Be a Supporter!
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Iran Open to Talks Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 09:12 PM Reply

This news has been hitting the wire about for a about a day now, and it will likely be a big topic during tomorrows debate.
Sources have indicated that Iran has announced it is now open to enter unilateral, one-on-one dialogues with The United States regarding its nuclear program. This has been the goal of Obama's administration all along, and potentially represents a major breakthrough in halting Iran's vying for nuclear armament.

Opponents, mainly Republicans, are arguing that Iran is just trying to buy its program time to progress further by faking potential compliance. They are also suspicious of the timing, this coming within weeks of the U.S election, saying that Iran would like to have to deal with Obama more than Romney for the next four years.

What do you think? Is this news good or a wild goose chase? The White House has not officially commented on this news, simply reiterating that it is their goal to enter these talks. Romney has not answered whether he would be willing to negotiate with Iran under these circumstances.

My own opinion: I think Romney's making a mistake by refusing to answer at all. People would rather see talks occuring than us go to war with Iran. This just gives more evidence to the suggestion that Romney is a hawk who would rather fight than negotiate.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 09:46 PM Reply

I don't know what to think yet. The WH denied any sort of agreement between US and Iran. Someone messed up here: either the NYT or "Obama administration officials" fucked up bigtime. There are lots of questions to chew on. It's possible Iranian officials were foolhardily gloating to the times. I'm certain that there's negotiations going on at lower levels, but it may be that Washington officials hasn't accepted an offer the Iranians have made yet. Which is really odd because the NYT article states that their sources were from the Obama administration themselves. Something else is going on behind the scenes and I have no idea what, not to be a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.

JMHX
JMHX
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Blank Slate
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 21st, 2012 @ 10:40 PM Reply

At 10/21/12 09:12 PM, EKublai wrote: This news has been hitting the wire about for a about a day now, and it will likely be a big topic during tomorrows debate.
Sources have indicated that Iran has announced it is now open to enter unilateral, one-on-one dialogues with The United States regarding its nuclear program. This has been the goal of Obama's administration all along, and potentially represents a major breakthrough in halting Iran's vying for nuclear armament.

Unilateral talks aren't going to happen, and those haven't been a goal of the Obama Administration "All along." Obama has always stressed disarmament PRIOR TO any talks, and talks were always intended to be multilateral, as was the case with North Korea during the Bush Administration.

Regardless of whether or not one believes talks to be the right step or not, Iran isn't going to go from blatant bellicosity to White House-level talks just because it suddenly wants them. Of COURSE it wants them. Their economy is on the brink of total collapse.


BBS Signature
ZJ
ZJ
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Gamer
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 23rd, 2012 @ 01:35 AM Reply

I'm thinking these talks will happen eventually because Iran's economy is about to completely collapse, but I'd just like to state that it's silly to make a long-term strategy out of not letting Iran have any nukes. I think that as technology advances, it's going to be easier and easier for them to get access to and learn how to make these weapons. I don't think you can stop them forever.


Sig by Some Guy - AMA
Formerly PuddinN64 - Portal, BBS, Icon, and Chat Mod
"Your friends love you anyway" - Check out WhatTheDo & Guinea Something Good!

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 24th, 2012 @ 09:15 PM Reply

At 10/23/12 01:35 AM, ZJ wrote: I'm thinking these talks will happen eventually because Iran's economy is about to completely collapse,

with the current economic sanctions put on it, it will here pretty soon.

but I'd just like to state that it's silly to make a long-term strategy out of not letting Iran have any nukes.

yes let a country with a religious government thats fundamental borderlining extremism. if we let Iran have nukes would be like giving a toddler a handgun its going to end up bad. they have been known to support and fund terrorist groups in eastern Somalia and Hezbollah in Palestine against Israel. and lets not forget wiping Israel off the map.

I think that as technology advances, it's going to be easier and easier for them to get access to and learn how to make these weapons. I don't think you can stop them forever.

making a gas centrifuge for separating Uranium isotopes is very expensive going around 10-15 Million USD for a single centrifuge and you need hundreds of them to make enough enriched material for reactor use much less weapon grade.

camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 25th, 2012 @ 08:03 PM Reply

At 10/23/12 01:35 AM, ZJ wrote: I'm thinking these talks will happen eventually because Iran's economy is about to completely collapse, but I'd just like to state that it's silly to make a long-term strategy out of not letting Iran have any nukes. I think that as technology advances, it's going to be easier and easier for them to get access to and learn how to make these weapons. I don't think you can stop them forever.

Not only that, but how is a relatively stable government possessing nuclear bombs any worse than Pakistan possessing 100 of 'em? I'd way rather have Iran be nuclear capable than a country infested with terrorists and an extremely unstable and corrupt government.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran Open to Talks Oct. 25th, 2012 @ 08:52 PM Reply

At 10/25/12 08:03 PM, camobch0 wrote:
Not only that, but how is a relatively stable government possessing nuclear bombs any worse than Pakistan possessing 100 of 'em? I'd way rather have Iran be nuclear capable than a country infested with terrorists and an extremely unstable and corrupt government.

Pakistan is an "ally".

Iran shouldn't have nukes. The govt. there is a little nuts. But the thing is, I'm not to worried because, they're surrounded by our military bases and Israel is a stones throw away. Israel is no victim, they could annihilate Iran if they even got a whiff of actual nuclear capability. Iran is surrounded by enough shit to keep them in check, AND their economy is fucking up.

Now...what they lack in their own wealth/economy/capability, they make up for with potential allies like Russia and China, as well as various splinter/revolutionary groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran on it's own, is weak. Get China and Russia in the mix, and we could have some problems.