US offering to talk to Iran

SupremeC

Capitalist Infidel
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
85
Location
Pyongyang
I've been reading that the US has offered to negotiate with Iran if it suspends nuclear activities. This is after 20 years without diplomatic contact and calling Iran the "leading state sponsor of terrorism".

While this seems like the most peaceful way out of this particular deadlock, I am worried about the kind of message it sends. It seems that the US is bowing to the threat of possible nukes. If this happens, other organisations will start getting ideas. Will the US start talking to Osama if he gets hold of them, or even seems like getting hold of them? What if other rogue states decide to start their own little projects to extort some concessions from the US and EU?

Also, why is the US talking to Iran and not to the DPRK? Does seem a little unfair doesn't it?
 
We have offered to negotiate and why do you think Iran refuses to stop, they know damn well that if they get nukes we won't touch them. Btw Iran is the leadng state sponsor of terrorism backing all sorts of terrorist organizations starting with hezbollah.

There is no easy answer to this, to fight the U.S. will have to start a draft, to sit still and wait means loosing control of a situation. The world has made us the worst state out there since the fall of the soviet union. I belive it is in for shocking surprise.
 
Well if the US didn't invade Iraq, and I don't think it should have, they would not be overextended now. Seriously the move on Iraq gave the Iranians this opportunity imho, but they need to be stopped, even with force.
 
SupremeC said:
Well if the US didn't invade Iraq, and I don't think it should have, they would not be overextended now. Seriously the move on Iraq gave the Iranians this opportunity imho, but they need to be stopped, even with force.

Yea, well we should be exterminating some of these people with a wrath not seen in a hundred years or so, the press police is in the way of successfully taming of these areas. They think they are helping, but they are actually leading us towards a nuclear exchange imo.

Take the recent "massacre" of the people in haditha... imho? Family members of known terrorists are legit targets. Yet because 12 ppl were alledgedly murdered (o lord what a "massacre" /sarcasm), the US miliaary is apolgizing left and right. It should be telling people that this will be the standard operating procedure from here on out. That will turn some heads.
 
Tulkas12 said:
Yea, well we should be exterminating some of these people with a wrath not seen in a hundred years or so, the press police is in the way of successfully taming of these areas. They think they are helping, but they are actually leading us towards a nuclear exchange imo.

Take the recent "massacre" of the people in haditha... imho? Family members of known terrorists are legit targets. Yet because 12 ppl were alledgedly murdered (o lord what a "massacre" /sarcasm), the US miliaary is apolgizing left and right. It should be telling people that this will be the standard operating procedure from here on out. That will turn some heads.


Did I just read that?:eek:

Yeah anyways, I've always thought this is one of the main reasons we shouldn't have gone into Iraq- we are no longer able to respond to actual, real threats in the world.
 
SupremeC said:
Also, why is the US talking to Iran and not to the DPRK? Does seem a little unfair doesn't it?
Because Iran's leadership is relatively sane, and not as pig-headed, stupid or iron-fisted as that of North Korea's nutcase absolute dictorship.
 
ThePhysicist said:
Did I just read that?:eek:

Yeah anyways, I've always thought this is one of the main reasons we shouldn't have gone into Iraq- we are no longer able to respond to actual, real threats in the world.


Yea, I thought I effectively killed this thread. My feelings are very mixed, but my anger at what is going on there now is very high, it makes me pretty irrational.
 
tomsnowman123 said:
The US needs to attempt to lead the world in the disarmerment of weapons of mass destruction. We are hyprocritical to say Iran can't have any but we can.


WMD are the best deterrant to war mankind has. This is why Iran is after it. We generally let nations that are aligned for the general peace of mankind have it. We do nothing if your government can afford it and gets away with it.

Everything is hypocritical. I think this is always a flawed argument.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
No negotiations, we need to bring the Iron Fist down on Iran, it cannot be allowed to get away with something like this.

And thats how fast a nation can lose its dignity, now the UN has gone the way of the League of NAtions, its all talk (thanks Europe, for all the support!)

Get away with what, using nucelear enrichment facilities supplied by the US to enrich the Uranium to the level that can be used in power generation? They haven't actually done anything yet, I had a thread on how it would take 4 years to make enough enriched uranium to make 1 nuke at there current enrichment capacity. I'll dig out the link if you'd like. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit?

It's odd that the US can give them the means to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and then deny them the right to do it don't you think?
 
Tulkas12 said:
We generally let nations that are aligned for the general peace of mankind have it.

Yep, the US is definately for the general piece of mankind. That's why we are constantly at war, and have been the agressor in quite a few in the last 50 years.
 
Tomsnowman that is a dead lie. We have fought only one war ( technically though we have not been at war since Korea) where we were the agressor: Iraq. That is the first time, i mean THE FIRST TIME America has been the agressor in a war.

And yes we have the right to tell a nation it cannot have nuclear weapons if we know they mean to destroy us or our friend with it. If a psycho lived across the street from you, and you knew he was a psycho, and he stood out on his front lawn every day, saying how he was going to shoot you and your family and your buddy Joe who was over there all the time, would you be at all bothered by the fact if you found out he was pursuing a gun license? I think you would.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Tomsnowman that is a dead lie. We have fought only one war ( technically though we have not been at war since Korea) where we were the agressor: Iraq. That is the first time, i mean THE FIRST TIME America has been the agressor in a war.

Vietnam, War of 1812, Somalia, are some of the big ones.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Tomsnowman that is a dead lie. We have fought only one war ( technically though we have not been at war since Korea) where we were the agressor: Iraq. That is the first time, i mean THE FIRST TIME America has been the agressor in a war.
Cheezy, you might want to read about the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) and the Spanish-American War (1898).

BTW, Korea wasn't a declared war. The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was against Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.
 
Mexican American War: Texas is annexed by the United States, and Mexcio declares war on the US because it still believes Texas to be a Mexican vassal.

War or 1812: Britain atacked our shipping, and took our ships and sailors captive.

Spanish American War: Spainish blew up the USS Maine in Havanna Harbor. I've heard that it is more believed today to be a powder discharged, but its never been fully proven, and even if it was, they hardly knew that then.

Vietnam: American ships are attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. We werent the agressors anyways, the North was. We entered that "war" as a French ally.

Somalia: Wasnt a declared war, and we went in as part of a joint UN force, it wasnt a US endeavor
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Spanish American War: Spainish blew up the USS Maine in Havanna Harbor. I've heard that it is more believed today to be a powder discharged, but its never been fully proven, and even if it was, they hardly knew that then.


It was an auto-blow up made by the USA to have a 'reason' to declare war.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Tomsnowman that is a dead lie. We have fought only one war ( technically though we have not been at war since Korea) where we were the agressor: Iraq. That is the first time, i mean THE FIRST TIME America has been the agressor in a war.

Do you mean since Korea?

If so, I'd say we were the aggressor in Vietnam, Panama (Noriega), Grenada

Seriously, since Korea, how many "wars" have their been? 2.

Now, if you mean prior to Korea, which your post reads to a degree... I'd say... Um... Wrong? No, totally wrong.

Let's see...

Revolutionary War... no definitive proof who fired first at Lexington, but the Minutemen savagely attacked the British on the way back.

War of 1812... dilemma on high seas leads US to declare war on England.

Mexican War... General Taylor sent into disputed land to create a conflict. This entire war was a war of aggression as it was Polk's stated policy when campaigning to acquire California. Also, Polk was preparing to declare war w/out a provocation and felt blessed when Taylor had a skirmish w/ Mexican troops... gave him the pretext he wanted.

Civil War... too messy to discuss here.

Spanish-American War... US totally interjected itself into Spanish affairs in Cuba and the Phillipines

WWI... interesting discussion, too long for here, but US entry into WWI had more to do w/ British propaganda, the ties of money, and cultural sympathies than being aggrieved.

WWII... Obviously the only war in which you are correct in what you're saying.
 
This is a riot.

Cheezy the Wiz said:
Mexican American War: Texas is annexed by the United States, and Mexcio declares war on the US because it still believes Texas to be a Mexican vassal.

See my prior post. It was clearly an act of aggression by the US. Taylor was sent into the disputed area to provoke a fight. Polk was prepared to declare war even w/out bloodshed. Gaining California was part of his election platform.

War or 1812: Britain atacked our shipping, and took our ships and sailors captive.

Yes and no. I'd agree it wasn't a war of "aggression" (though many saw it as a chance to gain Canada, hence the leading "invasion" at the start of the war)

Spanish American War: Spainish blew up the USS Maine in Havanna Harbor. I've heard that it is more believed today to be a powder discharged, but its never been fully proven, and even if it was, they hardly knew that then.

No, its been definitively proven that the Maine sank by an internal explosion. Definitively. I bet you're one of those who moans about the evil media? If so, you'd be hoisted on your own petard here as the Span-Am war was an almost complete invention by William Randolph Hearst. He did everything he could to promote the war. Including having stories fabricated, journaslist who pushed the revolutionaries to act, etc....

Vietnam: American ships are attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. We werent the agressors anyways, the North was. We entered that "war" as a French ally.

No. By the early 60's France was LONG gone from Vietnam. We went into Vietnam to prop up a puppet state. Also, recent evidence has shown that the Gulf of Tonkin may have been a fabrication, to some degree. I'll see what I can find.

just... wow
 
Back
Top Bottom