NEWS: U.S. Slams Door Shut on Nuke Talks With Iran

In what could be seen as a jab at out going secretary of state Colin Powell the 'new' Bush administration has now said it will not consider any talks with Iran on the development of nuclear weapons. This despite the fact that Powell will attend a conference next week with diplomats from Iran and other countries. It could be an indication that the dipomatic efforts in dealing with this crisis have ran its course, or it could indicate that there will now be a much harder line when dealing with Iran over this quite serious issue.




There is much more in the full article provided above by Fox News.

It seems that this issue of nuclear weapons and Iran will rise to the top of the agenda in some form or another for the new Bush administration.

It is how we deal with this issue that is my point of concern. If we do little or nothing there is a very good chance that the Israelis will take action on their own which could spark a middle east conflict unlike any seen to date. And for the U.S. side any perception given the Iranian leaders of passiveness could give them a green light to continue. Iran is not far away from having weapons systems able to deliver nuclear warheads.

This will become a very urgent issue in the very near future.

I would hope that there is always a chance for diplomacy, for as long as we are talking people are not being killed on either side.

We can only hope our leaders take the course of action that could save lives on all sides. However a nation of muslims rising to the status of a nuclear power in the middle east cannot and will not be ignored.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]

I think the Israelis will not bring anything worst that what US has brought already to the middle east.

What is the diference between Iran having nuclear weapons and Israel? or Pakistan, India all those country have them so why US so against Iran?

Yes, I know, is because Israel does not like them at all, and US has to do what Israel say US should do.

Originally posted by marg6043
What is the diference between Iran having nuclear weapons and Israel? or Pakistan, India all those country have them so why US so against Iran?

Yes, I know, is because Israel does not like them at all, and US has to do what Israel say US should do.

This thought is dangerous, and you will be labeled as Anti-Semitism.
Remember Jews are incapable of doing wrong things, as US always defended Israel in UN Security Council.

Is this a Pre-cursor to war?? Could very well be. It just shows me that the Admin will not exhaust every diplomatic avenue first. The admin just go $800 billion extra. Hmmm...Well This is a conspiracy board isn't it? Not good.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Is this a Pre-cursor to war?? Could very well be. It just shows me that the Admin will not exhaust every diplomatic avenue first. The admin just go $800 billion extra. Hmmm...Well This is a conspiracy board isn't it? Not good.

Well Trick.... One thing is for sure... with each passing day there is a greater chance that Iran is closer to having nuclear weapons... Do the simple math on your own... I think the signs are all there... It will not stand.. So I will say it... It will not stand!... either by Israeli force or U.S. force.. and force means military force... Iran will NOT get to a point where they will have nuclear weapons... at least not for very long.

These are dark times we live in, and I hate to bring even darker news... But I believe Iran is next.

Gazz

[edit on 18-11-2004 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by marg6043
What is the diference between Iran having nuclear weapons and Israel? or Pakistan, India all those country have them so why US so against Iran?

Yes, I know, is because Israel does not like them at all, and US has to do what Israel say US should do.

It is because Iran will use these weapons once they have them....Marg.... or at the least they will become another NK....threatening to use nuclear weapons if they are not given finantial aid...

Perhaps you are willing to "believe" Iran's threats to the west several times, not only the U.S., are just a bluff.... and perhaps you are forgetting that radical islamists were the ones who attacked us in 9/11...and Iran's government is ruled by radical islamists... If you add one and the other you will see the reason why the west doesn't want Iran having nuclear weapons...



[edit on 18-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Well it seem that the same type of "reliable" sources that our intelligence rely on for the invasion on Iraq is working his magic again now with Iran.

And for the nuclear weapons in Iran, how come nobody including Israel has said anything or doing anything with Pakistan and India.

And for Pakistan they are not a very friendly bunch after all, they also had links with al-qaida and bin-laden or at least they had them in the pass.


[edit on 18-11-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Perhaps you are willing to "believe" Iran's threats to the west several times, not only the U.S., are just a bluff.... and perhaps you are forgetting that radical islamists were the ones who attacked us in 9/11...and Iran's government is ruled by radical islamists... If you add one and the other you will see the reason why the west doesn't want Iran having nuclear weapons...

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Muaddib]

She will never admitt to this threat, they are just nice people that want us to leave them alone. they have never hurt us nor shown any agression towards us. We just want a war to help Bush get more oil and kill more children....

damn that sounds like what she will say, prove me wrong marg.

Originally posted by marg6043
And for Pakistan they are not a very friendly bunch after all, they also had links with al-qaida and bin-laden or at least they had them in the pass.

Wow. I agree with her on one! How about that marg?

Hey go to this thread if you want more info, it is just links and cant be proven though, but interesting nonetheless.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by edsinger
She will never admitt to this threat, they are just nice people that want us to leave them alone. they have never hurt us nor shown any agression towards us. We just want a war to help Bush get more oil and kill more children....

damn that sounds like what she will say, prove me wrong marg.

Yeah, Yeah, edsinger the blind Mr. Bush follower, we are still trying to get those elusive MWDs that Sadam had somewhere.

Got them!!!!!!! they are in Iran now, Edsinger how do you feel now that the deficit had been raised so Mr. Bush can spend more money that our nation does not have so he can go and liberated the poor Iranians in their country.

Ah!!!!!! I forgot to add, Iran has the best oil resources in his borders with Iraq. Meanwhile more of our young will be sacrify to Mr.Bush holy cause of liberating the entire middle east.

Edsinger the Army wants you they don't care if you are to old to served they need your body.

Originally posted by Muaddib
It is because Iran will use these weapons once they have them...

That's a ridiculous assumption. They will keep it till the very end when other options staving off the invasion are exhausted.

or at the least they will become another NK....threatening to use nuclear weapons if they are not given finantial aid...

Care to provide a link or a Kim's quote where he says he will bomb us of the money doesn't come?

Originally posted by edsinger
Wow. I agree with her on one! How about that marg?

Hey go to this thread if you want more info, it is just links and cant be proven though, but interesting nonetheless.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hey, thanks for the link not hard feeling you know.

By the way US was very much awared after 9/11 of Pakistan aid to Al-qaida and Bin-laden, but when they became "friendly" to aid on the war on terror by the US, our administration turn their head to the other side and forgot that they could have been hidding Bin-laden and probably they still do.

Originally posted by marg6043

Yeah, Yeah, edsinger the blind Mr. Bush follower, we are still trying to get those elusive MWDs that Sadam had somewhere.
...........

So because people disagree and see things different than you you call them "blind followers of Bush"?.....

So what are you, a "blind follower of Al-Jazeera"?

Originally posted by Muaddib
[So because people disagree and see things different than you you call them "blind followers of Bush"?.....

So what are you, a "blind follower of Al-Jazeera"?

So you don't want to stay on the subject, whats the matter Mr. Bush true colors are getting finaly to you.

And by the way did I mention Al-jazeera some where in this post.

Muaddib not body likes you anymore.

It seems to me that whether one agrees, or disagrees with a nation having nuclear weapons does not address the problem.
As I see it, any responsible leader of an oil wealthy country must consider his national defense in light of present day activities. These include military and geopolitical, as well as socioeconomic considerations.
With Iraq as the obvious example, it is hard to understand how a nation such as Iran would not covet nuclear weapons. I can think of no way to avoid the achievement short of war. The "pre-emptive" kind.
But let's not bandy words when we go about it.
It is not for us to say there is any morally acceptable justification for the destruction of a government exercising it's right to defend itself.

Originally posted by jmwatl
As I see it, any responsible leader of an oil wealthy country must consider his national defense in light of present day activities. These include military and geopolitical, as well as socioeconomic considerations.
It is not for us to say there is any morally acceptable justification for the destruction of a government exercising it's right to defend itself.

You nail to the point, I agree with you any nation has the right to protect his borders from any source of danger including the US as the enemy.

Oil is becoming something to powerful and the ones that have it happends to be the ones that the US does not like very much, or the ones that refused to let US dictate what they should do in their countries.

Another example Venezuela they had made clear that their oil is their nations resources not the resources of US base companies.

For anybody out there that still thinks is not oil I challenge you to prove me.
Why if NK is not better than Iran as a threat we are not over in their country liberating their people.

Originally posted by jmwatl
It seems to me that whether one agrees, or disagrees with a nation having nuclear weapons does not address the problem.
As I see it, any responsible leader of an oil wealthy country must consider his national defense in light of present day activities. These include military and geopolitical, as well as socioeconomic considerations.
With Iraq as the obvious example, it is hard to understand how a nation such as Iran would not covet nuclear weapons. I can think of no way to avoid the achievement short of war. The "pre-emptive" kind.
But let's not bandy words when we go about it.
It is not for us to say there is any morally acceptable justification for the destruction of a government exercising it's right to defend itself.

These are such ridiculous assumptions, prove to me where it says that we went to war for oil. Just because someone disagrees with Bush, or because Cheney worked for Halliburton doesnt mean a war is about oil. This arguement has been hased over so many times and proven false but Bush haters use it because its there only arguement for the Iraq war, albeit a false one. Anyways, Iran will not and should not be allowed to gain access into the nuclear weapon club. They have proven they will attack Americans, sending terrorists to Iraq, they have proven to be a fierce enemy of America and have sjhown that they harbor terrorists. This is exactly the type of regime you dont want to own nuclear weapons. If anyone wants to believe that Iran wont pass on technology to terrorists, fine, thats a risk you may want to take, but for the life of my daughter nad the life of her children I will not accept that risk.

Marg, I to do not trust Pakistan...........


Iran understandably wants nukes and that does not mean they will use them directly, but to terrorists they would possibly give them.

Iran is different than Iraq, much more unstable internally, and therefore could be considered more dangerous, but the Iranians have a much better chance of overthrowing the mullahs than the Iraqi's had with Saddam.

Edsinger Pakistan does not have a stable government also, and India neither but both of those countries also had nuclear weapons, and US has done nothing to stop their development.

Just a reminder, for some reason even NK is not priority but is so convinient to want Iran. Don't you smell the foul play.

Look if the war was to steal oil, run the calculations yourself.

Iraq at most could produce 6-8 million barrels a day, at $50 a barrel and the $150 Billion already spent. With a total cost to reach $250 billion over the next 5 years, the payback would not yield any profit for at least 10 years.....it was not to steal oil.