Nations Reach Deal on Confronting Iran

[ECH1969]

UNITED NATIONS - The five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council reached a deal Wednesday on confronting Iran's suspect nuclear program, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful U.N. body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.

The 15 members of the council planned to meet later Wednesday to approve the statement, which was expected to demand that Iran abandon uranium enrichment, the process that can lead to a nuclear weapon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear_4

[Don Claybrook]

1. this sounds like the beginning of the end

I wonder what we promised Putin in return.

[HereSince1628]

2. I'm guessing Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, but

Seriously, it is more than likely we granted them a free hand to commit genocide in Chechnya. :(

[patdem]

3. Don't know..what is the name of the opposition party? Putem on our

terrorist list? Let others put Democrats on their terrorist watch list?

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "the powerful U.N. body" ????? yeah right . .

.
.
.

They didn't, and have done nothing to stop the BushGang from it's illegal and genocidal wars . .

(sigh)

[Roland99]

5. Iran is being setup to fail.

[Phx_Dem]

24. IMO, Iran is setting themselves up to fail n/t

[Roland99]

25. There's nothing that says they cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Well, only this administration.


Saudi Arabia moving to create nuclear weapons scares me a helluva lot more than Iran.

[Phx_Dem]

34. how about no more nukes

for anyone. it's not like they are a good weapon anyway, all they are designed for is to kill people.

[Roland99]

37. Actually, in Iran's case. I think it really would be a deterrent.

Think about it. If Iran did have a nuke, what would be the odds of the US attacking Iran? Pretty damn small.

[Phx_Dem]

39. I suppose

The bush admin is unlike any admin we have had in my memory, but in general the US does not pose a threat to other counties w/out provocation.

[Roland99]

44. You might want to read this. I think it'll change your views of US policy.

America's Blinders
by Howard Zinn
March 26, 2006

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=9987

[tom_paine]

54. The old US simply does not exist anymore

Our rapid transformation to the Amerikan Empire, a subsidiary of BushCo Imperial Family, Inc., is so far along that it is quite naive to use ANY template of thinking which postulates future behavior of THIS country from the 224 1/2 years of behavior from the country that came before it.

Like predicting Nazi activities after 1933 by using Weimar Republic Standards...that does not compute.

Sorry if the truth hurts. Don't blame the messenger.

Also, the first step to solving a problem is recognizing exactly what the problem is.

[Radioactive]

31. Iran aren't going to do shit....

... we all know what is coming after the 30 days are up. Bush, Cheny, Rummy and co cant wait to launch the next invasion on their list.

[0007]

33. Arming Israel is the crux of the matter isn't it?

[Phx_Dem]

35. Don't know

but allowing a country like Iran to develop nukes is stupid. For everyone.

[tnlefty]

6. Didn't you post an article yesterday that Saudi Arabia was acquiring

nuclear materials from Pakistan in an effort to become a nuclear power? Bush** trading nuclear materials with India and we get mangoes? What the hell is wrong with this picture?

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Breaking on CNN - UN Security Council unanimously

approves a statement that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

No link yet. Just a banner.

http://www.cnn.com/

[saigon68]

8. I'm sure they'll hurry over and do just that

SARCASM

[Roon]

9. I didn't think it was possible

but it looks like we are going to attack Iran...eventually..

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Well, Roon. Our mission is accomplished in Iraq.

Did you miss that particular sound bite?

:sarcasm:

PNAC-destroying one country at a time and loving every minute of it.

[leveymg]

10. Here's the article - NON-BINDING Resolution

U.N. Security Council passes nuclear demands for Iran
Statement not binding; Russia, China want IAEA to take lead
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/29/UN.iran.ap/index.html
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Posted: 4:38 p.m. EST (21:38 GMT)


British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry says Iran needs to comply with IAEA demands.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council has unanimously approved a statement Wednesday demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council agreed earlier on a statement demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, setting the stage for the first action by the powerful body over fears that Tehran wants a nuclear weapon.

The text gives Iran 30 days to cooperate with the IAEA and suspend its uranium enrichment, according to U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

SNIP

This keeps it out of the UN Security Council. The IAEA can not impose sanctions by itself. This is a symbolic show, but not the sort of resolution that might be used to justify military action.

[katty]

12. countdown begins....

[Terran1212]

19. 30 DAYS

[mom cat]

32. Thanks for the clarification. I am not so worried now. It sounds like

the US did not get the go ahead for war.

[GodlessBiker]

15. If the UN told us we had to stop, we'd tell them to go to hell.

[leveymg]

17. Yes, but if China said it was going to cash our bonds, that's s different

matter altogether, isn't it? What about a blockade of the Straights of Hormuz - is that going to drive the Dow up?

Do you think the NY Banks are going to let Bush crash the U.S. and global economies so the GOP can get reelected?

[AndyTiedye]

20. Things Have Gotten Out of Control. The NY Banks Can't Stop Them

If the New York banks still had any power, do you think Bush** would
have been allowed to bankrupt the country with these deficits?

[leveymg]

26. So far, they're making a fortune financing US public debt

That works provided that the currency doesn't crash, devaluing US Dollar denomiated holdings by a like amount.

[Ian David]

16. Does that mean Halliburton has to close their office in Tehran? n/t

[htuttle]

13. "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,"

"...Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
-- W.B Yeats

[leveymg]

14. This keeps it out of the UN Security Council - IAEA Can't Sanction

Iran or issue resolutions authorizing force.

Russia and China have already said this is as far as they're going to go. It stops here.

Of course, the US and UK could act unilaterally without a UN figleaf, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards presently laid out on the table.

[Terran1212]

18. We know its coming this time

[AndyTiedye]

21. We Knew It Was Coming Last Time. Much Good That Did Us.

[Terran1212]

23. Creating a permanent antiwar movement is very good!

Change isn't always fast!

[cenacle]

22. I don't know what this means...

but I do know Russia was opposed to this before, and now isn't. I do know that the AmeriKKKan fascists ruling this saggy Empire would love to invade Iran as part of their PNAC ambitions, but the fact is that US forces are so buried in the civil war nightmare that is Iraq that there is no way they could invade a country 3 or 4 times the size of Iraq.

And I think, believe in my heart, that talk of invading Iran militarily would bring out TENS OF MILLIONS of people around the world, and I cannot believe any of the UN Security Council nations has the stomache for this. That said, who in March 2001 could have said that 5 years later the current Orwellian nightmare would be going on?

An invasion of Iraq would in the US require a draft, maybe even the imposition of martial law. From what I have gleaned from various sources, this whole UN gesture may be so much smoke anyway. But I don't know. :(

[LynnTheDem]

27. It also leads to nuclear energy, which Iran is LEGALLY ENTITLED to persue.

And which the vast majority of Iranians are eager to have & proud of their country for persuing.

We live in "interesting" times.

[Phx_Dem]

36. yeh, because it's not like they have other energy options

you know like oil or something

[LynnTheDem]

38. Obviously the "msm" failed to inform you of some facts.

"Today, oil experts say Iran is now near peak extraction."
http://www.energybulletin.net/4928.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020606A.shtml

Iranian oil and energy analyst and expert Ali Bakhtiari predicts that peak oil will arrive around 2006, 2007...
http://energybulletin.net/2347.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil-porter031004.htm

Scott Ritter; sure was right about Iraq, where bush was 100% wrong. And what does he say about Iran? Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11812.htm

“IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: http://www.GlobalSecurity.org ”

The NPT gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes…..No state has successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to an NPT inspection regime.

"Iran's president...stands on the solid ground of international law"
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=11600

Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran; Scott Ritter
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-31.htm

There is No Iranian 'Crisis'
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0226-21.htm

IAEA: Iran Not Seeking to Produce Nukes
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1669447

[Phx_Dem]

40. your kind of missing the point

or maybe you can "educate" me about where all that Iranian oil profit went? They have no oil to spare for domestic energy production? Why is that? Maybe it would cut into someone's profits?

[LynnTheDem]

42. Read the links.

And as to educating you, it's "you're".

As in you're missing the point(s); Iran's oil is near peak extraction; Iran has a legal right to nuclear energy.

And I'll go with Scott Ritter's opinion, thanks! :hi:

[Phx_Dem]

43. So you don't know

why Iran could not use some of their oil for domestic energy production. Personally as a liberal I don't support expanding nuclear energy development, I don't care whether countries have the right or not.

[kysrsoze]

46. "As a liberal?"

What kind of crap is that? Liberals wouldn't favor increased use of oil over nuclear power - perhaps 20 years ago, they would. I call B.S. on this.

[Phx_Dem]

47. at least with oil

there is no nuclear waste. You have heard of catalysts right? By using catalysts, coal and oil can be burned very cleanly. What do you think Iran would do with their nuclear waste? You really think they would dispose of it properly? (if there even is such a thing)

[LynnTheDem]

53. So as a "liberal" you don't care about the LAW.

Gee how very..."liberal".

:eyes:

[Phx_Dem]

49. ritter has lost his mind

"Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran."

I think this quote speaks for itself.

[LynnTheDem]

51. LOL!

:rofl:

[Phx_Dem]

55. Don't see the humor

or maybe tinfoil makes people laugh at things that are not funny.

[kysrsoze]

45. Wow, you really don't get it, do you?

Nuclear power is one of the few somewhat clean (aside from the waste) energy sources of which we have an abundance. It's not about profit. It's about the fact that oil supplies are dwindling and people who bother to educate themselves understand that.

Aside from the question of energy, let's go back to weapons. If (and I mean, "if") Iran intended to build nuclear weapons, it would likely be in response to the imminent threat from both the United States and Israel, both of which have massive stockpiles of nuclear and chem/bio weapons.

Of course, this administration put up even less phony and inconclusive evidence of Husseins supposed WMD activities than they are now with Iran. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again.

[Phx_Dem]

48. don't agree

Oil and coal can be burned SO cleanly that you could breath the exhaust coming out the "smoke stack".

[LynnTheDem]

52. The experts disagree with you. I'll go with what the experts say.

:)

[Moderator]

28. Kick

[hadrons]

29. Iran Gets 30 Days to Clear Nuke Suspicions

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and key members turned their focus on what to do if Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Berlin on Thursday for discussions between the five permanent council members — the United States, Russia, China Britain and France — plus Germany, on how much and what kind of pressure to exert on Iran if it refuses to comply.

After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member Security Council approved a statement Wednesday asking the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.

The statement, made available to The Associated Press, takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran.

It "notes with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol" — an agreement allowing agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear program.

The statement also calls on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities."

....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

[Kierkegaard]

30. Let the games begin...

*sigh*

[Doctor_J]

41. I bet *Co will take this as a go-ahead to attack Iran

in 30 days and minute. I can't believe the UNSC signed off on starting WWIII in the ME.

[allisonthegreat]

50. in a post right above or below this they are planning military exercise

I guess this will cause more unrest in the middle east...