Obama wants to hold direct talks with Iran

MrBrian

Obama, a man of peace?

So it's true, Obama wants to reach out towards the Iranians, but not with an olive branch. Just some old fashioned 'clear ultimatums'...."If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted Obama as saying (Hareetz Israeli news)

So the only reason Obama wants to meet with Iran, is to just threaten them directly.

Now what was that thing Obama supporters were saying? How different Obama is, how diplomatic he is?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Barak is an Idiot if he thinks he knows where he's going with this tough guy "all option are on the table" (meaning war...duh...) rhetoric. What about Russia Barak? You think they are just going to idly sit by and do nothing? When it comes to foreign policy in the middle east Barak is just an African American version of Bush....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/barackobama.israelandthepalestinians

"Barack Obama today reiterated his hawkish stance towards Iran by saying he would "take no options off the table".

The Democratic presidential candidate, echoing George Bush's stance on Iran, warned that a nuclear Iran "would be a game-changing situation", not just in the Middle East but in the rest of the world.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters on a visit to Israel.

Obama, who sounded less than self-assured on the complexities of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, was forthright about Iran in comments that will reassure the Israeli leadership.

Last month, Israel carried out a major military exercise in a less-than-subtle hint to Iran that it was prepared to bombard Tehran's nuclear facilities, no matter the diplomatic repercussions."

willtupper

This thread would be so much better if it were titled, "Obama wants to hold hands with Iran."

Just so you know.

Anon

willtupper wrote:

This thread would be so much better if it were titled, "Obama wants to hold hands with Iran."

Just so you know.

Mccain wants to bomb them. Just so you know.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

willtupper wrote:

This thread would be so much better if it were titled, "Obama wants to hold hands with Iran."

Just so you know.

He doesn't want to hold Iran's hand...he wants Iran to kiss his.

or else apparently...

inmytree

MrBrian wrote:

Obama, a man of peace?

So it's true, Obama wants to reach out towards the Iranians, but not with an olive branch. Just some old fashioned 'clear ultimatums'...."If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted Obama as saying (Hareetz Israeli news)

So the only reason Obama wants to meet with Iran, is to just threaten them directly.

Now what was that thing Obama supporters were saying? How different Obama is, how diplomatic he is?

I heard he wanted to where a green flag pin during the meeting...and during the meeting, he is going to rip off his clothes to reveal a green leotard....then, he's going to start screaming like Randy "Macho Man" Savage....Oooooo Yeah, Macmoooood....I'm here to kicks some ASSSSS....

fuck

How are the Obama supporters going to justify this, now?

jokes?

inmytree

_outlaw wrote:

How are the Obama supporters going to justify this, now?

jokes?

ooooooooooooooooo yeah...!!!!

DriftingByTheStorm

_outlaw wrote:

How are the Obama supporters going to justify this, now?

jokes?

justify?
nah.

There's your approach.

Here is my favorite:
double nah.

inmytree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

justify?
nah.

There's your approach.

Here is my favorite:
double nah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQ2EnGWvAs

ajedigecko

at least now everyone can put the cliche' down...."if only we had a black(1/2 black) president, everything would be better."

then the next goal will be to get a woman in office....so we can end that argument, as well.

and in the end we all discover.........it does not matter what race or gender you are. it is a difficult balance for anyone that is in office.

fuck

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

justify?
nah.

There's your approach.

Here is my favorite:
double nah.

hahaha

DriftingByTheStorm

inmytree wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywQ2EnGWvAs

about 40 seconds in ... wait for it.
wait for it.
after all your boos and thumbs down.
punctuated by the tight white pants.

flywallyfly

I'm interested in knowing how those on here would handle negotiations with Iran, keeping in mind that what you say now influences what Israel does in the next 5 months. Is Obama supposed to say he wont do anything if Iran doesnt consider ending its nuclear program? Is he supposed to just ignore them and let them do what they want (at least until Israel takes matters into its own hands)?? Should he just use the Bush method with tough talk through the media and not meet with them in face to face talks?

fuck

flywallyfly wrote:

I'm interested in knowing how those on here would handle negotiations with Iran, keeping in mind that what you say now influences what Israel does in the next 5 months. Is Obama supposed to say he wont do anything if Iran doesnt consider ending its nuclear program? Is he supposed to just ignore them and let them do what they want (at least until Israel takes matters into its own hands)?? Should he just use the Bush method with tough talk through the media and not meet with them in face to face talks?

1. Obama referred to Iran's nuclear program as "illegal" when it's not.
2. He said he'd give ultimatums to end the nuclear program, when ultimatums are basically threats, and like I said, Iran is not a threat and their nuclear program should not have to close because Israel/the U.S. say so (both nuclear powers)..

DriftingByTheStorm

_outlaw wrote:

1. Obama referred to Iran's nuclear program as "illegal" when it's not.
2. and their nuclear program should not have to close because Israel/the U.S. say so (both nuclear powers)..

yeah.
especially considering Israel itself is a "rogue nuclear nation".

FAS wrote:

Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons.

FAS wrote:

Although the United States government did not encourage or approve of the Israeli nuclear program, it also did nothing to stop it.

Also, adding to the fucking hypocricy,
IRAN ACTUALY SIGNED THE DAMN NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY,
ISRAEL NEVER DID!

And, despite lies, Iran is still in compliance with the NPT.

So,
Jews can have clearly illegal nukes,
but Iranians can not?

Even considering Iran maintains its own pursuit is of clearly legal and peaceable nuclear power?
And the IAEA has CONFIRMED THIS CONTINUALY!?!

???
What would YOU tell Iran, given all this hypocrisy?

Oh yeah.
Don't forget you're talking to the leader of a nation who remained BRUTALY REPRESSED by a dicatator YOUR COUNTRY installed upon the citizenry, and backed heavily, after having of course overthrown the elected president.

Don't forget you have also been party to UN Resolutions which commited mass geonicide in the country as its people tried to rise up to over throw that said puppet dictator the Shah. And you are engaged in ONGOING MURDEROUS SANCTIONS against the country, because it IS trying to pursue peaceable and LEGAL uranium enrichment.

HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THAT SITUATION !?!?!

This is ABSURD!

flywallyfly

_outlaw wrote:

1. Obama referred to Iran's nuclear program as "illegal" when it's not.
2. He said he'd give ultimatums to end the nuclear program, when ultimatums are basically threats, and like I said, Iran is not a threat and their nuclear program should not have to close because Israel/the U.S. say so (both nuclear powers)..

So the United States should sit back and do nothing in your opinion. Now how exactly does this option keep Israel from attacking Iran and opening a big can of fire in the Middle East?

fuck

flywallyfly wrote:

So the United States should sit back and do nothing in your opinion. Now how exactly does this option keep Israel from attacking Iran and opening a big can of fire in the Middle East?

so either you threaten Iran or do nothing? is that how it is?

and why can't the U.S. apply pressure on Israel, who we give billions of dollars to, to not attack Iran?

seeing as how pretty much the entire world doesn't want another war, if the U.S. were against it as well, I don't see how Israel could do that. If anything we should be threatening ISRAEL not to attack Iran... :rolleyes:

also, good post drifting.

flywallyfly

_outlaw wrote:

so either you threaten Iran or do nothing? is that how it is?

I'm not pushing a policy. I'm simply asking how Obama's critics would handle the situation. No need to get all pissy. It's a simple question. How should he handle it?

Rhinocerous Surprise

flywallyfly wrote:

I'm not pushing a policy. I'm simply asking how Obama's critics would handle the situation. No need to get all pissy. It's a simple question. How should he handle it?

Tell Israel that the US would retract their support if they attack Iran, for one thing. Pledging unwavering support to the country with nuclear weapons, and threatening to attack another country for even approaching the ability to maybe make them, is basically just compounding the problems over there.

puremagic

When Senator Obama initially suggested talking to Iran without taking any options off the table, you slammed him as an appeaser. Now that Bush is the appeaser, Obama is the aggressor.


Hopes for peace grow as Iran and US hold first high-level talks for 30 years

· Official to hear Tehran's response to uranium offer
· Meeting shows softening of Bush's hardline policy

Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
The Guardian, Thursday July 17 2008


The US is to send a senior official to talks with Iran on Saturday, the highest level meeting between the two since the 1979 Iranian revolution and a departure from George Bush's previous hard line.

William Burns, an undersecretary of state, left Washington last night en route to Switzerland to hear Tehran's response on Saturday to a multinational proposal offering economic and technical cooperation in return for suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment programme.

Bush has repeatedly ruled out direct talks until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment process. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear bomb. The White House and the state department denied there had been a turnaround and insisted that it was change in tactics rather than substance. But rightwingers in the US, who have argued for bombing Iranian nuclear plants, accused Bush of appeasement.

Sean McCormack, the state department spokesman, described the face-to-face meeting as "a one-time deal" and that no further meetings were planned unless Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme. Burns would be there to listen, not negotiate, McCormack said.

Both the White House and the state department insisted they had no inside knowledge of Tehran's reaction on Saturday, but Burns' participation suggests a deal is in the offing,

Javier Solana, the European foreign policy chief, said yesterday that he hoped for a "constructive response" from the meeting in Geneva with the Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. "I hope we will have good news to communicate to you ... but I cannot guarantee success," Solana told reporters at a conference in Berlin.

The US stance on uranium enrichment has been dropped in an increasingly urgent effort to find a solution to the deadlock before Bush leaves office in January. Israel recently threatened to attack Iran's nuclear sites if it persevered with its programme, while Iran has conducted missile tests and vowed retaliation.

Britain and other European governments have been pushing Washington to participate directly in preliminary talks with Iran. Gordon Brown pressed Bush to do this when they met in Washington earlier this year, as did the foreign secretary, David Milliband, in talks with the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

On Saturday, Burns will join senior diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China as part of a negotiating team led by Solana. The team, minus US representation, visited Tehran last month to present a package of incentives, including help in establishing a civilian nuclear industry, in return for suspension of enrichment and reprocessing, which could be used to build a nuclear warhead.

The proposal included an initial "freeze for freeze" formula to get talks going. The UN security council would impose no further sanctions if Iran stopped expanding its uranium enrichment facility.

Since the proposal was delivered just over a month ago, Tehran has sent mixed signals, mingling positive remarks with missile tests, almost certainly reflecting differences of opinion inside Iran's complex system of government.

US officials have held talks with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad, but they have been focused on Iraq. Rice momentarily met the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, last year at a regional meeting in Egypt, but did not hold substantive talks.

One compromise the Iranians could offer is to redefine suspension of uranium enrichment, which would mean the centrifuges of Iran's nuclear installations would continue to work without being injected by gas.
Burns no stranger to hot seat

William Burns is no stranger to political controversy: he co-wrote a 2002 memo that anticipated dire consequences if Saddam Hussein were deposed. Ranked number three at the state department, Burns, 52, previously served as US ambassador to Moscow. He replaced the retiring Nicholas Burns, a confidante and ally of Condoleezza Rice, in January.
The Bush administration's response to Iranian nuclear activity has left critics wary of another war, but Burns recently cooled the confrontation. He told a congressional committee this month that while Iran remains a serious threat, it remains isolated on the world stage. "Iran is not 10-feet tall, nor is it even the dominant regional actor". Burns began his government service in the 1980s and was named one of the 50 most promising young Americans by Time magazine in 1994.