It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...Perhaps the most controversial recommendation, signaling the broadest policy shift, will be a call for talks between the United States and Iran and Syria. The White House accuses those two nations of helping fuel instability in neighboring Iraq, and supporting terrorism, and has consistently rejected the idea of direct talks with them. Many members of the Iraq group are considered pragmatists with a multilateralist worldview, who believe that dialogue is often the best route to conflict resolution. And on Monday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose country has sent more troops to Iraq than any other except the United States -- endorsed the idea of engaging Syria and Iran.
Baker has said that enlisting the help of Syria and Iran could also pay dividends in the broader Middle East peace talks, because both groups have influence with the Islamist groups Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Originally posted by thelibra
My thanks for the upgrade, but sadly it would appear that peace does not sell.
Maybe it was in the wording? I need to hollywoodize it more...
IRAN ON BRINK OF NOT-WAR!!!
Perhaps now that there has been a major paradigm shift in American politics, there will too come a shift in foreign policy.
Originally posted by DYepes
Thats also probably the reason he threatens Israel, seeing as the Zionists are behind this Middle East invasion for their own interests.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Peace? You mean US concessions and a cease in economic and political pressure, allowing Iran to continue with their nuclear program, not doing anything to hinder their influence in Iraq? No thanks, I don't want appeasement, that's not real "peace".
Sacrifices made by a party to convince another party to enter a contract.
Additional value granted by a buyer or seller to entice another party to complete a deal.
Originally posted by Hal9000
Without a doubt they feel threatened by the US, but what you are implying would be similar to blaming Saddam for 9/11. No, Ahmadinejad says those things about Israel because it is what he believes, and it is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel.
This does not sound like a peace loving country to me.
is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel.
Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian public at large. Most Iranians are tolerant. Iranians pride themselves on being cosmopolitan. Most Iranians are polyglots, and Iran itself is more an empire than a nation. The Jewish community has long roots in Iran. Iranian Jews still make pilgrimages to Hamadan, a city in western Iran, to visit the tombs of Esther and Mordechai. The prophet Daniel walked through the lion's den in Susa, the ruins of which lie in the province of Khuzistan, not far from the Iraqi border. Even today, Iran boasts the second-largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel.
That most Iranians embrace religious and cultural diversity is irrelevant; the clergy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--their ideological enforcers--wield the power. It is the stranglehold of ideologues over the Iranian state that makes a nuclear Iran so dangerous.
Originally posted by semperfortis
Are the words,
Civilized, Peace and Concessions, accurately applied to the Same country that was admittedly training thousands of it's own citizens as suicide bombers?
Was that misinterpreted too?