Iran Proposes Live Tv Coverage Of Nuclear Talks With West

[News_Editor]

Iran proposes live TV coverage of nuclear talks with West < br />

2012-11-04 10:44:33 GMT+7 (ICT)

TEHRAN, IRAN (BNO NEWS) -- Iran has proposed live television coverage of its talks with western powers, saying the government has nothing to hide regarding its controversial nuclear program which many countries contend is intended to develop nuclear weapons, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Saturday.

Ramin Mehman-Parast, a spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, told the semi-official Fars News Agency that the country has been transparent during talks with the Group of 5+1 (the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany) but that remaining issues are political in nature, not technical or legal.

"Iran's nuclear issue has a specific framework. The talks that we have pursued have been so transparent and our proposals have been so specific that the Iranian side has even proposed a live TV coverage of the whole talks," Mehman-Parast was quoted as saying. "We have nothing to hide and we are proposing our ideas transparently."

The spokesman also insisted the country intends to continue its nuclear program and will not give up its nuclear rights as a result of pressure from western countries. "Our disputes with the other party are neither technical nor legal but political," Mehman-Parast said on Saturday.

International concerns regarding Iran's nuclear activities have been increasing for decades. And while Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear program is for the peaceful purpose of providing energy, many countries contend it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and may be close to obtain them.

Earlier this year, allegations were made that the Iranian government may be attempting to destroy evidence of its nuclear activities. Satellite images obtained by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) showed sanitation activity at the Parchin nuclear facility site where Iran is suspected to have conducted high explosives tests pertinent to the development of nuclear weapons.

The DigitalGlobe satellite imagery from late May showed that two buildings at the same site as the suspected testing chamber have been demolished. The satellite images also show clear evidence of tracks likely made by heavy machinery during the demolition process and extensive evidence of earth displacement.

The revelations came after news of activity at the site's suspected explosives testing chamber building in early April. Satellite images then showed unidentified items lined up outside the building and a stream of water emanating nearby. This raised allegations that Iran is attempting to cleanse the site, using the stream of water to wash the inside of the building or the items outside.

"The newest image raises concerns that Iran is attempting to raze the site prior to allowing an IAEA visit," the think thank's founder David Albright wrote in a report in May. "The razing of the two buildings may also indicate that Iran has no intention to allow inspectors access soon. In 2004, Iran razed the Lavisan-Shian site, which held the Physics Research Center (PHRC), interfering with the ability of the IAEA to investigate allegations that the PHRC was involved in military nuclear activities."

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-11-04

[Chicog]

They're like a bunch of fxxxing children. And we don't let children play with dangerous toys, now do we?

[Jingthing]

Which countries actually believe offering to televise meetings has any connection to what Iran is actually doing or intends to do? Obviously, pure PR for them but I wonder for what audience they think it is effective.

[keemapoot]

Which countries actually believe offering to televise meetings has any connection to what Iran is actually doing or intends to do? Obviously, pure PR for them but I wonder for what audience they think it is effective.

I imagine it's for purely domestic consumption so they can show their people how reasonable they were once the bombs start falling...

BTW, excellent new Ben Affleck movie called Argo, just watched it, based on the 1980 joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran in 1979.

[Credo]

I think I would rather watch re-runs of some of Fidel Castro's seven hour speeches. They would probably be more truthful, informative and interesting.

[keemapoot]

*Deleted Quote edited out*

Your premise is correct, but Iran is clearly NOT reasonable..., and not very rational gambling with their populace they way they have been.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Scott

[GiHadOrange]

I think I would rather watch re-runs of some of Fidel Castro's seven hour speeches. They would probably be more truthful, informative and interesting.

What has Fidel Castro to do with the topic?

[Jingthing]

I think I would rather watch re-runs of some of Fidel Castro's seven hour speeches. They would probably be more truthful, informative and interesting.

What has Fidel Castro to do with the topic?

You're right. Nothing to see here, folks.

[keemapoot]

BTW, excellent new Ben Affleck movie called Argo, just watched it, based on the 1980 joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran in 1979.

What has a Ben Affleck movie to do with the topic?

I'd answer but I think a jihad is coming your way.

[GiHadOrange]

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

[Jingthing]

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

[wellred]

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend. I think someone should attack first, flatten the whole place.. and then start over. I know it sounds extremist but I'm sorry you can't allow people like that to obtain such dangerous weapons. Whenever they are unhappy about something they go blowing stuff up, themselves in the process... madness. A pre-emptive strike is what's needed here.

Edited November 4, 2012 by wellred

[SeaVisionBurma]

I think I would rather watch re-runs of some of Fidel Castro's seven hour speeches. They would probably be more truthful, informative and interesting.

What has Fidel Castro to do with the topic?

Nothing. Just that he is probably more interesting to watch than Ben Affleck.

The movie Argo mentioned above sounded great until Ben Affleck's name was mentioned.

Then again, I would rather watch Ben Affleck than live coverage of Iran holding nuclear talks... I'm not that hard up for entertainment...

[Jingthing]

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend. I think someone should attack first, flatten the whole place.. and then start over. I know it sounds extremist but I'm sorry you can't allow people like that to obtain such dangerous weapons.

He's on his way out politically anyway and within the context of Iranian politics, he is a moderate.

[GiHadOrange]

BTW, excellent new Ben Affleck movie called Argo, just watched it, based on the 1980 joint CIA-Canadian secret operation to extract six fugitive American diplomatic personnel out of revolutionary Iran in 1979.

What has a Ben Affleck movie to do with the topic?

I'd answer but I think a jihad is coming your way.

?

I don't get that either.

[keemapoot]

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend. I think someone should attack first, flatten the whole place.. and then start over. I know it sounds extremist but I'm sorry you can't allow people like that to obtain such dangerous weapons.

Must be his "members only" jacket. The windbreaker, commonly dubbed the Ahmadinejacket, is widely derided for its similarity to the Members Only jackets that were briefly popular in the West in the 1980s; still, it has become popular among supporters hoping to emulate the President's look. Who could harm a style-setter like this:

[GiHadOrange]

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

Yes, I am pro nuclear power.

[GiHadOrange]

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend. I think someone should attack first, flatten the whole place.. and then start over. I know it sounds extremist but I'm sorry you can't allow people like that to obtain such dangerous weapons. Whenever they are unhappy about something they go blowing stuff up, themselves in the process... madness. A pre-emptive strike is what's needed here.

Always good to have a reasonable voice in these topics.

[Jingthing]

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

Yes, I am pro nuclear power.

OK, well, my opinion is that there is no problem at all with Iran having peaceful nuclear power plants (they already do, correct?) or having medical technology and if they were really sincere and open about LIMITING it to that with comprehensive inspections allowed, their entire nuclear program could be easily negotiated. The issue is the capability and/or realization of weaponization. There is indeed a large international consensus that Iran should not be allowed to weaponize nukes or even be too close to that capability. I support that opposition to Iran's potential weaponization as there is little doubt a nuclear Iran will pressure other countries like Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, etc, to do the same. Do I think Iran is sincere about not wanting to be near weaponization? No, I do not and again I think most of the world doesn't believe that either.

Iran seems intent to push towards at least potential weaponization. Will sanctions stop that? Doesn't seem very likely. Is it worth a war to stop them? I really don't know.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[wellred]

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

[Jingthing]

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

I understand that position but really you've have to be God (for those that believe in such things) to know what exactly would happen if Iran was allowed to weaponize vs. a war to try to stop them. It's not as if it's going to be easy to stop them. Targeted bombs just delay this and what country has the resources or will now for a total war with Iran? (Hint: the USA does not.) I do think it will probably escalate sometime to targeted attacks to delay things, but then what? Edited November 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[GiHadOrange]

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

I understand that position but really you've have to be God (for those that believe in such things) to know what exactly would happen if Iran was allowed to weaponize vs. a war to try to stop them. It's not as if it's going to be easy to stop them. Targeted bombs just delay this and what country has the resources or will now for a total war with Iran? (Hint: the USA does not.) I do think it will probably escalate sometime to targeted attacks to delay things, but then what?

trageted bombs= attack Iran = war of aggression

[GiHadOrange]

I am with Iran in this issue and not afraid of them.

What do you mean?

Do you support their obvious goals to develop nuclear technology that is at least ready to weaponize very quickly?

Do you assert Iran's goal is not to do that?

Do you think a nuclear Iran would increase stability in the middle east and NOT force other regional powers to proliferate?

Yes, I am pro nuclear power.

OK, well, my opinion is that there is no problem at all with Iran having peaceful nuclear power plants (they already do, correct?) or having medical technology and if they were really sincere and open about LIMITING it to that with comprehensive inspections allowed, their entire nuclear program could be easily negotiated. The issue is the capability and/or realization of weaponization. There is indeed a large international consensus that Iran should not be allowed to weaponize nukes or even be too close to that capability. I support that opposition to Iran's potential weaponization as there is little doubt a nuclear Iran will pressure other countries like Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, etc, to do the same. Do I think Iran is sincere about not wanting to be near weaponization? No, I do not and again I think most of the world doesn't believe that either.

Iran seems intent to push towards at least potential weaponization. Will sanctions stop that? Doesn't seem very likely. Is it worth a war to stop them? I really don't know.

Iran doesn't build nukes.

[Jingthing]

Of course it's worth it a war. Just imagine how worse a war would be with them if they had nukes. Need to clip them in the heels before it's too late.

I understand that position but really you've have to be God (for those that believe in such things) to know what exactly would happen if Iran was allowed to weaponize vs. a war to try to stop them. It's not as if it's going to be easy to stop them. Targeted bombs just delay this and what country has the resources or will now for a total war with Iran? (Hint: the USA does not.) I do think it will probably escalate sometime to targeted attacks to delay things, but then what?

trageted bombs= attack Iran = war of aggression

You can say that, it's just words, but my impression is that Iran wouldn't start a total war in response to that, and of course they WOULD respond, more like limited attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets. Of course the obvious danger in taking that risk is that things don't go as planned and limited actions escalate. High risk actually. Edited November 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Iran doesn't build nukes.

Good to hear it!

I don't think they have weapons yet either.

That isn't the problem.

The issue is their intentions going forward, which I think is to get to the step where they can weaponize very quickly without actually having active weapons.

Getting very close to that point will likely provoke a targeted attack, agree or not.

Personally, I certainly understand there are many people and countries in the world that are sympathetic to the Iranian government's position on their nuclear program. However, to assert there is no basis to any suspicion that Iran's goal is towards at least potential weaponization is not something very many people anywhere would find credible.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[mania]

Which countries actually believe offering to televise meetings has any connection to what Iran is actually doing or intends to do? Obviously, pure PR for them but I wonder for what audience they think it is effective.

Personally I do not think it is a bad idea.

Not that I would watch but, I do not think it is a bad idea for this

meeting or even all nuclear talks of other countries too.

Folks say they are not that bored yet they base all their allegations on what

ever negative they have heard via what? Probably Television

But it is televised opinion of what is or has occurred. Does anyone think it too is not PR?

Maybe if all these types of things were more transparent & folks

actually ( If they choose to ) watch & listen for themselves as to what

is being said at such meetings & how it is being said, seeing who is acting aggressively etc.

They can formulate a more informed viewpoint of the situation.

This might be a good thing?

Edited November 5, 2012 by mania

[Chicog]

How Ahmadinejad hasn't been taken out yet I cannot comprehend.

What would be the point of that? He isn't in charge.

[Chicog]

Which countries actually believe offering to televise meetings has any connection to what Iran is actually doing or intends to do? Obviously, pure PR for them but I wonder for what audience they think it is effective.

Personally I do not think it is a bad idea.

Not that I would watch but, I do not think it is a bad idea for this

meeting or even all nuclear talks of other countries too.

Folks say they are not that bored yet they base all their allegations on what

ever negative they have heard via what? Probably Television

But it is televised opinion of what is or has occurred. Does anyone think it too is not PR?

Maybe if all these types of things were more transparent & folks

actually ( If they choose to ) watch & listen for themselves as to what

is being said at such meetings & how it is being said, seeing who is acting aggressively etc.

They can formulate a more informed viewpoint of the situation.

This might be a good thing?

Can I suggest you watch Press TV, Iran's government mouthpiece English language channel.

I'm sure they'd love live TV coverage of talks, it would be the perfect opportunity to throw tantrums, declare fatwas, throw toys out of the pram and generally act like the the obnoxious, immature w*nkers that they are. Anyone who considers it even remotely sensible to give them access to weapons grade nuclear materials is, in my humble opinion, somewhat deranged.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Chicog

[mania]

Can I suggest you watch Press TV, Iran's government mouthpiece English language channel.

I'm sure they'd love live TV coverage of talks, it would be the perfect opportunity to throw tantrums, declare fatwas, throw toys out of the pram and generally act like the the obnoxious, immature w*nkers that they are. Anyone who considers it even remotely sensible to give them access to weapons grade nuclear materials is, in my humble opinion, somewhat deranged.

Your post could be considered a bit of a tantrum itself & why a mouthpiece as you say,

is not a good substitute for reality.

I think I would still rather like to see it live AND as I said others as well. Not just Iran

Then decide for myself

Edited November 5, 2012 by mania

[Chicog]

I can assume you haven't watched Press TV then?