Iranian President say Iran would talk to U.S.

trappedinmyradio
trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran would talk to the United States if [the U.S.] "corrects its behavior," but the White House said there would be no discussions until Tehran took a more constructive role in the region. Ahmadinejad's comment was the highest-level Iranian statement in recent months that the government is willing to talk to Washington, which it has long demonized as "the Great Satan." It also came a day after British Prime Minister Tony Blair advocated seeking Tehran's help in ending the violence in Iraq.
=========================

okay, what does this mean? is tehran taking the stance that the u.s. needs to get our of the region and leave them to their own devices, rules, and governance? and, is the white house asking tehran to help clean up the mess that the u.s. made in the middle east? gosh, this is never going to end...EVER.
I'll dig a tunnel
from my window to yours
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    how can you talk to someone who wants to nuke Israel off the map? I think he should correct his behavior before any talking is done.
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how can you talk to someone who wants to nuke Israel off the map? I think he should correct his behavior before any talking is done.

    he can have his feelings on a subject...action, again, is what is important. he might hate israel and jews and jew-loving nations, but, i am fine with it as long as he does nothing to move forward with another holocaust type situation.

    the u.s. stance has been that they are fighting the terrorists in iraq so they won't have to fight them on u.s. soil. so, basically, they are asking the terrorists to come to where they are. as long as they stay there that's where they are going to have to deal with terrorist organizations taking their shots at them. if the u.s. leaves then there is only a civil war to deal with and that's not our deal, that's iraq's deal (which is what would have happened in any situation that found saddam out of power). so, iran and syria have nothing to do with it.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    he can have his feelings on a subject...action, again, is what is important. he might hate israel and jews and jew-loving nations, but, i am fine with it as long as he does nothing to move forward with another holocaust type situation..

    you are putting alot of trust into a man with his kind of power. its not like he is some extreme chirstian minister saying all gays should be dead. this guy can give the order to fire.

    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    the u.s. stance has been that they are fighting the terrorists in iraq so they won't have to fight them on u.s. soil. so, basically, they are asking the terrorists to come to where they are. as long as they stay there that's where they are going to have to deal with terrorist organizations taking their shots at them. if the u.s. leaves then there is only a civil war to deal with and that's not our deal, that's iraq's deal (which is what would have happened in any situation that found saddam out of power). so, iran and syria have nothing to do with it.


    I disagree. I think Iran and alot of say in the matter. they would love for the shittes to gain power.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how can you talk to someone who wants to nuke Israel off the map? I think he should correct his behavior before any talking is done.

    What could it hurt to talk? We have to stop disrespecting their right to a different point of view and try to work on a solution.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Abuskedti wrote:
    What could it hurt to talk? We have to stop disrespecting their right to a different point of view and try to work on a solution.


    we have to respect their right to want Israel wiped off the map?

    under no circumstances should they have nukes. period. no need to talk about it.
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you are putting alot of trust into a man with his kind of power. its not like he is some extreme chirstian minister saying all gays should be dead. this guy can give the order to fire.

    I disagree. I think Iran and alot of say in the matter. they would love for the shittes to gain power.

    that's why i'm fine with his feelings about a certain thing as long as he doesn't act on them. he isn't going to change his mind about israel. that's a fact. there is no epiphany that will change his mind.

    but, iran would be doing that in any situation that found saddam's regime toppled, whether we had anything to do with toppling it or not. but, here, the u.s. forced the situation at hand, so why are they asking for help in cleaning it up?

    i just hope that these two parties can get together and figure this enriching uranium situation figured out, peacefully.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    Abuskedti wrote:
    What could it hurt to talk? We have to stop disrespecting their right to a different point of view and try to work on a solution.

    work on a solution where they can think what they want and they can have nucular (haha) power, a HIGHLY REGULATED AND MONITORED program, and absolutely NO missile delivery systems capable of doing anything except defending their borders and immediate airspace.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    the only thing I would support is if a third party enriched it for them under the very watchful eye of the IAEA.

    Russia suggested they would do this.

    If they only want it for electricity reasons, then they should be perfectly fine with this.
  • Scratchin a Letter
    Scratchin a Letter Posts: 2,303
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we have to respect their right to want Israel wiped off the map?
    A tasteless suggestion, but when the IDF commits atrocities in frequencies as it has been, past and present, one cannot be surprised or shocked when somebody expresses their outrage. that's all it is. empty words. i won't argue with his ideology, or that the way he conveyed his thoughts was over the top.

    under no circumstances should they have nukes. period. no need to talk about it
    and what makes it acceptable for a dangerous, warmongering nation like the United States to have 'nukes'?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Scratchin a Letter wrote:

    and what makes it acceptable for a dangerous, warmongering nation like the United States to have 'nukes'?


    because we have to defend ourselves from other countries that have them or from terrorists who would love to use one against us.

    but we have also agreed to cut down the arsenal. which over time hopefully will happen for every country around the world.
  • Scratchin a Letter
    Scratchin a Letter Posts: 2,303
    jlew24asu wrote:
    because we have to defend ourselves from other countries that have them or from terrorists who would love to use one against us.
    Then obviously it's OK for other countries-such as Iran-to have them in order to be able to defend itself from the United States? Who might I add in parts of the world are considered more dangerous than Bin Laden..
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    because we have to defend ourselves from other countries that have them or from terrorists who would love to use one against us.

    but we have also agreed to cut down the arsenal. which over time hopefully will happen for every country around the world.
    ...
    The only problem I see with this... having nukes to defend against those with nukes... what if a Saudi Arabian or Egyptian terrorist is responsible for a low yield nuclear blast in Times Square? Do we nuke Saudia Arabia or Egypt? i can see having nukes to keep a nuclear COMMUNIST RED CHINA at bay... but, it is tough, if not impossible to use nukes as a deterrent to individual terrorists.
    And if you are worried about an unstable situation, look no further than Pakistan. That place is an Islamic state with roots in al Qaeda. They already have nukes and a guy in charge who took over the place in a military coup. AND... we are giving him money and weapons (including possible delivery systems) because he is the lesser of the current evils we perceive. What happens when he is ousted? And Islamic State with a mature nuclear weapons program and links to al Qaeda. That fucking Pakistani guy is not going to be in charge forever... we need to recognize the populous and their deep seated feelings towards us. Are they friends or foes?
    Scary motherfuckers over there.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    The only problem I see with this... having nukes to defend against those with nukes... what if a Saudi Arabian or Egyptian terrorist is responsible for a low yield nuclear blast in Times Square? Do we nuke Saudia Arabia or Egypt? .

    no for the same reasons we didnt invade saudia after 9/11. the majority of the terrorists were saudi. terrorists dont fight for a country. and no muslim nation, even Iran, would be dumb enough to nuke the US.
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...i can see having nukes to keep a nuclear COMMUNIST RED CHINA at bay... but, it is tough, if not impossible to use nukes as a deterrent to individual terrorists.
    And if you are worried about an unstable situation, look no further than Pakistan. That place is an Islamic state with roots in al Qaeda. They already have nukes and a guy in charge who took over the place in a military coup. AND... we are giving him money and weapons (including possible delivery systems) because he is the lesser of the current evils we perceive. What happens when he is ousted? And Islamic State with a mature nuclear weapons program and links to al Qaeda. That fucking Pakistani guy is not going to be in charge forever... we need to recognize the populous and their deep seated feelings towards us. Are they friends or foes?
    Scary motherfuckers over there.

    I agree with you here. Pakistan is fucked up.

Categories