[Bey Taco]

What do you guys think of this women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMGy...eature=related

http://www.anniemachon.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgQr...eature=related

[Aj12]

(Original post by Bey Taco)
What do you guys think of this women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGMGy...eature=related

http://www.anniemachon.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgQr...eature=related

Her assertions about Iran are mostly crap. Whilst certain Israeli politicians are pushing for war quite, a few countries and quite a few military and intelligence figures in Israel are speaking out against a war. As well as this quite a lot of effort is being pushed into diplomatic efforts. Bush was constantly pushing for war, Obama and others seem to at least be making some effort to use diplomacy.

I hate that picture of the American bases round Iran because people seem to think this makes the US vulnerable. Firstly they aren't going to launch an attack from bases in Afghanistan, they would be insane to. Pakistan has refused to allow strikes on Iran through its soil and US troops left in Iraq are for training purposes only.
Secondly Iran has the capacity both through proxy war as well as its powerful conventional missile capacity to wipe these bases out incredibly quickly, causing massive damage to the US.

[MxSK]

(Original post by Aj12)
Her assertions about Iran are mostly crap. Whilst certain Israeli politicians are pushing for war quite, a few countries and quite a few military and intelligence figures in Israel are speaking out against a war. As well as this quite a lot of effort is being pushed into diplomatic efforts. Bush was constantly pushing for war, Obama and others seem to at least be making some effort to use diplomacy.

I hate that picture of the American bases round Iran because people seem to think this makes the US vulnerable. Firstly they aren't going to launch an attack from bases in Afghanistan, they would be insane to. Pakistan has refused to allow strikes on Iran through its soil and US troops left in Iraq are for training purposes only.
Secondly Iran has the capacity both through proxy war as well as its powerful conventional missile capacity to wipe these bases out incredibly quickly, causing massive damage to the US.

There was an "intelligence coup" of some unknown type in early-2007 that made Bush drastically change policy on iran and ended up trying to stop calls for war.
I've said this before but remember that "two track" policy that has been pursued by Obama's administration was created by the Bush administration. The only difference was that for the first 6 months Obama's rhetoric was soft but frankly now its just the same as Bush 2007.
The key factor is that, despite the constant obama campaign slogans of engagement, when he finally got into office, "strangely" the people he appointed to create iran policy had mostly anti-engagement outlooks. Their position was more of keep increasing sanctions until they buckle in to the pressure and don't make any concessions. As opposed to real negotiations where both sides compromise. If you think about it, increase pressure until iran complies with all of your demands has been the policy all along, at least until very recently for the upcoming negotiations but it still remains to be seen if they've changed at all...

Also, the conventional military isn't "powerful" at all, iran would not even try to act conventionally as they would be obliterated swiftly. They would stick exclusively to asymmetric methods, if its a persian gulf conflict you would see speedboats that would sink 1 or 2 ships just to cause a bit of damage (i doubt they could do much more than that in the persian gulf). Otherwise it would be very strategic/targeted terrorism (as seen in the lebanon war in the 80s), proxies, and instability wherever they can exert their influence in the region.

So the idea would be more to scare the other side, rather than actually physically stop the aggressor.

I think the conventional military would only be used in the case of a land invasion, saddam style. And in terms of land invasions, afghanistan isn't a threat. But there is potential from Iraq, not in the next year or two but if iraqi nationalists come to power who put arab identity over shia, the iraqi claim over iranian territory has STILL not technically resolved. Even under the pro-iranian iraq leadership we have now, they haven't been able to get iraq to sign an agreement over the borders... i mean the iraqis haven't disputed them but its just hanging there not discussed at all. It's probably a very unlikely scenario to come up again BUT just look at all the noise the (p)GCC countries have been making about Iran over the last week or so. These sheiks were the primary people giving 10s of billions of dollars to saddam to mustard gas iranians. I don't see any indication that they would not do this again if some sort of conflict arrises.

[Aj12]

(Original post by MxSK)
There was an "intelligence coup" of some unknown type in early-2007 that made Bush drastically change policy on iran and ended up trying to stop calls for war.
I've said this before but remember that "two track" policy that has been pursued by Obama's administration was created by the Bush administration. The only difference was that for the first 6 months Obama's rhetoric was soft but frankly now its just the same as Bush 2007.
The key factor is that, despite the constant obama campaign slogans of engagement, when he finally got into office, "strangely" the people he appointed to create iran policy had mostly anti-engagement outlooks. Their position was more of keep increasing sanctions until they buckle in to the pressure and don't make any concessions. As opposed to real negotiations where both sides compromise. If you think about it, increase pressure until iran complies with all of your demands has been the policy all along, at least until very recently for the upcoming negotiations but it still remains to be seen if they've changed at all...

Also, the conventional military isn't "powerful" at all, iran would not even try to act conventionally as they would be obliterated swiftly. They would stick exclusively to asymmetric methods, if its a persian gulf conflict you would see speedboats that would sink 1 or 2 ships just to cause a bit of damage (i doubt they could do much more than that in the persian gulf). Otherwise it would be very strategic/targeted terrorism (as seen in the lebanon war in the 80s), proxies, and instability wherever they can exert their influence in the region.

So the idea would be more to scare the other side, rather than actually physically stop the aggressor.

I think the conventional military would only be used in the case of a land invasion, saddam style.

Point is though they have gotten round the table, with Saddam it did not even get that far. I don't think you can really compare the run up to Iraq to what we are going through now. Whilst we have plenty of people calling for war plenty of other powerful people are making noises against an attack.

A lot of what is going on with both sides right now seems to be around the idea of scaring each other, problem is you can end up on a path to war if either side makes a mistake. Though things seem to have calmed down quite a bit since the talks in Turkey. Are those still going on?

Yeah I was thinking in terms of an actual ground invasion that Iran would do any of that. I know they are not insane enough to start randomly conventionally striking American bases in the region.

[MxSK]

(Original post by Aj12)
Point is though they have gotten round the table, with Saddam it did not even get that far. I don't think you can really compare the run up to Iraq to what we are going through now. Whilst we have plenty of people calling for war plenty of other powerful people are making noises against an attack.

A lot of what is going on with both sides right now seems to be around the idea of scaring each other, problem is you can end up on a path to war if either side makes a mistake. Though things seem to have calmed down quite a bit since the talks in Turkey. Are those still going on?

Yeah I was thinking in terms of an actual ground invasion that Iran would do any of that. I know they are not insane enough to start randomly conventionally striking American bases in the region.

Oh, i meant saddam style as in saddam invading iran... i added to the post to explain what i mean, probably just after you pressed reply.


in other news:
this is bad:
The director of Nessma television is accused of insulting sacred values by screening the film “Persepolis,” which showed depictions of God.
http://english.alarabiya.net/article...03/211911.html

Background information (from a few days ago)
How a 5-Year-Old Foreign Film Sparked a Free-Speech Fight in Tunisia
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...unisia/256520/


He's been charged for "Blasphemy", the full-length film had like 1minute scene of a cartoon god in the clouds talking to a little girl in her dreams... its ridiculous and a tragic sign for the future...

the real reason of course is because the film shows how bad the islamists coming to power in iran was for the people of the country.

Spoiler:

Show

the full film if you're interested: - eng subs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbL-X_a6Rk

[Bey Taco]

(Original post by Aj12)
Point is though they have gotten round the table, with Saddam it did not even get that far. I don't think you can really compare the run up to Iraq to what we are going through now. Whilst we have plenty of people calling for war plenty of other powerful people are making noises against an attack.

A lot of what is going on with both sides right now seems to be around the idea of scaring each other, problem is you can end up on a path to war if either side makes a mistake. Though things seem to have calmed down quite a bit since the talks in Turkey. Are those still going on?
Yeah I was thinking in terms of an actual ground invasion that Iran would do any of that. I know they are not insane enough to start randomly conventionally striking American bases in the region.

Do you know where I could get the results of these talks in Turkey?

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by MxSK)
Oh, i meant saddam style as in saddam invading iran... i added to the post to explain what i mean, probably just after you pressed reply.


in other news:
this is bad:
The director of Nessma television is accused of insulting sacred values by screening the film “Persepolis,” which showed depictions of God.
http://english.alarabiya.net/article...03/211911.html

Background information (from a few days ago)
How a 5-Year-Old Foreign Film Sparked a Free-Speech Fight in Tunisia
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...unisia/256520/


He's been charged for "Blasphemy", the full-length film had like 1minute scene of a cartoon god in the clouds talking to a little girl in her dreams... its ridiculous and a tragic sign for the future...

the real reason of course is because the film shows how bad the islamists coming to power in iran was for the people of the country.

Spoiler:

Show

the full film if you're interested: - eng subs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbL-X_a6Rk

A small fine isn't exactly something to get worked up over. It should be noted that these laws are inherited from the old regime which was secular. Egypt has blasphemy laws under Mubarak so it's not a sign of Islamism. It also appears he was charged under the act of "disturbing public order" which isn't a blasphemy law.

[MxSK]

(Original post by Aj12)
Though things seem to have calmed down quite a bit since the talks in Turkey. Are those still going on?

Oh, I missed this question earlier

The talks were 1 day. They're over now. On the friday night, EU's Ashton had a 3-hour dinner with Iran's Jalili. This was more of a get to know eachother lol.

Sat. First 3 hours, P5+1 and Iran talks. quotes from diplomats afterwards included: "optimistic", talks were "good", and "constructive". "nothing like last time", "completely different atmosphere".

After the break, there were bilateral meetings. Iran meets everyone 1 on 1 except the US rep (*sigh* lol ...). Irans bilateral with EU took longer than usual, apparently Jalili made a last ditch attempt pushing for the EU to ease up the pressure on sanctions but Ashton didn't budge.

then it was another multi-lateral 3 hour session, not much info came out of this one but again diplomats said it was "constructive" and in the end it was agreed to have the next round of talks in Baghdad on the 23rd of May.

In the mean time, secondary level diplomats from iran and the EU are meeting to work out the "technical" details of a possible deal. I know that from iran, Ali Bagheri is meant to go to Vienna to meet the EU rep and do who knows what. But we don't know if its happened yet, or when it its happening but its meant to happen before the May 23 talks in Baghdad.

2 good journalists who were in Istanbul who have done decent reporting on this and good to follow are Laura Rozen and Julian Borgers of the Guardian.

Here are some of their reports:

2 articles from Julian Borger, reporting from talking to diplomats walking out of the negotaitions:
Iran shows 'serious engagement' at Istanbul nuclear talks
The international community set a low bar for Iran to cross and so far it appears to have stepped over it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/juli...-nuclear-talks

Iran and world powers play for a no-score draw in Istanbul
The diplomacy in Turkey brought no breakthroughs but it will keep the bombs at bay for another month and offers the best chance yet to avoid a new war altogether
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/juli...-nuclear-talks


Laura Rozens stuff:

Are the Iran Nuclear Talks Finally Headed in the Right Direction?
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...lks-final.html

Iranian Hard-Liners Send Positive Signals on Talks
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...gnals-for.html

Could Iran Nuclear Talks Founder over Sanctions Relief?
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...sbr-found.html

Washington mulls presenting Iran with a “Chinese menu” of options
http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/?p=107


From washington think tanks:
the only one so far that had someone who was actually there
1 hour video
New Beginning or Just Showdown Postponed?: A Look at the Renewed Talks with Iran over its Nuclear Program

Michael Adler was in Istanbul for the breakthrough talks April 14 between Iran and six world powers, which have re-started the negotiating process. Adler closely follows the diplomacy in the Iranian nuclear crisis and was in Istanbul when negotiations broke down in January 2011. Adler stopped off in Israel before returning home to Washington to see the reaction there, shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced new talks as a "freebie" giving the Iranians a chance to delay actions against them while they further build up their nuclear capabilities.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ne...uclear-program

Carnegie Endowment did a panel on the aftermath:
Negotiating with Iran: Istanbul and Its Aftermath
Vali Nasr, Ray Takeyh, George Perkovich, Karim Sadjadpour
http://carnegie-mec.org/events/?fa=3618


Enjoy... :P

[MxSK]

Osama bin Laden Documents to be Released:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...uments-release

Oh and here they are:
Report on the 17 unclassified documents:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/u...bad_WEB_v2.pdf

Summary of details of Iran - Al Qaeda relations:

While not extensive, the discussions of Iran and Pakistan in the documents suggest that
al-Qa`ida’s relations with both countries were fraught with difficulties.
• References to Iran show that the relationship is not one of alliance, but of indirect
and unpleasant negotiations over the release of detained jihadis and their
families, including members of Bin Ladin’s family. The detention of prominent
al-Qa`ida members seems to have sparked a campaign of threats, taking hostages
and indirect negotiations between al-Qa`ida and Iran that have been drawn out
for years and may still be ongoing.

"Relations between al-Qa`ida and Iran appear to have been highly antagonistic.."
"the documents provide evidence for the first time of al-Qa`ida’s covert campaign against Iran."

Is this Al Qaida talking about Iran, or is it the United States talking about iran?... LOL

"The criminals did not send us any letter, nor did they send us a message through any of the brothers," al-Rahman wrote. "Such behavior is of course not unusual for them; indeed, it is typical of their mindset and method. They do not wish to appear to be negotiating with us or responding to our pressures."

Something the US and AQ can agree on?


More details:

Spoiler:

Show

The relationship between al-Qa`ida and Iran is one of the least understood aspects
about al-Qa`ida’s history. Due to the scarcity of reliable public information to elucidate
the nature of this connection, theories vary widely.

Al-`Adl further related that they established links with some
supporters in Iran, but not with the Iranian government; some “brothers” from
Gulbuddin Hikmatyar’s Islamic Party (al-Hizb al-Islami) made available to them some
apartments and farms that they owned in Iran. Many families, he wrote, headed to Iran
following the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 presumably expecting to be left alone, but before
long Iranian authorities, pressured by the U.S. government in his view, began a
campaign of arresting people and deporting them to their home countries.
185

It is significant to note that the Iranians do not appear to have made direct contact with
al-Qa`ida, at least not in the initial stage. `Atiyya’s frustration could not be clearer: “But
the criminals did not send us any letter, nor did they send us a message through any of
the brothers [they released]! Such behavior is of course not unusual for them; indeed, it
is typical of their mindset and method. They do not wish to appear to be negotiating
with us or responding to our pressures, as if to suggest that their actions are purely onesided and based on their own initiative.”
195
Bin Ladin was equally distrustful of the Iranian regime. The release of his family was
fraught with hurdles and did not materialize “within a week,” as `Atiyya was led to
believe. A seemingly authentic letter authored by Bin Ladin’s son Khalid addressed to
Iranian Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khameneii in January 2010 has been published. In it,
Khalid made known to Khameneii that numerous letters requesting the release of
members of his family were ignored by the Iranian government.

Al-Qa`ida did not appear to have looked to Iran from the perspective that “the enemy
of my (American) enemy is my friend,” but the group might have hoped that “the
enemy of my (American) enemy would leave me alone.”

Although the documents make it clear that the relationship between Iran and al-Qa`ida
is antagonistic, it is difficult to explain Iran’s rationale for detaining en masse these
jihadis for years, without due process. One plausible explanation that has been
advanced is that Iran held them “in part as a deterrent against a Qaeda attack on
Iranian soil.”
Another widely reported explanation is that Iran was holding al-Qa`ida
members “as a bargaining chip in its war of nerves with the US, and will only allow
their extradition in return for substantial concessions.
Whether Iran was aware of it or not, al-Qa`ida had plans to put the released detainees to “work.”

[MxSK]

Iran missile programme no threat to Europe: French official
http://india.nydailynews.com/busines...rench-official

"Firstly Iran's ballistic missile programme threatens neither Europe or the US. Secondly, the Iranian nuclear programme is developed for civil applications only. Therefore, Russia considers Iran is a risk, not a threat to Europe," Michel Miraillet, France's director for strategy affairs and defence policy, said Thursday at a missile defence conference in Moscow.

Its a Russian source but they're quoting the french official , it can't be completely bs


The weird thing is from all accounts, out of the P5+1, the french have supposedly been the most hawkish. Even more so than the US. Michael Adler said everyone seemed optimistic and happy, the us diplomats were just quiet and didnt say much but he said that the French diplomats seemed grumpy, unhappy and pessimistic. Even the Iranian diplomats said a few days after the talks that "even the us diplomats were nice but the French were very rude". (Lol)

So kinda confusing...

[Aj12]

(Original post by MxSK)
Osama bin Laden Documents to be Released:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...uments-release

Oh and here they are:
Report on the 17 unclassified documents:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/u...bad_WEB_v2.pdf

Summary of details of Iran - Al Qaeda relations:



"Relations between al-Qa`ida and Iran appear to have been highly antagonistic.."
"the documents provide evidence for the first time of al-Qa`ida’s covert campaign against Iran."

Is this Al Qaida talking about Iran, or is it the United States talking about iran?... LOL
Something the US and AQ can agree on?


More details:

Spoiler:

Show

I read through a few of those, found it funny that even one of al Qaeda's media guys thinks fox news is a load of crap

[MxSK]

Iranian press reported that an IAEA inspector has been killed and another injured in a car crash.
english summary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1499268.html


You could think conspiratorially but half a million people (thats 500,000) have been killed in car crashes in iran in the last 20 years. over 30,000 a year, worst rate in the world. a serious problem in iran


WARNING: before you open this, be warned thats its really shocking and sad footage. its showing fatal car/motorcycle accidents, people are being killed.
they air this footage on state television to scare people into driving safely.

Spoiler:

Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSjEQEHxrc0

[Aj12]

(Original post by MxSK)
Iranian press reported that an IAEA inspector has been killed and another injured in a car crash.
english summary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1499268.html


You could think conspiratorially but half a million people (thats 500,000) have been killed in car crashes in iran in the last 20 years. over 30,000 a year, worst rate in the world. a serious problem in iran


WARNING: before you open this, be warned thats its really shocking and sad footage. its showing fatal car/motorcycle accidents, people are being killed.
they air this footage on state television to scare people into driving safely.

Spoiler:

Show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSjEQEHxrc0

Geez are Iranians just really bad at driving then?

[MxSK]

(Original post by Aj12)
Geez are Iranians just really bad at driving then?

road rules, traffic signs, lanes, lights etc... are ignored/not followed/not enforced.

some joke that most iranian drivers are actually insanely good, because if you're not your screwed. (but not good in the sense of following the rules :P)

the problem is, if you TRY to follow the rules, you're the odd one out. no one else is so it would actually be more dangerous.

one explanation (both serious and a joke) is that its one place iranians feel free and in control.



a video:
"and im not afraid to die"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os_F71Av4oY

more videos, if you wanna get an idea (no crashes, just general traffic):

Spoiler:

Show

massive intersection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eorleUq_6fU

random taxi ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDp2eAmMlvg

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Aj12)
Geez are Iranians just really bad at driving then?

Have you never seen driving in countries anywhere in Asia? Even somewhere like Portugal the driving is crazy.

[Aj12]

There's been an explosion in front of the UN monitors convey in Syria. 8 guards injured. From Reuters

[Ferdowsi]

(Original post by Aj12)
Geez are Iranians just really bad at driving then?

no, they are skilful drivers, most people just drive like madmen (and women)!

[MxSK]

Ahmadinejad in the early years of his presidency:
Hassan Rouhani was chief nuclear negotiator at the time and retells his first meeting with the new president:

The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] Board of Directors meeting was scheduled for August 9, 2005. Mr. Ahmadinejad called me two days prior to the meeting and asked me to come to the President's Office.
He asked, "Why does the agency want to have an extraordinary meeting?" I said that they wanted to investigate the inauguration of Isfahan [facility]. He said, "The agency has no right to do so. We have done nothing wrong. You should call [IAEA Director-General Mohamed] El Baradei."

I said the director could not decide on everything. The members of the Board of Directors are the ambassadors of 35 countries whose decision is based on the report of the director-general.

It was discussed that the agency is under Western influence. He asked, "Why is the agency under their influence?" I said that that they finance the greater part of the budget of the agency and that they influence the member countries.

He asked, "What is the annual budget of the agency?' I said that I did not know, but perhaps a few hundred million dollars. He said: "Call El Baradei right away and tell him that we will cover the entire budget of the agency."

I responded that the agency would not accept it. There are rules for that. Second, we do not have the right to do such a thing. If we desire to give aid to anyone it should pass the Parliament.

He said,"This is none of your business!"

I said it is not how things are done and that I would not do such a thing: "If you insist you can call El Baradei yourself."

LOL

Clearly by now, he's been clued in about how the world works, but its hilarious. I think this is exactly why the regime wanted a person like him as President, some incompetent idiot they could keep under control. Now that he's a little bit wiser to the realities of the world he's a threat to the regime. lol

EDIT:
Q&A with Rowhani about his new book on irans "national security strategy"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...-rebuffed.html

[MxSK]

very insightful recount of her few days in Tehran during the parliamentary elections in march by Laura Secor:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

lol at the ending:

She translated, crisply. “He wants the receipt from your hotel.”

(it makes sense if you read the whole article)

[MxSK]

Thomas Erdbrink for the New York Times, the only western journalist who is doing any real reporting in Tehran, got some pretty candid and high level access to regime officials talking about the nuclear issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/wo...ef=global-home

Excerpts:

“Without violating any international laws or the nonproliferation treaty, we have managed to bypass the red lines the West created for us,” said Hamidreza Taraghi, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is close to the negotiating team.
...
Mr. Taraghi ticked off Iran’s successes. First, he said, Western countries did not want Iran to have a nuclear power plant, but its Bushehr reactor was now connected to the national grid. Second, the West had opposed Iran having heavy-water facilities, he said, but it now has one in Arak.
Third, the West had said no to any enrichment.
“But here we are, enriching as much as we need for our nuclear energy program,” Mr. Taraghi said with a smile, referring to the thousands of cascades of centrifuges spinning for years in the half-underground facility in Natanz. Since January, dozens more centrifuges have been online in the Fordo mountain bunker complex, near Qum, built to withstand a heavy attack.
...
Expect the country to start a new nuclear project, if talks fail, one analyst said. “Wait for our leaders to announce, for example, a new mountain bunker so Fordo will be forgotten,” he said, asking to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to discuss this topic. “In case of failure we will try to hold out again until better opportunities for reaching our goals arise.”
...
Mr. Taraghi did not want to consider the possibility of the talks failing, though he said Iran would have demands of its own in Baghdad, including an end to sanctions against its Central Bank.

“We view the nuclear episode as a heavy retreat for the Western powers,” he said. “But acceptance of our nuclear program takes time, we understand that.”

Pretty clear what their strategy is.