Iran's commitment to destroy Israel is questioned - Page 3

sputterman · #21 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

"normal diplomatic channels"?. The U.S. has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the Shah was overthrown. So Bush feels more comfortable threatening to use nucleur bunker busters instead of picking up a phone or even writing a letter?

And threatening to wipe Israel off the map is the perfect way to open diplomatic negotiations eh?

Quote:

After they were threatened to be nuked by Bush. Anyway crap thrown out for public consumption is nothing.

If they really believe that, then any chance for diplomacy is already doomed to failure.

Quote:

The real business in done in secret behind closed doors.

Maybe thats how they do it in Iran...where the government doesnt answer to the people. Doesnt work that way here. We take threats from politicians very seriously.

Quote:

So the "Deciders" wench can know whats in a letter before she even opens it and reads it?

The contents were irrelevant, for reason I have already explained. She would have been perfectly justified throwing it in the garbage.

They can show us they are sincere through their actions...not some empty words in a meaningless letter.

Quote:

Me: Millions of people will only be killed if they refuse to comply with our demands....and if we do nothing about it.

Heil Hitler!!!!

I prefer "Resistance is futile".

Compromise is irrelevant. They know how to appease us if they are sincere. Otherwise, we will assume the worst and proceed accordingly. They have only to look at Iraq and Afghanistan to know that we mean what we say.

If they force our hand, the international community will not stop us. The UN will not stop us. And they (Iran) cant stop us.

Quote:

Attention! it is futile to resist our overwhelming power, submit now and conform to our agenda.

Non-democracies have no right to exist anyway. We only negotiate when we have to, not because we respect their sovereignty. We only pay lip service to the idea that non-democracies are sovereign...our actions in Iraq should make that ridiculously clear.

what about Bush and his Axis of Evil. That has really set the tone.

sputterman · #22 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

... Ho's overtures to the US prior to the Vietnam War.

If we'd bothered to talk with the man, we could have saved thousands of lives, and perhaps even used him as a political instrument.

But no, the politicians were too stupid, as usual. Always consumed with "sending messages".

You negotiate on our terms, or else.

Oh, and don't bother to protest, we'll have you arrested if you try.

W and his idiotic imperial presidency....

Well, he's probably going to cost the Republicans control of the Congress this year. We'll see.

Ho Chi Minh came to the western powers before ever talking to the commies. It was only after being snubbed by then did he go over to the commie camp. And anywhere along the way, especially after WWII, we could have co-opted the commies. But no, we made him an enemy and we payed dearly for that.

sputterman · #23 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

Sounds familiar..

Quote:

"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Adolf Hitler - January 30, 1939

can you possible compare and industrial nation with a history of mechanized warfare with a nation that has to import every bit of technology it has.

sputterman · #24 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

Bush had nothing to do with ABC's BS story.

You don't know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

Brian Ross reported a fake story disavowed not once but twice by the justice department.

No, they were disavowed by McNulty. AG Gonzales has been strangely silent on this one. Not that I believe a word either one of them says anymore....

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

That story is such a fraud its pathetic..and ever since it was shown to be nonsense the left and ABC have been spinning this nonsense about it being a get back by Bush.

Gee, and here I thought it was my original idea. Oh well.... I guess "the left" beat me to it.

Just for the record, I stopped believing Bush after that "we don't do anything without a warrant" bit. What a lyin' sack of dog-doo.

I can't really accuse Gonzales of specifically lying, although he's definitely an evasive little weasel, but I can justifiably accuse Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, and also Scott McClellan (who's gone now, thank you very much) - not to mention that little ferret Libby, who's already been brought up on perjury charges....

And after all that, you still believe the spin and the hype that's emanating from this administration?

Well, sir, your faith must be stronger than mine.

Mine started crumbling right around the time french fries suddenly became fresh vegetables, on June 2, 2003.

That was Bush's USDA, and it just so happens that it propped up the agriculture numbers barely enough to prevent a significant slide in the commodities market at the time.

I've always been skeptical of government numbers, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sure, we're doing fine. Let's just change the numbers to accommodate the desired outcome. Enron, anyone?

DOJ? Forget about it. Torture heretics, burn witches at the stake, threaten unbelievers with civil and criminal penalties, smear political opponents with innuendo, half-truths, and outrageous lies.... this is the nature of the current administration. Through and through. There's not one of them with any integrity. They're all too afraid of the inquisitor-in-chief to step out of line and tell the truth.

Anyway, back to topic. Diplomatic "back channels" are as old as politics itself. Study the history of the Cold War, and you'll discover just how important they can be.

I'm sorry, but Bushie's "principles" are extremely distorted, and his implementation skills are non-existent. If the best you can do is silence your opposition with your self-made "rules", forbidding honest debate and legitimate political protest, then I submit that you've lost before you've even started.

The first time you trample on someone's freedom, or change the numbers in favor of a particular outcome, or break the law in the name of some nebulous threat that may or may not exist, you're beginning a process that can have only one possible outcome: a downward spiral.

There will always be hangers-on, who still believe the emperor has clothes, when the reality is he's parading down the street buck-naked.

That's a good description. We have an evasive and secretive government running this country but you can be sure they are doing it for our own good.

sputterman · #25 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rota";p=&quot

This happened in 2003 so it doesn't even take into account Iran's attempts to open talks with Washington recently. I might add the Iran sent the letter and Condalisa Rice admitted she responded negatively to it before she even read the thing.

Just which side is really committed to destroy the other side anyway? What does it cost Bush to talk to these people? I'm sure that the possibility that millions of people might be killed because he wouldn't simply listen to them, means nothing at all to an ego maniac like Bush. Is his Zionist leash that tight around his neck?

Quote:

Published on Thursday, May 25, 2006 by Inter Press Service
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.

The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."

The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".

That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.

In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".

Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.

Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.

An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".

The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm

agree we need to open a dialogue with these people and the sooner the better. And we should start with an apology for deposing their democratically elected government 30 years ago.

DuH2 · #26 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 01:04 PM

The Iranian President is saying the same things Hitler did. If you do anything to stop us we will make sure that the Jews will be annihilated.

Hitler meant it and this nutball in Iran means it too.

sputterman · #27 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuH2";p=&quot

The Iranian President is saying the same things Hitler did. If you do anything to stop us we will make sure that the Jews will be annihilated.

Hitler meant it and this nutball in Iran means it too.

had the means to do it. Iran doesn't. The Iranian president is bloviating just like you.

rota · #28 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 09:57 PM

The U.S. threathens to invade Afganistan if they didn't give up Osama Bin Laden a CIA trained fighter, whose family were business partners with the Bush family. The Taliban says "sure" if you can provide proof he had anything to do with 9/11. Well that was a good sign since even Israel will not extradite murderers to the U.S. The Taliban run the country and had all but shut down the heroin trade in that country. Heroin that used to flood from there into the U.S.

Right after 9/11 Osama said he didn't do it. The U.S. provides no evidence to this day that shows without a doubt Osama had anything to do with it. Then we hear nothing from Osama except a few tapes where he claims responsibilty for 9/11. Is that positive evidence considering many people can fake video. Even dead people are brought back to life in films and even commercial. Yeah that was good enough for the U.S.

So we invade. The heroin is flowing again and we are still there. Why haven't we left? Because those pesky Afganistan people don't like the fact we installed a puppet that used to work for an oil company in as their leader? There will always be resistance there so we will be there forever.

So then we decide to invade Iraq. Why? Well all of a sudden the U.S. doesn't see the man that caused them to invade Afganistan so important anymore. Yeah Saddam is now the major threat. Did he have anything to do with 9/11? No. Did he have anything to do with Al Quida? No. Did he have WMD's No but Israel does. But he did switch all oil purchases from the dollar to the Euro. In fact the first thing we did was to switch them right back to the dollar. Then we started building giant permanent bases all over the country.

So we invade two countries without even the slightest proof of anything that threatened the U.S. and now we want to invade a third country? Why because they talked back to the U.S. after we threathened to nuke them? What the hell is wrong with Iran? Don't they know they need to kiss our rear ends? What right do they think they have to say in public they would defend themselves if they were attacked? Are they insane?

.

DuH2 · #29 (**permalink**) 05-27-2006, 10:07 PM

Iran has more then enough means to kill 100's of thousands of people in Israel. Without manufactrung a single nuclear weapon.

Catch up Sputterman this isn't the 1970's.

Janglo · #30 (**permalink**) 05-28-2006, 06:13 AM

Hey Rota ...
"Is his Zionist leash that tight around his neck ?"

What makes you think that the Zionists (not even all the Jews ... just the Zionists) have that kind of pull in DC ?

Is it thae fact taht there are som many Jews in the World ? No, there are mutiple times more Arab/Muslims in the World. Even in the states Arab/Muslims outnumber Jews.

Is it all the oil that Israel provides the US with ? Oh no, that too is the Arab/Muslim countries.

So maybe you can help me understand why you think that Zionists have so much influence over US foreign and domestic policies. Personally I think it's that the US doesn't trust autocratic Muslem dictatorships, but obviously I'm wrong and it's in fact those pesky Elders of Zion again. They're evil I tell ya !!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode