mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) I can assume you haven't watched Press TV then? No sorry I don't get that channel nor do I watch much TV because I realize it is after all an interpretation or opinion many times with its own agenda. I would though watch live TV of such events as what is being discussed in this topic. As I said both for the straight info & to also see with my own eyes. Much can be ascertained in such a setting. Body Language, Temperament etc. with literal translation of what is actually being said & in what context, all would help us formulate a better opinion than some TV station with its own agenda later giving us their interpretation/views. Just look at the controlled MSM many have access to. It is obvious they have an agenda or chosen sides already. How does someone like you or I base an opinion on something fed to us by that type of news service? Edited November 5, 2012 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 There would be no need for these talks if Iran just agrees to the IAEA inspections. For the moment they are playing brinkmanship games in the same manner as Saddam Hussein. Let's hope Iran collaborates before talking tips over to open aggression and into unknown outcomes for the region. However, you can imagine the delight of the Saudi regeime if Iran was attacked by Israeli/NATO forces 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 There would be no need for these talks if Iran just agrees to the IAEA inspections. For the moment they are playing brinkmanship games in the same manner as Saddam Hussein. Let's hope Iran collaborates before talking tips over to open aggression and into unknown outcomes for the region. However, you can imagine the delight of the Saudi regeime if Iran was attacked by Israeli/NATO forces Well that is neither here nor there & could lead to a real circle jerk given who their neighbors are & how they themselves are allowed such leeway that they have never succumbed to any inspections themselves. But again remember these talks are to determine just what is being done there. There seems to have been quite a bit of inspections already. You also mention Saddam but what about the fact that no weapons were ever found? There are many dead on both sides based on that false assumption that there were weapons. Yes maybe they were moved or hidden but the only fact we have is no WMD's were ever found. Anyway these are Talks that will take place. What would be the reason given to deny live coverage if Iran requests it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I am not a nuclear negotiator so I don't know if holding private talks would be potentially more effective than televised ones. I suspect that is so but bottom line the media coverage of any talks is not really the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether Iran does really intend to work towards at least potential weaponization (I think most of the world thinks this is so) and also is there any possible PEACEFUL way to stop them (sanctions, talks, etc.). In other words, this televised thing is just noise to obfuscate from the actual significant issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I am not a nuclear negotiator so I don't know if holding private talks would be potentially more effective than televised ones. I suspect that is so but bottom line the media coverage of any talks is not really the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether Iran does really intend to work towards at least potential weaponization (I think most of the world thinks this is so) and also is there any possible PEACEFUL way to stop them (sanctions, talks, etc.). In other words, this televised thing is just noise to obfuscate from the actual significant issues. I have no doubt Iran wants a nuke, even a dirty bomb would do. I also have no doubt they'd be shipping it off to their bum chums in Lebanon before you could say "Allah O Akbar". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 In other words, this televised thing is just noise to obfuscate from the actual significant issues. Could be but if requested/allowed by Iran what is the problem? I cannot see any downside & if folks are really wanting to talk I do not see as it can cause any problems. It is just a camera. If Iran feels like they want the world in the room to actually see what is being said I do not see it as any worse than someone who is afraid of being misrepresented not wanting to talk without their lawyer present. Iran is being accused of hiding something so any attempt to be more open should be welcomed Any country that would deny this transparency might be seen as the ones with something to hide. So I say let it go. What is the big deal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 There would be no need for these talks if Iran just agrees to the IAEA inspections. For the moment they are playing brinkmanship games in the same manner as Saddam Hussein. Let's hope Iran collaborates before talking tips over to open aggression and into unknown outcomes for the region. However, you can imagine the delight of the Saudi regeime if Iran was attacked by Israeli/NATO forces Well that is neither here nor there & could lead to a real circle jerk given who their neighbors are & how they themselves are allowed such leeway that they have never succumbed to any inspections themselves. But again remember these talks are to determine just what is being done there. There seems to have been quite a bit of inspections already. You also mention Saddam but what about the fact that no weapons were ever found? There are many dead on both sides based on that false assumption that there were weapons. Yes maybe they were moved or hidden but the only fact we have is no WMD's were ever found. Anyway these are Talks that will take place. What would be the reason given to deny live coverage if Iran requests it? exactly, Saddam completely underestimated his opponents and the West did not understand Saddam, this lead to war. That's the danger of the game being played by Iran. When has State level diplomacy ever been held in open forums? You can bet your last dollar there will be secret addendum's to any agreement with Iran, - again Iran is using delaying/brinkmanship tactics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Any knowledgeable international nuclear negotiators? No? I thought not. My point is I know what I don't know but I do SUSPECT that a certain amount of privacy is beneficial during such sensitive negotiations. Iran trying to make media coverage the issue is definitely just a game they are playing to take the focus of the real issue somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeryble Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) 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. Actually the sharpest pencil in the box, Zbigniew Brzezhinski, says Iran is no threat to Israel and that Iran is undoubtedly a "rational nation". He says America should offer Iran and Israel an umbrella of protection which effort would be rewarded multi fold by avoiding war. (briefly hinted at in But suggest you look at longer interviews it's a pleasure to hear Zbig's clarity) So please can we whack Netanyahu, who actually has nuclear weapons and a record of mass murder in Gaza, instead? Thankyou. Edited November 5, 2012 by cheeryble 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Iran trying to make media coverage the issue is definitely just a game they are playing to take the focus off the real issue somewhere else. I just don't see a problem with transparency if the accused is asking for it. Funny that you mention taking the focus off the real issue. Because although all of these claims of a Nuke in Iran has been going on for well over 10 years it came to a boil right after the UN voted for Palestine being granted membership of UNESCO after 107 out of 173 members in attendance voted in favor of its accession. I thought the timing of it was suspect in the same way of taking focus. But really where is the beef of the accused allowing a camera in the room? I just dont see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Maybe you don't see it because like me you aren't a professional international nuclear negotiator. I suspect these are very sensitive situations that are not normally televised for very good reasons. I don't know that for a fact, but I think that is quite likely. The "beef" is that this PR from Iran doesn't address the core issue ... their nuclear program. It is clearly just a ploy to APPEAR that they are honest players but that is not good enough to convince the world about what is really happening and what are the real intentions of their nuclear PROGRAM. BTW, nobody credible is asserting that Iran has weaponized nukes ... NOW. The issue is their development program. Again, if people decide to buy the propaganda from Iran, that is their right. But much of the world doesn't and this potentially serious conflict over their nuclear program is not going away easily, tv show or no tv show. Perhaps Iran's media position would be more credible if they invited live t.v. coverage of all their nuclear development facilities and they could provide independent verification that they actually were showing ALL of those facilities. Of course they won't do that, but that's the issue behind this, their ACTUAL program, not a game over t.v. coverage. Edited November 5, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Again, if people decide to buy the propaganda from Iran, that is their right. But much of the world doesn't and this potentially serious conflict over their nuclear program is not going away easily, tv show or no tv show. Actually I thought in my case anyway that I was "not" buying "Any" propaganda. Instead wanting to decide for myself. The people you call much of the world actually has "possibly" bought someones propaganda already. Because all they have is one sides opinion Now the other side offers transparency & we will call that propaganda? Confusing Edited November 5, 2012 by mania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Again, they can televise or not televise, but the promises Iran might make in such talks, are they sincere and are they independently verifiable? I get the thread topic is the t.v. coverage but I consider it a very trivial aspect compared to actual problem. So Iran is saying televise the talks. Great. People who aren't naive understand they are trying to suggest with this obvious gimmick that they are really an OPEN society, and to plant in people's minds that they are also open to exposing all of their program for independent verification. I don't think it will work. It's just a talking point for their existing allies. Mania, I was not referring to you. I said people. That was a good clip with Zbigniew Brzezhinski. As said before, that's a big part of this issue. Iran IS heading towards a potential weaponization program. Nothing seems to be stopping them. So can the world live with this or not? If so, maybe war can be avoided. If not, there will be war. I am not smart enough to know if Zbigniew Brzezhinski is right or not that the world can live with a nuclear weapons capable Iran. I respect his opinion but remain skeptical. He is right, America does not want a war with Iran. But America will have a war with Iran if it decides there is no better choice. Edited November 5, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Off-topic posts deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Just for the record, I don't think there will be much of a war. I just think a fair chunk of Iran will be a lot flatter than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Again, they can televise or not televise, but the promises Iran might make in such talks, are they sincere and are they independently verifiable? I get the thread topic is the t.v. coverage but I consider it a very trivial aspect compared to actual problem. So Iran is saying televise the talks. Great. People who aren't naive understand they are trying to suggest with this obvious gimmick that they are really an OPEN society, and to plant in people's minds that they are also open to exposing all of their program for independent verification. I don't think it will work. It's just a talking point for their existing allies. Mania, I was not referring to you. I said people. That was a good clip with Zbigniew Brzezhinski. As said before, that's a big part of this issue. Iran IS heading towards a potential weaponization program. Nothing seems to be stopping them. So can the world live with this or not? If so, maybe war can be avoided. If not, there will be war. I am not smart enough to know if Zbigniew Brzezhinski is right or not that the world can live with a nuclear weapons capable Iran. I respect his opinion but remain skeptical. He is right, America does not want a war with Iran. But America will have a war with Iran if it decides there is no better choice. Thanks & Yes I did not think you were referring to me alone. Personally I am not as sure as the many that seem sure of what is actually happening. All I personally have is 2nd or 3rd hand info from folks who may or may not have their own agendas. As to can the world live with weapons programs? Well of course if I had a choice and I'm sure others probably agree. No weapons of Mass destruction anywhere would be our choice. But that is sort of a Pandora box type of thing. In some ways I understand fear but I also understand there may be fear on both sides. Balance of power whether I like it or not does seem to be something all strive for. I know we are getting far off topic so will leave it at that. As to the main topic as I said transparency offered by the accused should be accepted in my opinion as I see no downside. I do not see it as a distraction at all but a focusing. If it is a gimmick as you say I really do not see the benefit to Iran. PS: I did not see any clip that you speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2012/10/06/new-scientific-study-predicts-devastating-consequences-for-iran-attack/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) 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. http://www.richardsi...or-iran-attack/ Interesting article on filming Israeli Think Tank gaming of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities at: http://www.guardian....-nuclear-plants Edited November 5, 2012 by simple1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiHadOrange Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. If you drop some targeted bombs aka as start a war of aggression don't whine if the attacked country fights back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simple1 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Just for the record, I don't think there will be much of a war. I just think a fair chunk of Iran will be a lot flatter than it is now. And if Russia said we stand by Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Just for the record, I don't think there will be much of a war. I just think a fair chunk of Iran will be a lot flatter than it is now. And if Russia said we stand by Iran? Yes indeed! Not one mention in that simulation of any potential involvement by China, Russia or even Pakistan. The worst part is none of us will be around then to tell them their calculations were wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Doubt they would. Probably tut a bit is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I watched Ahmadinejad on TV give his acceptance speech after the very controversal election (student protests for days) to his 2nd term. He didn't make one mention of policy, the protests, nucear or anything to do with being Iran's leader. His entire speech was about one thing: Laying praise on one of Muhammed's daughters. I guess that's all he could talk about - to ensure he wouldn't be booed and interrupted by his many detractors. Iran is a country which is still stuck in idol worshiping the late Ayatollah Komeini. Have any of you'all read the book? Have any younger generation Iranians read it? I have. It's weird to the 12th degree. If Iranian leaders are heavily guided by that pap, then it's going to be a tough row to hoe to get any diplomatic progress with them. Also, What have Thai authorities done to apprehend the Iranians who were making bombs (and blew up at least one of them) in downtown bangkok awhile back? Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Perhaps we can compromise and agree to have coverage of the bunker busting bombs leveling Iran's underground nuclear weapons centers, after all who in their right mind refuses the IAEA access to a peaceful research program and spends a fortune putting it deep underground whilst facing crippling sanctions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaVisionBurma Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Also, What have Thai authorities done to apprehend the Iranians who were making bombs (and blew up at least one of them) in downtown bangkok awhile back? Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Odd -I thought they blew themselves up. I'm pretty sure one of them didn't get away - in fact I'd bet my right leg on it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Also, What have Thai authorities done to apprehend the Iranians who were making bombs (and blew up at least one of them) in downtown bangkok awhile back? Answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I thought they had one in custody and are seeking extradition of the other one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Doubt they would. Probably tut a bit is all. really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiHadOrange Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I watched Ahmadinejad on TV give his acceptance speech... did you watched it on Press TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Ah, so we are now instructed by The Powers That Be to fear Iran as THE major threat to global security now they are a bit bored with North Korea shouting but not actually doing anything. Still, it distracts people from the fact our countries are bankrupt and our leaders really do not have a clue about what they can do about it, short of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 If you drop some targeted bombs aka as start a war of aggression don't whine if the attacked country fights back. A response would be completely expected. The question is whether the response would be measured enough to prevent a big war breaking out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts