Biden raises possibility of direct U.S.-Iran talks

Comments (5)
RandomName2nd wrote:

I love it when Reuters removes all comments on a story for no given reason.

Feb 03, 2013 6:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
BlueCannon wrote:

Had the U.S. been ready and willing to decimate suspected nuclear sites in enemy states, it would have first done so on DPRK and not yet Iran on mere speculation. Still, talks would yeild transparency that may reduce mis-judgment.

Feb 03, 2013 7:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
znmeb wrote:

“We need to convince Iran that this is not about regime change” Unfortunately there’s little hope of that, because that’s the whole *point* of sanctions – regime change.

Feb 03, 2013 12:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

Bilateral negotiations are the normal way that problems are solved. Multilateral discussions have too many different interests for issues to resolved effectively and/or in a timely manner.

The US has issues in Iran that it has never addressed. In 1953, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and imposed the Shah who used US guns and bullets to kill 20,000 Iranian college students that led to the hostage crisis in 1979-1981. The US provided weapons, including chemical weapons through a German company, to Iraq that Saddam used to kill some of the 500,000 Iranians in the 1980′s Iran-Iraq War. The US has never paid compensation. Current US rhetoric and actions are just a pretext to avoid paying compensation that could run into trillions of dollars, given US claims for 9-11. An alternate form of justice would be to execute 2,080,000 US college students to atone for US crimes because the ratio of populations is 4 to 1.

US and Israeli defense and intelligence chiefs have stated repeatedly that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. The weapons are expensive and cannot be used without massive retaliation from the super powers. Iran needs nuclear energy because it should run out of oil by 2050. It lacks sufficient river systems for hydroelectric power. Massive sandstorms would clog gears for windmills and would cover and scratch solar panels. (Talk to US troops who served in Iraq about sandstorms that blow from west to east into Iran.) Iran needs nuclear energy.

However, the war rhetoric gives job security to those who supply arms, munitions, technology, and intelligence information to the other side. Those claimng to be Israelis are European jews who began migrating in the late 1800′s. The last time Europeans held territory around Jerusalem, the muslims fought for 195 years to drive them out. This war has 130 years to go if the US and Israel last that long. My partners and I enjoy the job security.

Feb 03, 2013 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Logical123 wrote:

The U.S. has NOTHING to offer to Iran since practically all sanctions are encoded in laws that only Congress can revoke. Since the stupid Congress is practically 100% controlled by Israel, there is no chance of removing any sanctions. So, what is the point of negotiations since Obama is powerless to offer anything in return for the ridiculous demands that it is making on Iran? Iran should refuse to negotiate unless the U.S. is able to compromise.

Feb 04, 2013 12:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.