U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-25-2006, 06:05 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 04:22 AM
U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite?

Personally, I'm not afraid of Iran's nuclear capabilities or the fact that they may have a weapon in a few years. They can enrich Uranium as much as they want and they can build as many reactors as they want and they can even have a nuclear weapon ready tomorrow - the fact is they'll never get the chance to use it.....

So what do you think? Will this have any influence at all or will Iran act like a spoiled defiant child and continue their path to their own destruction?


++++++++++

From the CNN website.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran vowed Sunday to push forward with efforts to enrich uranium and to change its relations with the international nuclear watchdog, after the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions designed to stop the country's disputed nuclear efforts.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Security Council would regret voting in favor of the sanctions, saying he was sorry the West lost its chance to make amends with Iran.

"I am sorry for you who lost the opportunity for friendship with the nation of Iran. You yourself know that you cannot damage the nation of Iran an iota," the state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. (Watch why Iran's next move could include kicking out U.N. nuclear inspectors )

Ahmadinejad also said the United Nations must accept Iran's nuclear program and warned that sanctions would not harm his country.

"You have to accept that Iran has the technology of producing nuclear fuel. And it will celebrate it in coming anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution in February. You, resorting to these sort of activities, cannot achieve anything except dissolving your reputation," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

On Saturday, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, increasing international pressure on the government to prove that it is not trying to make nuclear weapons. (Watch ambassadors give reasons for the sanctions )

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Iran pledged to change its relationship with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We are not obliged and it is not expected that cooperation with the IAEA continues in the same former level," Hosseini told reporters. He did not provide details about what would change.

Iran's parliament on Sunday voted to urge the country's administration to revise its cooperation with the IAEA. Many legislators chanted "Death to America" after the vote.

"The government should seriously and strongly continue the important issue of peaceful nuclear technology with prudence and foresight. It should never accept such illogical pressures," more than 200 legislators said in a statement read on state-run radio. (Watch why Iran won't give up its nuclear program )

Resolution: Don't ship nuclear materials to Iran
The U.N. Security Council resolution -- the result of two months of tough negotiation -- orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes the Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. (Full story)

If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Iran insists its nuclear program is intended to produce energy, but the U.S. and European nations suspect its ultimate goal is the production of weapons.

Ahmadinejad also downplayed the resolution, saying it would be the Security Council that regretted it, not Iran.

"This will not damage the nation of Iran, but its issuers will soon regret this superficial and nil act," he said, speaking to a group of war veterans from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran. ('Piece of torn paper will not scare us.')

The United States has said it hopes the resolution will clear the way for tougher measures by individual countries, particularly Russia.

U.S. wanted tougher resolution
The Bush administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked.

To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies.

It says the council will review Iran's actions in light of a report from the head of the IAEA, requested within 60 days, on whether Iran has suspended uranium enrichment and complied with other IAEA demands.

It also says sanctions will end when the board of IAEA confirms that Iran has complied with all its obligations.

The six countries trying to get Iran to curb its nuclear program -- Britain, France, Germany Russia, China and the United States -- offered Tehran a package of economic and political incentives if it agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. But Iran refused and rejected an August 31 council deadline to freeze enrichment.

Iran: 'Full speed' on nuclear program
Earlier Sunday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the resolution made his country more "decisive in realizing our nuclear aims."

"From Sunday morning, we will begin activities at Natanz -- site of 3,000-centrifuge machines -- and we will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the resolution," Iran's Kayhan newspaper quoted Larijani as saying.

Iran first showed its ability to enrich uranium in February, when it produced a small batch of low-enriched uranium using a first set of 164 centrifuges at its pilot complex in Natanz.

Iran has said it intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material to produce nuclear fuel.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 11:26 AM   #2
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Re: U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite?

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
they can even have a nuclear weapon ready tomorrow - the fact is they'll never get the chance to use it.....

How is this fact?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-26-2006, 12:41 PM   #3
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Re: Re: U.N. Sanctions on Iran......bark worse than bite?

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


How is this fact?
Simply because we won't let it happen.....
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 12:48 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:22 PM
If they have one built tomorrow and they are determined to use it, how are "we" going to stop them?

I'm confused as to what you are getting at. Why have a "I don't care" attitude about them building weapons, but then think you'll be able to stop them from pushing the button?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-26-2006, 01:13 PM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
If they have one built tomorrow and they are determined to use it, how are "we" going to stop them?

I'm confused as to what you are getting at. Why have a "I don't care" attitude about them building weapons, but then think you'll be able to stop them from pushing the button?
Sorry BVS, I really don't mean to be so flippant about a potentially dangerous situation.

Just remember what happened to the Iraqi reactor in 1981.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 01:39 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:22 PM
and remember what happened in Lebanon in 2006.

This is not 1981.

Iran is not Iraq (1981)

and Israel (2006/2007)

is not Israel (1981)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 01:45 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Perhaps the better comparison would have been 1938; declared intentions match and the response has been much the same, were giving the UN a chance and it's getting results.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 03:49 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 11:22 PM
There was a study just released by the National Academy Of Sciences stating that Iran may need the nuclear power after all, as their oil exports could hit 0 by 2015.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/...ear_study_dc_1
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 02:08 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:22 PM
Quote:
Jordan's king: Israel has shown itself to be weak

By Ynetnews December 26, 2006


Jordan's King Abdullah said during an interview with Tokyo-based newspaper The Daily Yomiuri that "The (Lebanon) war last summer showed that Israel is not as strong as we had previously thought, and, justifiably or not, the perception in the Middle East is that Israel lost."

Abdullah, who is currently visiting Japan, added that, "More and more countries in the region will now believe that the only way to get Israel to listen is through force and not negotiations. Israel will have to take a significant step in the right direction that will lead to calm in the region."

The Jordanian king stressed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the main source of Mideast tension. "Until we deal with this issue, which can be easily resolved, the Middle East will be forever cursed, as will the entire Muslim world," he said.

Abdallah said that in light of the current situation Israel must decide whether or not it wishes to remain isolated.

"The Arab countries are very interested in moving the peace process along, and this conveys a message to the Israelis: If we advance the peace process and implement a two-state solution, all the Arab and Muslim countries will agree to establish (diplomatic) relations with Israel," he said.

'Must change policy in Middle East'
During the Interview Abdullah warned of the rise in extremism in the Middle East, which, according to him, may lead to the weakening of the peace camp and the moderate elements.

"Therefore, we must change the policy in the Middle East, or else people will only here extremist views," he said. "In the past, there were 8 to 10 year intervals between conflicts, but now this has dropped to 10 to 12 months, and may I remind you that we are expecting three civil wars in 2007 (in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq and Lebanon)."

Turning his attention to the Iranian threat, the Jordanian king said, "There is no doubt that Iran is a major player in the region and should be incorporated into the process.

"If we advance the process in one arena, we will be able to do the same in other arenas as well," he said. "Today the Arab street is drawn more the extremists and extremist rhetoric and less to moderates speaking of peace and co-existence."

Abdullah summed up the interview by saying that the only way to fight the radicalization in the region is through education.

"The next step is to get to the streets, the schools, the homes. This is not a process that could take place over night. In certain places this process could take 15-20 years, but eventually the moderate majority must decide ? does it want to sit quietly, or does it plan to act against the horrible crimes committed in the name of religion?"

An Israeli strike on Iran would be the worst thing for Israel.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 03:31 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:22 PM
Worse than a nuclear strike on Israel?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 05:03 AM   #11
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 04:22 AM
I think I've explained this during the summer when we were at war.

It's true that Israel wasn't at it's best during the last Lebanon war and there's a very good reason for that - actually there are SEVERAL good reasons for that - the main one being that, from the beginning, Israel set out on a limited campaign to rout the HEzbollah terrorists from South Lebanon and put our northern cities out of the range of the Iranian missiles.....all this while keeping Lebanese civillian casualties to a minimum (because we NEVER target civillians).
The goal was never to conquer Lebanon and remove the legitimate government from power.

So, from the outset, we held back and didn't launch an all-out offensive on Lebanon - mainly because we have no problem with the government or the people of Lebanon, ONLY with the Hezbollah terrorists in the south who have constantly fired missiles at our northern cities over the past twenty years.

So, take into consideration that the Israeli army was not acting at 100% capacity - otherwise the results would have been totally different.

But the ultimate reason for our diminished ability was the total incompetence of the three most important people in the Israeli government - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (who is not an army man), Defence minister Amir Peretz (the former head of Israel's version of the AFL-CIO) who has no army experience, and our chief-of-staff Dan Halutz, who is an airforce soldier with no experience in infantry or ground offensives.

So, as you can see, the deck was stacked against us from the beginning. Bad decisions were made by incompetent decision-makers - the most disasterous decision being to finally launch a ground offensive a day before the cease-fire went into effect, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of dozens of Israeli soldiers and countless innocent Lebanese civillians.

Without a doubt, Israel went into this war already at a disadvantage, which resulted in a real mess (to say the least).



HOWEVER.............
Don't confuse the Lebanese issue with the Iranian issue.
The Hezbollah terrorists put our northern cities at risk. The Iranian threat is much larger. They've stated time and again that they have long-range missiles which can reach every city in Israel (and I don't doubt that they do). The Iranian threat (much like the Iraqi threat) is to our very existance and Israel will not stand idly by and wait for the sirens to sound.

People think that there's a double standard when it comes to Israel's alleged posession of nuclear weapons compared to Iran's nuclear program. This is not the case. Israel doesn't pose a threat to any of its neighbours and will never be the first one to introduce WMD in the middle east.
Iran on the other hand has stated more than once that there ultimate goal is to wipe us off the face of the earth and , as I said before, they already have the capabilities to fire long-range missiles at us. Not to mention the fact that they have a worldwide network of terrorists at their disposal to do their dirty work for them.

Even if you don't agree with Israel's policies, I hope that you can at least agree that there really isn't any basis for comparision between Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities (in a democratic and peaceful country) and Iran's nuclear program (in a faschist(sp?() state with a madman at the helm).
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com