Iraqi president backs US-Iran talks on Iraq

President Jalal Talabani supports a call by a Shi'ite leader for Iran and the United States to hold talks to resolve their differences over Iraq and ways of stabilizing it, his office said on Sunday. The Iraqi president said the issue of talks was raised during a visit he made to Tehran a few months ago, a statement from his office said, summarizing talks he held on Saturday with British Defense Secretary John Reid.

"We received primary approval from Iran when I visited a few months ago," the statement quoted Talabani as
saying. "We confirmed at that time the necessity of opening such a dialogue and the Iranian side accepted on two conditions. The first was the talks would be secret and the second was that all disputes between Iran and the United States would be discussed." U.S. and some Iraqi officials have accused mainly Shi'ite Iran of allowing arms, agents and money to cross its borders into Iraq to stir up anti-U.S. violence. Tehran denies the allegations.

Iraqi Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim urged Iran last week to hold talks with the United States over Iraq. Iran accepted the offer on Thursday. "We have agreed to start talks with America on Iraq. Particularly on the timetable for departure of occupying forces," said a government official, on condition of anonymity. When asked whether Iran favored keeping Iran-U.S. talks secret, the official said: "We have been transparent from the beginning. We have nothing to hide from our people."

Washington leads diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear ambitions, after Tehran failed to convince the world it is not using its atomic work as a front to build nuclear weapons. In Washington on Friday, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed skepticism, saying Iran's talks offer may be an attempt to divert attention from the nuclear stand-off. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said the Iraq talks would be "useful" but should not include the nuclear issue.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=11577310&src=rss/topNews

.
.
.

It would take Iran a century to be able to compete with the USA's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction

The only concern I can see as viable is the USA's fear that Iran may be capable of defending itself from the PNACers - which Iraq wasn't after Gulf War 1, and the sanctions that further crippled the country for the next decade . .

Then the USA bombed the shit out them AGAIN!!

And the world sat by and watched . .

Shame on us

MAD works only in a situation where a nash equation can be applied.

Each player believes all other participants are rational. (Iran fails this)
The game correctly describes the utility payoff of all players.
The players are flawless in execution.
The players have sufficient intelligence to deduce the solution.
Each player is rational. (Iran is not rational)

Before you say we are not rational the united states stood at the edge of nuclear war for 50 years and did not initiate an attack on russia that would lead to thermonuclear war.

I do not advocate war with Iran but like north korea they really do have the capability to develop a uranium gun device.

.
.
.

:eyes:

USA has more nukes and WMDs than Iran and North Korea combined could ever hope to create in a century

sheesh!

not much wonder Bush got the presidency twice . . .

And during the cold war no nuclear weapon was fired in anger.

Look up the definition of the word in the context.

We have not expressed our willingness to use the weapons to destroy the "enemy" even though the cost to would be tremendous.

into not attacking. Which has doodle to do with being rational,
and even less to do with being intelligent. MAD will work just
fine between two baboons, for example. The real problem is that
national governments, generally, are far less intelligent than
any baboon, as history clearly shows.

response to a threat of complete destruction. A person who has no fear of death is not rational. Japan in 1945 is a good example of this. MAD will not work with out fear.

Fanatical Religion distorts this equation.

to make us more "rational".

Having no fear of death is the only sensible attitude Sir. But I can see that you have faith in "rationality" and will not be dissuaded by anything I might say,

.
.
.

in the last 6 years, no?

Why else would the voters keep Bush in power?

and I agree with you on your response to "Sir" - -

he "will not be dissuaded by anything I might say"

or anyone else methinks

wunder who "Sir" voted for - - hmmmmmm ??

The trouble is that our "leaders" proved to be such fools, once they got their way.

and has been for years...of course he backs talk with Iran.