Iran rejects UN demand for halt to enrichment

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Iran rejects UN demand for halt to enrichment
Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - Iran rejected on Thursday a U.N. Security Council demand that it halt uranium enrichment to reassure the world that its nuclear program is peaceful.

"We will not, definitely, suspend again the enrichment," Iran's ambassador to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, told Reuters.

Soltaniyeh spoke as Germany and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were meeting in Berlin to discuss their next steps on Iran, with Russia and China seeking assurances that force would not be used.

After the talks, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the participants had agreed Iran must heed the U.N. demand to halt enrichment, adding that the international community still sought a diplomatic solution to the stand-off.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-30T130018Z_01_N29372487_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN.xml

[LynnTheDem]

1. A NON-BINDING resolution.

Of course they won't suspend their program; they have a LEGAL RIGHT to continue.

[mom cat]

2. Thanks for the clarification. there is a lot of information out there.

[leveymg]

4. There's a lot of disinformation, too.

Almost all of the reports I've read are written to be easily misunderstood to mean that the members of the UN Security Council voted unanimously to demand that Iran cease enrichment, or else the matter will be referred for sanctions. That's not what the letter means at all.

This is a non-binding expression. It keeps the matter, at least for now, in the hands of the IAEA, which has no power to sanction or approve military force. The Russians and Chinese have already said they will not approve sanctions. That's it -- this is another delaying tactic.

Thanks to MSM mighty propaganda machine, however, most people think the UN voted to move the matter towards sanctions and approval of military action. That's a despicable lie.

[ronnie624]

6. Disinformation indeed.

That article reeked of propaganda. And...

"Adoption of such a resolution would make compliance enforceable with economic sanctions or other measures."

I wonder why the authors of the piece could not be bothered to clarify what those "other measures" might be.

[MrPrax]

7. Your right...

Again I sorta wonder about the MSM, when a casual 'non-journalist' who simply reads, can give a better account of 'what happened' on a web forum, than what one would get in one of those 'corporate data dumps' set to print.

Thx

[leveymg]

8. That's why I'm here rather than being paid to work there.

;)

[stop the bleeding]

3. Is anyone surprised by this statement?

:sarcasm:

[tatertop]

5. Iran is foolish for not buying and flaunting nuclear weapons

That is the best way to stop american foolishness
dead dead dead. With all those cash starved countries
in the area you would think someone has nuclear weapons for sale.
Allah knows, Iran's got the cash.

[leveymg]

9. They may have done that. But, just one or two, so they can't

talk about it. It would tempt some idiots to try a commando raid.

There was a lot of surplus, unaccounted-for hardware floating around in the global blackmarket after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

For all we know, the Iranians have proven over the course of the last decade that they are, indeed, a responsible member of the nuclear club.

[tatertop]

11. now that was an unexpected (and intelligent) response

Let me ask you this:
If the US rapes that country,
how can you not support Iran in that fight?

[leveymg]

12. One can condemn the rapist without embracing the victim

That's the lot of being in the loyal opposition. Someone has to put the pieces back together again after this Mob is put safely in jail.

BTW: the raping started in '53 under Kermit Roosevelt and the Dulles Bros. So, it's not a matter of if the US rapes that country.

[0007]

10. Coming from Reuters, this could be just another piece of propaganda.