Breaking news - Iran says its ready to hold talks with US in Oct or Nov

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran says it is ready to hold talks over its nuclear program with the United States and other major powers in late October or early November.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany — are in touch to set a precise date.

Story here

Thoughts? I doubt the sincerity, but it would be a good thing for them to not have nuclear weapons.

Here we go again.

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran says it is ready to hold talks over its nuclear program with the United States and other major powers in late October or early November.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany — are in touch to set a precise date.

Story here

Thoughts? I doubt the sincerity, but it would be a good thing for them to not have nuclear weapons.

topsemag55

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

sSubZerOo

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

topsemag55

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

You mean liek the United States? Which invaded their neighbor for no legitimate reason what so ever? Or the conflict between Israel, in which Israel in the past has bombed buildigns such as the nuclear power plant in Iraq years back..

The US action in Afghanistan and Iraq has given them all the reason they need.

Ahmadinejad is just full of propoganda. Obama, don't waste your time.

Nothing will come of it

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

sSubZerOo

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

You mean liek the United States? Which invaded their neighbor for no legitimate reason what so ever? Or the conflict between Israel, in which Israel in the past has bombed buildigns such as the nuclear power plant in Iraq years back..

The US action in Afghanistan and Iraq has given them all the reason they need.

Nah, he'll just bow to them and apologize. Or maybe he'll sell our nukes to Iran.:lol:

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

topsemag55

You mean liek the United States? Which invaded their neighbor for no legitimate reason what so ever? Or the conflict between Israel, in which Israel in the past has bombed buildigns such as the nuclear power plant in Iraq years back..

The US action in Afghanistan and Iraq has given them all the reason they need.

Nah, he'll just bow to them and apologize. Or maybe he'll sell our nukes to Iran.:lol:

............. What a well thought out argument.. NOT :|

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran says it is ready to hold talks over its nuclear program with the United States and other major powers in late October or early November.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany - are in touch to set a precise date.

Story here

Thoughts? I doubt the sincerity, but it would be a good thing for them to not have nuclear weapons.

sSubZerOo

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

topsemag55

You mean liek the United States? Which invaded their neighbor for no legitimate reason what so ever? Or the conflict between Israel, in which Israel in the past has bombed buildigns such as the nuclear power plant in Iraq years back..

The US action in Afghanistan and Iraq has given them all the reason they need.

Nah, he'll just bow to them and apologize. Or maybe he'll sell our nukes to Iran.:lol:

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran says it is ready to hold talks over its nuclear program with the United States and other major powers in late October or early November.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany - are in touch to set a precise date.

Story here

Thoughts? I doubt the sincerity, but it would be a good thing for them to not have nuclear weapons.

M3ran

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

LEts say if they were.. The people think they will nuke Israel.. This is just insulting because it shows ignorant of the issues they are.. Iran has never ever wanted the physical destruction of the lands of Israel.. In any of their rhetoric, the 3rd most important Islamic site is there.. They would never want to destroy it..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

topsemag55

Defense against who? No one is going to attack them to the point to where they have to launch a nuke...that's last-resort.

no one is going to attak them?what are you talking about israel has always threatened iran ,even obama threatened iran with a nuke,didnt you guys hear,USA threatened iran( a country that doesnt have any nukes and has denied always wanting to get nukes).so yeah iran doesnt need nukes.M3ran

Israel won't attack if Iran does not have any nukes.

Obama won't nuke anything except a cold cheeseburger in a microwave.:lol:

I'll have to see a reliable link for Obama threatening to nuke any country.

[QUOTE="M3ran"] no one is going to attak them?what are you talking about israel has always threatened iran ,even obama threatened iran with a nuke,didnt you guys hear,USA threatened iran( a country that doesnt have any nukes and has denied always wanting to get nukes).so yeah iran doesnt need nukes.topsemag55

Israel won't attack if Iran does not have any nukes.

Obama won't nuke anything except a cold cheeseburger in a microwave.:lol:

I'll have to see a reliable link for Obama threatening to nuke any country.

............ Obama is not the only president for the US.. Furthermore regardless of what your saying.. He is still conducting two wars.. And Israel has in the past.. I see no reason why they wouldn't in the future if they had a legitimate reason.. Furthermore having nuclear weapons means far more likely that the west will not bully them when it comes to economic deals and what not.. There are many legitimate reasons why having nuclear weapons are beneficial. Another is the fact with nuclear weapons you don't need to upkeep a large conventional military.. Not sure why I should debate this further with you with your obvious disdain towards Obama..

............ Obama is not the only president for the US.. Furthermore regardless of what your saying.. He is still conducting two wars.. And Israel has in the past.. I see no reason why they wouldn't in the future if they had a legitimate reason.. Furthermore having nuclear weapons means far more likely that the west will not bully them when it comes to economic deals and what not.. There are many legitimate reasons why having nuclear weapons are beneficial. Another is the fact with nuclear weapons you don't need to upkeep a large conventional military.. Not sure why I should debate this further with you with your obvious disdain towards Obama..

sSubZerOo

The President is the only person who can authorize a nuclear launch - nobody else can. His ideology negates that action with 100% certainty.

Biden couldn't order a nuclear launch, even if Obama was asleep...the order would not be followed. Obama would have to be incapacitated for Biden to have nuclear authority.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

............ Obama is not the only president for the US.. Furthermore regardless of what your saying.. He is still conducting two wars.. And Israel has in the past.. I see no reason why they wouldn't in the future if they had a legitimate reason.. Furthermore having nuclear weapons means far more likely that the west will not bully them when it comes to economic deals and what not.. There are many legitimate reasons why having nuclear weapons are beneficial. Another is the fact with nuclear weapons you don't need to upkeep a large conventional military.. Not sure why I should debate this further with you with your obvious disdain towards Obama..

topsemag55

The President is the only person who can authorize a nuclear launch - nobody else can. His ideology negates that action with 100% certainty.

Biden couldn't order a nuclear launch, even if Obama was asleep...the order would not be followed. Obama would have to be incapacitated for Biden to have nuclear authority.

.......................... Ok if you don't realize this a president can only stay in office for a top of 2 terms of 4 years each.. So yet again, your wrong. Furthermore its not about other coutnries using nukes on them, its about the US possibly invading Iran.. Iran having nuclear weapons would prevent this.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

............ Obama is not the only president for the US.. Furthermore regardless of what your saying.. He is still conducting two wars.. And Israel has in the past.. I see no reason why they wouldn't in the future if they had a legitimate reason.. Furthermore having nuclear weapons means far more likely that the west will not bully them when it comes to economic deals and what not.. There are many legitimate reasons why having nuclear weapons are beneficial. Another is the fact with nuclear weapons you don't need to upkeep a large conventional military.. Not sure why I should debate this further with you with your obvious disdain towards Obama..

sSubZerOo

The President is the only person who can authorize a nuclear launch - nobody else can. His ideology negates that action with 100% certainty.

Biden couldn't order a nuclear launch, even if Obama was asleep...the order would not be followed. Obama would have to be incapacitated for Biden to have nuclear authority.

.......................... Ok if you don't realize this a president can only stay in office for a top of 2 terms of 4 years each.. So yet again, your wrong. Furthermore its not about other coutnries using nukes on them, its about the US possibly invading Iran.. Iran having nuclear weapons would prevent this.

Bush isn't president now...he cannot order a nuclear launch...only Obama can, so you're wrong. A former President gives up power when he's replaced.

Clinton can't order a nuclear strike either - no authority.

iran is not making nukes, dont know why they want to hold talks.Iran should just let western countrieskeep b*******. and who is U.S anyways to tell others not to make nukes when they themselves have thousands of nukes and so does their God Israel. seriesly.....

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran says it is ready to hold talks over its nuclear program with the United States and other major powers in late October or early November.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran and representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China as well as Germany - are in touch to set a precise date.

Story here

Thoughts? I doubt the sincerity, but it would be a good thing for them to not have nuclear weapons.

M3ran

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

r u guyz forrealz??? :roll:

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="M3ran"] no one is going to attak them?what are you talking about israel has always threatened iran ,even obama threatened iran with a nuke,didnt you guys hear,USA threatened iran( a country that doesnt have any nukes and has denied always wanting to get nukes).so yeah iran doesnt need nukes.sSubZerOo

Israel won't attack if Iran does not have any nukes.

Obama won't nuke anything except a cold cheeseburger in a microwave.:lol:

I'll have to see a reliable link for Obama threatening to nuke any country.

............ Obama is not the only president for the US.. Furthermore regardless of what your saying.. He is still conducting two wars.. And Israel has in the past.. I see no reason why they wouldn't in the future if they had a legitimate reason.. Furthermore having nuclear weapons means far more likely that the west will not bully them when it comes to economic deals and what not.. There are many legitimate reasons why having nuclear weapons are beneficial. Another is the fact with nuclear weapons you don't need to upkeep a large conventional military.. Not sure why I should debate this further with you with your obvious disdain towards Obama..

[QUOTE="M3ran"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons except for defense.. And keeping these countires in the stone age by denying them the capability of building nuclear power plants.. Is unacceptable imo.

KH-mixerX

r u guyz forrealz??? :roll:

Well, if nothing happens we haven't lost anything by talking. Since we've got nothing to lose, I'm pretty optimistic.Laserwolf65

Well it can't be any more fruitless than talks with North Korea.

I want to be a troll with supreme power over my own country. :( cybrcatter

Great analogy, cybrcatter.:lol:

Your post is soo true...authoritarian leaders are indeed trolls.:lol:

And this thread demonstrates why trying to have any kind of reasoned, intelligent discussion about politics has become a futile waste of effort in this country.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="M3ran"] i agree,iran said and has always beensaying that it is not after Nukes.M3ran

r u guyz forrealz??? :roll:

I really have to explain it? Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be like putting Jack the Ripper in a room full of woman with a knife in his hands. Iran is not a peaceful country. It is unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons. The leader himself has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Hell, he doesn't even believe the Jewish Holocaust happened. And you want to let this man have access to WMDs?

[QUOTE="M3ran"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

r u guyz forrealz??? :roll:

KH-mixerX

I really have to explain it? Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be like putting Jack the Ripper in a room full of woman with a knife in his hands. Iran is not a peaceful country. It is unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons. The leader himself has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Hell, he doesn't even believe the Jewish Holocaust happened. And you want to let this man have access to WMDs?

lolwut they are NOT making nukes

[QUOTE="M3ran"][QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

r u guyz forrealz??? :roll:

KH-mixerX

I really have to explain it? Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be like putting Jack the Ripper in a room full of woman with a knife in his hands. Iran is not a peaceful country. It is unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons. The leader himself has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Hell, he doesn't even believe the Jewish Holocaust happened. And you want to let this man have access to WMDs?

This is ignorance.. IF you actually were knownledgable in the issues you would realize that the "wipe off the map" is that of a state.. They have no desire to physically lay ruin to the lands of Israel, and have always said that Palestine should be reinstanted.. Furthermore the leadership of Iran since 1979 has attempted to be the pan Islamic leader of the world.. Nuking their third most important holy site is contradicts this completely.. Now should the Iranian leadership be trusted? Of course not, no one defends these jackasses.. But the fears of them getting a nuclear weapon and using it against the west or Israel is completely illogical... If the Iranian leadership were as crazy as they seemed.. Iran would not exist today, for it would have destroyed it self long ago either in the Iran Iraq War.. Or numerous other conflicts they could have started.. The US has given Iran the perfect legitimate reason why they want nuclear weapons.. To protect themselves from an invasion by the US, the US has shown with Iraq they will ignore the UN and trump up completely false reasons to invade..

Furthermore the fact the US shamelessly defends both Israel and Saudi Arabia with their own immense questionable things they have done, goes to show they are hypocrits.. No country should get support within the region unquestioningly.. Especially Israel or Saudi Arabia..

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="M3ran"] why not dude,whats bothering you $plit it outsikanderahmed

I really have to explain it? Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be like putting Jack the Ripper in a room full of woman with a knife in his hands. Iran is not a peaceful country. It is unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons. The leader himself has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Hell, he doesn't even believe the Jewish Holocaust happened. And you want to let this man have access to WMDs?

lolwut they are NOT making nukes

Riiigghhhttt. And O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

I really have to explain it? Letting Iran have nuclear weapons would be like putting Jack the Ripper in a room full of woman with a knife in his hands. Iran is not a peaceful country. It is unacceptable for them to have nuclear weapons. The leader himself has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Hell, he doesn't even believe the Jewish Holocaust happened. And you want to let this man have access to WMDs?

KH-mixerX

lolwut they are NOT making nukes

Riiigghhhttt. And O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer.

*facepalm*

I bet this will turn out similarly to what happened last year between the US and Russia, when we scrapped our Eastern European missile shield plans in return for Russia to "consider" sanctions against Iran. They then "considered" the sanctions, and decided promptly not to follow through with them. fidosim

I am glad they ended the missle defense system.. Missle defense system nulifies mutally assured destruction, which only starts up the large scale weapon arms race all over again.

i can't believe west still wants to talk with our government :|,haven't they already proved that they can't be trusted?..am i the only one who thinks it's just little bit of history repeating?is it really that hard to see the similarities between today's news and what joachim von ribbentrop did to poor chamberlain?

i can't believe west still wants to talk with our government :|,haven't they already proved that they can't be trusted?..am i the only one who thinks it's just little bit of history repeating?is it really that hard to see the similarities between today's news and what joachim von ribbentrop did to poor chamberlain?

VaguelyTagged

... Having diplomatic exchanges seems far more desirable then no diplomatic ties.. And war footing..

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

lolwut they are NOT making nukes

sikanderahmed

Riiigghhhttt. And O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer.

*facepalm*

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Iran is using their nuclear facilities for energy and not weapons? How naive can you be?

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Riiigghhhttt. And O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer.

KH-mixerX

*facepalm*

Are you telling me that you honestly believe Iran is using their nuclear facilities for energy and nuclear weapons? How naive can you be?

I am sure they use them for both.. Iran has a legitimate reason to be fearful of the United States, which invaded their neighboragainst UN wishes for reasons that were never justified or proven..

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

i can't believe west still wants to talk with our government :|,haven't they already proved that they can't be trusted?..am i the only one who thinks it's just little bit of history repeating?is it really that hard to see the similarities between today's news and what joachim von ribbentrop did to poor chamberlain?

sSubZerOo

... Having diplomatic exchanges seems far more desirable then no diplomatic ties.. And war footing..

If USA and other powerful nations can have nukes, then so should Iran.

If USA and other powerful nations can have nukes, then so should Iran.

_R34LiTY_