Bill Clinton: U.S. should talk to Iran

Ron Burgundy · 09-21-2006, 08:50 AM

AP - Former President Clinton said Thursday the U.S. should try talking to Iran about its nuclear weapons ambitions without imposing a lot of conditions.

WASHINGTON - Former
President Clinton said Thursday the U.S. should try talking to
Iran about its nuclear weapons ambitions without imposing a lot of conditions.

"If you think you might have trouble with somebody, and God forbid if you think it could lead to a military confrontation, then there needs to be the maximum amount of contact beforehand," Clinton said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.

The Bush administration has refused to hold direct talks with Iran until it agrees to suspend enrichment of uranium, which the U.S. fears will be used to build nuclear weapons.

"The United States should not be afraid to talk to anyone. They should not be reluctant and shouldn't have too many conditions," said Clinton, who said his own offer to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessor had been rebuffed.

The U.S. and allies have offered Iran a package of incentives in return for its agreement to stop uranium enrichment. But Iran has given no definitive response and missed an Aug. 31
U.N. Security Council deadline to halt uranium enrichment, which Iran says is for generating electricity.

Iran and the United States have had no direct diplomatic relations since 1979. That's when Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its occupants hostage for 444 days to protest Washington's refusal to hand over the toppled shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

President Bush and Ahmadinejad used separate appearances at the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week to spar over Tehran's nuclear program, but they avoided any personal contact.

In May, Ahmadinejad sent a letter seeking a debate with Bush, but it was laced with old grievances against America and included a long list of Iranian demands.

Clinton said although he would like to see more negotiation with Iran, Bush's reluctance to personally meet with Ahmadinejad was understandable.

"I think we should have some contacts with them," Clinton said. "I'm not sure the president is the place to start."

In an interview broadcast Thursday on National Public Radio, Clinton said, " ... I still believe that, based on all my Iranian friends in America, what they say is that the vast majority of Iranian citizens want to have good relationships with the United States and the West and do not want to be at odds."

"But they all believe basically that if any other country has a right to nuclear power, they do too, so we have to work through that and I, I hope we can do it in a peaceful way," he said.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 09:40 AM

And we should sit down for tea and crumpets...

DosEquis · 09-21-2006, 10:39 AM

What do you propose we do? Launch missiles at them?

motivez · 09-21-2006, 03:44 PM

There's no reason we shouldn't engage in diplomacy with another nation which we have an ongoing disagreement with.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 03:46 PM

I think there have been plenty of attempts at talks already. How many times do we really 'need to talk' before we give up?

motivez · 09-21-2006, 03:52 PM

You tell me since you're the one advocating that we shouldn't.

History shows you can't force someone to give up their nuclear ambitions, you can only convince them to through negotiation. We've had 12 success stories, some in Latin America.. there's no reason we shouldn't attempt to do the same here.

That said, we shouldn't be afraid to use sanctions or other methods, but the reality is, against Iran they're not going to be effective.. Russia and China will not allow us to impose anything too harsh.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

History shows you can't force someone to give up their nuclear ambitions, you can only convince them to through negotiation. We've had 12 success stories, some in Latin America.. there's no reason we shouldn't attempt to do the same here.

History also has shown that 'talking to Iran' dosen't work.

motivez · 09-21-2006, 03:58 PM

Really, what history is that?

Donkey® · 09-21-2006, 04:20 PM

This "stop doing this and we'll talk" bullshit is childish. Sitting down to talk to Iran takes a big person who can look past petty bullshit...like Nixon with China.

WickedLou9 · 09-21-2006, 04:28 PM

Sanctions almost never work. All they do is breed resentment and add fuel to the fire that is the arab world blaming the US for it's problems. We should continue to negotiate with them for as long as we can. Refusing to negotiate is stupid and childish.

ballz2wallz · 09-21-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Really, what history is that?

The history of Iran constantly bullying its way through UN requests. These are all diplomatic efforts than Iran has no interest in.

Donkey® · 09-21-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The history of Iran constantly bullying its way through UN requests. These are all diplomatic efforts than Iran has no interest in.

Let's not talk about "bullying" the UN when the US and Israel are the biggest achievers in that category.

Ardentfrost · 09-21-2006, 05:28 PM

I think we should open up all trade routes and tell them that we require nothing in return, but we'd like to have better relations with them, and suggest (verbally) that they open trade routes with us also to allow their citizens more access to western money.

I'd be willing to bet soon thereafter, once they can get our products at a lower price and see how much they enjoy those benefits, they'd be more amicable toward us and more willing to enter talks about nuclear technology and the like.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-21-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And we should sit down for tea and crumpets...

Why do people on the right always repeat this bullshit? All Clinton is saying is that before you resort to military action, you should try to talk it out first. I know...a revolutionary concept...that you should try to avert a war with diplomacy first. This is a basic concept civilized nations try to follow, and the only reason I can think of to criticize it is that you really don't believe war should be a last resort.

IminWonderland · 09-21-2006, 05:43 PM

I agree with Bill.

I think plugging our ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALA, I am not gonna a talk until you put that down!" Isn't a way to get anywhere.

That's something my kid would do.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-21-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The history of Iran constantly bullying its way through UN requests. These are all diplomatic efforts than Iran has no interest in.

Okay, so if you're right and Iran has no interest in diplomacy, it'll become apparent quickly once we open up the door to dialogue, and then we can bomb Iran to your heart's content...but why would you not allow dialogue in the first place?

kinggovernor · 09-21-2006, 06:32 PM

I agree with Clinton

DosEquis · 09-21-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I agree with Clinton

Someone call George Bush and ask him if hell just froze over!

Scrum · 09-21-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think we should open up all trade routes and tell them that we require nothing in return, but we'd like to have better relations with them, and suggest (verbally) that they open trade routes with us also to allow their citizens more access to western money.

I'd be willing to bet soon thereafter, once they can get our products at a lower price and see how much they enjoy those benefits, they'd be more amicable toward us and more willing to enter talks about nuclear technology and the like.

kinggovernor · 09-22-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Someone call George Bush and ask him if hell just froze over!

there are plenty of things I agree with Clinton about, NAFTA for example