Iran Crisis

Oh and does anyone know what the letter actually said?  The BBC article doesn't really shed much light on it.

Talks break down without agreement, and the Iranian leaders letter to President Bush is rejected.

    Iran talks break down

Edited by Blacksword - May 09 2006 at 04:08

^ I've tried to copy and past some jpegs recently, but no joy. When I paste nothing appears..

I'll keep trying. Maybe I've got something set up wrong.

marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: Iranian president writes letter to President Bush: Iranian president writes letter to President Bush The specifics of the letter will be published once the US president has read it (says Bush) This is significant as it is the first high level contact between the leaders of the two countries since 1979. It's thought that the Iranian leader is saying he will negotiate with 'anyone' in order to avoid conflict over Irans weapon program, which he still claims is non existent.      Yeah, I read that earlier. Should be interesting but I'm going to keep my optimism in check for now. BTW, your link doesn't work, it goes to the forum home page. Same thing happened with the link I posted earlier. I'll try:          Link

Yeah, I'm not to optimistic either, Mark about the intentions of either man to be honest.

Thanks for letting me know about the link BTW. I'll try to re-post it. I've had a few problems with posting links since the 'improvements' on PA have been implemented, not to mention posting pictures too. It's not like the good old days when you could just copy and paste things...


     

Greg W wrote: Atkingani wrote: Worked now...   Very interesting article, indeed. I'm not a US citizen and don't live there but I always say that USA are the summary of 2000 years of the so-called "Western Civilization" with the good, the bad and the average things. American citizens and inhabitants will have to live with those issues for a long time ahead.   I'll be able to live with those "issues" just fine. Guilt free, actually.

James Lee wrote: Blacksword wrote: James Lee wrote: just an observation: extremists don't need to be provoked. The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need....and comparisons with Hitler are inevitable when the topic of appeasement is raised.When I think of the Bush presidency, I can't help remembering that the people got sick of the boy who cried wolf just before the actual wolf appeared. But that may be an indictment of the people as much as it is of one troublemaking boy.     The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need I guess thats all the provocation we've needed to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan, so you may be right, althuogh I dont think thats quite what you meant. My point is, james that Bush & co are extremists in the eyes of those we call extremists. This is where the line between good and evil is blurred, and what side you come down on purely depends on what side of the geographical fence you sit on. It's worth remembering also, that we only have the word of our leaders that what happened on 9/11 (for instance) was carried out by the extremists we fight against. Lets face it, our leaders record for telling us the truth is questionable. Fair enough. I personally don't trust Bush's motives or methods...but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit in a burning building simply because I don't trust the person who's telling me about the fire.People in general and politicians certainly will always reduce the complexities of any issue down to terms of right and wrong- you don't win support by laying out all the details of your opposition's case. In that sense, all leaders of specific interests are extremists. But when I think of extremists, I think of people like Theo van Gogh's murderers. The filmmaker didn't have the option to sit down with them and debate his position. There was no talk of economic sanctions. How can the US, though flawed it certainly is, be compared to that? For me, the prime question was whether Iran had demonstrated the responsibility or need for nuclear technology (apart from the question of whether we have the responsibility, which is definitely worthy of debate). I am fairly satisfied that the answer is no; Iran is one of several nations who rose to international prominence simply because of proximity and control of an international resource. Though I'm not satisfied of our right to intervene, and I abhor the suffering that a war would cause, I am reasonably convinced that Iran does not need and cannot be trusted with nuclear technology.I accept that I'm running the risk of being cast in a pro-war role simply because I'm unwilling to settle into the usual knee-jerk Western self-loathing position. The West can still do much more good than evil, and the proof is all around us. The Gulf nations have yet to fully demonstrate that they are ready to be part of a civilized modern society.<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"It may be that Western culture will indeed go: The lack of conviction of many of those who should be its defenders and the passionate intensity of its accusers may well join to complete its destruction. But if it does go, the men and women of all the continents will thereby be impoverished and endangered." - Bernard Lewis

Well, Iran wouldn't be my first choice of places to live, but this is because I have, to some degree fallen for the wests demonisation of the Arab world too. There are a few things we should understand about Iran. It's one of the worlds oldest democracies. Compared to Iraq it is a socially advanced country. Many of its citizens prefer democracy over theocracy, and the democractic processes that landed this current lunatic in charge, can easily be used to get rid of him. The election was hardly a landslide. In short, Iran as a nation is not the Neanderthal monster our media and our leaders portray it as. It's also worth remembering that their nuclear energy program started back in 1975. If Iran really is the threat Bush & Co claim it to be, perhaps we should have bombed them into the stone age back then. What stopped us? The Soviet threat? The absence of the 'Neo Conservative' lobby, pushing for a 'New World Order' ??

With respect James, the whole issue of whether or not Iran can be trusted with nuclear power is neither here nor there. With the right leaderership they can, and with the wrong leadership they cant. Just like the US, Russia, China, Britain, Israel, France, Pakistan and India. Under current conditions I'm more concerned about Israels weapons arsenal. My point being, if we initiate a war with Iran that spirals out of control, engulfs the ME, and possibly goes nuclear, who will have been in the wrong...ultimately? Us of course. Not Iran.

I still hold the belief that Iran can be handled by the IAEA with success. If they are genuine about their intentions to create energy only, then this will be easily verified by IAEA inspections. As it is they are threatening to withdraw from the NPT, which will mean an end to IAEA inspections. Lets face it, they are baitng America into action, knowing that the consequences will be far reaching for the global economy. Bush shouldn't rise to it, but the fact that he is, indicates to me there is more to all this than thwarting Irans possibly mythical weapons program.     

Blacksword wrote: Only 50 years, thats not bad, but then thats a conservative estimate...so to speak. I think you'll find that the state of war will be eternal from now on. I would say thats the plan.

Edited by Bob Greece - May 08 2006 at 05:47

HAHAHA!

How many times has China and North Korea threatened to blow the US to smithereens?!
How many millions of illegal "immigrants" have entered the US?
(I have a video of Bush waving the Mexican flag so I doubt we will see anything done on the border)
Just how high are gas prices going to go? 4? 5$?

But here we are pissing in our pants because Iran - (MIGHT HAVE NUCLEAR BOMBS?!)
WHAT A SURPRISE!

Did we forget how the Islamic extremist government came into power?
Who removed Mossadegh in the CIA coup in 1953 and implanted the Shah into power? Only to be overthrown by Islamic extremists and replaced by the Islamic Republic...

How many more "wars" are we going to fight before we call the war on terror a day?
Bush himself (or was it cheney - same person anyway), said the war on terror would last 50 years - oh joy!

And who exactly are going to fight half a century's worth of wars? ME and YOU of course. Aren't you guys excited? No?

sigod wrote: It's a throny issue to be sure but I guess you can always say, how many countries in the world have nuclear power but NO nuclear weapons? I can sense another middle east 'conflict' coming on.

Ive never been happy with the idea that "we" can bomb or otherwise attack Iran, on the grounds that "we" fear an attack from them, because from their point of view, they then (justifiably) fear an attack from "us" - and then, surely, are equally justified in attacking us first? (Unless, of course, one wishes to have double standards....)