Iran will receive. Once they are able to build nuclear power plants, they will be able to sell electricity and power to neighboring countries, solidifying their regional power status.

Also, if Iran does get nuclear power/weapons, they will probably internally become more progressive to ensure their stability.


How about the CIA support of Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the lates 70s and early 80s?

... and that's exactly what's happening now.

Nothing but wild speculation. Little gained for Iran's government if doing as posted. But it plays well among those who routinely deny reality – extremists. Everything from the George Jr administration is a lie until proven otherwise by responsible and independent sources. Any claims made that agree with George Jr and without honest confirmation means the poster’s credibility is also suspect.

Only fact is that someone in Iran is doing some smuggling. Smuggling? Sounds just like Americans who also provided massive – the majority of - aid to the IRA.

Let's see. A massive ocean exist between the US and Northern Ireland making smuggling and money laundering difficult. But a massive, open border - made more porous because of George Jr - permits (encourages) criminals to smuggle support into Iraq.

Somehow UT knows Iranian support must be from the Iranian government – not criminals? America could not even stop simple liquor smuggling from Canada. But somehow, smuggling from Iran can only happen with the full cooperation of Iran's government? Wild speculation; also what wacko extremists in the George Jr administration claim.

The problem with claims of massive Iranian government smuggling to kill Americans? It comes from the George Jr administration. People who routinely lie for a political agenda. Same people who deny a "Mission Accomplished" civil war exists; who also invent a mythical Al Qaeda conspiring everywhere to destroy America.

Before any claim of Iranian government conspiracy can have credibility, first, one must address a routine source of such lies - wacko extremists in the George Jr administration.

As wolfd notes, the stupid George Jr insistence of refusing to talk to Iran means only the worst of all possible consequences can result. Again, Reagan said as anyone with minimal intelligence knows: always talk even to your enemies.

We don't have to look to Iraq for examples of Iran's support of terrorism, muffin.

Thanks, you saved me from pointing out the obvious.

That would be BS. Some Americans may have sent them money or helped them buy guns on the world market. The US government never helped the IRA do anything. In fact we had the Brits help train some of our people in their techniques of tracking the terrs in Ireland.

Great, show me any administration or government that does not do it.

Which is exactly why most of what you say should be doubted.

Most of them.

How about it?

Well I guess it depends on whose side you want to be on. Thiers or ours?

Merc-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahid...of_Afghanistan

Tw pointed out that the US supported the IRA and UT refuted that, so I just gave another example. Obviously Iran sponsors terrorism, only a fool wouldn't think so because they almost have the same goal as the United States, to spread and gain influence throughout the region.

I don't think that Iran will give nukes to terrorists, it just doesn't make sense. Iran wants to the be the regional power and being blown back to the stone age by the US and Israel really hurts that goal.

Did they use terrorism against the Russkies or was it more sort of an ordinary uniform-wearing shootout in the hills?

It was guerrilla style warfare.

'Theirs or ours' is the problem with all this bullshit. Honestly I'd rather not be on either side. In fact, as soon as I can, I'm growing a beard and moving somewhere with a nice beach.

The fact is, we latch on to crap like 'funding terrorism' as something that makes a state 'bad.' We take the following things in and of themselves to mean a state is 'bad:'
Supporting terrorist organizations
Working toward nuclear weapons
Suppression of human rights

We have done or are currently doing all of these things. I will not say we are the same as, let's say, Iran. But we take these actions as proof that a nation is somehow evil. It's the same bullshit as anti-gay republicans who are gay. It might not make them bad people, but they're certainly talking out of their asses.

Think of all the things that separate us from the enemy, and 95% of it can be attributed to where you're standing. VBIEDs = terrorism. Why? Welll, it's hidden so our forces can't see it coming. Claymore mines=...terrorism? If it were a buzz word back in the late 1700s, revolutionary fighters would have been labeled terrorist by the king of england. Are we an occupier or liberator?

Frankly, I'm so sick of everyone being so convinced of their righteousness that I won't be taking any part of it after May ever again.

To clarify my last post (as I calm) I am not in any way anti-US. I think we have the potential as a nation to make the whole world a better place. I don't think our military is bad at all. In fact, it's just a group of folks like any other. I don't think that the things we do are terrible or evil (a lot of it is misguided, and I am very anti-bush administration), but I do think it's beyond stupid to claim we are righteous and they are evil, inately. I hold not respect at all for suicide bombers who kill civilians. I have NO hatred, however, toward any militias fighting for what they want, or any country doing it's thing.

All the action we've taken over the past 40 or 50 years has been in self interest, with a big middle finger to the rest of the world. We topple governments without any consideration to it's people or long term effects. We bomb people who we deign 'bad guys' and we fund a similar group and call them 'freedom fighters.' It's all so twisted around and chewed up that by the time we're done that we cause more harm than good. And frankly, I don't believe there WAS any good intent in most of our military actions. It was all for punishment and dick-wagging, and THAT'S what I'm against.