Iran president says he's open to nuclear talks
 

wonder how long the talk will be? maybe long enough to get everything ready to build a bomb?

I think Iran has been open to talks for quite some time; it's just that Bush A. Wouldn't talk to him at all and B. The last attempt required some ridiculous pre-requisite on Iran that no country would agree to, simply to have a talk.

I hope they do talk! I mean, it's talking for christ's sake. At least it is a start. Better than sitting here and having people theorize what their next move is going to be and how we can deal with it without even communicating.

This whole Iran thing is a fable that needs to just end...they're a country just like any other that we do business with. Obviously we have concerns about some of the actions they are pursuing, so what better than to start addressing these concerns by talking about them?

his invitation to the talk made it clear that enriching is not on the table, and he also has a clear history of desire to remove an ally from the face of the earth. I guess they can still discuss the weather, and while doing so stall all other actions that the UN may or may not eventually consider

That has been proven false!! :) It is a misinterpretation that has been the basis of trying to rally support for starting another war.
There is no doubt that HE may hate Israel, but (and I've said this many times before) he has does not have the power, as President, to take any action against Israel, whehter it be supported by his coutry or an outwright selfish act.
If you watch some interviews he has had with US anchors, he does state some reasons for disliking Israel, as they pertain to Iran..but nothing "extreme", IMO
Of course we are told to disagree with this, because Israel is our "ally" and we need to take their side. I'd rather just stay out of it, personally.
He really does not have the power that he is made out to have. He shoots his mouth off, and people take it seriously when they shouldn't.
Kohmehni (sp) is the guy in charge, and I've never heard anything radical or threatening come out of him.

My point is,

The guy is a bit of a nut, but does not represent the views of Iran (although he should act better since he IS the president)
There are a LOT of people in Iran that do not like him, and he is up for re-election in June this year.

I just think it is silly to base our views, foreign policy (at least as expressed to us in the media) and ways of solving problems on ONE MAN.

I seriously doubt he says anything of such magnitude without clearance from K, I would bet he has a long discussion before every major interview or announcement. the system there does not display a real tolerance for personal views, specially at the presidential level. Id go so far to say if he turned quick you would see the strings and the hand operating the head.

Iran's desire for nuclear weapons was overstated. Now they probably see no alternative. They actually canceled the American sponsored nuclear program under the Shah when they ousted him. They had nothing to do with anything related to us prior to being named in the 'axis of evil'.

I dont know seems like theyve hated us for a long time. I would think the current round is many layed from being freinds to the Shah, to giving selling weapons to Iraq (Israel supplied Iran) during the Iran-Iraq war. Then having a surprise presence right next door during the Bush1 Iraq war, which was a wake up call they could be reached, and now there again which is their backyard. I have no doubts they are wanting weapons, my doubts are whether they will control them as mutual deterrent or decide to be offensive.

Iran was moving toward us in some ways in the 90s. They were opening up economically, and inevitably culturally. They'll never be our best friends, sure. They've never instigated conflict against us though. We have given them plenty of reason to be afraid of us, and thus they probably seek the weapons for defense. It's possible being called out as an evil enemy was the final straw. It's not impossbile that it wasn't.

I'm all for engaging in talks with Iran, but never instigated conflict? The hostage crisis from '79-'81?

A "bit" of a nut?

I dont mind the talks either, I dont see much chance of getting anything but more empty retoric, hopefully O will not be too freindly. BUT, the timeline for action to stop enrichment should not be interupted, the UN already gave them demands that have been ignored, we need to keep that process rolling in parallel

thats true, and we were all hopeful, but K saw his end coming as the country westernized and saw what freedom was first hand, and he squshed that pretty quickly. free elections with religous suggestion of who to vote for, and suggestion is not nearly strong enough a description, and K is back in business.

That was caused by our refusing to hand over the Shah to them. It was certainly an absurd and terrible overreaction. Although I suppose them asking could be considered the beginning. I stand corrected.

So was overthrowing their elected leader in the 50s, which was the start of all this..

Read about the guy, it is pretty sad that we got rid of him.

The thing is, so I'm told, is that people over there have very loong memories, and hold their grudges for equally as long.

Over the years, there have been so many small "conflicts" between the US / other Western nations (British hostage thing a few years ago) and Iran that usually are forgotten..
During the Iran Iraq war, we shot down and Iranian airliner!!! Our excuse was that we thought it was an approaching fighter jet. Who knows..Can you imagine what would happen if someone else did that to us? But nothing came of it.

Also, Rumsfeld and co were very close to selling Iran nuclear reactors, but then things fell apart and they had the revolution. So, almost 30 years later, yeah..I'm sure they do want the technology. And the fact that now we are saying no probably doesn't make a lot of sense to them :rolleyes: