# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Iran Wants To Open Nuclear Talks With World Powers

## No Free Beer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1177554.html

Interesting...

----------


## coastie

O noes...bomb them, quick!

----------


## No Free Beer

What will the warmongers say now?

----------


## eff

Negotiates with our bombs!!  Our bombs of freedom and prosperity!

----------


## coastie

> What will the warmongers say now?






> O noes...bomb them, quick!

----------


## steph3n

> Negotiates with our bombs!!  Our bombs of freedom and prosperity!


Right...we'd name a couple MOAB and Tomahawks 'liberty' 'freedom' and 'prosperity' and there's a good chunk of the GOP that would buy it hook line and sinker as freedom for IRAN!

----------


## No Free Beer

war is peace.

----------


## robert9712000

Obviously its a ploy to get our defenses down so they can nuke the whole world at once,thus being the only superpower!

----------


## blazeKing

"Hmmmmm so how will we take over Iran now, Pinky??"


"Same thing we always do Brain, False flag attack muahahahaha"

----------


## Darthbrooklyn

Oh NO.. Iran wants to TALK??? What should we do? aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

----------


## No Free Beer

> "Hmmmmm so how will we take over Iran now, Pinky??"
> 
> 
> "Same thing we always do Brain, False flag attack muahahahaha"


Nice pick up. 

+rep

----------


## RonPaulRules



----------


## centure7

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1177554.html
> 
> Interesting...


Wow, Iran is going isolationist now. This is dangerous!

----------


## Voluntary Man

Kill them before they talk to anyone. It's a trick! Those dirty, sneaky, anti-semitic camel jockeys! Can't trust any of them! 

Been that way for thousands of years. Santorum told me so.

----------


## liveandletlive

We need bilateral talks, not unilateral then! We wont talk unless the Brits are on the table!!! lol

----------


## KingNothing

The only reason they are willing to talk now is that they know candidates like Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry are getting Serious with Iran.

----------


## surf

> Wow, Iran is going isolationist now. This is dangerous!


winner

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> This entire 'confronta*tion' in the Strait of Hormuz has been spurred primarily by one event: The European Union, backed by the United States, has threatened a 'Death Penalty' sanction on the Iranian Central Bank (as part of the Massive National Defense Authorizat*ion Act or NDAA) in response to it's Nuclear Program'. Even Conservati*ve Republican sites like www.gopusa*.com agree with Ron Paul's view on the nature of this crisis, and how dangerous it is for the US to engage in economic and military brinksmans*hip like this. By taking this serious economic action, the US and it's allies will effectivel*y shut down Iran's ability to not only sell oil, but will effectivel*y make it impossible for Iran to maintain ANY banking relationsh*ips on the world markets- precipitou*sly collapsing the Iranian Economy, and forcing their hand militarily*. Threatened with this economical*ly unacceptab*le possibilit*y, most informed observers find that Iran has responded in a predictabl*e and wholly understand*able (and economical*ly balanced) manner to this overt (let's put it bluntly) act of Economic War. In essence, the Iranian Regime said that if The West cuts off their ability to sell oil, they will respond in like kind by shutting off the straits of Hormuz, so NO ONE can sell oil from the Gulf. SO this 'confronta*tion can actually be seen as a DEFENSIVE measure in response to the overtly aggressive economic threats made by the U.S. and it's European allies.


This is all you guys have to say. Trust me.

----------


## Barrex

ميخواستن بهروز خالي بند رو شكنجه روحي بدن، ميفرستنش تو يك اتاق گــرد، ميگن برو يك گوشه بشين!

...on the other hand this is good news for Ron Paul .

----------


## Philhelm

> "Hmmmmm so how will we take over Iran now, Pinky??"
> 
> 
> "Same thing we always do Brain, False flag attack muahahahaha"


Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  We've got a winner!

----------


## Philhelm

> Kill them before they talk to anyone. It's a trick! Those dirty, sneaky, anti-semitic camel jockeys! Can't trust any of them! 
> 
> Been that way for thousands of years. Santorum told me so.


Exactly.  Most people think that Islam has been waging war against the West for thousands of years.  Nevermind the fact that Islam hasn't existed for thousands of years.  Also, nevermind the fact that the Iranians aren't even Arabs, but that's another issue.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

This dialog from the show ROME(2005) comes to mind:



> *Mark Antony:* Poor sad wretch gives everything you ask for. The Senate will ratify your status. You get your triumph, stand for consul, and Pompey will retire to Spain. He'd suck Posca's c**k if you asked him to.
> *Gaius Julius Caesar:* Too generous by far. I never thought Pompey would accept such terms.
> *Mark Antony:* You think it's a strategem?
> *Gaius Julius Caesar:* I doubt it. He and what few forces he has are trapped and grow weaker by the day. We might crush him at will. But now that he has offered truce, I would look like the worst sort of tyrant if I attack him. Posca here thinks I should accept. Make peace.
> *Mark Antony:* In exchange for what?
> *Posca:* Peace is its own reward.
> *Mark Antony:* Snivelry! The ram has touched the wall! No mercy!
> *Posca:* Pompey has no great army, but he has the Senate with him. He has legitimacy.
> *Mark Antony:* In Rome they are the Senate. Beyond these walls they're just three hundred old men.
> ...

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I think Iran would be safer if they bluffed and said they have nuclear weapons, and if they're attacked--they'll use them.

----------


## asurfaholic

> I think Iran would be safer if they bluffed and said they have nuclear weapons, and if they're attacked--they'll use them.


Ya like our overlords will just back down

----------


## COpatriot

ZOMG!! Need moar bombzz!!!

----------


## Todd

> What will the warmongers say now?


They will say "you're using a Huffington Post article".

----------


## steph3n

I got into this discussion with a major college football coach today. He's totally down with just launching the nukes against Iran to prevent them from getting nukes. I explained a lot but he wasn't buying, but maybe he'll go research it now.

I hope to run into him more often now that football season is nearing the end

----------


## Voluntary Man

> I got into this discussion with a major college football coach today. He's totally down with just launching the nukes against Iran to prevent them from getting nukes. I explained a lot but he wasn't buying, but maybe he'll go research it now.
> 
> I hope to run into him more often now that football season is nearing the end


Does he plan to do this without committing any acts of terrorism (i.e., murdering women, children, the elderly, and infirm)?

Lemme see, we're supposed to be fighting a war against terrorism ...but to fight it, we must, ourselves, become terrorists? My brain hurts.

----------


## lester1/2jr

hers what the answer will be: no answer just "mumble mumble mumble...the crazed mullahs of the iranian regime...Neville Chamberlin..."

----------


## No Free Beer

> I think Iran would be safer if they bluffed and said they have nuclear weapons, and if they're attacked--they'll use them.


No one has ever bluffed about nuclear weapons...

(wink)

----------


## No Free Beer

> Does he plan to do this without committing any acts of terrorism (i.e., murdering women, children, the elderly, and infirm)?
> 
> Lemme see, we're supposed to be fighting a war against terrorism ...but to fight it, we must, ourselves, become terrorists? My brain hurts.


Is he okay with the opponent players hitting his players before and after plays, illegally?

----------


## steph3n

> Does he plan to do this without committing any acts of terrorism (i.e., murdering women, children, the elderly, and infirm)?
> 
> Lemme see, we're supposed to be fighting a war against terrorism ...but to fight it, we must, ourselves, become terrorists? My brain hurts.


We went there too, I explained that by us doing this we are condemning hundreds of thousands (if not more) to death, that are wholly innocent.

He did admit that killing so many, is, and would be wrong in itself, but then followed up like 'but sometimes it is required'

 I also explained about the Iranian president not even being very powerful, and mistranslated.
He was saying 'regime change' much as our own "leaders" have, he was spouting off sure, but our leaders do the same, almost daily now.

----------


## Danke

> The only reason they are willing to talk now is that they know candidates like Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry are getting Serious with Iran.


I suspect it is has to do with the Santorum Surge.  And the mess that could cause them.

----------


## steph3n

> I suspect it is has to do with the Santorum Surge.  And the mess that could cause them.


The brown-outs that would flow from a Santorum Surge are truly disgusting.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> Is he okay with the opponent players hitting his players before and after plays, illegally?


I believe that most sports fans fail to recognize the conditioning that is ingrained in us, from a very young age, through school and professional sports, to form blind national allegiance (as opposed to true patriotism, which is commitment to the ideals passed on to us from our forebears, not unthinking homerism).

----------


## Voluntary Man

> We went there too, I explained that by us doing this we are condemning hundreds of thousands (if not more) to death, that are wholly innocent.
> 
> He did admit that killing so many, is, and would be wrong in itself, but then followed up like 'but sometimes it is required'
> 
>  I also explained about the Iranian president not even being very powerful, and mistranslated.
> He was saying 'regime change' much as our own "leaders" have, he was spouting off sure, but our leaders do the same, almost daily now.


To me, the most disturbing part of those who think (I'm being generous) that way is that they endorse group hypocrisy, while they would almost certainly condemn individual hypocrisy.

----------

