Why U.S. has recently rejected a proposal by the UN Secretary General demanding it to start talks with Iran?
487413
Ask the following question: who's the ONLY nuke power in the mid-east, has a former superpower as a lapdog and doesn't want any other nuke power in the mid-east?
416085
NO NO NO NO. Iran will NEVER step back and the naive world must understand that the only weay to stop Iran would be to NUKE the whole capital area and making sure that the president there is killed. Unfortunately, too many of our corrupt and stupid politicians here in the U.S. feel that negotiations should be made.. negotiations after negotiations but BELIEVE ME.. it will never work and should not even be tried.
118975
The biggest 'good news' thing is that Russia said they'd build some Nuclear Reactors and pipe the power to Iran so that it couldn't build bombs but still have the energy. (which is what Iran says it's concerned with.)\n\nIran initially refused but now is saying it'll 'consider' the option.
138749
The rest of the world is willing to let Iran have nuclear power; that's not the problem.  The problem is that Iran has proven itself to be a rogue nation that produces and harbors terrorists.  The blatant hatred that Iran has for anything Western is reason enough to doubt its motives when it comes to the development of nuclear energy.  As I said, the rest of the world is willing to allow Iran to have nuclear power, provided that it is willing to allow UN inspectors access to verify that Iran's motives and capabilities are peaceful.  Iran is unwilling to allow this. That's why the rest of the world is skeptical of Iran.
482251
The US doesn't WANT to bomb Iran, however, the US also does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  If other efforts to get Iran to stop their nuclear development program fails, the US will feel it has no choice but to destroy the Iranian nuclear program by force.\n\nHope that isn't too long-winded for you.
101288
in iran?  i don't know.  it seems to be heading that way, but i think that iran will probably end taking the russian's proposal and have their uranium enriched in russia and shipped back to iran for fuel.  They have said that they are considering this option again, after having taken it off the table.  I think they would only bring the option back if they were probably going to do it.  I think they will not risk a war, especially without the support of russia and china.  If it was only the US, they would risk a war, but the rest of the world is against them.  I think their bluff has been called - they wanted to see who would align with and against them and nearly everybody voted to send them to the security council.  Its not the end of the issue, but I don't think there will be war.
480674
Iran is an odd case.  Up to about three years ago relations between the US and Iran were thawing.  Although both nations were making loud public statements denouncing the other there were several agreements reached (for example when Iran promised to allow any US military aricraft in distress the right to land at an iranian airfield).\n\nIf Iran were not stupidly getting the entire world upset at them with their nuclear projects - I would expect that the US and Iran would be discussing re-opening diplomatic relations.\n\nThe problem Iran has is that the people running the country are not popular and need something to distract the Iranian people's attention away from thier internal policy failures and poor economic performance.  \n\nIMO what we need to do is just wait them out.
360910
Russian and China will either abstain or diplomatically stall this process in the Security Council. This may be a victory for Iran. While we are sitting here in the U.S. the politics of international affairs is presenting a different angle. A different tune is being drummed in the Middle East and Asia. It's being hoped by Iran and Pakistan that China will silently stall or veto in the Security Council. \n\nBoth Iran and China have historic ties to China. The only country which may be hoping for a security council action would be India. India would dare not interfere in Iran, Pakistan and China's affairs. If you are uncertain about this, please look this up in some history text book or encyclopedia.\n\nEvents are more complicated than they appear and Iran knows that it can stall this process. Relations between the U.S. and Russia aren't all that peachy as well. The last think the United States wants is military action. This will be a colossal mistake in the history of American foreign policy, much worse than Vietnam or Iraq. Iran has a much older history and roots its pride back to Alexander and the Persian Empire. They do not like to be told what to do and how to do it. The only people who can or should be talking to them is Pakistan and China because of close historic ties.\n\nThe Bush administration needs to get Pakistan involved in this diplomatic effort. Iran does not have decent relations with China, it has a "strong" relationship with it.\n\nThe west needs to look at Iran from a different angle because if a wrong step is taken, there will be a major moslem uprising in the Middle East. They will perceive it as a war against Islam. The effects will be felt all across Europe and North America. \n\nThe only group of people who will say "No" are Americans. They think that economics will trump eastern philosophy, culture, history and domestic politics.\n\nKeep this good discussion rolling!
56453
Yes, UN is outdated and could not survive without the U.S.A. The big fix is that the security council needs to be re-constituted with the following most populous and influential nations in the 21st Century:\n\nUSA\nChina\nRussia\nIndia\nEuropean Union\nIndonesia\nBrazil
814237
The United Nations actively pursues anti-American policies and appeases America's enemies, while being largely funded by $3 billion worth of annual American dues. After revealing the depth of rampant corruption in the UN, it is time to recognize the changes in Old Europe and redesign America's alliances that line up with America's national interests. \n\nIf John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have their way, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac will gain veto power over American foreign policy. Scared? You should be. It could happen. And in Inside the Asylum, former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin shows just how it could happen and why the UN deserves the nickname "The Asylum." \n\nIn the Asylum... \n\n* the UN assists international terrorists. Babbin exposes the shocking links between the UN and terrorist organizations. \n\n* The money trail from the UN to Saddam Hussein. It is time to rip the veil from the outrageous Oil-for-Food program-proving that the UN sold its moral legitimacy for oil, stuffed its own pockets at the expense of the Iraqi people, and undermined American pressure on Saddam Hussein: the UN's cash cow. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, provided Saddam Hussein with the means to bribe politicians, to deprive his people of needed food and medicine, and to literally steal billions of dollars. There is even emerging evidence that money from the program might have gone to support al-Qaeda. \n\n• The UN's raid on the American Treasury: dominated by Third World staffers who consider the United States Treasury "the common heritage of mankind." Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is an anti-American moral relativist who misses no opportunity to arrogate power from the United States to the UN. \n\n* The United Nations and the European Union are morally bankrupt-and open enemies of the United States. France and the United Nations have cost American lives in Iraq by their perverse delaying of American action in the Iraq War. American troops are fighting and dying today because of a terrorist strategy Saddam Hussein developed while France and the United Nations delayed Operation Iraqi Freedom. \n\nThe UN is more of an international criminal than a dispenser of legitimate international law. If America wants to retain its sovereignty and security, it's time to escape from the UN asylum and say goodbye to the false friends of Old Europe. We owe no tribute to the UN and the EU, We should not be ashamed and divided to look after our own defense." \n\nThe United Nations building in Manhattan is an international enclave, no longer American territory. Inside the Asylum is a powerful argument that it's time to reclaim that land for America.
342284
Iran is a member of the United Nations and a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is not suppose to be developing nuclear weapons.  Although Iran has been stating that they only want peace use of atomic energy, their position is highly suspect, if for no other reason than the fact that Russia offered to provide the atomic fuel they needed for such peaceful use and Iran turned that offer down.  \n\nBeyond that reality, no nation with nuclear weapons wants such weapons to spread to other countries.  This is particularly true of countries that have unstable and radical governments.  It isn’t a matter of a country’s right to tell them they can’t have such weapons, but a matter of realistic defense.
424832
The people of Iran are for the most part very similar to those in the U.S. Over the last decade, there have been countless pro-democracy rallies held and up until the most recent presidential elections, these were for the most part encouraged and allowed. The real problem comes from the most recent President and the clerical leadership. As a political science enthusiast, I feel as if I am have enough knowledge on the subject to state my opinion which is that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons for two main reasons. The first is that the middle-east is currently in a deadlock due to Pakistan, India and Israel. The concept of a nuclear Iran throws this entire balance out of whack and as a result cannot be tolerated. The second and unfortunately the more important issue is oil. Although the U.S. no longer purchases oil from Iran, many countries still do, in particular China. Due to recent fall in the U.S. status as a the sole hegemony, I cannot imagine the fluctuations and the potential leverage that Iran could place on the oil markets if they were able to obtain nuclear weapons. I know that this is a material and shallow reasoning, but unfortunately it is the truth and as a result the U.S. cannot risk the potential constraints and inflation that this would cause on the world markets. The world is more globalized than ever, and each country fits into the puzzle in their own unique way and although it may be fair that Iran gets to have nuclear power (which we are willing to allow as long as it is enriched in Russia) I cannot imagine any responsible elected official allowing this scenario to unfold (regardless of political parties). I hope this was helpful and I invite further discourse and criticisms to my opinions. Thank You.
488035
I would also have to agree.\nAlso it is presumbly part of a ploy in order to get Iran to operate in a way that is more acceptable to the West.
680493
The only comments by the US that are relevant to Iran is, it will not allow Iran to be a Nuclear power.  IT has stated, as has the European countries in the UN, that it believes that Iran is seeking to become a Nuclear power.  If the US is a liar on that basis, then so are the European powers.  The consensus is, that Iran is not being truthful about it's intentions relative to nuclear power.  I agree with that consensus!
390150
Here's a conversation I had with an Iranian yesterday:\n\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:22:40 PM): hi\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:23:12 PM): i want to talk to you about the question you asked\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:23:28 PM): Sure\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:04 PM): which question?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:35 PM): The question about supporting military action against Iran\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:24:39 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:45 PM): What do you know about Iran?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:24:59 PM): And about persian people?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:25:15 PM): I know that the Iranian President wants a war with the United States\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:25:51 PM): so it should cause milions of people and children to die?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:26:11 PM): What, war with the US?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:23 PM): Yes\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:26:46 PM): The war which hasn't started, and in not going to start\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:27:05 PM): No, I don't believe that. I believe the Iranian government is trying to push the US into a war to prove some kind of point\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:28:04 PM): I don't think Iran's people agree with it, nor do they want a war, when Iran threatens the US or US allies with missile strikes or threatens to take a country out, that is pretty much a call to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:32 PM): OK\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:28:44 PM): So you mean you support it, right?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:29:06 PM): But, think about this, if someone had a gun and threatened to shoot you, what would you do in reaction?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:29:47 PM): If i knew that the gun isn't real and it cant never hurt me, i wouldn't take a serious reaction\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:30:05 PM): I don't know that I do support it, but I can sympathize with people who are threatened militarily. It doesn't mean I want war, it just means I understand why they feel that way\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:26 PM): So what about us?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:33 PM): What about OUR feelings?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:30:42 PM): No one cares about them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:31:39 PM): I feel that you are not in disagreement with your government leaders, however I do care about the millions of people caught in the middle, such as yourself. You don't want war any more than our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:07 PM): I don't disagree with the government?!!!\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:32:24 PM): No one agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:32:35 PM): I don't think it will even become a physical war, just a war of words... like two men who flex their mustles to try to prove who's stronger\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:33:21 PM): So you agree that it's okay to say that your government will wipe a country out of existence?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:28 PM): I think it's pretty obvious that who's stronger, there's no need to war\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:33:57 PM): They can't do that ! They can't\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:39 PM): I don't care about them, you can send them to the hell, so that we can breathe easy\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:34:47 PM): But i'm worried about the people, children, lovers, memories\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:35:49 PM): They're deciding on their own, there's no one who supports or agrees with them\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:05 PM): Same here, that's why I don't understand why Iran would want to threaten powerful nations like Israel and the US\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:11 PM): Except some stupid people like themselves\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:27 PM): Iran doesn't want this\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:36:46 PM): Ahmadi nejad wants so\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:36:54 PM): Neither does the US. I think the only ones that want it are the news media because it means ratings\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:37:48 PM): So what about the people? When are they gonna decide about their own future?\nabcormi (4/15/2006 4:38:09 PM): who? your people? our people?\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:30 PM): our people\nParnian (4/15/2006 4:38:54 PM): Yo
104588
It would take a coalition of countries and U.N. resolve plus resolutions, and getting Congress to approve.  Yes it is possible, however no one wants more war so a lot of diplomacy will be tried before it comes down to an actual war.  Is the U.S. able the answer to that is also a yes.  The U.S. is able to do most everything it sets it's mind to do.  I believe that there will be a settlement with Iran being willing to allow inspectors in to supervise the Nuclear Operations. If they intend this power only to make electricity from they should have no problem complying with that U.N. request.
636809
Why is it between U.S. and Iran? Just about the entire U.N. is coming down on Iran. If the guy was smart, he'd remember how Iraq was crippled by all of the U.N. sanctions. We don't have to go to work with Iran to hurt them, and we wont. Iran is hurting themselves by not allowing Russia to control their uranium enrichment process.