PDA

View Full Version : Why should Iran comply with UN demands and resolution?



Apokalupsis
August 21st, 2006, 03:15 PM
Iran was told to comply with UN demands to halt uranium enrichment and allow for inspections of their nuclear plants to ensure that nuclear weaponry was not being pursued. It was told to do this by the end of August. Thus far, Iran has told the West and the UN to go screw themselves, flat out warning the world last week...
If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender. - Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 15, 2006
Now, considering the UN is nothing but a paper tiger, and it will indeed merely say "OK, now you have until the end of September", and when that warning is ignored, it will say "OK, for reals now, you are in trouble, NOW you have until the end of October", ad infinitum by the absolute ad moronium, for what reason WOULD Iran comply with UN demands?

IMO, this is just another one of the numerous reasons that the UN is a remarkable, pathetic joke that NO country should feel threatened by. Saddam didn't fear the 18 or so resolutions that the UN demanded Iraq comply with...why should Ahmadinejad?

Perkis
August 21st, 2006, 04:17 PM
Well unfortunately until the UN actually starts backing up what it demands with some type of action there is no reason for Iran to comply with them. And by this I mean, not relying on the United States and the UK to do all the dirty work. We have enough on our plate as it is at the moment. This becomes a particularly tricky situation as the region is already in an uproar, which I am not sure that is what this guys was after all along by supporting Hezbollah against Isreal.. He may be a maniac but that does not mean he is stupid. I am not so certain that the current leadersips of the Western world should not get together and rethink some policy on just how this region is being dealt with. Cause right now from my perspective it is not looking too good.

Apokalupsis
August 21st, 2006, 05:03 PM
Perkis, there is hope for you yet. ;)

Perkis
August 21st, 2006, 05:41 PM
Perkis, there is hope for you yet. ;)

Ohh come on apok, I am not a bad guy, I just disagree with you from time to time.:blush:

Snoop
August 21st, 2006, 06:35 PM
The bottom line is, they won't comply.



WILL IRAN COMPLY?
Unlikely. The Islamic Republic insists on its right to enrich nuclear fuel for peaceful power purposes, as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA has found no "smoking gun" to prove Western suspicions that Iran intends to make a nuclear bomb, but many questions remain. Iran has hinted it could discuss halting enrichment as part of negotiations to implement the energy, trade and diplomatic incentives. But it rules out doing so as the precondition for negotiations set by the six powers. link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyid=2006-08-21T102648Z_01_L17757308_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&src=082106_1949_TOPSTORY_iran_set_to_reject_offer)
I was going to say they should comply or they'll face some serious military risks. They'll probably comply and then reneg.

unkcheetah
August 21st, 2006, 09:41 PM
Now, considering the UN is nothing but a paper tiger, and it will indeed merely say "OK, now you have until the end of September", and when that warning is ignored, it will say "OK, for reals now, you are in trouble, NOW you have until the end of October", ad infinitum by the absolute ad moronium, for what reason WOULD Iran comply with UN demands?

IMO, this is just another one of the numerous reasons that the UN is a remarkable, pathetic joke that NO country should feel threatened by. Saddam didn't fear the 18 or so resolutions that the UN demanded Iraq comply with...why should Ahmadinejad?


Unfortunately, considering the events of the past month between Israel and Hezbollah; considering how the Iraq war has been handled; considering the rhetoric coming from the State Department seems so Chamberlainesque, the entire Western coalition is a paper tiger.
It is evident that the forces of good no longer have the will to fight. The UN is just a complete joke and...well you already know my opinion of the UN.

Why would one think Iran would have anything to worry about? Why would one think N. Korea would have anything to worry about? Or Hezbollah? Or al Qaeda? Or Al Aqsa Matyrs Brigade? Or any other up and coming organization aspiring to spread terror across the globe? No country is willing to stand up and put a stop to this nonsense. The West has been effectively de-balled. With only minimal casaulties the fascists have nearly won the war. And much of the credit goes to that massive propaganda machine known as Western media, human rights watch groups, anti-war activists and the whole steaming pile of radical left NGO's.

Thanks guys.




Israelis told to prepare bomb shelters for possible confrontation with Iran

06:49 Minister Eitan: Prepare bomb-shelters for possible confrontation with Iran (Israel Radio)
More when available.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

I'll believe it when I see it.

KevinBrowning
August 21st, 2006, 10:23 PM
The United Nations has been reduced mainly to a humanitarian relief organization, and a feeble and corrupt one at that. The Iraq conflict demonstrated once again that even the firmest resolutions are still just words on paper without soldiers on the ground enforcing those decisions if they are violated. Just as the League of Nations did not prevent World War II, the United Nations will not prevent a world war started by Iran, North Korea or any other country if they are unwilling to send in substantial multinational forces in a timely manner after blatant breach of a resolution.

Snoop
November 14th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I think someone in our government expects them not to comply:

Cheney’s Revenge

By Mike Whitney

11/12/06 "Information Clearing House (http://informationclearinghouse.info/)" -- -- When Dick Cheney woke up on Wednesday morning, his entire world had changed. The House and Senate was in control of the Democrats, Bush Senior’s buddy Robert Gates had taken over at the Pentagon, and his most-trusted ally, Don Rumsfeld, had been thrown overboard.

Cheney knows that the story about a “Democratic sweep” is utter nonsense. He knows who operates the voting machines and how get the results he wants. The normal procedures for rigging the election were simply put on hold.

He also knows that the Justice Dept had sent out over 80 attorneys to various parts of the country where the Republicans anticipated legal challenges after the elections, but there were no legal challenges. Someone decided that there would be no fight at all, even in the close senatorial races where recounts might have made a difference.

Why?

Is anyone gullible enough to believe that Republican big-wigs have given up cheating as a vital part of their strategy for winning elections?

I doubt it.

Cheney knows why there were no challenges; just like he knows why Rumsfeld was thrown to the wolves AFTER the elections rather than before when it might’ve hurt the Democrat’s chances for victory.

Cheney was betrayed and his plans for one-party rule have been intentionally subverted. Even his seat next to the throne has been jettisoned to make room for Papa Bush’s friend and CIA-alum, Robert Gates.

So, what does it all mean?

Well, as many of the political wags are finally admitting, the adults are stepping in and taking back their government. The establishment “old school” Republicans and country club plutocrats put-together a plan to sabotage the Cheney administration and put an end to the Iraq debacle. The scheme first became apparent when Bob Woodward, the establishment’s number one scribe, released his book “State of Denial”. That was followed by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Lancet’s Iraqi casualty report, the Mark Foley page fiasco, and a steady barrage of ethics and corruption scandals.

The Democrats had nothing to do with the ferocious media-blitzkrieg which pummeled the Bush team day-in and day-out. It was all the handiwork of big-money Republicans who lost their place at the policy-table when Cheney and Rummy decided they would run the whole shebang by themselves.

The only way they could be certain of undermining the Sec-Def and the Veep’s powers was by attacking their political base and destroying the “rubber stamp” congress. And, that is precisely what they did. It's a classic case of the parent killing its own offspring or, as Dostoyevsky said, “One reptile devouring the other.”

The election simply proves that one should not expect to take the country away from the people who really own it.

It’s theirs, and the political parties are merely the temporary security guards who are paid to watch over their prized possession.

Betrayal

What’s interesting in this case, is that Cheney was betrayed by Bush. It was Bush who fed Rummy to the crocodiles and replaced him with Gates, and it was Bush who broke his oath of loyalty to people who put him in office.

Cheney doesn’t like to be betrayed, in fact, Cheney hates to be betrayed. Loyalty is the only virtue among thieves, and Bush has violated that basic bond. That probably means big trouble for George W. Bush in the future.

Understandably, the country is breathing a sigh of relief after the midterm elections, but it may be a bit premature. Cheney may be down, but he’s not out. And, unfortunately, nothing has really changed. Cheney hasn’t abandoned his plan for global domination and he still has plenty of agents lurking in the shadows who will carry out his agenda. His problem now is how to get back “in the game” and settle scores with the people who screwed him over.

Ironically, his biggest obstacle is George Bush, the man who knifed him in the back and put the brakes on the global crusade. Bush is now under the influence his father’s chief-advisors who are determined to get the troops out of Iraq, forestall any attack on Iran, and (probably) undermine the powers of the unitary executive.

So, how far will Cheney go to remove the obstacles for realizing his dark vision? Would he be willing to incite a war with Iran to restore himself to power?

William S. Lind, Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, assures us in his latest article “Iraq Disaster Warning” that “something big’” will happen “between Nov 7 congressional election and Christmas. That could be the long-planned attack on Iran”.

Dr. Elias Akleh supports this theory in his article “War on Iran” providing the worrisome details of the military build-up currently taking place in the Gulf beyond the knowledge of the American people. Akleh states:

“The US and NATO countries had amassed the largest military armada in the Middle East. The US armada consists of carrier Strike Group 12 led by nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, Eisenhower Strike Group—another nuclear powered aircraft carrier with accompanied military vessels and submarines, Expeditionary Strike Group 5 with multiple attack vessels led by aircraft carrier USS Boxer, the Iowa Jima Expeditionary Strike Group, and the US Coast Guard. Canada has sent its anti-submarine HMCS Ottawa frigate to join the American Armada in the Persian Gulf. On October 1the USS Enterprise Striking Group has crossed the Suez Canal to join NATO armada at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

The NATO force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several countries and is lead by Germany. It includes German command naval forces, Italian navy, 2 Spanish warships, 3 Danish warships, 10 Greek warships, 2 Netherlands warships, and French, Belgium, Turkish, and Bulgarian troops in South Lebanon.”
Akleh adds ominously, “This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”

Indeed.

So, Iran is still very much on the table just as America is still in danger of deteriorating into a militarized police state. Cheney’s dream of global hegemony and absolute rule continues to move forward regardless of the elections’ results. He remains committed to his original plan whatever the cost to the country in terms of blood and treasure.

Do not underestimate Dick Cheney. He is a dogged “bare-knuckled” street-fighter with a will of tempered steel. He will stop at nothing.

All he needs is a means of getting back into the seat of power.

Do we need to remind ourselves that he is only a “heartbeat” away from the most powerful position in the world?

That’s something that should concern us all.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15582.htm

Yuruusan
November 14th, 2006, 06:15 PM
The worst the US can do is impose sanctions and even that will be vetoed if they are too harsh.
None of those countries with ships in the region are interested in the least with an attack on Iran rofl.
The era of US influence is waning, the western countries will be going quietly into the night and the warmongers and neocons will have to be content with whining to themselves about iran or north korea.
Dissolve the UN, the less tools the us has to legitamize its attacks and invasions, the better.

Snoop
November 14th, 2006, 06:21 PM
The worst the US can do is impose sanctions and even that will be vetoed if they are too harsh.
None of those countries with ships in the region are interested in the least with an attack on Iran rofl.
The era of US influence is waning, the western countries will be going quietly into the night and the warmongers and neocons will have to be content with whining to themselves about iran or north korea.
Dissolve the UN, the less tools the us has to legitamize its attacks and invasions, the better.First of all - if the foreign ships are where the article says they are, what are they doing there?

Did it ever occur to you that the Iraq invasion was just a hedge to get us closer to Iran?

Yuruusan
November 16th, 2006, 02:45 AM
First of all - if the foreign ships are where the article says they are, what are they doing there??

Some of the european countries listed always have ships in the middle east region, but just to explain further why none of those countries will be doin anything;

Spain has had enough of US adventure seekings, and their people will riot in the streets if they found themselves part of an invasion/bombing campaign of Iran.

Germany, Greece, Turkey, France didnt want to get involved in the Iraq war, when the US had a sniff of credibility left, they most CERTAINLY wont get involved in any sort of attack on Iran, not by a long shot.

Hell, turkey wouldnt even simply open the borders for us to invade iraq from the north, and you want us to believe theyll join us in some kind of attack on Iran? ROFL

The Netherlands pulled out all its forces from iraq in Mar. 2005, so the idea that they will now remove the troops from the frying pan (iraq) and toss them into the fire (iran) is ridiculous.

i think italty and belguim are the only countries left that are in the so called "coalition of the willing" that the article listed, needless to say, it doesnt matter









Did it ever occur to you that the Iraq invasion was just a hedge to get us closer to Iran?


You make it sound like we are doin fine in iraq, and that we have a nice base of operations set up and ready to take down the next group of bad guys.

US troops are getting injured and killed daily, and thats only what you hear about.
US troops control only the ground they are currently walking on, convoys move at speeds of about 60 to 70 MPH because they get shot at daily. They use to stop and fight at whoever shoots at them, but that stopped since it happened wherever they went in iraq except for northern iraq.
Parts of Western and Southern Iraq are already "no go" zones for US troops, and only go there if they are looking for a fight.

"hedge us closer" ? More like we jumped over our nieghbors fence to beat him up, only to be mauled by his dog. thats the situation we are in, so beating up the nieghbor is now priority number 2 after surviving
<br><i><font color="red">The below text has been automerged with this post.</i></font><br>

FruitandNut
November 16th, 2006, 03:34 AM
While I too am exceedingly alarmed at the idea of Iran (and number of other countries with 'dodgy' regimes who are standing in the wings at present), having nukes at their disposal - the way that some of us in the West have acted and reacted, and generally been inept in military (mis)adventure over the last few decades reminds not a little of the pot calling the kettle black, when sitting on moral judgment.

As the Irish yokel said to the American tourist who enquired how to get to Dublin, "Well sir, if I was yourself I wouldn't be startin' from here."