It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran says ready to talk with Washington on Iraq

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Well, Mehran, it looks like things might move forward:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Friday that discussions were under way about when he would meet with Iranian officials about Iraq and that the talks should be held in Baghdad.
www.foxnews.com...

We can only hope, eh?




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
That would be really cool if we could move towards better relations with Iran somehow, I hope this leads to something.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well, you were so hell bent it seemed on having me provide a legitimate basis for arguing that particular point, and trying to make it seem like I had no basis at all


- "Hell bent"? I hope I'm not that melodramatic!

I'm simply saying the specific allegation that they have (or are about to have) nuclear weaponry is without basis and contrary to just about every reputable and serious commentary from almost every reputable and serious group out there (even the US government's own).

I'm sorry but I don't agree that his report provides it.


The mere fact that this was done in the way it was, covertly, illustrates a couple of things:
1) that both Iran and China had the will to acquire weapons covertly
2) that both Iran and China had at least one conduit to do so


- OK, but really, so what?

I would contend that a huge % of the world's arms deals are 'covert'.
That in itself proves nothing, it is often nothing more that merely symptomatic of a country that feels itself under threat (which Iran clearly does......and not entirely without reason).


Also, it seems strange to me that they would go to the trouble of getting maintenance techs in for training rounds. If as the article points out these may have been used for reverse engineering, why in the world would they need to be serviced?


- Well isn't that a feature of the report?
It's a real 'scatter gun' and tries to allude to so many different things that it has problems making one serious allegation stick.


Well, my imagination is not what's important here, and your insult is taken with the sme grain of salt with which it was issued.


- I should have put a smiley there, my apologies but I promise you I was trying to lighten the mood and add a little joke.


If the US and Israel felt that Iran didn't have anything else beyond that which they claimed, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we.


- To be honest TA I just don't think that follows because I am far from sure this is all about what some claim it to be about.


The abundance of nuclear expertise is not at issue, and you are really starting to reach for straws, I suspect because because you're running out of arguing points. And your statement about covert movement is really irrelevant considering the mere fact that this missile transaction took place, covertly, and is documentented. To what degree however, can be easily cooked.


- We may agree to disagree on this then.

I simply do not accept that the covert sale and supply of some old and badly maintained and stored missiles is anything like the same as the sale and transport of functional nuclear warheads.


This statement illustrates your ignorance of the fact that soviet corruption at the highest levels of government is no secret, and under those very conditions, given the propensity of the corrupt involved, it may be very likely that many other deals took place, without presidential knowledge and completely covertly.


- Again, whilst I accept this may be so in some walks of life there I do not accept things are like that in the nuclear sphere.


The extent of which is yet to be, and may never be completely known.


- Theoretically that might well be so but every quiet year that passes is telling us that maybe some of our worries were over-done?


Another case to illustrate this is the supposed mini suitcase nukes of which all have still not yet been recovered. Could some of those ended up in Iranian hands?


- Well once again in theory anything is possible (but I'd bet the house that those with the deepest pockets - ie the western governments - are far and away the more likely to have things like that if ever they did go on the market for sale).

I tend to believe those 'missing suitcase bombs' are an urban myth.
Once again each passing quiet year leaves the idea that 'the terrorist underworld have them' unlikely; I hope I am right.

But it is one of those cases where one can let rip one's paranoia and just guess anything.


Again, if this fails so abymally, then what are the US and Israel so concerned about?


- That's what worries me.
I am not convinced the story is the real or full reason(s).
I think resouce control is at the heart of this far more than tales of imminent nuclear attacks.


I also urge you to discuss this without such needless, pointed remarks. Note that had your statements taken on a tone of cooperative discussion rather than pointed remarks like this from the beginning, this drama factor that you so wish to introduce would not be coming back to bite you in the ass.


- You really do sound as if you feel I was insulting you, that was never my intention and if so I apologise.

Perhaps the torrent of worst instinct promoting threads along the lines of 'they're gonna nuclear attack any second!.......so we have to' and 'those pesky Muslims will be over to eat your first born asap!..... kick them all out' etc etc have provoked a tone I hadn't noticed or intended.


Israel, however, views this differently, and I for one can comprehend their viewpoint given the history of Iran's ferocity towards them, Israel's size, geographic location, and other things.


- That is a fair point but I think in the long run Israel is the one in a no-win situation if she thinks she can forever be the lone ME nuclear power (who has also side-stepped all treaties etc).


It's a no win situation as long as Iran, however covertly, seeks and acts to acquire nuclear weapons.


- It would appear that the legitimate right to control of the entire 'nuclear cycle' never mind nuclear weapons is going to have some attempt to impose a 'no win' situation for Iran.

But it wasn't all covert anyway, we did have inspection beyond treaty requirements, it seems crazy to me to have pushed things to the point where they give up and call a halt to it all in the belief that they can never satisfy the requirement(s) no matter what they do.


My hopes are with yours. Maybe by some stroke of luck these will combine with others' hopes and actions, and we can live a little longer without starting WW3.


- Nice to agree with you.


[edit on 17-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
how long before war now Dialogue with Iran over Iraq without N-issue: Rice timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
Any possible dialogue between American diplomats and Iranian officials on stabilising Iraq will not cover Tehran's nuclear ambitions, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said on Friday.

Speaking in Sydney, Rice said talks with Tehran on Iraq's slide toward civil war "might be useful", but asked if the discussions also could cover Iran's nuclear program, she said it would not.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Allright, well good discussion sminkey, but for both our sakes I suggest we digress right back to the title of the thread "Iran says ready to talk with Washington on Iraq."

Maybe we could talk about the implications of this a bit more. And again, concerns I have are the shifting of focus and stalling for time issues here.

But there are other issues as well:

Why don't we explore how Iran, if talks proceed, would be able to help in Iraq. It seems such an irony to me that any Iranian troops in Iraq could be well received in any capacity by the Iraqi people! (after the Iran Iraq war).

Or if it's not troops to assist with security, are there other things they could do?

Just trying to get back on track here



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Allright, well good discussion sminkey, but for both our sakes I suggest we digress right back to the title of the thread "Iran says ready to talk with Washington on Iraq."


- Agreed, but it was only a slight, if not 100% relevant, diversion.



Why don't we explore how Iran, if talks proceed, would be able to help in Iraq. It seems such an irony to me that any Iranian troops in Iraq could be well received in any capacity by the Iraqi people! (after the Iran Iraq war).


- It's an interesting idea all right but one that may cause more than a few eyebrows to lift.

In fact that whole issue of how each country reacted after their calamitous war is interesting.
Unlike the European countries after WW1 (the Iran Iraq war is sometimes described as their 'Great war' with over a million dead) it seems that the war gave added support to the regimes that afflicted their nations with it.
Strange.

But it is true, a major part of the Iraqi 3-way split is the overwhelmingly Shia south so it would be likely Iranians would be received positively (although the Sunni's in the mid-land area would probably see it as the first steps to an attempt at annexation!).
Hmmm, maybe there is trouble enough out there.

One of the disappointing things about the recent elections (if reports on the BBC are to be believed.....and I see no reason not to) is that thanks to the Shia successes religious law is now more heavily enforced than it ever was under Saddam.

Iraq always was a more open and liberal country in the ME and that must help some, I don't believe those attitudes and values just disappear, but it is a worry.
Maybe the irony would be that with renewed contact they spread again to Iran and revive a more open and liberal approach that was once (to some extent at least) apparent there too!


Or if it's not troops to assist with security, are there other things they could do?


- Well obviously the first thing 'we' want to see is a more obviously secure and less porous border.
I'm sceptical about the claims that Iran is directly helping the insurgency (especially when US Marine Generals on the ground there apparently contradict Bush's claims) but maybe it'll be a demand just the same.

You may recall the trouble British Marines had in the disputed water-border down there (a festering 'access to the gulf' dispute that has gone on for since the foundation of Iran and Iraq)?
Since then there have been no further reports of trouble although the British certainly do say they believe the Iranians are helping to stir up trouble in the south; they would certainly want to see that stopped.

I think a more general understanding would work wonders to ease ME tensions. It would go a long way to cut the ground from under the feet of those attempting to exploit these as 'justification' for their terrorism and Iran has something to gain from this too as they too have a terrorist problem.

But I do like the possibilities this opens up; I don't think threatening each other is a path to much constructive at all whereas proper engagement is far more likely to lead to understanding and appreciation of each other and a reduction of tensions (provided that is really what people want).

You might be interested in a look at this; the UK's 'Channel 4 news' (an award winning quality outlet) spent a week reporting from Iran and interviewed many interesting characters and covered a lot of the topics people know about and some they don't.
Most of this stuff is streamed media and not text but I think it might interest you. Enjoy.
www.channel4.com...

[edit on 17-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Mehran, this plan can not work in my opinion. And I have perfectly good reason for believing this, so bear with me. Iran is a majority Shia nation(correct me if I'm wrong). Iraq is also a majority Shia nation. The reason for the insurgence is purely sectarian in my opinion and has less to do with the US occupation of Iraq than some believe. The Sunnis, who are said to constitute most of the resistance, are fighting over their loss of power, they care nothing of the people that they say they fight for. The Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, but used to rule the nation. Iran's leadership sees an opportunity to sway Iraqi opinion along religious, and with it political lines. Becuase of what the populations of Iraq and Iran, resemble each other religiously, I figure Iran's leaders will try to use this to gain influence or some form of control in Iraq. This has nothing to do with their desire to pacify Iraq, its all political, as is everything else in this world from top to bottom.

Mehran, I assume you are Iranian or live in Iran. Correct any cultural statements I have made that may be wrong. You seem to know better than I do. I'm not dissing Iran or anything of the sort, this is just how I see it going down politically.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Excellent points, sminkey, and thanks for that link. That is a very good resource on Iran and related issues!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
CIA gave nukes to Iran
just a little mistake from the Clinton days...

Makes me think he was stacking the cards for our present jokers to pop up.

also:US
and UK gave nuke materials -secrets to Iran

just a little more from our paranoia brothers at prison planet.

It really makes me wonder if anything is truly "accidental" since this info is exactly what would give someone the reason to go in after the nukes.
(IRAQ WMDs spring to mind?)

remember people... war is like frikin christmas everyday to a certain type of crazy person... do we have any of those flavor of crazies running countries right now? (the particular crazy to which i refer is one that only looks at the profit from war, not the cost)



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
why would Iran help its old enemy now stuck in Iraq?

President Bush has authorised top level officials to head to Tehran and ask Iranians for assistance.

Now the Iranian leaders have also given green light to talks to find out exactly is the US looking for.

New York Times


Links





[edit on 21-3-2006 by mr conspiracy]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I'm not sure I can trust anything coming out of the Iranian governemt. I mean, I want to, but the fact that they have been deceiving the international community about thier weapons programs, I'm just not sure if I can buy this.

Also, who says that Iran isn't trying to play the U.S. like we played them during the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980's. Selling weapons to both sides, who says that they won't keep feeding the insurgency as well as "helping" the United States.

[edit] Also, I saw mentioned above about the United States giving plans to Iran for nuclear weapons. There is a book with a chapter devoted just to this, the book is called "State of War: The Secret Relationship of the Bush Administration and the CIA" It talks about how even while Bush was in office, we tried "sabotaging" thier nuclear programs by giving them nuclear blueprints, but the error was seen by the deliveryman, who happened to be an ex soviet nuclear scientist. Just a little something to chew on. [edit]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by lucasman]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Does the Iranian goverment's statement makes sense to you?

I think it's just another try to postpone an upcomming war.

If Iran really wanted to avoid war they should have stopped immediately enriching uranium or moved the process to Russian soil.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Forgot to add this article:


Source

LONDON, January 24 (IranMania) - Iran's defence minister hit back Wednesday at veiled Israeli threats of an attack, saying Iran and its allies could put the Jewish state "in an eternal coma" like that of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said AFP.

"Israel does not have the courage to attack Iran, and if it commits such a big mistake, the defenders of Islamic Iran will put Israel in an eternal coma like Sharon," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was quoted as saying by state television.

Najjar branded the United States and Israel as the "Great and Little Satan, who are using psychological wars to intimidate Iran." The United States has been branded the "Great Satan" since the 1979 Islamic revolution.


[Mod Edit: Formatting. Please review these Links

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** and New Site Tag For Quoting External Sources

Thank you- Jak]

[edit on 22/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I hope that these talks will be held in the spirit of bringing a peaceful resolve to the situation. God knows I pray there will not be further escalation and we can prevent war. But sadly it seems like justanother stall tactic in the face of mounting U.S. and international pressure. Possibly the "leadership" of Iran realized that it was staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, whatever their reasoning I hope it works out. I just find it difficult to believe anything at face value coming from the current regime due to the fact that the president of Iran is clearly an unstable individual. We shall see what unfolds in the weeks to come.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join