Cheney rejected Iranian offers of concessions

[segovius]

Information has come to light that top ranking Iranian officials offered a negotiation package to Washington as far back as 2003 but it was rejected out of hand.

The Iranian offer included the following reasonable and sincere concessions:

1. To ending any support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups

2. To help stabilise Iraq following the initial invasion.

3, To make Iran's nuclear policy completely transparent.

In return, Iran asked for the following:

1. For Washington to end its hostility towards Iran

2. Removal of sanctions

3. To disband the Mujahedeen e Khalq and repatriate its members.

This last group btw is a terrorist organization - listed as such by the US State Department - that is run and funded by the US. It regularly plants bombs and carries out targeted killings inside Iran with US support and backing.

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

The irony is that now the US has been forced into undertaking some similar plan and will have to approach Iran eventually with an almost identical motion - only this time with a wasted four years, thousands of lost lives and billions of lst dollars and from a position of weakness and destroyed trust.

Or they may just start another war.

It seems anything is preferable to diplomacy and Statesmanship. This sums up the whole Bush project - essentially merely a catalogue of missed opportunities, lost possibilities and the willful abuse of chances for improvement on all levels.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm)

[mydo]

You seem to be accepting, without critical thought, everything the media feeds you about this?

Information has come to light that top ranking Iranian officials offered a negotiation package to Washington as far back as 2003 but it was rejected out of hand.

The Iranian offer included the following reasonable and sincere concessions:

How do you know it was "sincere". None of the two parties have been sincere about most of anything as far as I can tell. But if you accept that it was sincere then you are taking it as fact that all of these thing would have happened if only Cheney had said "yes". Huge huge leap on your part.

1. To ending any support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups

2. To help stabilise Iraq following the initial invasion.

What could that mean? Would Iraq have to accept Iran in Iraq to help "stabilise" it. Would the Iraqis get a say. What if they say no. What exactly would Iran do for Iraq? The devil is in the details.

3, To make Iran's nuclear policy completely transparent.

That hasn't worked out so well in the past. Why believe them now?

In return, Iran asked for the following:

1. For Washington to end its hostility towards Iran

2. Removal of sanctions

3. To disband the Mujahedeen e Khalq and repatriate its members.

This last group btw is a terrorist organization - listed as such by the US State Department - that is run and funded by the US. It regularly plants bombs and carries out targeted killings inside Iran with US support and backing.

Those people would basically be sentenced to death. I don't know who those people are but if you think Saddam should not have been put to death then you should not think that "disband the Mujahedeen e Khalq and repatriate its members" is a reasonable thing.

Here's another thing. If you think the WOT is BS and the label "terrorists" is used too much why do you use it here? It's like you want it both ways. You want to mock the WOT and call it all BS and then turn around and call a group "terrorist" because Iran and the State Department told you so. What metric do you personally employ to determine that "Mujahedeen e Khalq" are terrorist and should be put to death in Iran?


It just seem to me that you are rationalizing something because it tells you what you want to hear. Both Iranian and the current US Admin are dishonest and untrustworthy. Why would you believe anything either of the two say?

Flame away :D

[segovius]

You seem to be accepting, without critical thought, everything the media feeds you about this?

Not really. I know the region and the Iranian people and social structure...it is nothing like we are fed. Even by the BBC who are so rabidly pro-Israel that they might as well be broadcasting from Tel Aviv. As indeed they often do.

Certainly they have no sympathy for Iran.

How do you know it was "sincere". None of the two parties have been sincere about most of anything as far as I can tell. But if you accept that it was sincere then you are taking it as fact that all of these thing would have happened if only Cheney had said "yes". Huge huge leap on your part.

Because it was made as an offer. Otherwise why bother? It wasn't for public consumption, it was under the table.

Those things may or may not have happened. The point is that the Iranians took a step towards the US. The US just turns it's back. Always.

What could that mean? Would Iraq have to accept Iran in Iraq to help "stabilise" it. Would the Iraqis get a say. What if they say no. What exactly would Iran do for Iraq? The devil is in the details.

It's quite easy: Iranian Clerics could influence things immensely. All they would have to do is speak on certain issues and they will be listened to.

Now they are not speaking one way or another.

That hasn't worked out so well in the past. Why believe them now?

Depends. I happen to be broadly in sympathy with their position: I am practically Shi'i in my world view, regard the US as intent on death and destruction in the region, agree that Zionism should be 'wiped off the map'.

If you oppose these things then of course, you will not trust them - nor should you.

Oth - if you are an Iranian, you should not trust the US. The chances of them killing you are very, very high.

Those people would basically be sentenced to death. I don't know who those people are but if you think Saddam should not have been put to death then you should not think that "disband the Mujahedeen e Khalq and repatriate its members" is a reasonable thing.

So let's get this straight: you support the activities of a terrorist group which targets and kills innocent members of the public right?

I appreciate the honesty....it is not often you see that.

Here's another thing. If you think the WOT is BS and the label "terrorists" is used too much why do you use it here? It's like you want it both ways.

To expose the hypocrisy of the US who DO use it and believe it (or do they?) but still promote and practice it.

Of course I regard it as BS but that does not mean I can;t oppose hypocrisy when I see it.

You want to mock the WOT and call it all BS and then turn around and call a group "terrorist" because Iran and the State Department told you so. What metric do you personally employ to determine that "Mujahedeen e Khalq" are terrorist and should be put to death in Iran?

I would say that they are not terrorists personally. Yes, they kill innocent members of the public and yes the US supports and funds them to engage in bombing campaigns.

I think this is legitimate as long as Iranian funding of groups that attack the US in the region is also seen as legitimate. I think it's called a level playing field.

It just seem to me that you are rationalizing something because it tells you what you want to hear. Both Iranian and the current US Admin are dishonest untrustworthy. Why would you believe anything either of the two say?

I have yet to see any evidence of Iranian untrustworthiness that is not coming from the US and Israel and which does not prove to be false.

For example - if Bush or Blair is said to have done something I disapprove I check and lo, it turns out to have happened in many cases.

If Ahmadinejad is accused of something I would disapprove of (the 'wipe out Israel' comment for example) I check and lo, it turns out to be untrue and the US and ISrael lying....

So basically there is your answer. One is a proven liar who is calling the other a proven liar.

And you conclude they are both liars - whereas I conclude that the liar is lying again.

[dmz]

"Let us have nukes, or we'll continue to sponsor terror."





Gosh, what's not to like there?

[segovius]

"Let us have nukes, or we'll continue to sponsor terror."

Gosh, what's not to like there?

phwwwwwwwwwwwwbbbbbboooooooooooooooossssssssssssss hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Jeez...what the *&$!#@ was that?

Oh - it's ok...it's just the entire premise of the thread going over your head.

Again.

[dmz]

phwwwwwwwwwwwwbbbbbboooooooooooooooossssssssssssss hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Jeez...what the *&$!#@ was that?

Oh - it's ok...it's just the entire premise of the thread going over your head.

Again.
Sorry segovius, the supreme learer of Iran with nukes is not my idea of a good time. Apparently the administration agrees.

Now, for those paying attention, the 'let us have nukes and we'll behave' mantra has been the de facto subtext for the last several years. However, when a certain person is preoccupied with CIA plots to invent Zarqawi and other Al Qeda threats; that the Iraq invasion was a pretext to invade Iran -- he might have missed that.


:p

[segovius]

Sorry segovius, the supreme learer of Iran with nukes is not my idea of a good time. Apparently the administration agrees.

Now, for those paying attention, the 'let us have nukes and we'll behave' mantra has been the de facto subtext for the last several years. However, when a certain person is preoccupied with CIA plots to invent Zarqawi, and other Al Qeda threats; that the Iraq invasion was a pretext to invade Iran -- he might have missed that.

I'm going to go out and smash my neighbour's head in with a pick-axe. My neighbour - Mr Smith is smelly and has a funny face. I suspect he is from out of town.

Yesterday I saw him on the street. I said "You %%$%#$^$%ing w$%#$%er - I'm coming round to your house and I'm going to burn it down. With you and your stinking family in it....then I'll dance on the ashes and rubble and p*ss on it".

Mr Smith knows I mean business. Last year I did exactly that to Mr Jones. He was smelly too.

I've been choosing some automatic weapons downtown at the Wal-Mart and when I find the right one I'll have a little drive-by at the Smith residence. That'll sort things out nicely. Clear the air as it were.

Smith seems scared and I've heard he is thinking of purchasing some form of protection himself. I've informed the Police of this mindless aggression and provocation....

Clearly if he is buying garden implements - and yes, he WAS seen - then someone needs to take this W@#$#er out before he uses them on some innocent little girl.

I'll be visiting him sooner than I thought was necessary.

I'm sorry but the idea of Smith being able to defend himself when I come round to kick his head in is not my idea of a good time.

Apparently a load of mindless morons agree.

[dmz]

I'm going to go out and smash my neighbour's head in with a pick-axe. My neighbour - Mr Smith is smelly and has a funny face. I suspect he is from out of town.

Yesterday I saw him on the street. I said "You %%$%#$^$%ing w$%#$%er - I'm coming round to your house and I'm going to burn it down. With you and your stinking family in it....then I'll dance on the ashes and rubble and p*ss on it".

Mr Smith knows I mean business. Last year I did exactly that to Mr Jones. He was smelly too.

I've been choosing some automatic weapons downtown at the Wal-Mart and when I find the right one I'll have a little drive-by at the Smith residence. That'll sort things out nicely. Clear the air as it were.

Smith seems scared and I've heard he is thinking of purchasing some form of protection himself. I've informed the Police of this mindless aggression and provocation....

Clearly if he is buying garden implements - and yes, he WAS seen - then someone needs to take this W@#$#er out before he uses them on some innocent little girl.

I'll be visiting him sooner than I thought was necessary.

I'm sorry but the idea of Smith being able to defend himself when I come round to kick his head in is not my idea of a good time.

Apparently a load of mindless morons agree.
Well, on the bright side, at long last, we seem to be rendering down the conspiracy lard, and getting to the root of the issue.

segovius, Iran saw a power vacuum, and made a very shrewd decision to make the U.S. pay dearly for it. Do you play chess?

Besides, there are no Wal-Marts in Spain. Now go have a smoke, and give Mr. Smith a wide berth.

I have just whizzed a hour here, we'll have to rub each other the wrong way later.

[@_@ Artman]

Jeez, Scott Ritter has been mentioning this deal for three years. Being that many people disregard him as a crackpot, he is pretty "spot on" with his analysis. Haven't read his book (http://www.amazon.com/Target-Iran-Houses-Regime-Change/dp/1560259361), but have seen and read some interviews (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/16/144204).

The BBC probably sat on this until they went through their sources before reporting it.

A YouTube search (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=scott+ritter+iran&search=Search) bought up a lot of video of his lectures and presentations. Worth a watch.

[MarcUK]

I'm going to go out and smash my neighbour's head in with a pick-axe. My neighbour - Mr Smith is smelly and has a funny face. I suspect he is from out of town.

Yesterday I saw him on the street. I said "You %%$%#$^$%ing w$%#$%er - I'm coming round to your house and I'm going to burn it down. With you and your stinking family in it....then I'll dance on the ashes and rubble and p*ss on it".

Mr Smith knows I mean business. Last year I did exactly that to Mr Jones. He was smelly too.



Did you lose control of yourself again? :p

[mydo]

...


Because it was made as an offer. Otherwise why bother? It wasn't for public consumption, it was under the table.

Those things may or may not have happened. The point is that the Iranians took a step towards the US. The US just turns it's back. Always.





Please? You're not a serious person. Just because someone makes an offer does not mean they are sincere. You know that as well as I do. The appearance of a step forward may or may not be a step forward. You know that as well as I do.

Please explain exactly why you think the actions of a bad actor toward another bad actor are genuine and sincere? Don't give me this nonsense about knowing the Iranian people. The Iranian people are not in control of that country. Much like the US. Base your judgment solely on the people in charge. Show your work.