Biden: US Willing to Talk to Iran

by 158 | February 7, 2009 at 11:12 am

156 views | 6 Recommendations | 17 comments

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden says the United States is willing to talk to Iran about its nuclear program but stresses Tehran faces isolation and pressure if it stays on its current path.

Biden spoke Saturday at a security conference in Munich. He said there will be "meaningful incentives" if Iran abandons

what he called its "illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism."

But he says the United States will continue to develop missile defenses to, in his words, "counter a growing Iranian capability."

Talking is always better

than fighting. I agree

with the US government

on this issue.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

nyctuber

at 12:03 on February 7th, 2009

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle after 8 years of Neocons trying to pressure Iran into war. Bush's bullying approach made the situation worse than it's ever been, and I think they're only sizing up Obama for signs of weakness. The era of Clinton-esque diplomacy with Iran is probably over.

158

at 12:18 on February 7th, 2009

Obama has made tw main points.

He will talk to Iran

He will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Roy C

at 12:23 on February 7th, 2009

"Talking is always better than fighting." Can you prove it? You can't.

What genie out of what bottle? You are front-loading Obama's foreign policy failures or successes with excuses.

"Yeah, see, if it weren't for the neocons, those Jewish ex-Trostkyites, the Iranians would hold hands with us and sing that Cumbaya song."

No one has been pressuring Iran into war. If Bush had wanted war, he could have taken out Iran very easily at the end of the first part of the Iraq war. In fact, just one raid on their ports, cutting off their importation of gasoline, something they do because the mullahs have let the Shah's infrastructure go to merde, and the whole country would collapse.

All we have to do is contain Iran until the younger generation, the one that runs around with sexy clothes on under their burkas, that goes to to do aerobics to Jane Fonda tapes, the one that wants the prosperity and even the relative freedom that was there in Iran undert the Shah who sent a small army of Iranians to American universities, to grow a bit older and we win.

Yes, there were so many Iranians in the US under the Shah, and they complained about him all the time, when I talked to them. Yup, they got "change" and they had to go back home and become good Muslims and forget about all that engineering,economics, literature study and such.

Bush did not bully Iran. The Europeans have been handling the talks for years. The talks go nowhere. The UN has demanded that they simply comply with the non-proliferation treaty that Iran signed.

Iran has no intention of giving up nukes or allowing freedom of speech, press and the rest.

nyctuber

at 13:08 on February 7th, 2009

My goodness, such ignorance.

Bush labeled Iran part of the 'axis of evil' because the Neocon philosophy is to flesh out any potential enemy and find a reason for preemptive war. The genie is the end of any sort of Clinton era dimplomacy with Iran. Do me a favor and think before you post from now on. Thanks.

generaldecay

at 13:19 on February 7th, 2009

nyctuber, while you clearly disagree with Roy C, please remember the code of conduct and that personal attacks are not tolerated on NP.

Thank you.

158

at 12:23 on February 7th, 2009

Good comment. Change can be for better or worse.

I think Iran will change slowly, as the younger generation grows, but the leaders will not allow a real democracy or western culture.

Roy C

at 12:26 on February 7th, 2009

The mullahs pre-approve all candidacies and that is why you have reactionaries like their bombastic anti-Semitic president elected to high office there.

The average Iranian is far different.

158

at 12:29 on February 7th, 2009

"Talking is always better than fighting." Can you prove it? You can't.

Prove. NO.

What I meant is it is better to talk first unless there is an immediate threat and if talks fail then fight. Sometimes force is the only answer, but if there is no emergency then talking could possibly prevent a war.

Roy C

at 13:29 on February 7th, 2009

Very good response, 158. Just checking.

Libs take it that peace is a value greater than justice and freedom. Others, particularly conservatives take it that justice and freedom are worth more than peace.

I am always glad that people such as Chamberlain tried to reason with Hitler. The failure was a lesson to study.

I don't think that the Iranian leader wants to change at all. Changing his opinions and attitudes will be impossible for him. Men and women of such extreme positions need those positions as an expression of their character.

That rhetoric is his way to get drunk, to intoxicate himself and solve a host of personal problems and the problems of his group.Worse, he has experienced the exaltation of being the vox populi of Iran and the vox dei.

For him to change, he would have to experience a collapse of his whole interpretive structure and that would throw him into a depression. He would have to hit what they call "rock bottom" in AA.

He will go down fighting, or posturing. He may be more resilient than I think, but I see conflict ahead, and the Jihadists viewing Obama as Kruschev saw Kennedy as weak, even though JFK was an actual war veteran.

158

at 13:35 on February 7th, 2009

Peace is preferable to war if it is possible but war is not as bad as tyranny. Sometimes there is no choice other than fight or surrender to tyrants.

Ahmadinejad's term ends this summer.

It will be interesting to see if Khamenei will let him run for reelection.,

I would expect Iran to test Obama with a confrontation soon unless North Korea does it first.

Roy C

at 15:26 on February 7th, 2009

Internal politics will trump whatever would be in Iran's best interest. I mean that the minority of hard-liners on religion will use the situation to their advantage giving them leverage in Iran's political sphere.

Otherwise, bowing to the majority of Iranians who are actually our Fifth Column in Iran, the whole regime will fall.

158

at 17:43 on February 7th, 2009

The present leaders want to hold power and keep the system they created.I just don't think they will give up power peacefully in a free election. One day there may be another revolution.

René

at 11:50 on February 8th, 2009

Explore what Iranians dare to post on their blogs. I have watched this site for years, and many disappear. or just stop, tho they are still online.

René

at 10:43 on February 8th, 2009

Iran running out of uranium supply.

158

at 11:44 on February 8th, 2009

Rene'

Thanks for those links.

I sometimes read Iranian blogs.

There is much uranium for sale in the world.

René

at 12:01 on February 8th, 2009

Much yellowcake, many trying to keep Iran from getting more. Did you hear about the yellowcake discovered in Iraq, that was kept secret until managed to ship it to Canada last year? two different stories: AP and AmericanThinker.

This one offers much food for thought:

It simply means, as it always did, that in 2003 Saddam was sitting on enough yellowcake to make more than 100 nuclear weapons.

That he sat on 550 metric tons of yellowcake under UN "safeguard" is about as comforting to me as knowing the convicted child rapist next door has a case of duct tape (dual use, by the way) that the police check up on every week.