Iran Welcomes Talks With the US

[Robert_de_Sable]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-says-it-welcomes-nuclear-talks-with-west-1668183.html

 

[hide=]

Iran welcomes nuclear talks with the United States and other countries, Tehran's top nuclear negotiator said Monday.

 

 

 

The negotiator, Saeed Jalili, made the comments during a telephone call with the European Union's foreign policy chief, state television reported. During the conversation, Jalili said the talks should be aimed at "constructive cooperation" between countries.

 

 

 

Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was open to talks but only if they were based on respect for Iran's rights, suggesting the West should not try to force Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. Jalili's comments appeared to be more of a definitive answer, but he stressed that Iran would issue an official response to the invitation soon, the TV reported. He did not elaborate.

 

 

 

The United States announced last week that it would join direct talks with Iran that Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia are seeking to convene. The talks aim to break a long deadlock over Iran's nuclear program, which the U.S. and its allies fear aims to build atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge.

 

 

 

Ahmadinejad said Thursday that Iran would present a new proposal for negotiations, saying "conditions have changed" an apparent reference to President Barack Obama's election and Iran's own progress in its nuclear program since previous talks with Iran were held last year. He didn't elaborate on the proposal.

 

 

 

Jalili also insisted in his conversation with Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, that the all parties involved in the talks should have the "right understanding of international developments and realities," the TV reported.

 

 

 

Ahmadinejad announced on Saturday that Iran now controls the entire cycle for producing nuclear fuel. The step was significant toward furthering Iran's nuclear energy capabilities and could be designed to strengthen Iran's position at a time when the Obama administration has said it would negotiate with the Iran over it nuclear program.

[/hide]

 

Well, this is definitely a good thing. Post your thoughts.

[pureprayer]

Hi Iran.

[1_man_army]

It's interesting but there is no point in doing anything in depth until after the Iranian elections in June. Unfortunately, Khatami (former President and reformist candidate) dropped out but it was in order to avoid splitting the reformist vote. It's interesting the Ahmadinejad made this possible as he still refuses to give up any uranium enrichment programs (which he insists are for energy only) and I've always perceived that a lot of his support is from his anti-American stance. To make this concession to at least appear to want to build bridges with America suggests to me that he is under pressure from the Iranian people but its heard to read considering there are still rallies where people cry "death to America."

 

 

 

In short, it's interesting but I'm not sure how much I would read into it as this might just be electioneering.

[mmmcannibalism]

good to see we are talking, needed to eventually.

[Clay_More12]

Hopefull there will be peace between the Countrys

[Dizzle229]

Hopefull there will be peace between the Countrys

 

 

 

I read that as "Hopefully there will be space cowboys". :lol:

[Robert_de_Sable]

How on Earth did you manage that?

[ember3579]

How on Earth did you manage that?

 

 

 

 

 

And this, my friend, is why drugs are BAD.

 

 

 

This is a good thing, in my opinion. At the very least, this will get our foot in the door.

[Sly_Wizard]

Nothing will happen and it'll be the same as always.

[Laura]

Hopefull there will be peace between the Countrys

 

 

 

I read that as "Hopefully there will be space cowboys". :lol:

What...?

[Dizzle229]

Hopefull there will be peace between the Countrys

 

 

 

I read that as "Hopefully there will be space cowboys". :lol:

What...?

 

 

 

I was just skimming the page, not actually reading, and took peace = space, and countrys = cowboys.

[das1330]

It's interesting but there is no point in doing anything in depth until after the Iranian elections in June. Unfortunately, Khatami (former President and reformist candidate) dropped out but it was in order to avoid splitting the reformist vote. It's interesting the Ahmadinejad made this possible as he still refuses to give up any uranium enrichment programs (which he insists are for energy only) and I've always perceived that a lot of his support is from his anti-American stance. To make this concession to at least appear to want to build bridges with America suggests to me that he is under pressure from the Iranian people but its heard to read considering there are still rallies where people cry "death to America."

 

 

 

In short, it's interesting but I'm not sure how much I would read into it as this might just be electioneering.

 

 

 

While it may seem that the Iranian people hate the US in particular and the west in general, the whole thing is overblown - just like most of the world, most Iranian people are quite happy with Obama, and the Iranian government has been paying people to attend the death to Amerikka rallies for years (as people wouldn't otherwise go). Obama's election and the falling price of oil have undermined much of Ahmadinejad 's domestic support.

[RichieMcD]

Hi Iran.

 

 

 

Hilarious =D>

 

 

 

On-Topic: Meh, quite often it seems more than overblown minor stories of nuclear research programs and Iran threatening severe repercussions in case of attack, haven't seen anything of yet showing Iran as an extreme threat to world peace. Nevertheless, I doubt anything bad can come of this.

[mmmcannibalism]

Hi Iran.

 

 

 

Hilarious =D>

 

 

 

On-Topic: Meh, quite often it seems more than overblown minor stories of nuclear research programs and Iran threatening severe repercussions in case of attack, haven't seen anything of yet showing Iran as an extreme threat to world peace. Nevertheless, I doubt anything bad can come of this.

 

 

 

well the leader has said a few times that israel should be destroyed, thats not exactly a peaceful message; ignoring UN rules never looks good either.

 

 

 

Not to say they are realistically a threat, but it would be foolish to overlook a country building a nuclear program its not supposed to be(even if they claim it is solely for energy).

 

 

 

It is good to see we are starting talks

[RichieMcD]

Hi Iran.

 

 

 

Hilarious =D>

 

 

 

On-Topic: Meh, quite often it seems more than overblown minor stories of nuclear research programs and Iran threatening severe repercussions in case of attack, haven't seen anything of yet showing Iran as an extreme threat to world peace. Nevertheless, I doubt anything bad can come of this.

 

 

 

well the leader has said a few times that israel should be destroyed, thats not exactly a peaceful message; ignoring UN rules never looks good either.

 

 

 

Not to say they are realistically a threat, but it would be foolish to overlook a country building a nuclear program its not supposed to be(even if they claim it is solely for energy).

 

 

 

 

Could you provide a source for your first point, I've only heard claims close to those that if they were attacked first, not a claim of destroying Israel without it being in terms of defense.

 

 

 

I've always wanted an opinion of this from an American (not meaning to offend). Why is it fair for America to possess over 10,000 nuclear armed weapons, the vast majority of which are powerful enough to take out small cities and run many Nuclear programs (energy, transportation, WMD's etc) while when Iran wants to create a program for cheap, efficient and reliable energy it's met with threats and intimidating responses?

[Dizzle229]

Hi Iran.

 

 

 

Hilarious =D>

 

 

 

On-Topic: Meh, quite often it seems more than overblown minor stories of nuclear research programs and Iran threatening severe repercussions in case of attack, haven't seen anything of yet showing Iran as an extreme threat to world peace. Nevertheless, I doubt anything bad can come of this.

 

 

 

well the leader has said a few times that israel should be destroyed, thats not exactly a peaceful message; ignoring UN rules never looks good either.

 

 

 

Not to say they are realistically a threat, but it would be foolish to overlook a country building a nuclear program its not supposed to be(even if they claim it is solely for energy).

 

 

 

 

Could you provide a source for your first point, I've only heard claims close to those that if they were attacked first, not a claim of destroying Israel without it being in terms of defense.

 

 

 

I've always wanted an opinion of this from an American (not meaning to offend). Why is it fair for America to possess over 10,000 nuclear armed weapons, the vast majority of which are powerful enough to take out small cities and run many Nuclear programs (energy, transportation, WMD's etc) while when Iran wants to create a program for cheap, efficient and reliable energy it's met with threats and intimidating responses?

 

 

 

The goal is to completely eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, the problem is noone wants to be the first to disarm. And what about the last country to have them? They would hold all the chips.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Hi Iran.

 

 

 

Hilarious =D>

 

 

 

On-Topic: Meh, quite often it seems more than overblown minor stories of nuclear research programs and Iran threatening severe repercussions in case of attack, haven't seen anything of yet showing Iran as an extreme threat to world peace. Nevertheless, I doubt anything bad can come of this.

 

 

 

well the leader has said a few times that israel should be destroyed, thats not exactly a peaceful message; ignoring UN rules never looks good either.

 

 

 

Not to say they are realistically a threat, but it would be foolish to overlook a country building a nuclear program its not supposed to be(even if they claim it is solely for energy).

 

 

 

 

Could you provide a source for your first point, I've only heard claims close to those that if they were attacked first, not a claim of destroying Israel without it being in terms of defense.

 

 

 

I've always wanted an opinion of this from an American (not meaning to offend). Why is it fair for America to possess over 10,000 nuclear armed weapons, the vast majority of which are powerful enough to take out small cities and run many Nuclear programs (energy, transportation, WMD's etc) while when Iran wants to create a program for cheap, efficient and reliable energy it's met with threats and intimidating responses?

 

Because as much as I dislike Barack Obama, he's not a mentally [developmentally delayed]ed terrorist like Mahmoud Ahmenjihad (sp?).

[warri0r45]

This is excellent news. I respect Iran's right to develop a nuclear energy program, but they shouldn't be able to enrich it further to make a weapon. As they have said, that's not their goal, so hopefully these talks can result in some international oversight while maintaining respect for their plans.

[EdgedThesis]

 

Because as much as I dislike Barack Obama, he's not a mentally [developmentally delayed] terrorist like Mahmoud Ahmenjihad (sp?).

 

 

 

He's not an idiot. He's just insane.

 

He wants to bring about the Judgment Day--and one of the prophecies state that during Judgment the whole of the world will be allied against the Islamic World.

 

 

 

I'll try and find the article, to make sure this is true.

[magekillr]

Win:

 

 

 

The Obama administration and its European allies are considering dropping a long-standing U.S. demand that Iran immediately shut down its nuclear facilities if it enters talks over its atomic program, The New York Times reported on Monday on its website.

 

 

 

The proposal would also allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks and would be a sharp break from the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, the report said.

 

 

 

Enriching uranium can produce fuel for a nuclear power plant or, if purified to a much higher degree, provide material for an atomic bomb. The West suspects Iran's nuclear program is cover for building an atomic bomb but Tehran says it is to generate electricity.

 

 

 

The proposals, still under discussion, were aimed at drawing Iran into nuclear talks that it has so far shunned, the newspaper said, citing officials involved in the strategy sessions.

 

 

 

A senior Obama administration official cautioned that "we are still at the brainstorming level" and said the terms of an opening proposal to Iran were still being debated, the newspaper said.

 

 

 

The six major powers dealing with Iran, including the United States, met in London last week and invited Tehran to a new round of talks about its nuclear program.

 

 

 

The New York Times cited European officials as saying that in talks during Obama's visit to Europe there was agreement that Iran would not accept the immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

 

 

 

Obama administration officials declined to discuss details of their deliberations, but said any new American policy would ultimately require Iran to cease enrichment, the newspaper said.

 

 

 

"Our goal remains exactly what it has been in the U.N. resolutions: suspension," one senior administration official told the newspaper.

 

 

 

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... F520090414

[mmmcannibalism]

I've always wanted an opinion of this from an American (not meaning to offend). Why is it fair for America to possess over 10,000 nuclear armed weapons, the vast majority of which are powerful enough to take out small cities and run many Nuclear programs (energy, transportation, WMD's etc) while when Iran wants to create a program for cheap, efficient and reliable energy it's met with threats and intimidating responses?

 

 

 

1. America is very stable as far as chance of going to war

 

 

 

2. we allow/ would allow full inspection of our facilities

 

 

 

3. although we are the only country to use a nuke(saving lives long term), we have no possible reason to use them. Our standard munitions could destroy any small country, and if ww3 breaks out then all bets are off anyway.

 

 

 

4. Iran has no need of a nuclear weapon, we dont really either but ironically large country having nukes kept the cold war from going hot. As long as enough major stable countries of different backgrounds have nuclear weapons there is no need for small countries to have them.

 

 

 

Its not so much that Iran shouldnt be allowed a nuclear program for energy its a matter of doing it properly. Let the inspectors in, be completely open with it and so on.

 

 

 

mage--good to see Obama may get talks started.

[1_man_army]

I've always wanted an opinion of this from an American (not meaning to offend). Why is it fair for America to possess over 10,000 nuclear armed weapons, the vast majority of which are powerful enough to take out small cities and run many Nuclear programs (energy, transportation, WMD's etc) while when Iran wants to create a program for cheap, efficient and reliable energy it's met with threats and intimidating responses?

 

 

 

1. America is very stable as far as chance of going to war

 

 

 

2. we allow/ would allow full inspection of our facilities

 

 

 

3. although we are the only country to use a nuke(saving lives long term), we have no possible reason to use them. Our standard munitions could destroy any small country, and if ww3 breaks out then all bets are off anyway.

 

 

 

4. Iran has no need of a nuclear weapon, we dont really either but ironically large country having nukes kept the cold war from going hot. As long as enough major stable countries of different backgrounds have nuclear weapons there is no need for small countries to have them.

 

 

 

Its not so much that Iran shouldnt be allowed a nuclear program for energy its a matter of doing it properly. Let the inspectors in, be completely open with it and so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that I agree with a nuclear-armed Iran, I do have some points to make;

 

America is still the only nation to use a nuclear weapon outside of testing, no matter how you justify this it is still somewhat hypocritical to condemn others with nuclear ambitions. Iran could also be at risk from a pre-emptive attack (not nuclear) Israel who is by far the best equipped nation in the region (who also have a nuclear capacity themselves that they still refuse to publicly admit). Again I'm playing devil's advocate slightly but I can understand (but not agree) with Iran's stance on inspectors. For a nation that has spent the last 30 years opposing America at every opportunity, it would be humiliating to them to accept inspectors in order to please Americs.

[mmmcannibalism]

Not that I agree with a nuclear-armed Iran, I do have some points to make;

 

America is still the only nation to use a nuclear weapon outside of testing, no matter how you justify this it is still somewhat hypocritical to condemn others with nuclear ambitions. Iran could also be at risk from a pre-emptive attack (not nuclear) Israel who is by far the best equipped nation in the region (who also have a nuclear capacity themselves that they still refuse to publicly admit). Again I'm playing devil's advocate slightly but I can understand (but not agree) with Iran's stance on inspectors. For a nation that has spent the last 30 years opposing America at every opportunity, it would be humiliating to them to accept inspectors in order to please Americs

.

 

 

 

We used it in war time to save lives, more people would have died trying to capture mainland japan then the bombs killed. I wouldnt call it hypocritical, after all if they had never been used we wouldnt understand the danger(testing is nothing like seeing the destruction). Israel is a bit of a problem, unless they start threatening to nuke Iran I dont see a signifigant problem. If they want a nuclear program, they have to allow inspectors that stuff is too dangerous to just say we trust you.

[eias]

Hope Obama receives a Timberland on his face if he goes there..

[1_man_army]

Not that I agree with a nuclear-armed Iran, I do have some points to make;

 

America is still the only nation to use a nuclear weapon outside of testing, no matter how you justify this it is still somewhat hypocritical to condemn others with nuclear ambitions. Iran could also be at risk from a pre-emptive attack (not nuclear) Israel who is by far the best equipped nation in the region (who also have a nuclear capacity themselves that they still refuse to publicly admit). Again I'm playing devil's advocate slightly but I can understand (but not agree) with Iran's stance on inspectors. For a nation that has spent the last 30 years opposing America at every opportunity, it would be humiliating to them to accept inspectors in order to please Americs

.

 

 

 

We used it in war time to save lives, more people would have died trying to capture mainland japan then the bombs killed. I wouldnt call it hypocritical, after all if they had never been used we wouldnt understand the danger(testing is nothing like seeing the destruction). Israel is a bit of a problem, unless they start threatening to nuke Iran I dont see a signifigant problem. If they want a nuclear program, they have to allow inspectors that stuff is too dangerous to just say we trust you.

 

 

 

It's pretty irrelevant why it was used, (the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a whole thread worth of argument on its own) it is important that it was used. I don't like the idea of Iran having a nuclear bomb but I just don't think that America is in any position to make the case when they're still the only ones to have used one. See it from Iran's point of view - lets assume they want a bomb - America is telling Iran not to have one while America has many and have used them. It's like a child hitting somebody with a big stick and then stopping everyone else having a stick because they can be used to hurt people. Diplomatically, it is a mine field.

 

 

 

Hope Obama receives a Timberland on his face if he goes there..

 

 

 

Was there any need for that?