U.S. Presses Case for Action Against Iran (here we go)

[deadparrot]

VIENNA, Austria - The United States on Wednesday pressed its case to have Iran hauled before the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities, urging fellow members of the International Atomic Energy Agency board to vote for such action in the next few days.

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh flew to Vienna to try to build support for Tehran among the 35 nations on the IAEA's board. He said that despite displeasure over the Security Council push, his country would stick to its nuclear nonproliferation commitments whatever the board decided.

Aghazadeh spoke to reporters after meeting with representatives of Russia, China and the Nonaligned Movement — all of them opposed to a U.S.-European push for referral being prepared at an IAEA board meeting.

A European Union draft resolution, made available to The Associated Press, demands Iran's referral for alleged "failures and breaches of its obligations to comply" with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran

[Clark2008]

1. I'm betting no one takes the US up on this except, maybe,

Britain.

The rest of the world is fed up with our bullying - even if this is a legitimate case (and I'm not saying it is - I'm just saying that no one will let us cry "Wolf!" again.)

[Brundle_Fly]

21. Don't forget

Israel. They will of course be on board.

[EFerrari]

2. That's IT! We have to petition Mr. Anan to haul our

pResident before the Security Council for crimes against humanity or whatEVER the Security Council oversees.

Who knows how to start one of those on line petitions?

[Realityhack]

28. He can't

Anon can't do that and we would Veto any action anyway so most countries would not go along with it as they would be risking our anger (and their aid) for nothing.

We set up the UN sepcificaly so we would never have accountablility for anything... you might note that we are violtating the non-proliferation treaty ourselves by discussing using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

[barenakedbiker]

3. OPEC InvasionWatch

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050921/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_agency_iran



By ANDREA DUDIKOVA, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 32 minutes ago

VIENNA, Austria - The United States on Wednesday pressed its case to
have Iran hauled before the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear
activities, urging fellow members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency board to vote for such action in the next few days.

Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh flew to Vienna to try to
build support for Tehran among the 35 nations on the IAEA's board. He
said that despite displeasure over the Security Council push, his
country would stick to its nuclear nonproliferation commitments
whatever the board decided.

[maddezmom]

4. please edit the title of your post

to reflect the actual headline:
U.S. Presses Case for Action Against Iran

thanks in advance

[The Stranger]

5. One Nation, Under PNAC, With Illegal War and Injustice for All.

[Roland99]

9. Good one. Scarily true.

[tainowarrior]

6. relax folks

The U.S. is just doing the usual bluffing. They can't take on Iran, save the use of airstrikes with conventional weapons or nuke attack, both options that would disastrous consequences.

If they use airstrikes, it won't be enough, and Iran will retaliate in Iraq, while probably engaging U.S. ships in the Mid East with Sunburn missiles.

If they use nukes, I'd think the condemnation and economic isolation of the U.S. would be too severe.

We're bluffing. We don't have the manpower to wage a war with Iran, and they know it. We barely can't contain an insurgency of officially 10,000 insurgents, you think we can take on a 600,000+ Army, with 2 million in reserve, and with more weapons than Iraq had?

[loudsue]

7. Since when has the republican owned government of the USA

bothered with such details as what might be true or reasonable?

They're going to try to take Iran out before March, when the Iranian bourse is set to open. The chickenhawks will likely use nukes, and won't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

:kick:

[HuffleClaw]

8. bourse ?

that 'switch to the euro' thing ?

[Psyop Samurai]

10. Yes...

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

[YapiYapo]

14. More link

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker

Killing the dollar in Iran

bourse closer to reality

China,russia and europe(including England) won't be happy with an US or US + israel invading Iran.They all invested billions of € in Iran.

[tainowarrior]

13. I don't think they could use nukes

it's just too much. Most countries in the world would immediately sanction us economically, and bring this country to a halt. Our people would promptly impeach this administration, under economic pressure from other countries.

One thing is tolerating Imperial America. Another is just letting the U.S. use nukes.

[midnight armadillo]

15. A big portion of the US would cheer nukes

Seriously. There would be a large crowd, especially amongst the more rightwing nutcases in the Republican party, that would dance in the streets if the US used tactical nukes in Iran.

They've been waiting 60 years to drop some of the arsenal, and the fact that the targets would be brown-skinned people would be icing on the cake.

[tainowarrior]

16. I share your assessment...

of the mindset of a substantial amount of Americans.

But I strongly think that the response from the world would be economic warfare. Many countries would stop giving the U.S. goods, which wipe the smiles off those right-wingers faces.

The U.S. would probably be suspended from the U.N., and from a whole host of international treaties for such a massive human rights massacre. Not to mention the chaos and social instability that will occur all over the world's major cities.

[reprobate]

23. Even more damaging would be an embargo of our bond market.

With the debt this nation carries today, any economic warfare would most likely include an ebargo of our bond market, which we depend on to finance our government.

What do you think would happen in that case? First, the dollar would fall thru the floor and thru geological layers of the earth. We could not afford to import ANYTHING, including oil. IOW, we would suddenly become dependant on only what we could produce domesticly, and that certainly would not keep our lifestyle at current levels. We would suddenly be ruduced to America of th 17th century.

I can predict with personal certainty that Americans simply would NOT take that for any length of time longer than a minute. It would mean the death of the administration, perhaps even a revolution, and the personal deaths of those in leadership positions in the Evil Empire.

No, it wouldn't be pretty. But perhaps it's something that we NEED to happen to turn America back to the track that it should have been on befor the corporations took control of government.

[kineneb]

32. Wait a moment...

most Iranians are not brown-skinned, unless they spend a lot of time in the sun. Not to be testy or anything, but since I lived there, I guess I should know. Also, most don't wear turbans, and calling them "ragheads" is a real insult. We must remember that Islam is a mere varnish over an ancient culture. And the Christians, Jews and Muslims should thank the Persians for introducing the innovation of a monotheistic religion from Zoroaster.

[frankieT]

37. yes all the racists should now that aryans come from these regions -eom-

[Realityhack]

29. I don't trust them either... but thats a bit paranoid

I seriously doubt anyone is going to break out the nukes. There aren't enough troops left to deal with the mess that would create at home.

[RageFist]

11. The trump card...the draft n/t

[Mika]

17. Rovian choice: Either nukes or the draft. Which would Americans pick? n/t

[tainowarrior]

19. bring the draft on.

the draft...and it will just Vietnamize the conflict even more. I'd actually the welcome the draft, if only to see the military be overwhelmed with unwilling recruits, and expedite the domestic opposition to the military.

Bring the draft on. Can't wait to burn my card. I'll gladly go to jail instead.

[RageFist]

20. I'm with you on going to jail...would speak volumes n/t

[Megahurtz]

27. They better stay away from MY kid.

:grr:

[reprobate]

25. Personally, Taino, it might be better in the long run for this country....

.....if it did happen.

Speaking only for myself, I am fed up to the eyeballs with the militarization of the nation. All the things that should be done here, including but not limited to health care for all, rebuilding our infrastructure, bringing us back to world class education, etc., etc., etc., have taken a back seat sing the end of WWII. There never was a disarmament in 1945, just a well coordinated PR campaign to make the Soviet Union the new Bogey man, so the corporations could maintain the wealth they became accustomed to during the war.

Viet Nam was a disaster for the nation, but we learned nothing from it. We still operate with the idea that violence will solve everything. I believe that if we are to continue as a nation of the people, we must learn the lesson that violence solves nothing but to create more violence.

I can hope that we may learn a valuable lesson from the mideast conflict if we were to go up against the Iranians, either conventionally, or with tactical nukes.

In the one case of conventional weapons, it's the feeling of many who should know that this would be a fools errand. Iran has a huge standing army an huge reserve forces. Plus, (and this is something I thing this administration does not allow itself to see) they now have Iraq's Shias. That means that our forces become sitting ducks where they are now, and could not attack Iran without being worse than decimated. Wiped out!

On the other hand, the nuke option would result not in our army being destroyed, but I believe that our nation, as an economic entity, would no longer be viable. Most of the world still views us as evil for being the only nation to use an atomic bomb in war against civilians. Should we do it again we can look forward to being a pariah among nations. We cannot survive economically without the world buying our bonds, and if we force them to value humanity over profits, we couldn't sell our bonds for pennies. That would bring worse inflation than prewar Germany had, when it took a wheelbarrow load of money to buy a loaf of bread.

So, Tiano, as I said at the beginning of this rant, it may be better for us in the long run if we did take the fools path.

[librechik]

35. Bolton n/t

[tom_paine]

12. If they follow true to form, the sabres truly begin rattling in Sept. 2006

Because everyone knows you don't roll out a new product, like a nice, shiny new war, in August.

[Javaman]

18. Iraq: smaller faster military. Iran: Small yield nukes...

These are nothing more than the new weapon testing grounds.

I loath that bastard*.

[tainowarrior]

22. a question.

why does everyone refer to Bush as *?

I never get that.

[reprobate]

24. It may be a copy of Boondocks cartoon which uses * instead of drawing him.

[Javaman]

26. When moron* was appointed prez...

There was a senator, I forget whom, stated, after the 2000 election, that moron* should have an * after his name, because he was not duly elected but appointed by the supreme court.

I put it there because he* never will be the actual elected president in my eyes. Gore won the popular vote and won florida, but it took morons* halfwit brother, karen nutcrusher hughes, and katherine barbiedoll harris, to throw the vote.

colossal racist failure*.

[tainowarrior]

33. makes sense

so, the * asterisk is purely to always remember him as an illegitimate president. Cool.

[DamnYank]

38. Because it resembles a certain bodily orifice

:evilgrin:

[Lindacooks]

30. They have got to be totally nuts. Does the chimp really believe that

he can get away with that?? Goddess help us all.

[teryang]

31. You don't tell me, I tell you.

This stage in the breakdown of diplomacy is indicative of a change in the balance of power, or at a minimum, a readiness in the former "unfree world power centers" to test the American foolish claim, we are the only world's superpower.

The phenomenon of the diktat is a characteristic of a failing power, seeing itself in decline, pursuing desperate schemes to forestall its loss of world stature. The more impotent a hegemon becomes, the more dictatorial and outlandish its rhetoric and threats become. The Russians and Chinese appear unusually confident (and deceptive as well).

[belle]

34. Dear U.S.: Shut the fuck up. Yrs cordially, the rest of the world.

[sakabatou]

36. Cue "Freedonia Goes to War"