NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN sercurity council unamiously calls on Iran to stop nuke program within 30 days or face consqences. This is going to get tricky, good thing is that we got Bush to lead us through this. Its time to rally behind our President. And I dont have link cause I dont know how.

Great, he did such a sterling job the last time.

I bet Hans Blix is falling over himself to help old Dubya.

Copy and Paste the URL.

Linky:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear_9;_ylt=AtcPDX4N9pUa7q1Zugy_WlNSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

So what's the UN going to do? Economic sanctions? Not with oil prices this high. Threaten them with war? Nope, this is the UN we're talking about. Iran will take a warning from the UN about as seriously as Mike Tyson would take a death threat from a wheelchair bound two year old.

The UN sercurity council unamiously calls on Iran to stop nuke program within 30 days or face consqences.

Iran unanimously doesn't care.

So what's the UN going to do?

They'll write a stern letter.

Then ask the US to do something about it.

iran will think twice once bush slams down his golden hammer of justice...

They'll write a stern letter.

Then ask the US to do something about it.
China and Russia would make sure the UN didn't ask the US to do anything about it. The UN wouldn't ask us to do anything about it anyway. They've seen how Bush handles such situations.

China and Russia would make sure the UN didn't ask the US to do anything about it. The UN wouldn't ask us to do anything about it anyway. They've seen how Bush handles such situations.

Only question is, will that stop Bush from going ahead and doing something about it anyways?

Only question is, will that stop Bush from going ahead and doing something about it anyways?

whats stopping bush? nothing...

whats stopping bush? nothing...
Doesn't congress have to authorize him to go to war? I don't think that they would.

Now look at how the story actually happened:


Key UN members agree Iran text

Iran's nuclear programme worries the international community
The UN Security Council's five permanent members have agreed a statement urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

It follows weeks of wrangling between the US, UK, Russia, China and France over the details of a text that sets out the UN's response to the issue.

UK envoy Emyr Jones-Parry said he hoped the statement would be approved by the full council later in the day.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is being developed for peaceful purposes.

The agreement - which is not legally binding - comes ahead of Thursday's meeting of foreign ministers from the five members, as well as Germany, in Berlin to discuss a future strategy on Iran.

It was reached after France and the UK drew up a third version of a draft statement that made concessions to Russia and China.

Altered text

Moscow and Beijing, both allies of Iran, were concerned that Security Council involvement could lead to sanctions against Iran and wanted the IAEA to take the lead.

The latest draft repeats the call for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, but omits some of the detailed demands - referring instead to an IAEA resolution on the issue.

It again calls for the IAEA's director general to report back on Iran's compliance, but extends the deadline from 14 to 30 days.

And while it no longer says the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a threat to international peace and security, the draft statement does refer to the Security Council's responsibility to maintain peace.

The statement must now be approved by the 15 members of the Security Council.

"Our hope is that this will be adopted as a presidential statement later this afternoon," Mr Jones-Parry said.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4859082.stm)


Now while the facts amount to nearly the same, the whole tone is much more reasonable. The difference in the facts is that it is only the five permanent members that have agreed the text, the other fifteen members have yet to approve it.

Doesn't congress have to authorize him to go to war?

Nah ... not any more. All he has to do is blanket whatever action under the "War on Terror", which Congress already authorized him to do.

Doesn't congress have to authorize him to go to war? I don't think that they would.

you dont think bush has everyone in the palm of his hands? if he wanted a war i think he could convince them easily...

you dont think bush has everyone in the palm of his hands? if he wanted a war i think he could convince them easily...

Not right now. Elections are coming up.

Iran unanimously doesn't care.
well the US will unanimously kick their ass

well the US will unanimously kick their ass

Nah ... I doubt we'll ever do anything about it at all.

Not right now. Elections are coming up.


But the war is what won the last election....What to do if your leadership qualities are akin to a box of used kleenex?

A WAR!

(Thatcher started it)

Couldn't this crisis wait until we didn't have an incompetent retard in office? :confused:

only the five permanent members that have agreed the text, the other fifteen members have yet to approve it.rubber stamps

The UN sercurity council unamiously calls on Iran to stop nuke program within 30 days or face consqences. This is going to get tricky, good thing is that we got Bush to lead us through this. Its time to rally behind our President. And I dont have link cause I dont know how.

Im not a weft or a pussy but why dont we actually let them do it.
Why not let them have Nuclear power.
If America/Russia/China funded the program and sent advisers, you could guarentee it is being persued peacefully, if or when Iran threatens some one (Israel probably) with weapons they have secretly made, that would give the US/Russia/China and excuse to attack and reclaim their money in the process.

Good Idea? Probably not, But still, it might work/:confused:

Meh. the UN wont do anything, because it's methods are crippled by its setup.

America can't do anything because it doesn't have the troops.

So not much is gonna happen.

But the war is what won the last election....What to do if your leadership qualities are akin to a box of used kleenex?

A WAR!

(Thatcher started it)

A war that was already going on. The '06 elections are only 7 months away.

The GOP is already going to take a hit in the next cycle and are distancing themselves from Bush. They also have to try and keep the presidency in '08. The incumbent DNC's are hopping around trying to justify their pro-Iraq war votes.

Starting anything new would be opposed by both sides.

Meh. the UN wont do anything, because it's methods are crippled by its setup.

America can't do anything because it doesn't have the troops.

So not much is gonna happen.

Ramen.

But the war is what won the last election....What to do if your leadership qualities are akin to a box of used kleenex?

A WAR!

(Thatcher started it)

That only works if you are winning the war in question. Given the daily bombings in Iraq, I think starting another war with a country much bigger, stronger, and more unified would be a very hard sell.

The UN sercurity council unamiously calls on Iran to stop nuke program within 30 days or face consqences. This is going to get tricky, good thing is that we got Bush to lead us through this. Its time to rally behind our President. And I dont have link cause I dont know how.

Why? Why should we blindly rally around the government simply because of the possibility of an attack on another country?

See, I'm thinking that the United States is at least ostensibly based on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments, and that the First Amendment to the Constitution gives the American people the right to form their own opinions about their leadership, and the freedom to express those opinions in a non-violent way. These freedoms can only be subjected to restrictions above and beyond ordinary limits during a time of a declared war or national emergency, and I haven't seen any official declaration of war or national emergency come out of the Congress since the 9/11 attacks; therefore, it follows that the American people are free to disagree with the American leadership, and to express that dissent through non-violent means.

So, you claim that Congress declared war with the Iraq resolution in 2003? The resolution in question was just that - a resolution allowing for the use of force in Iraq. Unless there is a relevant Supreme Court decision that I haven't heard about, a resolution isn't enough to curtail civil liberties in the name of national security; only an official declaration of war or an official declaration of national emergency will suffice.

Even then, curtailing freedom of speech doesn't allow the government to force Americans to support the President in their thoughts. During a declared war or national emergency, the government can restrict civil liberties, conscript young Americans, and even suspend habeas corpus; however, no law that I know of allows the government to tell us how to think. That's a little too Orwellian to be contemplated even in times of true danger to the nation.
[/Grenade]

Why not let them have Nuclear power.


Because it isnt Nuclear power they are after. Iran has far far more pressing needs than atomic energy. A massive proportion of the country is without running water, and I think over 30% are illiterate. Frankly nuclear energy is somewhat frivilous when there are far more pressing needs.

Because it isnt Nuclear power they are after. Iran has far far more pressing needs than atomic energy. A massive proportion of the country is without running water, and I think over 30% are illiterate. Frankly nuclear energy is somewhat frivilous when there are far more pressing needs.

Huh? How do you pump water or provide schools without energy?

I live in a country that has similar social problems in large areas, and we do have nuclear power. The existence of this energy source has helped us reduce the percentage of households without access to clean water, has helped increase the educational standards. Yes, they have other needs, but to meet those needs they have to have the resources.

Starting a war with Iran is about the most stupid thing the US could possibly do right now.

Iran better be careful, or it might find itself at the butt of a very stern letter from the United Nations.


P.S. Can we PLEASE impeach Bush BEFORE the Iranian war.


Edit: The Iranian War: Iraq, Part Two

Why? Why should we blindly rally around the governmentbecause we are sheep..

because we are sheep..
Or wolves in disguise. ;)

Huh? How do you pump water or provide schools without energy?

I live in a country that has similar social problems in large areas, and we do have nuclear power. The existence of this energy source has helped us reduce the percentage of households without access to clean water, has helped increase the educational standards. Yes, they have other needs, but to meet those needs they have to have the resources.

They need energy. And what are they sitting on top of. Oil. Why do the need nuclear power when they have all the oil they need.

Why do the need nuclear power when they have all the oil they need.are you suggesting we should bomb any Canadian/Russian/ Norwegian/Indonesian/Venezuelan/Ecuadorian Nuclear reactors?...

Also if we discover that France/Israel/China have shiploads of Oil.. should we bomb their Nuclear reactors too?

They need energy. And what are they sitting on top of. Oil. Why do the need nuclear power when they have all the oil they need.
My God, they refuse to use a resource that will run out in about 30 or so years, putting them right back where they started! Damn them for thinking about the future!

are you suggesting we should bomb any Canadian/Russian/ Norwegian/Indonesian/Venezuelan/Ecuadorian Nuclear reactors?...

Also if we discover that France/Israel/China have shiploads of Oil.. should we bomb their Nuclear reactors too?

All Nations are not equal and thus should not be treated as such.

My God, they refuse to use a resource that will run out in about 30 or so years, putting them right back where they started! Damn them for thinking about the future!

Then why are they developing long range missiles? Kinda pointless without a big warhead for them to carry.

If they want nuclear power for peaceful use, fine. But by their actions and words it would seem they want it for other purposes.

Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?

Nah ... I doubt we'll ever do anything about it at all.
True, we'll just let israel launch a few nukes at Iran, and then tell the rest of the world to fuck off if they try to do anything about it.

All Nations are not equal and thus should not be treated as such.
All nations are equal, some are just more equal than others

All nations are equal, some are just more equal than others

One word sums up this statement. Hypocrite.

All Nations are not equal and thus should not be treated as such.We should allow our "special" friends (nations) to have more rights.

Only the Nations we like should be allowed to have weapons.

are you suggesting we should bomb any Canadian/Russian/ Norwegian/Indonesian/Venezuelan/Ecuadorian Nuclear reactors?...

Also if we discover that France/Israel/China have shiploads of Oil.. should we bomb their Nuclear reactors too?

No, we are not suggesting that. None of those countries have an insane muslim leader as their head of state with a death wish for Israel.

We should allow our "special" friends (nations) have more rigths.

Only the Nations we like should be allowed to have weapons.

Yeah, basically.

That basically leaves out.

Afrika...except maybe South Afrika...if its reconquered.

Central/South America...except maybe Chile if they get another Pinochet in.

The middle east, except Israel.

And Asia...except Japan.

One word sums up this statement. Hypocrite.
the fact that my comment was in response to another as seemed to escape you, which is ok.so...yeah.

Well we could always give them a letter...to show them how angry we are at them.

We should allow our "special" friends (nations) to have more rights.

Only the Nations we like should be allowed to have weapons.

Yep, that is what I am saying. I have no problem with India having nuclear weapons, being the largest democracy in the world and all. I have a big problem with Iran & North Korea having them though.