• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US to Talk to Iran Without Preconditions

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S. drops conditions on Iran talks

The Obama administration accelerated a diplomatic blitz with Iran on Wednesday, saying that it will drop previous conditions and become a "full participant" in European Union-led nuclear negotiations.

The talks, headed by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, have been going on for more than four years. The Bush administration refused to take part unless Iran stopped enriching uranium, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes but can be also used to build a nuclear weapon.

The decision was announced as top diplomats from six nations dealing with the issue met in London. The group is known as the "P5+1" and includes the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China - as well as Germany.

"What is different is that the U.S. will join P5+1 discussions with Iran from now on," State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood told reporters. "If Iran accepts, we hope this will be the occasion to seriously engage Iran on how to break the logjam of recent years and work in a cooperative manner to resolve the outstanding international concerns about its nuclear program."

The group in 2006 offered Tehran political and economic incentives for ending uranium enrichment, but Iran refused. That has led to three rounds of U.N. sanctions.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that William J. Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, "is now participating in the P5+1 as a full participant, not just as an observer."

"Pursuing very careful engagement on a range of issues that affect our interests and the interests of the world with Iran makes sense, and there's nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon," Mrs. Clinton said.

State Department officials said the administration still wants Iran to suspend uranium enrichment but will no longer make that a precondition.

So Obama's going to talk to Iran without preconditions. Gee, where did we hear this before? Oh, yeah, before this clod was elected.

Funny thing is, history had another leader who told the world exactly what he was going to do, and nobody believed him. Then he did it. Too bad peopel didn't pay more attention to Mein Kampf.
 
Who said people didn't believe him?

Some people LIKED the fact he'd support talking to them without preconditions. Obama himself stated his support for such thoughts.

I'm confused by your notion here. Who didn't believe that his administration was going to do this?
 
So what's wrong with those people, then?

"Who didn't believe that his administration was going to do this? "

Well, Obama was doing some heavy backpedaling during the debates on this topic, because it became apparent that most people didn't want some wuss that wasn't going to take a stand against Iran in the White House.

So the wuss lied, and the really stupid people believed him.
 
Last edited:
How dare they negotiate with Iran without preconditions, just like they said they would :doh I would prefer that Obama keep a strong front and sell Iran arms through the back door, just like Reagan :lol:
 
How dare they negotiate with Iran without preconditions, just like they said they would :doh I would prefer that Obama keep a strong front and sell Iran arms through the back door, just like Reagan :lol:

Definitely. The men under Reagan sold Iran obsolete weapons for top dollar. That's a great idea.
 
I am with Obama on this one.

It appears to me that the past 8 years of "Sit Down Iran, Now listen to me talk" has had very, very little effect. The embargoes and the UN Resolutions and the down-talking did nothing to change the fact that Iran is still steadily increasing their capability when it comes to Nuclear materials.

It's time for a new approach. Though Ahmadinejad is not very popular in Iran right now, and his a chance of losing June elections to some moderates, nuclear proliferation is a hot-deal amongst the Iranian people. The problem is not the Presidency, but it's the sentiment of the Iranian people.

Black-eyeing Ahmadinejad will not help our cause when it comes to settling down their nuclear ambitions.
 
I am with Obama on this one.

It appears to me that the past 8 years of "Sit Down Iran, Now listen to me talk" has had very, very little effect. The embargoes and the UN Resolutions and the down-talking did nothing to change the fact that Iran is still steadily increasing their capability when it comes to Nuclear materials.

It's time for a new approach. Though Ahmadinejad is not very popular in Iran right now, and his a chance of losing June elections to some moderates, nuclear proliferation is a hot-deal amongst the Iranian people. The problem is not the Presidency, but it's the sentiment of the Iranian people.

Black-eyeing Ahmadinejad will not help our cause when it comes to settling down their nuclear ambitions.


Talking with them wont help our cause either. We need to ratchet up the pressure, not coddle them.
 
Talking with them wont help our cause either. We need to ratchet up the pressure, not coddle them.

I'd much rather my mother hit me, then for her to give a "I'm disappointed" conversation.

I do not think we are going to coddle them, as you would imply. We have to win support of the Iranian people, and limiting the amount of goods going into their country is not the way to do it.

We have to recognize their ambitions as a symbol of their pride; makes others aware that they exist.

I personally do not believe there is any intentions of Iran to blow Israel off of the map with nuclear materials. I think if Iran really wanted to see Israel suffer, then they would have already launched biological attacks.

We tend to take dynamic characters and make them flat. Iran isn't evil, and Iran isn't good; yes, there are good and evil people. I don't think evil people are worth enough to punish the good people.
 
I'd much rather my mother hit me, then for her to give a "I'm disappointed" conversation.

I do not think we are going to coddle them, as you would imply. We have to win support of the Iranian people, and limiting the amount of goods going into their country is not the way to do it.

We have to recognize their ambitions as a symbol of their pride; makes others aware that they exist.

I personally do not believe there is any intentions of Iran to blow Israel off of the map with nuclear materials. I think if Iran really wanted to see Israel suffer, then they would have already launched biological attacks.

We tend to take dynamic characters and make them flat. Iran isn't evil, and Iran isn't good; yes, there are good and evil people. I don't think evil people are worth enough to punish the good people.

The Iranian leadership have a longterm goal of destroying Israel. It's only natural that Israel would oppose their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Because Israel is our ally, it's only natural that we would see to it that they do not obtain those weapons. Whether they would or would not be used directly by the regime against Israel is irrelevant and unpredictable.
 
The Iranian leadership have a longterm goal of destroying Israel. It's only natural that Israel would oppose their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Because Israel is our ally, it's only natural that we would see to it that they do not obtain those weapons. Whether they would or would not be used directly by the regime against Israel is irrelevant and unpredictable.

I disagree with the notion that Iranian leadership has a longterm goal of destroying Israel.
I believe that is a highly diluted analysis of the subject. I mean, technically America is still at war with North Korea.

True, the language between Israel and Iran is harsh, as reality settles in that there's vast differences ideologically and culturally. I don't think either nation-state would condone actions to remove the other. Sure, there will be petty squabbles through newspapers and press-conferences. Sure, there are agents tickling the other country.. dismantling what they can.

But, the total destruction of the other is out of the question.
 
Do you have a problem with the sources in the article or are you just quibbling?
Did you even read whats on your link? the wiki article says nothing of ¨the Iranian leadership have a longterm goal of destroying Israel¨
I suggest you made that part up
 
Do you have a problem with the sources in the article or are you just quibbling?
Do you realize that anyone of us could edit wikipedia and post whatever we wanted about Iran regardless if it is true or not? Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. As Blunt bluntly stated, your comment was not on that Wikipedia page :)
 
Let me predict what the Iranian response to this will be; "we will only talk if America totally conforms to our point of view, converts to Islam, stops supporting Israel and apologizes for it's genocidal escapades in the Middle East; Death to America!"

Oh wait, they have already basically said this; quite the breakthrough. I am so happy to see the country run by naive community organizers who don't comprehend even the most basic concepts behind negotiating.

Only someone with the mental capacity of a three year old or wallowing in abject denial thinks that this will lead to any breakthrough with despots, terrorists and dictators.

Carry on! :2wave:
 
Having lived in Iran for six months I can state that the Iranian people really like and respect The United States of America, they did object however to the British/American imposed Shah and had a revolution to oust the barstewards a revolution that was derailed by the religius ruleing class (Ayatollas) and they would like nothing more than to have good relations with USA, but with mutual respect, its a great oppertunity for American business but israel wont like it
 
Did you even read whats on your link? the wiki article says nothing of ¨the Iranian leadership have a longterm goal of destroying Israel¨
I suggest you made that part up

I would suggest that their policy toward Israel is evident in their statements ("Israel is a cancer," "Israel is the little Satan," "Israel must be wiped off the map," etc.) and much more evident in their policies (providing financial/material support to Hamas. Hezbollah. and other historical anti-Israeli movements)
 
Back
Top Bottom