Iran Offers Direct Talks With U.S.

Iranian President Proposes Public Talks With President Bush On Wide Range Of Issues

(AP)  Iran's hard-line president proposed Monday to hold public talks with President Bush on a wide range of issues, without saying whether that included international suspicions of the Iranian nuclear program or allegations of Iranian meddling in Iraq.

"Last year, I announced readiness for a televised debate over global issues with his excellency Mr. Bush. And now we announce that I am ready to negotiate with him about bilateral issues as well as regional and international issues," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on the Web site of Al-Alam, Iran's state-run Arabic satellite television channel.

The Iranian leader did not elaborate on what specifically he was willing to discuss with the U.S. president, but he said the talks "should be held with media present."

It was not immediately clear if Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters, supported Ahmadinejad's proposal.

Khamenei has regularly rejected any direct talks between Tehran and Washington because of what he calls U.S. "bullying" of Iran. The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

The Bush administration said the United States has already offered discussions.

"Instead of offering televised debates or a media spectacle, the United States has offered actual discussions if Iran would only agree to what the international community has asked for repeatedly: stop uranium enrichment and reprocessing," Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House, said Monday. "We're ready whenever they are."

Ahmadinejad's offer was not his first overture to Bush. Last year, Iran's president proposed holding a televised debate with the American leader, but the White House called the offer "a diversion from the legitimate concerns" about Iran's nuclear program.

He also wrote a letter to Bush last year that Washington dismissed as irrelevant because it did not address suspicions that Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons. Tehran denies doing that, saying the program is for the peaceful use of nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

The United States and others also have accused Tehran of helping Shiite Muslims militias blamed for much of Iraq's sectarian bloodshed, a charge Iran denies.

Ahmadinejad told Al-Alam that he thought the United States was "unlikely" to use military force against Iran because of the dispute over the nuclear program. U.S. officials have said Washington has no plans to attack Iran.

"It is unlikely that such a will exists in the United States. I think there are enough wise people in the U.S. administration to prevent such a decision," Al-Alam quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

The Iranian leader said military means are the wrong approach to solving disputes. "If some think that by resorting to threats they (can) change the world in favor of themselves, they are wrong," he was quoted as saying.

Earlier Monday, Ahmadinejad defended what he said are Iran's peaceful nuclear intentions and called on the European Union to speak for itself during nuclear negotiations.

Iran and the EU were to resume talks in Turkey on Wednesday over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said he would meet with Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, to see if Tehran can be persuaded to halt uranium enrichment in exchange for negotiations about economic incentives.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions on Tehran over its refusal to freeze enrichment.

According to a document by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has started feeding small amounts of uranium gas into centrifuges that can enrich it to weapons-grade level and is already running more than 1,300 of the machines.

The enrichment process can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or, if taken to a higher degree, the material for atomic bombs.

[randalds]

Posted by firststate at 04:30 PM : Apr 24, 2007

Bravo! Well stated. It's long past due that we kick religion out of our foreign policy and never let it drag us into another disastrous war. Christian fanatics are every bit as bad as Muslim ones in whipping up people for war and are, as you pointed out, two sides of the same coin. Both live in glass houses, neither is any better then the other and neither has a right to throw stones at the other, esp when the stones they're throwing are killing innocent people.

[firststate]

". . . keep your mouth shut so that people only think you are foolish, then it is to open it and prove it beyond any doubt." A pearl of wisdom courtesy of singinrick. To whom the concept applies at least as well as to anybody.

Looking in from the real world, one notices that reactionary, extremist Christian "soldiers" are nearly exact copies of the reactionary, extremist Muslim jihadists, with the names were switched around to fit their Holy writings. They're like opposite sides of the same coin, but neither side is heads. Each is convinced that their name for the Deity is the only correct name. Each religion have ample proof of murderous, blood-thirsty acts by the other.

Protecting the "faith" has been involved in the rationale (excuse) for war more often than not. Why would we attack Iraq after 9/11? Using violent Islam version of reasoning, there are other countries that deserved attack as much as Iraq. Why not attack the Saudis? The Saudi royal family rules with an iron fist. It's full of extremist Muslims, most of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudis. Yet, they still receive preferential treatment. They, with Jordan provide the money, weapons and explosives to the Sunnis and Al Qaeda, that result in over 95% of America's fatalities, while Iran's help to the Shia results in fewer than 5% of our fatalities. US foreign policy condemns Iran and ignores the Saudis. The wisdom of george who would be king, Iran - bad, Saudi - good

[randalds]

Surely, atheists would be happy to join that campaign!

Posted by singinrick at 08:28 AM : Apr 24, 2007

This statement makes the same ignorant (and wrong) assumption that atheists hate the bible and/or religion, which is a complete lie. Atheist don't hate the bible, we just don't believe in it anymore then other books such as Grimm's Fairy Tales. Why in the world would we bother to hate something that we don't care about? That makes no sense, but religious extremists think that not believing in their bible is the same thing as hating it, because their bible (the book we don't believe in) tells them that this is so. That's circular logic. Such is the blindness of fanaticism. As I said earlier in this thread that's like saying you don't believe in fairy tales and then have them quote a line from a fairy tale back at you to supposedly prove that you actually hate fairy tales instead. It's juvenile and insane.

[randalds]

If Islamic militants had their way and Israel no longer existed, the Bible would be invalidated. To remove Israel is to prove the Bible to be a fake. It isn%u2019t just a threat against Israel, but a threat against God. It is important to realize that Islamic militants are motivated by a hatred for the Jews, Christians, and the Bible. What a diabolically cunning ploy! Surely, atheists would be happy to join that campaign!

Posted by singinrick at 08:28 AM : Apr 24, 2007

Not THIS is a prime example of extreme right wing Christian lunacy! All the extremist lunatics from BOTH sides of this fight should be placed on a island somewhere where they can kill each other off while screaming their own god's name and leave the rest of us in PEACE!

[pwrslm]

In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else.

... Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim ...



When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/levine_truce.htm

[pwrslm]

What of the hundreds of thousands of those poor Iraqis that George W. has killed every bit as thoroughly as Saddam ever killed any.
Posted by firststate

Hundreds of thousands? Wake up, you need to figure out what the truth is before you start fighting for it.

Old saying, its better to keep your mouth shut so that people only think you are foolish, then it is to open it and prove it beyond any doubt.

[tbweb]

As long as Pres. Bush don't try to look into Pres. Ahmadinejad's Soul like he did Russian Pres. Putin's, talking might give them both a chance to get things off their chest and the world gets to listen. I would really prefer to see them put on some boxing gloves and go a few rounds! A thiller in Manila or something along those lines. I bet if they sold tickets it would be a sell out! I wonder who would win? LOL

[randalds]

Night man...zzzzzzzzzz

[firststate]

RandalDS
Good night Air Force. You've put the loonies to bed, rest well.

[randalds]

Time to go to bed. The point is that the bible is not the end all and be all of wisdom on this earth. It's a book. A pretty good book, but just one of the uncountable number books of wisdom written by man, as it surely was. Also religion does not have the market cornered on morality, or goodness or love, or hate, or happiness or life or death either. If that's what makes your socks roll up and down, then fine, go for it. If not then there is still no end to the happiness to be found in other directions. The world is too rich, too full of too many wonderful things to be thought and learned and tried and experienced and lived to be confined to the thoughts and restrictions of one group of people following one old book. If you are a good person then you are a moral person and you don't have to follow a religion to do it. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise, because they're just infecting your life with their insecurities. Peace.