It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran: Talks with US possible soon

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:25 PM
The difficulty with all these comments made - are they posturing for a local (Iranian) audience or are they for external consumption?

I interpreted his comments as "Anything could happen - watch this space" e.g. He knowingly stands down for a new leader. It depends who is was saying this to.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And now he's COMPLETELY changed his mind on that?

Not really. You are exaggerating this just a tad.

US Rejects Talks with Iran

May 25, 2006

The Bush administration on Wednesday rejected calls for a direct dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program

Bush Rejects Calls to Talk with Iran

November 14, 2006

President George W. Bush on Monday rejected new calls for direct talks with the Iranian government on the crisis in Iraq or other matters, saying that if Tehran wanted direct negotiations it must first halt its uranium enrichment activities. If it does not, he said, it should face economic isolation.


With just six months left in office, the Bush administration has done an about-face in joining talks with Tehran over its nuclear program, a move analysts say is driven partly by a desire to avoid war with Iran.

For years, the Bush administration said it would join nuclear talks with Iran only if it gave up uranium enrichment, but with President George W. Bush's term ending in January and tensions rising with Tehran, Washington feels it cannot afford to be excluded.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You can quote those articles all you want BUT you are missing the point I was making. He is NOT there to negotiate and this is NOT some long drawn out process, it's a one time shot. In fact, nobody know the real reason. As I stated previously, he could be there to tell Iran to shove it.

Regardless, I think it's a bad idea and it does send mixed messages even though he is NOT there to negotiate.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Well, there was the Iraq/Iran war.

You know I am a lover of history how about you.

The Iran-Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes

So actually Iran got invaded by Iraq.

That is considered an act of war.

Then we have all the terrorists groups Iran supports by providing arms, money and men like the one's killing U.S. soldiers & allied forces in Iraq.

Yes, the sponsors of terror, as so is Pakistan (our friend), the Saudis (also our friends), and who can forget 9/11 and the majority of Saudi terrorist.

How come we are not invading them? after all Pakistan have nuclear weapons that can fall in the hands of Al-qaida supporters in the nation.

You know the only reason our warmongering corrupted president is pushing his unfinished agenda against Iran now is because is all about corporate greed and power, and occurs the PANC agenda.

This is been in the planning since the 90s, but then again who cares the death of millions, is all about securing energy resources for the future.

But then again is no about you and me just those that reap profits pursuing their corporate interest.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

you keep saying that its a `low level official` thats going to iran

sorry but you are very very wrong , the under secretary of state is the number 3 in the state department ,

this guy is no low level anything

thats his role -

The Under Secretary is advised by Assistant Secretaries of the geographic bureaus, who guide U.S. diplomatic missions within their regional jurisdiction

this person makes the desicions.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
You know I am a lover of history how about you.

You do realize Wiki is not a good source for accurate information right?

So actually Iran got invaded by Iraq.

Again, this is open to debate because of all the border skirmishes leading up to the war.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:39 AM
a skirmish is that , a short sharp engagement where both sides break off ; an invasion is the intent , using large amount of force to take and hold the land.

ergo - iraq invaded iran.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:21 AM
Here is a thread on this issue

I have been saying for a long time America can not invade Iran as they will get their arse handed to them on a silver plate - America has unequivocally done an about face - they engaged in a game of chicken with Iran and came off second best - how VERY SAD - it spells a total loss of hegemony and signals to the entire world that America has lost its power - to have backed down - which they have - is a complete loss of face.

Every sign pointed to this - only myopic Americans thought otherwise - India gave a direct warning about any possibility of strikes as did china, Pakistan and russia - direct warnings over any threat to their long term energy interests would be met with support for iran - the U.S. simply could not in any way continue with their filibuster.

Iran demonstrated their long range missiles with a reach to western Europe, their s 300 air defence system (the most sophisticated on earth) and it is widely rumoured the sunburn ss-n-22 missile, along with 250 Russian made mig fighters - Israel deployed 100.

But none of this is the real reason - the fact is that the d8, along with Latin American countries, china, India, Pakistan and Russia have all agreed to start moving away from the American dollar as the basis for trading oil. This is the single biggest factor which determined this and for anyone who has been actually LISTENING to Armadinajads comments this is what he has CONSTANTLY been referring to. It would spell and collapse of the American economy as the dollar would fall through the floor and there would be mass selling of sovereign funds - good bye U.S. economy.

Bush has basically been TOLD that he has to pull his head in as there is more at stake than his ego - further- it has come to light that Cheney's push for war has been met with outright hostility and revolt - the military has basically told him to stick it.

There it is - if the negotiators can convince the Iranians not to switch base currencies then this will be a massive victory for the U.S. - however they will certainly be turning up with cap in hand. That is for sure.

Of course this is all going to be a bit hard to swallow for the insular, myopic, parochial, flag wavers around here who simply think America is some Uber power from the movies and cant be touched . . . . . but the reality is you are staring straight in the face of defeat - you have just been completely pantsed by the Iranians......and well done to them - you deserve it.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by audas
I have been saying for a long time America can not invade Iran as they will get their arse handed to them on a silver plate

Wake up, you are dreaming again.

Come on, if you believe Iran can defeat the American military then you are really in a state of denial. There is no way in the world Iran would be able to defeat the U.S. military. Never ever!
Look, people like yourself said the same thing about Saddam's military and they were defeated in a week or two. It was a total slaughter and the same would happen to Iran.

Plus, if you believe Israel will allow Iran to get nukes, you are very misinformed. And the U.S. will not let Israel go at it alone, so one way or another, the U.S. will be involved.

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 03:50 AM
i dont see any threat at all in his commet "certain things will happen" . Its sad alot of americans have this mentality about iran when they say something like that.

Maybe he means certain things will happen like this >

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in