Oh I went to place this under Mid East Wars but Crow your post on the Treason thread was so poignant.....

A senior former US official reports that Iran offered the United States a package of concessions in 2003-including proposals to end support for Lebanese and Palenstiinian militiant groups, to help stablize Iraq following the US-led invasion and was willing to make its nuclear program transparent...all conditional on US ending hostility.

The offer was rejected by VP Dick Cheney.The letter which was verified by Newsnight.

Today Washington now is demanding these exact concessions from Tehran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

Let's say we had taken them up on their offer. Based on what we know about Iran, do you really truly believe that once we'd left Iraq that Iran would have made good on their promises of ending support for Lebanese and Palenstiinian militiant groups, stablizing Iraq (whatever that meant) and making its nuclear program transparent? Just what incentive do you think they would have had to honor such an agreement?

At this moment we are negotiating a similar offer. Not opening the door for talks is always a mistake. Even if you come away with only more facts to build a case for war or an open door for diplomacy it should always be undertaken. Talks do not mean appeasement...how do you even know what would be said if you refuse to talk?

Cheney is an idiot

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

Short, sweet and to the point

Because it's more important to know you are right. Keep it simple. If you actually talk to another party you might get swayed by ideas of....dialog. If you are 'open' to others ideas & actually talk about things you might develop a perception of 'different' than your preconceived pre-dialog understanding. Quite simply we cant' have open complicated communication & understanding get in the way of Our preconceived IDEA of the enemy.

Pathetic state really. Kinda reminds me of men & women trying to talk to each other in an intimate relationship!

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Sam, I am not opposed to open dialog with Iran, and I actually think that we should have sat down at the table with them. I think though, that all talks would have ceased unless we agreed to pull our troops out. That is the one condition we could/should never concede. No other country should have the ability to position our troops, especially a third party outside of the conflict.

You know how there were six part talks with North Korea....
Well there should be 10 party talks with the Middle East region regarding Iraq, Sunnis vs. Shia & Israel. Because these are all the contentions that need to be discussed. To have a discussion doesn't not mean setting preconditions when all are in a state of flukes. That is the point of diplomatic discussion. To find an agreed framework in order to make binding decisions....later.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

I agree with that. I think that even at this juncture, There should be alot of pressure all the the ME countries to have discussions.

I think it is the USA that needs pressure to talk...