Iran Agrees to Nuclear Talks with US!!!!

[BluePhantom]

Iran hasn't invaded or attacked another nation in over 300 years.

Bullfuckingshit dude. What do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse was? There are many ways to attack someone besides marching troops.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know what you are talking about. I just praised you for simplifying a very complex topic so that we can all understand it easily. Why the hostility?

Oh don't pretend to be sincere. Praised me my ass....you were being sarcastic. Don't play the poor pitiful me routine.

What does "sarcastic" mean? If you keep using such complicated vocabulary, we may never get anywhere. And just when I thought you were keeping it simple!

 

[decker]

Wrong. North Korea is convinced by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Their nuclear power gives them the ability to avoid an invasion but that's about it. The leaders in North Korea are busy enjoying the rewards and comforts that go with a dictatorship. Their bomb simply means there's not much we can do about it.

Iran is a totally different story. MAD means nothing to them because if they launch on Israel and they are wiped out in response they will have "died for Allah" and they immediately go to Paradise. In Ahmadinijad's mind he is doing his people a favor by assuring their demise in the name of Allah.

To the leaders of North Korea, the destruction of their nation means the end of their ability to live the high life and exploit the people. To the leaders of Iran the destruction of their nation in the name of Allah means an eternity banging virgins.

Remember....with Iran we are dealing with the mentality that put plastic "keys to Paradise" around the necks of their own children and marched them into minefields to clear a path for their soldiers. You think they are negotiating in good faith? Or do you think they are praying to God Obama gets re-elected 'cause they know good and damned well the only thing standing between them and a nuclear weapon right now is "President Romney"?

well it true but i am not sure that north korea leaders would care that much if they died by launching nuclear bomb. Mad people will do mad things if they have to

same with iran. Both full of mad leaders who repress their country and who are danger to the world.

but you are right iran bit more dangerous as they want to wipe out state of israel.

Oh no decker...you completely misunderstand. Kim Jong-un is not mad. He's a fucking prick who uses his people's suffering to advance his own comforts. Evil? Yes. Mad? Oh no.

Ahmadinejad? Ali Khamenei? They're mad. But not mad in the sense that they don't what they are doing. They know precisely what they are doing. They just don't care if they live or die provided they die in Allah's name. Kim Jong-un....he cares if he lives or dies because if he dies his life of luxury is gone. If Ahmadinejad dies in the name of Allah his eternity of luxury has just begun.

maybe but i think he is a bit mad to suprsess his people and stop them accessing things from aboard.

any one who represses is mad. personally think he would of use it if he had to

iran could use it but they know though if they tried anything on with israel, then america would blow their arses into the sky. so their be mad to take the risk.

 

[Sunni Man]

Iran hasn't invaded or attacked another nation in over 300 years.

Bullfuckingshit dude. What do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse was? There are many ways to attack someone besides marching troops.

Seriously...........??

 

[there4eyeM]

North Korea is not ruled by religious fanatics fundamentalists like Iran!

Are you joking?! They are definitely fundamentalist fanatics, just replace one faith with another.

Sorry paulbot but you cant just ignore a problem to make it better.

War seldom makes things appreciably better. You might have learned that, 'W'bot, from the exploits of your beloved 'W' and his idiotic invasions.

The idiocy of so many is disappointing.

 

[BluePhantom]

well it true but i am not sure that north korea leaders would care that much if they died by launching nuclear bomb. Mad people will do mad things if they have to

same with iran. Both full of mad leaders who repress their country and who are danger to the world.

but you are right iran bit more dangerous as they want to wipe out state of israel.

Oh no decker...you completely misunderstand. Kim Jong-un is not mad. He's a fucking prick who uses his people's suffering to advance his own comforts. Evil? Yes. Mad? Oh no.

Ahmadinejad? Ali Khamenei? They're mad. But not mad in the sense that they don't what they are doing. They know precisely what they are doing. They just don't care if they live or die provided they die in Allah's name. Kim Jong-un....he cares if he lives or dies because if he dies his life of luxury is gone. If Ahmadinejad dies in the name of Allah his eternity of luxury has just begun.

maybe but i think he is a bit mad to suprsess his people and stop them accessing things from aboard.

any one who represses is mad. personally think he would of use it if he had to

iran could use it but they know though if they tried anything on with israel, then america would blow their arses into the sky. so their be mad to take the risk.

No...those who suppress for their own benefit aren't mad....they're just selfish pricks. This is precisely why the USSR no longer exists. The old cliche that communism is great on paper but bad in practice is true because of a very simple reason. In order for communism to work you have to have leaders that won't be corrupted by the power of leadership. Thus far communism has batted .000 on that one. Why? Because "absolute power corrupts absolutely". So Kim Jong-un isn't mad....he's a leader with absolute power and he's corrupt. Same thing that happened with the USSR and eventually the people of North Korea will do what the Russian people did and yet another communist experiment will go into history with a .000 batting average.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ooh! A baseball analogy! I LOVE baseball anologies.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh no decker...you completely misunderstand. Kim Jong-un is not mad. He's a fucking prick who uses his people's suffering to advance his own comforts. Evil? Yes. Mad? Oh no.

Ahmadinejad? Ali Khamenei? They're mad. But not mad in the sense that they don't what they are doing. They know precisely what they are doing. They just don't care if they live or die provided they die in Allah's name. Kim Jong-un....he cares if he lives or dies because if he dies his life of luxury is gone. If Ahmadinejad dies in the name of Allah his eternity of luxury has just begun.

maybe but i think he is a bit mad to suprsess his people and stop them accessing things from aboard.

any one who represses is mad. personally think he would of use it if he had to

iran could use it but they know though if they tried anything on with israel, then america would blow their arses into the sky. so their be mad to take the risk.

No...those who suppress for their own benefit aren't mad....they're just selfish pricks. This is precisely why the USSR no longer exists. The old cliche that communism is great on paper but bad in practice is true because of a very simple reason. In order for communism to work you have to have leaders that won't be corrupted by the power of leadership. Thus far communism has batted .000 on that one. Why? Because "absolute power corrupts absolutely". So Kim Jong-un isn't mad....he's a leader with absolute power and he's corrupt. Same thing that happened with the USSR and eventually the people of North Korea will do what the Russian people did and yet another communist experiment will go into history with a .000 batting average.

Um......If I may. Doesn't the sentiment expressed in the highlighted sentence apply to all types of socio-economic systems?

And, as it is such a common mistake, I'll forgive the fact that you think communism is a form of government.

 

[Freewill]

Turns out that Obama doesn't like be insinuated with dictators right before election. I think what Obama is waiting for is after the elections when he can be more "flexible" with the Iranians as he will be with the Russians. (his words not mine). Any way, according to Obama which we know we can't believe, there is no truth to this story. Of course knowing the truth coming from this administration is always a crap shoot.

US denies report on Iran nuclear talks deal

AFP: US denies report on Iran nuclear talks deal

 

[beretta304]

I'm not going to search through 68 posts but let me guess...someone inevitably said that Romney just wants to start a war with Iran.

The Obiebots don't get that Iran is doing this because they want Obama reelected so they (Iran) can continue on their merry way.

 

[Freewill]

I'm not going to search through 68 posts but let me guess...someone inevitably said that Romney just wants to start a war with Iran.

The Obiebots don't get that Iran is doing this because they want Obama reelected so they (Iran) can continue on their merry way.

I am not sure how having a despot regime support a candidate really helps the candidate.

 

[there4eyeM]

The sincerity of people and leaders together would make any system work. Remember, early Christianity was a commune (the term from each according to his ability to each according to his need is in the New Testament).

The American government would work if people in power were true democrats and honest.

 

[BluePhantom]

Iran hasn't invaded or attacked another nation in over 300 years.

Bullfuckingshit dude. What do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse was? There are many ways to attack someone besides marching troops.

Seriously...........??

Yeah seriously....what do you think the Iraq invasion was about? I sure as hell wasn't about WMD. We couldn't give two shits about those. That was just our excuse. We went in because Iraq was trading oil for Euros laundered through the oil for food program with France and Germany. That threatened the US and British stranglehold on the oil trade and threatened to collapse our economies. Why do you think Great Britain backed the US while France and Germany threw hissy fits? France and Germany, the dominant economies in the EU realized their cheap (and illegal) oil deals were about to get blown to shit and Great Britain (who kept their economy seperate from the Euro) had already cast their lot with the USA.

That's the whole reason why the Euro was created...to replace the US dollar as the currency of choice in the global reserve bank and in the oil trade. It was a direct attack on the United States economy. The Euro is a perfect example of attacking without using troops. The EU was the enemy...Iraq was just the battleground.

Now after we invaded Iraq and put and end to this "oil for Euros" bullshit Iran realized they had an opportunity. They supported insurgencies to keep us busy and fast tracked their nuclear program. Why? Because a nation with a nuclear weapon cannot be attacked. Since Iraq was out of the picture and the rest of OPEC wouldn't dare trade oil for Euros because they know good and well what would happen, it left Iran in a position to steal the entire oil trade from OPEC...The Iranian Oil Bourse was born wherein oil was traded for Euros instead of US dollars. We bombed it. They rebuilt it. We hacked it. They locked down their computer systems. We isolated them militarily. And finally they realized that what they needed was something that would protect them so we couldnt fuck with them and they could trade oil for Euros ...a nuclear weapon. If they have a nuke, we can't attack.

The minute they have a nuke, they will open up worldwide trading for oil in a currency other than the US dollar. They will gain a total stranglehold on the world oil trade and the United States will suffer an economic catastrophe that will make the Great Depression look like a bull market.

Iran is playing this brilliantly...Obama is playing it like a fucking chump. Iran wants Obama in office...Iran needs Obama in office. If all this escapes you, then you have about as much depth of thought as LL.

 

[beretta304]

I'm not going to search through 68 posts but let me guess...someone inevitably said that Romney just wants to start a war with Iran.

The Obiebots don't get that Iran is doing this because they want Obama reelected so they (Iran) can continue on their merry way.

I am not sure how having a despot regime support a candidate really helps the candidate.

In their minds, the Iranians wrongly think that they can sway the election. So in essence I agree with you. I never said it would work. Why do you think they suddenly want to talk? An October surprise, perhaps?

They certainly don't want to deal with Romney since he's been portrayed as a war monger.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm not going to search through 68 posts but let me guess...someone inevitably said that Romney just wants to start a war with Iran.

The Obiebots don't get that Iran is doing this because they want Obama reelected so they (Iran) can continue on their merry way.

I am not sure how having a despot regime support a candidate really helps the candidate.

In their minds, the Iranians wrongly think that they can sway the election. So in essence I agree with you. I never said it would work. Why do you think they suddenly want to talk? An October surprise, perhaps?

They certainly don't want to deal with Romney since he's been portrayed as a war monger.

Read what I posted just below your post. Romney understands all this regarding the US economy and the oil trade. I am convinced Obama is completely oblivious to it. The problem is that Republican's can't admit it because it means admitting we went to war over money and oil instead of WMD. Democrats want no part of it because it means admitting that if we hadn't gone into Iraq we would be in even worse shape than we are now. Neither side wins by admitting it, but if the average Joe in this nation realized the implications they would have no problem whatsoever invading anyone to protect the petrodollar because it backs our currency.

As I have always said "no blood for oil" is a real romantic statement. Take away the oil and see how long it takes for even the most passionate liberal to say "do ANYTHING to get it back".

Iran needs Obama in office....Romney is a businessman. He understands the implications of the petrodollar fully and he will not let Iran exchange the petrodollar for the petroeuro. Obama will.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes! Free market economics or death! Unless of course, we can't compete. Then we shall royally fuck the free market.

 

[waltky]

Dont' bet on it...

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with US
Sun Oct 21, 2012 - Iran denied on Sunday a report in a U.S. newspaper that it had plans for direct talks with the United States over its disputed nuclear program.

The New York Times reported, citing Obama administration officials, that the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to one-on-one negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, though the White House quickly denied the report.

"We don't have any discussions or negotiations with America," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a news conference on Sunday. "The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States."

Several rounds of talks this year between Iran and world powers, dubbed the P5+1, have failed to yield a breakthrough.

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with U.S. | Reuters

 

[BluePhantom]

Yes! Free market economics or death! Unless of course, we can't compete. Then we shall royally fuck the free market.

LL...do you have a cuckold fetish or something? I have never seen anyone so eager to get humiliated as you are. It has nothing to do with our inability to compete. We can compete just fine. It has to do with debt and economic power. When Nixon took us off the gold standard it left our currency vulnerable. Nixon did a brilliant thing...he recognized the royal house of Saud as the legitimate rulers of Saudi Arabia...in return, as the dominant force of OPEC, they passed an agreement that oil would only be exchanged for US dollars and only in New York and London. So we took ourselves off the gold standard and put ourselves on the oil standard. It's oil that backs our currency now instead of gold.

Even better is that we don't even have to hold the oil...OPEC does that for us. This is why after Nixon cut that deal that domestic oil production took a nosedive. Why produce it ourselves when we can force OPEC to spend the money to produce the commodity that backs our currency and we can keep ours in reserve? The result is that every nation in the world has to go through us or Great Britain to get oil and a) we get a nice hefty handling fee, and b) if someone wants to get bitchy about money we own them, they suddenly get no oil. It means we can bully the rest of the world to give us whatever we want, including money, and they can't do a damn thing about it. As such our debt has been "phantom debt". It has been totally irrelevant because no one could ever afford to hold us accountable for it.....until now.

The problem is that, as I mentioned earlier, Iran (and previously Iraq) want to trade oil for Euros. Iraq actually did it....our tanks were in Baghdad a couple months later. Iran wants to because it would make them the richest nation on the planet. They are developing a nuclear weapon so they can start trading oil for a currency other than US dollars.

We can't have that. Suddenly we would become accountable for the money we owe. We would have nothing to hold over the heads of our creditors and all that debt stops being "phantom debt" and suddenly becomes "real debt". Mexico would be in better financial shape and they would suddenly have a better standard of living as well.

This is why energy independence is suddenly so important. If we lose the petrodollar then foreign nations are no longer backing our currency. This is precisely why Obama's reduction of drilling permits is a fucking catastrophe...it slows our ability to back our own currency and frankly it's Obama's policies that have led us closer to war. If we lose the petrodollar and oil starts being traded for a currency other than US dollars we will have no choice but to take the oil fields of the entire Middle East and maybe even beyond. That means widespread invasions...China and Russia won't sit back and let us do that.....it could potentially start a world war.

But I am sure all this goes right over the head of LL the cuckold. Before you post again LL, give me your safety word so I know when you have had enough.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are Republicans jealous that their Iranian friends might want to help a Democrat this time? Maybe they don't get the similarity between Ronnie and Rmoney.

In any case...

....vote other!

 

[Oldguy]

Dont' bet on it...

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with US
Sun Oct 21, 2012 - Iran denied on Sunday a report in a U.S. newspaper that it had plans for direct talks with the United States over its disputed nuclear program.

The New York Times reported, citing Obama administration officials, that the United States and Iran had agreed in principle to one-on-one negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, though the White House quickly denied the report.

"We don't have any discussions or negotiations with America," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a news conference on Sunday. "The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States."

Several rounds of talks this year between Iran and world powers, dubbed the P5+1, have failed to yield a breakthrough.

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with U.S. | Reuters

I was waiting for the Iranian side of it too. It's easy to claim anything when the source is some unidentified administration official.

So far, I can't find the Foreign Minister's whole comments on the subject. All anyone is reporting is the phrases we see in your link, which gives no context and may leave out something important.

IF that's all he had to say on the subject, I must say it's a beautiful example of "diplomatic-eze," that special language diplomats use in public. He actually denies NOTHING while denying the that talks are at hand!

Consider:

"We don't have any discussions or negotiations with America." No, you don't...IF the discussions have already ended because an agreement to meet later has been achieved, as the original story said. That's a factually correct statement that says nothing about anything in the future.

"The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States." Which does not mean that Iran and the United States have not been talking about bilateral negotiations WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE P5+1 TALKS! Again, he's saying something that is strictly factual, but which tells you nothing about the future.

Parsed in diplomatic language, what the Foreign Minister said does not either deny or confirm that bi-lateral talks are in the offing.

Typically, that kind of language can be taken as a confirmation because it did not deny already published reports. Why would the Iranian's want to confirm it without actually confirming it? Because it leaves them the option not to go ahead with the planned bi-lateral talks after the election if they don't want to.

It's a brilliant piece of diplomatic double-talk, which the Iranian's are very good at. But, the bottom line seems to be that the initial report is, indeed, true but we may never actually see the talks take place. I'd just about guarantee you won't see them if Romney wins our election because if that happens, the Iranian's will simply quit talking substance and prepare for war.

We may be on the cusp of victory over Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons because the sanctions are really working. But, Mitt Romney's harsh rhetoric during the campaign may very well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and lead to another Iraq-style debacle in the Middle East, if not a world war.

Words matter...even during campaigns.