Sincere question to any one who stopped to really think about it: Is she correct?

Speaking to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, Rice made it clear she doesn't believe Iran has quit pursuing a nuclear bomb.


YEAH!

Poor Rice! She's been reduced to indiscriminately Groping the Israelis for Relevance!

Bush Cult ----- Meet Future!

so
if we're not going to talk to them
and they are pursuing a nuke

not talking to them will stop them from making a nuke
and the world will be safer

wow the logic is so clear

"Speaking to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, Rice made it clear she doesn't believe Iran has quit pursuing a nuclear bomb."

Uh-oh....I think she is saying that "the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud...."

With her credibility she ought to just remain quiet.

***** Sincere question to any one who stopped to really think about it: Is she correct?

Posted by moder8 *****

........was she correct about Saddam's wmd's ?....

........can she be trusted to tell the truth ?.....

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday there's no point in talking to Iran unless the clerical regime changes its behavior

damn, second time my entire post dropped off when I hit the "publish" key.
aww, forget it. wasn't worth reading anyway.

Speaking to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, Rice made it clear she doesn't believe Iran has quit pursuing a nuclear bomb."

Uh-oh....I think she is saying that "the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud...."

With her credibility she ought to just remain quiet.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-03 03:22 PM

If we allow the Necons to drag us into another phony war based on trumped up intel we will all be equally complicit in the murder of almost a million people (the number of people who are estimated to die due to nuclear fallout being carried by the wind currents in the event of nukes being used on Iran).

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"

I see another war on the horizon -- a war for Israel (again) and a war for control of the oil reserves and the denomination of the currency in which it's paid. Iran wants to use Euros as payment for their oil. Last country that threatened to use Euros for oil? Iraq.

this same clerical leadership that rice is talking about has declared a fatwah that nuclear weapons are unislamic

and Iran said - "agreed, we won't talk to you until you get a president with an IQ above 50"

My name is Barack Hussein Obama and I want to talk directly with youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!

So why does anybody think that political passive-aggressiveness will work any better against Iran?

not talking to them will stop them from making a nuke and the world will be safer wow the logic is so clear

Posted by klifferd

What is unclear is what we would give up in any negoiations with them. Let's give them New England if they give up their nuks. Got any sugestions kli?

The fact that Rice feels the need to spend her time giving speeches to AIPAC says as much about our one sided policies as the $3billion we gift Israel every year (30% of our foreign aid). This of course is cash payments, not enriched uranium and assorted other secret freebees. Our partners in international crime.

........can she be trusted to tell the truth ?.....


Every bit as much as she could be trusted to handle the nation's security.

When Obama becomes POTUS he promised to go to Iran and beg them not to develop nukes, plead with them to believe that the holocaust actually ocurred, ask them to quit killing our troops in Iraq, and say pretty please and respect women, gays, Christians, and the USA.

AIPAC? They should be very nervous about Obama. He doesn't need them, and has let them know that with with measured subtlety. They can't rely on mass media control to prop up McCain, because he is just too weak of a candidate. And they have already seen Obama weather "Jeremiah Gate". Barack doesn't need Zionist campaign money either. If Hillary takes the VP slot with Obama, McCain can kiss that oval office goodbye. It'll be over before it even starts. And for once, we may see AIPAC get marginalized.

FWT,

Kinda like Reagan negotiating with Gorbachov, leading to the falling of the Berlin Wall without a single shot being fired.

where is Osama?

FWT,

Kinda like Reagan negotiating with Gorbachov, leading to the falling of the Berlin Wall without a single shot being fired.

where is Osama?

The point is though, does anyone believe that Iran is willing to negotiate in good faith? I certainly don't. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have been very forthright about their hostility towards the West.
As a general rule, I agree with the proposition that little is lost by agreeing to talk with the adversary. I am just not sure whether in the current climate anything is gained. Clearly the arrogance of the GWB administration (including Rice) has contributed to this situation. But, be that as it may, I have yet to read on this thread an intelligent argument as to why we should be talking with Iran as long as they are explicitly stating that they are developing their nuclear capabilities.

Even if Iran had a nuke...versus 150 plus of Israels doesn't sound like a bargaining chip at all....the idiots are in the WH & Israel at the moment with Russia standing by Iran...

moder8

you don't
i do

are we going to talk about our patriotism now and how much we love america.

my guess, stalemate. because we both want whats best for our homes.

the mullahs have expressed clearly that a nuclear weapon is against their religion. ahmadinejad has no say over the military, and no say over international affairs. the mullahs are pretty pissed that he isn't fixing the economy of iran, the job he was "hired" for.

talking doesn't mean negotiation
talking to them will help us understand why they want nuclear energy (they are part of the nuclear proliferation treaty for a reason) and also how to maintain UN inspectors having the right to visit nuke sites to make sure there is no weapons development.

"fuck you iran" - bush
"fuck you usa" - ahmedinejad

doesn't work
didn't work in the school yard
why would it work in international affairs

i haven't heard an intelligent argument to why we shouldn't speak to iran

"The point is though, does anyone believe that Iran is willing to negotiate in good faith?"

But more basic is the question of whether the United States is willing to negotiate in good faith. Assurances that the Iranians are not constructing nuclear weapons don't seem to satisfy those who have motives for bombing Iran which, once again, only use the possiblity of WMDs as an excuse not as an honest threat. Anyone who buys into the Bush administration's claims about Iran right now needs to read McClellan's book, they simply do not have ANY credibility with which to convince America and the world of a need to start ANOTHER war!

Klifferd -

I'm with you, buddy. All this tough talk has gotten us nowhere. Would talking to Achda-mini-nutjob do any better? Probably not. But I don't see how it could hurt. We ain't givin' him SQUAT in return for meeting with us other than a willingness to talk and find some sort of human common ground. If there is no common ground to be found, fine. At least we will have tried.

I think Achda-mini-nutjob is full of bluster and arrogance. If we show the world the ability to go face to face with even the most intractable of our enemies, we will show that we are unafraid, that we are operating in good faith, that we are trying to avoid conflict - something the Bush admin has been unable to do.

Israel pisses me off sometimes, but Iran would be foolish to move toward carrying out Achda's idle threats to annihilate it. We could spell out a plan to create a Palestinian state and at the same time make it clear that America will defend Israel if it were attacked unprovoked.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

TALK IS CHEAP....SOMETIMES

Still trying for the life of me to figure out why Iran is our enemy.

Anyone want to chime in on that?

"Still trying for the life of me to figure out why Iran is our enemy."

Cuz they sit on a big pool of oil and cuz they don't like Israel.

I gotta say, I disagree with the benign views most of you are expressing about Iran. There is nothing friendly nor conciliatory about the rhetoric coming out of Tehran. It is one thing to be angry with GWB and Co., but it is quite another to allow that anger to cause us to wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to nations which actually are sponsoring terrorism via Hamas and Hezbollah, and which are providing arms and training being used to kill American soldiers in neighboring Iraq. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know that naivete as to the current goals of the Iranian leadership is dangerous for everyone.
This is not an instance where anyone with a brain should have a knee jerk reaction of "blame America". The situation is more complex than that. I absolutely do not advocate military action against Iran. But let's not fool ourselves, - they are not our friend, regardless of who our current leadership might be.

Moder8 -

I'm not saying they're our friend, and I don't see that anyone else is either. China wasn't our friend when that crazy liberal Nixon talked to them.

You don't have to be naive to talk to the enemy. It's just diplomacy.

I would not expect them to be our friends; we have not behaved in a very friendly manner to them. Perhaps, if we took some step to show them that we are not a threat to them we could dial the tension back a notch or two. Then maybe we could actually make some real progress in the ME.

CONDI RICE, gees I taught that this Bitch had left the Government, one hears so little of her. The White House minority has been made invisiable, maybe Vice-President, nah!! the Rednecks of the GOP would never have it....

This is an excerpt from an article on that OTHER Drudge site:

Asked whether he would negotiate with the new US leadership come January 2009, Ahmadenijad said: "It is they who cut off the links with us, hoping to suffocate us. Today Iran is an advanced country. We are ready for dialogue with anyone, except with the Zionist regime, in relations based on mutual respect and fairness."

Again, I don't trust the guy, but hell, let's talk. Isolation and threats are ineffective. See also Cuba, et al.

" they are not our friend, regardless of who our current leadership might be."

By the same token though, THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO US and they aren't a threat to Israel either because their entire country could be levelled in twenty minutes. They have not done anything that could even be remotely considered justification for bombing and killing thousands of human beings.
One thing certain, if we bomb them they will NEVER be a friend to the US, if we instead try to change their behavior through diplomatic and economic actions eventually the youth of the nation could very well end up overthrowing the theocracy and becoming friends with the US. The invasion of Iraq set back hopes of such a revolt by decades.

Bani: Iraq has already signed a mutual defense pact with Iran ( one of their first democratic steps) banning an attack on Iran from Iraq. Apparently they area alson balking at Bush's new military treaty.

and if Rice is opposed to talking to Iran she should stop the dialogue between the US and Iran that is currently going on. Assuming somebody told her she was talking to Iran.

Rice, Bush and Cheney seem to be getting their marching orders from the Saudis, and right now Saudi Araby wants to see the US and Iran duke it out. With pals like the Saudi royals, who needs enemies?

****** The point is though, does anyone believe that Iran is willing to negotiate in good faith? Moder8 ****

.......did the US negotiate in good faith with Saddam's Iraq ?......

......after that, why should anyone trust us ??...

****** The point is though, does anyone believe that Iran is willing to negotiate in good faith? Moder8 ****

.......did the US negotiate in good faith with Saddam's Iraq ?......

......after that, why should anyone trust us ??...