U.N. admits mistake in Iran nuclear report (More like got caught lying)

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17571395.htm

VIENNA, June 17 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog was forced to make an embarrassing admission on Thursday, that it had wrongly accused Iran of withholding information about imports of potentially weapons-related technology.

Iran seized on the admission as proof that it is providing full and timely information on its atomic programme, which it says is purely for generating electricity but which the United States believes is a front for developing nuclear weapons.

The disclosure was made as representatives of France, Germany and Britain continued to meet board members of the nuclear watchdog in Vienna to strike a compromise on the wording of a resolution that sharply rebukes Tehran for poor cooperation. snip


The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a June 1 report Iran did not declare until April that it had imported essential parts for advanced P-2 centrifuges used to purify uranium for use in atomic power plants or weapons.

But the Iranians this week produced a tape recording of an Iranian businessman who imported the parts telling an IAEA inspector verbally in January.

more

[radwriter0555]

1. Don't confuse the UN with the bush regime. Not EVERYONE lies. The UN is

an esteemable organization.

Iran hasn't done anything wrong here either; like North Korea, they're the target in the sights of the PNAC, and the bush regime will stop at nothing to invade, conquer and destroy them as they've done with Iraq.

[ZR2]

2. Oh please

The UN is as much, if not more, corrupt than even the * administration. The entire assembly needs to be flushed and rebuilt with the original ideals.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

16. Oh Please, there is no one more corrupt and dangerous than Bushco!

The UN has done a great deal of humanitarian work. :wtf: has Bush done good for the world? Nothing!!!

:eyes:

[kerrycrat2k4]

3. Esteemable?

Not in the eyes of the massive media conspiracy in this country which continually harps on about fraudulent charges of corruption in the Oil For Food program, lies about UN staffers being intimdated into silence and does everything it can to discredit the honorable, honest and humane global servamts trying to make a difference.

[rooboy]

4. The UN is an esteemable organization...

that is only as good as its members allow. The security council is really just a nuclear boys' club to try and control who can have WMD's (such as Israel) and who can't (Iran). Notice who the 5 permanent members are - just happens to be the first 5 members of the "nuclear family".

[NNN0LHI]

5. Don't want to feel like I am piling on here radwriter0555

But it appears that the UN has turned into the "good cop" actor in a global "good cop-bad cop" scam. And as usual the "good cop" is no better than the "bad cop".

This has become apparent to most of the world now. It appears to me that the US and the UN were preparing to pull another "lets bomb Iraq" because they have WMD's scam. Only this time in Iran.

Got to have that oil man.

Don

[radwriter0555]

6. I disagree. This is an attempt to further undermine the ONLY body on the

planet that CAN stop the bush regime.

And the good people on this board who AGREE with the original poster are merely more victims of the bush PNAC endeavor to discredit the ONLY organization on this planet with the power to stop the PNAC.

Get it?

It worked. The UN hasn't done anything wrong here other than a clerical error. Iran is not a threat, any more than North Korea is/was.

The bush regime plans to invade Iran in July may well be on hold, but, I wouldn't be shocked if they moved ahead with it.

For precisely the same non-existent reasons they invaded Iraq. Heck, they didn't even change the words, just the "Q" to an "N".

Wake up.

[ZR2]

7. How exactly has the UN stopped the * regime

from doing anything ?

[radwriter0555]

14. Maybe you should read the UN, what it's msision is, and how it operates...

It is the ONLY body on this planet that has the legal ability to stop the bush regime.

http://www.un.org/english/

They CAN take over OUR white house, by their laws, and put the bush regime in handcuffs, just any other world leader acting like a tyrant.

Have they? No. Has anyone asked them to? Why not? I sure would like them to put the PNAC out of business.

The UN was put in place literally, to prevent a 3rd world war and to prevent people the likes of bush's PNAC from taking over the fucking planet. Maybe it's time we asked them to stop the PNAC. WE certainly aren't able to, now ARE we?


Time to call NATO, baby.

[Just Me]

18. I admire the UN and all the positive actions it has implemented.

The neocon PNACers HATE the UN because its members will state an independent thought or position.

The UN is certainly not an "enemy".

[geek tragedy]

22. Thanks for the laugh.

I anxiously await their arrest of Kim Jong-Il.

[Mechatanketra]

28. Um ... not quite.

Speaking of the UN as a distinct body is something of a mistake; it's not a single entity, or even a unified agency, but a consensus of all its member nations. (Which is one reason why "new world order" conspiracy theories about a UN takeover of America are so stupid, as long as America remains a member of the UN).

The UN may provide a legal apparatus for "putting the Bush regime in handcuffs", but it has no will of its own separate from its member nations. Thus, the UN can't stop the Bush regime -- rather, it's up to one or more of those individual nations (and their leaders) to step up to the plate.

And that's basically where the whole idea falls apart. On paper, the Iraq war shouldn't have happened (at least, not as it did, an unopposed nigh-unilateral invasion) -- America clearly didn't have valid cause to invade (there being only one such cause, self-defense), so instead of debating the exact tepidity of anti-Iraq resolutions, the UNSC should have been discussing how to deal with the American threat. This was, after all, the very purpose the UN was founded (ostensibly) to prevent from happening again: a belligerent nation committed to a war of choice. The catch-22 is that the only teeth the UN has in the end to enforce its notional 'authority' is a willingness of all its member nations to go to war themselves when necessary to defend each other.

For all the dishonesty and stupidity generated by this administration, they got one thing right: the UN is, right now, basically a token debating society whose opinions and decisions are largely irrelevant to our military adventurism -- because no nation in the UN is willing to absolutely put their foot down and say, "These are the rules, and you will not break them, or else." Other countries will complain about the Iraq war, but none of them are going to do anything about it -- and if no individual country is willing to, then by extension the UN (which exists only as a consensus of those nations' governments) isn't willing to.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Clerical error my ass

Who do you think you are kidding here? Yourself? The discussion here is not about making mistakes through a "clerical error" that may result in a little money lost or a person or two killed. We are talking about the lives of millions of people being effected here. One does not make "clerical errors" in these situations. If the UN was not 100% sure of the facts in situations like these it would be best for them to just shut the fuck up.

And I suppose you write off what happened in Iraq as being caused by a "clerical error" too? If the UN could not stop the Chimp from invading Iraq why are they writing shit in reports that are not only untrue, but particularly damning also?

I would say what we witnessed leading up to the invasion of Iraq should teach us ALL something. The UN is just cover for whatever the US wants to do. Its always been that way too. The US pays the bills for Pete's sake.

I think you had better wake up my friend.

Don

[Mike Daniels]

11. Last I recall the UN approved the interim Iraqi government

Hardly sounds like they are doing anything to handicap Bush's agenda re: Iraq

[radwriter0555]

19. So you would rather the bush regime RETAIN control over iraq as opposed to

handing control over to the new, interim government?

Huh?

[Mike Daniels]

21. But according to people here the interim government are nothing but

US stooges so by approving the interim government the UN is allowing Bush to maintain control indirectly.

[F.Gordon]

15. I respectfully disagree

We aren't going to invade Iran. And yes, I'm still holding to my crazy-wacko tinfoil prediction that Iran will "denounce terrorism" (like Libya)...the sanctions imposed by Clinton will be removed by bush*, and Halliburton will soon be back in business there again.

Part of the problem with the P-2 centrifuge verification is that the parts apparently came from Pakistan, and Pakistan hasn't been cooperative with the IAEA. It is Pakistan, not Iran, that has been withholding information.

This UN Resolution is a smoke-screen meant to add "credibilty" to the exisiting efforts of Japan, Russian, and the EU to do business with Iran. "Yes, we deplore Iran for seeking nuuuukeeelar parts, so NOW can we start doing oil business with them?"

For bush* to have ANY success in Iraq he has to have Iran 100% on board. It has been Iran that has been negotiating with the Shia and the CPA, helping to establish the guidelines for the Shia to have a part in the new Iraq "democracy".

Bush* also desperately needs a "success story" prior to the election on how our occupation of Iraq has worked. Removing Iran from the "axis of evil" would give him a HUGE boost in the polls.

Also, don't know if you're aware of this, but Syria is apparently removing the anti-Israel clause from their constitution.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in play here. Don't be fooled by the bullshit being fed to the media by Rove.....

Our course, this is just my opinion and I'm usually full of shit, crazy, and don't have a clue what the fuck I'm talking about....

[Doctor Smith]

17. Pretty unlikely, since the U.S. has a veto on the Security Council,

and also is very good at bribing or threatening the other members of the Security Council.

The U.N. is used as a fig leaf for the U.S.

The U.N. is irrelevant.

[Village Idiot]

8. You're kidding, right?

An "esteemable" organization?

Thanks for my morning laugh!!!!!;^)

[Mike Daniels]

10. This is the organization that constantly passes resolutions condemning

Israel for military incursions but has yet to pass any type of resolution condemning the constant use of suicide bombers attacking non-military targets?

Honorable my ass.

[leftynyc]

23. I agree 100% with you.

UN has become irrelevant. Their chance to do something honorable began and ended in Rwanda. They are useless.

[geek tragedy]

12. The UN is an empty vessel

that is used by various states for their corrupt goals.

As a liberal, I recognize that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and that just because the UN makes life difficult for Bush on some issues doesn't mean that it is anything other than a tool for dictators, whether they be Bush or Castro.

[Just Me]

25. I strongly disagree,....

,...with your "conclusion" about a body that is evolving and that has done more to address human tragedy than any individual sovereignty.

I do NOT believe the UN is a "tool" for dictators. Perhaps, it's mission to assist humanity is abused by dictators.

Nevertheless, the UN is a body with the potential to moderate among all dictators and bring both stability and peace.

I reject your surmise and your judgment of the UN.

ON EDIT: you just keep in mind that "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" and "black" and "white" really are relative concepts (except as defined by rules of law) exaggerated by those who seek to wield power or control over all others.

[HuckleB]

13. And we're supposed to believe the UN when it talks about WMD being

"shipped out" before the war? Hmm. How long before the war was it "shipped out"? Years, perhaps? Hmm. Why would that be? Or, hmm. Since there is evidence of the US trying to plant WMD in Iraq and failing, perhaps these "WMD" were, uh, planted as well.

You can't trust Bush. You can't trust Saddam. You can't trust the UN.

We'll never know the real story.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. People on this thread seem to have fogotten that the UN...

is NOT an independant organisation. It is made up of people appointed to their roles by the member states.

So fisrtly, let's recall that the particular agency involved in this "error" is the IAEA, which in the past has been planted with CIA spies.

Are we supposed to believe there are no more CIA spies in the IAEA? Of course not! The CIA knows that the IAEA is an important means of gaining valuable intelligence and manipulating world opinion. I would be surprised if it wasn't positively riddled with spies from all over the world, but most importantly from the US.

What is the bet that the IAEA inspector that was verbally told of the importation was a US or UK citizen?

Secondly, as the article makes clear, the US has been pushing for IAEA actions against Iran. This shows that although the UN may appear to be independant, the reality is the UN is much like a publically listed corporation, and the biggest shareholders (the most powerful nations) have the biggest say, and can twist it to their own ends.


Thus to say the UN is at fault, is to overlook the fact that the UN is nothing but a tool of these nations, with the nation that has the most pull being the US.

Until the UN is made truly independant, with every member state having equal say, and with proper procedures for removing undue influence from national intelligence agencies, the UN is pretty much synonymous with the US.

[nolabels]

24. In other words, We are on our own (some of us knew that)

IT'S NOW AGAINST THE LAW
TO EXPOSE THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE GLOBAL FASCIST STATE ROLLS ON
AND THE AMERICAS ARE NEXT

This is a report in the London Daily Telegraph, which signposts so clearly what is to come, indeed what is already here, in the fascist New World Order. The very symbol of fascism, the rods tied together with the axehead at the top, is a perfect description of the structure of the European Union and now we have the other classic fascist technique - putting its institutions and personnel outside the laws that affect the rest of the people.

At the same time, President "Boy" George Bush is pressing forward with the Illuminati agenda for a European Union of the Americas. Like his father and Clinton before him he is calling for the NAFTA "free trade" area to be extended to the whole of the Americas - a long planned move as outlined in my books over many years. The next stage will be the United States of the Americas, a mirror of the EU.

Moves and meetings are now being pushed forward to make this reality. The election of George W. Bush was like a starting pistol to introduce the New World Order agenda ever more quickly and anyone with an eye for what is happening can already see that.

As I and others have said for so long, the idea is to make dissent of this agenda illegal and here we have a major stepping stone to that end in the European Union - the first of many.

David Icke




http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/euglobal.html

I just like the picture, the text is a little twisted but makes good copy

Give me Liberty (protest) or give me death (they now want to throw a little torture in while you wait for your number)

[geek tragedy]

26. You forgot to mention the UFO's

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[nolabels]

27. If you insist

http://www.rense.com/general52/deff.htm
(check it out in that one :scared:)




http://www.harrythecat.com/graphics/a.htm#sships

[Just Me]

29. Hardly. We are in this, together, whether we like it or not. n/t