Teh talks need t be between the US and Iran that's it

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

And Iran has always been so honest , and up front with the World Community.

__________________
I love to relax by shooting cans.........AfriCANS, MexiCANS, Puerto RiCANS.................

As has the U.S.All this "new" information contradicting the administrations "facts" justifying our attack on Iraq are lies by left wing traitors trying to discredit the credibility of our leaders.
Any true American patriot knows we are not lying,only are enimies lie.










"

__________________
I respect your right to have your own opinion,but I do not necessarily respect your opinion.

How do you explain Hillary supporting the war? She had 8 years of B.J. Bills intelligence to base her vote on?..................... Didn't think you would answer.

__________________
I love to relax by shooting cans.........AfriCANS, MexiCANS, Puerto RiCANS.................

She is just another typiical politician ,no different than most of the others in congress.
They are too busy to do their job.They don't have time to examine any inte
lligence reports or to seek the fact
The truth about the war is not contingent on how congress acted.Many times they have no clue.

__________________
I respect your right to have your own opinion,but I do not necessarily respect your opinion.

"do you really truly believe that once we'd left Iraq that Iran would have made good on their promises..."

>>>Truth be told, I trust Ahmedinejad more'n I trust Cheney and his ilk. That's not saying a lot for Ahmedinejad, but Cheney (and Bush) just have NO cred.

The sanctions have been in place since 1979, and every US president between that time and now have seen fit to keep them. Not that they should never be lifted, but there are reasons they are in place. I would argue that perhaps they need to be harsher. The UN has also imposed sanctions on Iran.

Looking at the terms, it didn't look like it would be going anywhere anyway. I suppose they could have talked and tried to modify the terms, but from the article it didn't look like it was going to be something which was viable anyway. The biggest issue would have been the enforcement of the various terms.

Yes Dom those are very good points...but the issue for me is that I want leaders that talk..maybe they will determine through talks... the validity of a threat or possibilty a miracle will happen and a door will be opened.

This Concert of the Middle East has been proposed in other quarters.

(...)

The difficulties of the Greater Middle East are preponderant. Iraq is beset by Sunni insurgencies, both secular and jihadi. It is “governed” by a controlling Shi’a majority, which itself is riven by competing Shi’a militia armies. Iran pursues a dangerous nuclear program—which threatens all its neighbors (including Israel) with the possibility of war and hegemonic domination—while meddling deeply in Iraq and abetting its political destruction. The Kurdish “nation” now possesses a homeland in northern Iraq, which is threatened in the long run by Turkish animosity and suspicion. Syria exists in a precarious state, balanced between American hostility and the policy pressures of its Iranian senior ally. The long-term stability of its government is threatened by sanctions and political covert action. Lebanon is transitioning toward a political expression of its Lebanese Shi’a majority, which could lead to civil war. Lebanese Christian allies of the United States and Israel do not want to give up the unwarranted power in the country that their small numbers no longer justify.

(...)

What might the set of agreements and policies of a Concert of the Greater Middle East look like? From an American perspective, it may look like this: a grand bargain with Iran, under which the Iranian and Shi’a aspiration to be treated for the first time in history as equal in importance in the Islamic world with the Sunnis—and as a major power in the Greater Middle East—is accepted by the United States. In return, the United States should demand of Iran that it place its nuclear and missile programs under full international controls and that it both restrain the Shi’a government of Iraq from destabilizing excesses and desist from supporting international jihadi terrorism, for which it is well known.

A bargain among allies could also be struck between the United States and Turkey with regard to a Kurdish homeland, in what is now northern Iraq. The terms would be: Kurdistan will make all its oil export and refining deals with the Turks, abandon irredentist claims in the Turkish republic and take an active role in the suppression of armed PKK activity in Turkey. In addition, Kurdistan will support the rights and position of the Turkoman minority in areas accessible to it and, in particular, in Kirkuk. The

United States would maintain an air base and substantial ground garrison in Kurdistan to enforce all of the above—which would be necessary in any case to provide a military “reserve” to secure a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq.

The bargain would also entail bringing Lebanon and Syria to a mutual and legal recognition of their distinct national identities, in which Syria undertakes to refrain from political activities of any kind in Lebanon. Syria would have to accept that a violation of that bargain would open it legally to armed international intervention in its internal affairs. In return, the regime in Damascus would be absolved from the unending American hostility to its existence. In addition, Israel must be a full participant in all conferences and meetings involved in this process. In return, Israel will undertake to make Palestine (the state) a vital and thriving economy

Finally, on a more strategic front, in the Sunni-Arab areas of Iraq, the United States should learn to differentiate among: those who fight against Shi’a domination; nationalists and Ba’athi who fight for their condemned leader; Sunni Bedouin tribesmen who fight under tribal sheiks; “Alawi”-style nationalist Shi’a; and local or international jihadi types. The United States and the international community must learn to “divide and conquer” in Iraq. The variety of people in the Middle East is no different than anywhere else.

(...)



Now of course, the author paints a rosy picture, but his Grand Plan beats all the fantasia scenarios conjured up by the neocons and their consorts.

Good example...what eventually happened to Arafat?

We and other people did talk to him over and over but Arafat takes the low road with everyone else around him taking the high road. Basically he was never appeased but shunned by outside concerns because he was eventually made to look like a fool. This happened to Kadafi too. Neither leader swayed anyone because in the end the actions of them speak far louder than words. The only way to get actions vs words out in the open is to talk to them and let them trip over thier own mouth...the Bush administration does not get this; you negociate to get the other side painted into a corner so they have to live up to what is on the table. Get it in writing for the whole world to see, then after that there will be force from many concerns turning against them. They evetually screw themselves over...you have to be patient and the current administration or Neo Cons (Cheney/Rumsfeld) did not want to work things that way.