America & Iran

Firecat

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Like Nixon in China, is it time for America to engage Iran? Why is the States so stubborn when it comes to talking with Iran?

Part of this post has to do with this letter Iran wrote to Bush, but this administration wrote off. I think there is an opportunity to open up a dialogue, or even send a diplomat to Tehran. It would go a long way in terms of solving this crisis. I mentioned Nixon above, but a lot of past US presidents have talked with their "enemies" (Eisenhower, Truman, Reagan)...I really don't understand this hardline attitude towards Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_15

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_us;...OOMFQ.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
 
Ask Neville Chamberlain how well "dialouge" worked with Adolf Hitler. Im all for Iran using nuclear technology for energy, but when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states he would like nothing better than to decimate an ally of ours, there is no room for dialouge. I mean, would YOU take this man seriously? He's a leader of a country, nicieties must be adheared to.
 
Well, this predates Ahmadinejad. And the rhetoric goes both ways (3 ways in fact). Iran doesn't have ambitions like Hitler's Germany had. I reject the notion that talking/dialogue equates to appeasement. This country talked with Stalin and Mao, yet the same can't be done with Tehran?
 
Let's also look at the Iranian position. Is it fair for them to have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty yet not be allowed to exercise their rights under it (not just for engery, but the scientific knowledge they can gain) while the U.S. is striking nuclear deals with India, a country that hasn't signed the NPT?
 
Firecat said:
Well, this predates Ahmadinejad. And the rhetoric goes both ways (3 ways in fact). Iran doesn't have ambitions like Hitler's Germany had. I reject the notion that talking/dialogue equates to appeasement. This country talked with Stalin and Mao, yet the same can't be done with Tehran?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Maybe this is all a political onion so to say, with layer after layer, and we the average citizens (goes for Iranians, too) only see the outer skin of whats really going on.
 
jayhawk said:
Firecat said:
Well, this predates Ahmadinejad. And the rhetoric goes both ways (3 ways in fact). Iran doesn't have ambitions like Hitler's Germany had. I reject the notion that talking/dialogue equates to appeasement. This country talked with Stalin and Mao, yet the same can't be done with Tehran?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Maybe this is all a political onion so to say, with layer after layer, and we the average citizens (goes for Iranians, too) only see the outer skin of whats really going on.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are talks through backchannels. I understand the U.S. ambassador to Iraq has been talking with Iran (in regards to Iraq), of course even that is not being acknowledged much.
 
jayhawk said:
Ask Neville Chamberlain how well "dialouge" worked with Adolf Hitler. Im all for Iran using nuclear technology for energy, but when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states he would like nothing better than to decimate an ally of ours, there is no room for dialouge.
Click to expand...
let's just get rid of that ally, problem solved!
 
^LOL


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

~Thomas Jefferson
 
In case anyone is interested...here is the entire letter...It's pretty interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsj-IranianPres_letter.pdf?mod=blogs

A couple of excerpts...

"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?

"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be opposed."
Click to expand...
 
He has some very valid points. I don't think it's in the best interests of the west(not just the US) to have a stable middle east, and our support of Israel is pretty much bullshit.

also the war does have a huge psychological cost to our soldiers. a friend of mine who is in the special forces has had to shoot children strapped with bombs, if you don't think that messes you up then I don't want to meet you. There are people that don't ride in cars anymore due to the roadside bombs, all sorts of things. All the psychological problems with soldiers that occurred during the vietnam war are occuring now. thank god there aren't mobs of hippy dipshits calling them baby killers when then arrive home. it does make you think.

there is really no good reason to spend such billions on war campaigns not relevant to the actual security of our country, and then cut the budgets of humanitarian projects within our own borders.

I can't help but wonder about the author tho.
 
zenkidori said:
also the war does have a huge psychological cost to our soldiers. a friend of mine who is in the special forces has had to shoot children strapped with bombs, if you don't think that messes you up then I don't want to meet you. There are people that don't ride in cars anymore due to the roadside bombs, all sorts of things. All the psychological problems with soldiers that occurred during the vietnam war are occuring now. thank god there aren't mobs of hippy dipshits calling them baby killers when then arrive home. it does make you think.
Click to expand...

It's something I haven't read (or seen) much in the media. There is a lot of focus on the war dead (U.S. soliders), but not much about the wounded...those that have psychological problems, disease (like Leishmaniasis) etc....

Unlike in Vietnam though, this is an all-volunteer army. Nobody forced these soldiers into Iraq to kill for no just reason. There may not be mobs of people lambasting the soldiers, but there are some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Although nobody probably takes them seriously, and they aren't really acting out of any anti-war kind of stance (like other war protesters now and during Vietnam)
 
zenkidori said:
He has some very valid points. I don't think it's in the best interests of the west(not just the US) to have a stable middle east.
Click to expand...

True, mostly for economic reasons.

And I don't understand why more people don't criticize this administrations "democratize the world" doctrine, which they themselves don't even believe. It's probably better that some countries aren't democracies. I wouldn't want to seen an election in Pakistan anytime soon.
 
Bush responds...
article

"It looks like it did not answer the main question that the world is asking and that is, 'When will you get rid of your nuclear program?',"

"Britain, France, Germany - coupled with the United States and Russia and China have all agreed that the Iranians should not have a weapon or the capacity to make a weapon,"

"There is a universal agreement toward that goal and the letter didn't address that question,"
Click to expand...
 
zenkidori said:
there is really no good reason to spend such billions on war campaigns not relevant to the actual security of our country, and then cut the budgets of humanitarian projects within our own borders.
Click to expand...

That is, hands-down, the best and most appropriate thing I've read in the last year. That notion seems even more ridiculous when actual threats existed elsewhere in the world.

I think I'm missing something about this whole situation. Since when are the US and all the countries friendly with it the only ones allowed to have nuclear weapons? After the cold war we didn't exactly get rid of all our nukes but nobody really seemed to care that we still had them stockpiled. Nowadays if there's even a slight suspicion that a country is researching nuclear weapons it's all that's on the news for a month. Talk about your double standards!
 
On the subject of double-standards. The United States (nuclear nation) is attacking other countries. Israel (nuclear nation) is attacking other countries. Yet Iran, which hasn't attacked another country in the last 20 something years (Iraq being the last) is a huge threat to world peace
 
Koran is interesting to read, as you notice it has nothing peaceful....

I do not understand why a country with so much oil needs to have nuclear power stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top