data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76aa3/76aa3b7f0dec67f35a8daa25e100cae646417d37" alt="https://i41.tinypic.com/pdoz.jpg"
This one is going to be interesting.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ad3f/9ad3ff608385edec8154e346efab83ff7e7e5c89" alt="https://i44.tinypic.com/2vs3p06.jpg"
Xbone Stormsurgezz
sigh...Varegg wrote:
Diplomacy? ... what a waste on Muslims no?
phailATG wrote:
Putin punts presidents points perhaps predicting pressure for potus.
Rather have my head in the sand than up my own butt like some of youusmarine wrote:
sigh...Varegg wrote:
Diplomacy? ... what a waste on Muslims no?
its a waste because when they go tho their biggest mosque for prayer in iran, there is a big yellow banner haning up that reads "death to israel."
so, you can spit out all the cute little lines you want, but some of us keep our heads out of the sand.
pnot,usmarine wrote:
phailATG wrote:
Putin punts presidents points perhaps predicting pressure for potus.
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday showed willingness to discuss the US-planned missile defence system opposed by Moscow, but without 'haggling' linking it to Iran.
well why would they discuss iran? oh wait. lewl. obama is fail.ATG wrote:
pnot,usmarine wrote:
phailATG wrote:
Putin punts presidents points perhaps predicting pressure for potus.Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday showed willingness to discuss the US-planned missile defence system opposed by Moscow, but without 'haggling' linking it to Iran.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-03-03 18:06:56)
Jack Straw, the British Foreign minister together with his German counterpart worked hard between 2002 and 2005 to get the US to enter talks with Khatami, Khatami was willing but Bush said no ... they could very well have worked out a solution then concerning the Iranian nuclear program ...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Interesting in that EU and UN officials tried to persuade the US to engage in diplomatic avenues to address Iran's nuclear aspirations a few years ago but were rebuked by the Bush Administration (possible fostering in-house Iranian support to pursue nuclear weapons - to combat aggressive US rhetoric combined with reluctance of the US to pursue a diplomatic resolution). I'm guessing that the perceived threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions were an excuse for the already planned expansion of US missile defense shields in Europe. However, there is a mutual need for the US and Russia to address the destruction of nuclear weapons which both parties have been relatively quiet on in the last few years. If Obama can also tie in some type of good-faith promise that both countries will further reduce their nuclear stockpiles (making the 'need' for a US-backed Euro missile defense shield less relevant) then it could be a very good thing. As is the Iranian and US governments need to engage directly to come to an agreeable solution to monitor Iran uranium enrichment while allowing them to pursue nuclear power.
A fan of diplomacy.Dilbert_X wrote:
Good for them!
No, a fan of telling the US to get bent and mind their own business about what other countries do.A fan of diplomacy.
The Iranians gave the US a lot of help over AQ and Afghanistan, they suggested normalising relations and a host of other things.Varegg wrote:
Jack Straw, the British Foreign minister together with his German counterpart worked hard between 2002 and 2005 to get the US to enter talks with Khatami, Khatami was willing but Bush said no ... they could very well have worked out a solution then concerning the Iranian nuclear program ...
Every country in the world acts in what they think is there best interest. If you don't believe that you're delusional. At least in this instance the administration is offering compromise.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, a fan of telling the US to get bent and mind their own business about what other countries do.A fan of diplomacy.