Is this rumor true.
A meeting with the President?
Where is Hilary?
Iamabignutjob, President of Iran has made nothing but threats and we are going to have a direct meeting with our POTUS with no prior diplomatic meetings?
Do you know how to Google? All of the answers to your questions can be found there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … ident.html
Earlier this month, Mr Ahmadinejad requested face-to-face talks with Mr Obama during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The White House had appeared to rule out any meeting.
However, in an interview with CNN, Gen Jones said “the door’s open” if the Iranians agree to resume talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
When asked whether Mr Obama may meet the Iranian leader, Gen Jones said: “Ultimately if we find a convergence of paths all things are possible.
Oh sorry I thought these were open forums, and I could start threads if i wanted too. Now i know i should just google whatever interests me, and leave myself out of the forums. Thanks for the advice. thanks for being so polite.
I replied with sarcasm because of the tone of your post. If you want to write a post that implies the President is meeting with a nut job who has made nothing but threats without said nutjob meeting certain conditions, and that either Hillary Clinton is not doing her job or the President is usurping her position, then be prepared for a reply like the one I gave.
There's no need to resort to horror pictures!
My son and his girlfriend are getting one of those monsters today.
I just hope it is not as scary as this one!
I would compare the number of threats made by America to the number of threats made by Iran before going all self righteous on this thread
From the article the Iranians said:
We are ready to sit down with Mr Obama face-to-face and put the global issues on the table, man-to-man, freely, and in front of the media and see whose solutions are better. We think this is a better approach.”
I do think that if we are able to open diplomatic talks with Iran, it would be a good thing. I just question the face to face talks directly with the President. I do not think that would be proper. I would like to see Iran integrate itself with the rest of Europe, but and this is a big but. If Iran refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist then any diplomacy would be for naught.
I'm not sure what globe you bought, but Iran is nowhere near Europe geographically; I would consider asking for a full refund. In fact, that has to be a candidate for stupid remark of the year?
I personally have no feeling one way or the other as to whether or not President Obama should have face-to-face talks with the president of Iran. We cannot possibly know the what sort of diplomatic talks are occurring behind the scenes, so for us to be concerned about who talks to who seems rather presumptuous to me. The President and his diplomatic staff will make the decision that seems right to them based upon their knowledge of the situation.
This reminds me of Iraq all over again. Saddum Hussain on tape stating clearly in an interview with an American that he would be open to talks with George Bush to avoid war.
The response of the American was to laugh in his face and say "are you kidding me?". And hey presto, a few weeks later there was a war.
History would suggest that if America wants to destroy something then it will. No amount of peace talks or attempts at diplomacy will change that, if you dont conform with American ideals then you are dead.
Ultimately, there is only a certain amount of terror that the American government can force upon the world before it runs out of money and resources. The question is, ultimately, whether your country will be occupied and invaded or whether you will turn to the 50 state solution.
The idea of America becoming 50 seperate entities really appeals to me. As a non-American of course. In fact, allowing states to impose inter-state trade embargos, quotas, tariffs, and to open up a competitive tax environment which sees states fight over labour, resources, business, is potentially the saviour for all of your problems. Taking away the power of your elitist central government and governing on an entirely local level would create the most exciting economical environment in the world and erradicate the most intimidating political environment in the world.
I can dream of course, for now I will fear for the welfare and livelyhood of the Iranian people. Iran, by the way, does more than any other country in the world to stem the flow of narcotics into developed societies. Perhaps Obama could extend his Olive branch and ask them for some pointers?
How sarcastic can you get Pretty Panther !!! putting facts in the forums - whatever next !!! why can't you just join in the spirit of these schoolboy level insulting and generally rude threads !!!!
I greatly appreciate your well thought out and positive response to the thread. You have added so much to the discussion.
You are just fascinating with your wit and obvious vastly superior intellect.
I think he's just shopping for a new prayer rug for the oval office.
I agree with some of what you said, but you have to take into account the fact that America has not always had this foreign policy. In fact it is only quite recently in modern history that this trend has occurred.
Traditionally, the Republicans always stopped wars and stopped aggression, nation building, all of the stupid things America does now were argued debated and many of them stopped. We have had a shift since WWII away from our traditional policies of non-interventionism.
I like the 50 different state idea, although I disagree in NO central government because of the various trade implications, in fact that's what was intended by our Constitution our government just doesn't follow it anymore.
RB said - "You are just fascinating with your wit and obvious vastly superior intellect."
You don't set the bar very high. The OP you submitted was a distortion. I think all us crazy liberals respect your right to a different opinion. We object to an OP which suggests something that's contradicted by the facts.
Here are the facts. Two years ago, Obama indicated an interest in face-to-face talks WITH preparation - but without precondition. In other words, the meeting that Obam offered was a policy meeting between two heads-of-state, not a photo-op after negotiations are concluded by underlings. The prez of Iran ignored the offer. Now he's in a tougher spot with unrest at home and tougher sanctions and he wants to boost his own standing, so instead of real talks, he wants a circus in front of the world media. In diplospeak - Obama said 'Kiss my POTUS ass." The offer to meet was/is to address serious dfferences - not provide a photo-op for what's-his-name, the prez of Iran.
IMO, Obama has handled it well. You are entitled to a different opinion. But don't twist the facts - which are in the open - by introducing lies in the guise of a 'rumor'.
This is a perfect example. I got to this line in your post and the rest was just blah blah blah I am smarter than you blah blah blah!
Does insulting me give you a higher level of self-esteem?
You say you have self esteem problems, you also say that others have superior intellect, and you admit stupidity in any understanding of geography - so why do you complain and act the martyr when others try to point out simple facts to you ?
Any effort of diplomacy to prevent war is much better than caskets draped with flags.
by Jack Lee 2 months ago
What a bold move...Reaganesque in my opinion.Long overdue. We need to apply sanctions to Iran to force them to comply.The Obama legacy is being torn down piece by piece.
by Stacie L 3 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
by Deforest 5 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
by Zubair Ahmed 6 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work. What other purpose does this serve but to kill people?The US and...
by leeberttea 8 years ago
Executive order 12425 was signed by Obama back in December. It essentially gives Interpol freedom to act as they deem necessary in the USA without regard to restraints of the constitution or US law. Unfortunately this is being used to attack and harass dissidents from Iran living in the USA.Why...
by Thomas Byers 5 years ago
What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens. You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President. I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|