Limerick… I saw the original article and didn’t think it was optimistic or ‘happy’ that Iran was open to further talks. You seem to be upset that talks are continuing or might continue. Your anger is best directed at the EU rather than the BBC which reports the news. Understand Limerick… the BBC doesn’t have a position on talks with Iran.. they merely report what the Iranians and the EU are saying.

It is hard to argue against the supposition that the BBC is pro-Jihad and acts against the interests of the western world. The crushing irony of course is that the organisation also considers itself ‘progressive’ – they think they are very fond of pluralism, democracy, human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, the right to abortion, and so forth whilst the side they have chosen to nourish with their support would sooner see them dead than allow them any of these liberties. They seem to think that these liberties are their birthright and that no-one would take them away.

In short, the BBC is riven with mendacious fools. Never a good combination, mendacity and foolishness.

The original article, that Ed quoted, was posted by the BBC on the night of June 13. It seems to have gone down the memory hole.

Iran is open to more discussions… a fact.
lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM

You don’t seem able to read Limerick..
lexhamfox on June 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM

Ok…whatever you say lexhamfox.

Now about my question regarding Iran wishing to continue the ‘discussions’…..What are they offering up to move the discussions forward?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7454970.stm

Jon Leyne remains optimistic (last two paragraphs). Cough-hak-gag

lexhamfox on June 14, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Open to more discussions? Like what? Full our ears with the Iranian talking points. Please confine it to what Iran is actually putting on the table and not whatever daydream you are having.

Thanks.

BBC remains the world’s most trustworthy news source. Name one better… Hot Air?

But Iran does seem at least to want to continue talking.

The world can’t wait to be rid of Bushco. All Hail the Messiah!

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

My goodness, there is already a mound of evidence that Iran is supplying training and weapons that have and are killing American servicemen and women. We have every right this minute to start the bombing runs!

Since the Bible says that Iraq will be very prosperous in the end times, I’m thinkin’ we will end up leaving Iraq in very good shape.

But Iran does seem at least to want to continue talking.

thats very nice of them….while they wait for their messiah to be elected president, then they invade israel, along with Russia…

the ezekial option

they’re in for a nasty surprise….

RMC1618 on June 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM

newsflash: we can go to war with Iran without any congressional authorization, just like your boy Bill did in Kosova.

In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran

Think Progress | June 11, 2008

The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.

The MEDIA, on the otherhand, are invested in quite a different way. They (lefties) believe that once Iran aquires the bomb then:

1. The U.S. will have it’s hands tied because they believe nobody would attack a nation with nuclear arms.

and

2. Isreal will then be FORCED to return to the magical 67 borders, and flowers and frankincense will fall from heaven.

Madness.

In his recent joint press conference with Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr Abdullah El-Qorba, Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that during visit with his British counterpart David Miliband in Kuwait, he has asked 5+1 not to cross the red lines in the packaged incentives they offer Iran.

What Iran means by “red lines” and violation of its national rights, is the cornerstone of 5+1 incentives; halting uranium enrichment.

Do you understand what the Mullah’s mean? I understand what the Mullah’s mean and I’d bet money the Russian’s & Chinese understand what the Mullah’s mean.

We appear to have some extremely challenged Fwench, British, German & US officials – to the point where they are an embarrassment.

And why not? At this rate, they can still make nuclear weapons and every year the West offers a bigger bribe. If I were Iran, I would finish making my nukes, but pretend like I didn’t have them yet. That way the payout from the idiot West would keep getting bigger even while I wasn’t doing any work.

Watch them nuke Israel the minute the check clears, while the EU shrieks “You promised you were still 3 years away from a bomb!!!”

Without concrete actions to go with the talks, the bombs will eventually fly. Either nuclear tipped missiles from Iran, a suitcase type nuke supplied to terrorists by Iran, or a few bombing runs from Israel to preempt it all.

Talk without requiring Iran to stop enrichment = calm before the storm.