It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: US Pushes For Crisis Vote On Iran's Nuclear Program

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Support is growing in Europe for the United States to take a tougher stance on Iran, which has consistently shown that it wants no part of diplomatic efforts to solve the ongoing conflict. Iran, is making a confrontation increasingly likely, it has defied the international community with its threat to resume on January 9 atomic fuel research and development that was shelved over a year ago at the United States urging. In an effort to bring new pressure in the hours before Tehran takes what could be a fateful step, the United States calls for a crisis vote at the United Nations Security Council.
 



www.theage.com.au
AMERICA is to push for a crisis vote to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council if Tehran goes ahead with its threat to resume banned research on uranium enrichment-related operations today.

Support is growing in European capitals for the United States to play "tough cop" to Iran, which has consistently shown disdain for diplomatic efforts to solve the stalemate.

The Bush Administration is so furious with Iran that it is preparing to push for the scheduled March board meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to be brought forward.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well this looks like the start for a push to place sanctions on Iran. But what will those sanctions be? Will they be against Companies in Iran? What is to come of this? What reaction will Iran have if it is brought to the United Nations Security Council?




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by the submitter
Support is growing in Europe for the United States to take a tougher stance on Iran.


why is it that everyone in the world is against america until it comes down to crunch time. i for one am about sick and damn tired of "the US is bad, the US is bad" and then a year later "US, please come solve this problem for us." it high time the UN solved its own freaking problems for a change. we've given enough blood.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Excuse me, snafu, but while the UN gives me a real bad taste in my mouth, the blood "we have given" was not commissioned by the UN. In fact, as I remember, and I remember well, the UN was urging us to a more diplomatic stance and we called them "irrelevant".

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
How exactly is Iran ignoring diplomatic efforts? How exactly is Iran pushing this to a crisis point?

If I recall correctly the Iranian's are stringently adhering to their obligations as described by the NPT. Calling on a nation to halt nuclear fuel production has NO BASIS in the NPT. The Iranian government allowed its sovereignty to be impinged upon in the name of diplomacy. That's a damn sight more than can be said of the actions of the United States or Britain. Since when would any of those countries allow a third party to dictate to them what they do in their sovereign actions?

Yet some class this voluntary, unrequired by NPT and non-binding action by Iran as pushing to a crisis point. These same people are the ones to vociferously proclaim the United States sovereign right to protect herself from any threats, real or otherwise, that she perceives. Hypocrisy at its most illuminated.

I urge people to read the contents of the NPT, it is not an overly long document. It will inform you of the requirements placed upon its signatories. You will instantly see that those who are complaining about Iran's nuclear program have no basis in the NPT for calling them to halt. You will also instantly see that those doing the complaining are in direct violation of the NPT agreement themselves!

IAEA.org - NPT

[edit on 8/1/06 by subz]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
as i recall all this is based on suspicions?we wonder why we have terrorists.

two other threads to check would be
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

my arguements in their as well.

quite frankly ive been critized for calling america hypocritical and irrational because of what they are doing now. this is just propaganda being used to make people believe that iran already has nuclear weapons in the making rather then a nuclear power plant. a plant which they would profit from greatly by not using oil and natural gases.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
How exactly is Iran ignoring diplomatic efforts? How exactly is Iran pushing this to a crisis point?


[edit on 8/1/06 by subz]


By refusing The Russian idea of fuel production in Russia.

By publicly saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

By saying Islam will rule the world.

By not showing upto scheduled IAEA meetings.

By publicy saying they hope Ariel Sharon dies.

By expressing the pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi.

By denying the Holocaust as a farce.

And more .....


If you cant see Danger in this man, you cant see, if you cant hear danger from this man, you cant hear, if you cant smell religous war from this man you cant smell.

The sooner this gets referred to the UN the better.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   



By publicly saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

By saying Islam will rule the world.

By not showing upto scheduled IAEA meetings.

By publicy saying they hope Ariel Sharon dies.

By expressing the pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi.





Some thoughts on a couple of these points.

Israel wiped off the map? Seriously we just invaded a country on false pretenses and deposed their government. We also ensured their country went into a horrible situation by not properly protecting their citizens after we destroyed their infastructure. We did not call for Iraq to be wiped off the map, but we are doing a pretty good job of it.

Islam will rule the world: We "spread" Christianity all over the world. Not our government but those who have influence over our leadership. Through these organizations we also bind assistance to conversion.

Not showing up to IAEA meetings: Any different then our refusal to appear before the world court system? Any different then our decision to abandon the UN?

Hoping for Sharons death: Listen to our leaders. We publicly displayed the bodies of Saddams sons after their death. One of our main religious leaders who leads hundreds of thousands of christian voters called for an assassination.

Islamic Messiah: Seriously have you ever met a Christian? I would say the current pre-occupation with the return of Jesus to be as intense if not more than their own. Is that okay because most of Americans believe in Jesus? With that thought then islam must be wrong right?

Iran bad, America good is too simple.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The over whelming difference though is that Western countries are not run by Religous Theocracy's.

Just imagine if they where, we would be in full scale war already.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Funny I wonder how many of those nations that are seeking US stronger stance against Iran will willingly help in case US decide to invade that country and take the government.

Or once again we the People will have to finance another war so the few can profit from it.

Or perhaps is all propaganda.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By refusing The Russian idea of fuel production in Russia.

They didnt ignore the diplomatic offer, they didnt accept it. They are completely different outcomes. The Iranians are not prepared to third-party their nuclear fuel production. They want to be self sufficient and process all their own nuclear fuel. I'd love to see Americans support sending their domestic energy sources over seas to please other countries!


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By publicly saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map.

That was one man's view, not even an expression of his government. We're meant to be talking about Iran here, not Ahmadinejad.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By saying Islam will rule the world.

Oh no, cant let Islam take over Christianity for ruling the World. Wouldnt make a difference to me quite frankly. Regardless of the fact that its a fallicious argument.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By not showing upto scheduled IAEA meetings.

They've showed up to plenty of IAEA meetings and they've been repeatedly told they have to forgo their NPT protected rights and suborn their sovereignty. There is only so many times you can say "we are not prepared to forgo our rights" before you give up.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By publicy saying they hope Ariel Sharon dies.

So what? What does it matter that one man thinks another man should die? You probably think Saddam Hussein should die right? Whats the difference? Both Ariel Sharon and Saddam Hussein have the blood of innocent people on their hands.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By expressing the pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi.

Again, who cares? The Jews are waiting for the Messiah and the Christians think he's already been back and will do so again. Point?


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
By denying the Holocaust as a farce.

Again, the thoughts of a single man. Who cares? He isnt even the man in charge of the Iranian power structure.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
And more .....

Are they as stellar reasons to go to crisis talks as the aforementioned?


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
If you cant see Danger in this man, you cant see, if you cant hear danger from this man, you cant hear, if you cant smell religous war from this man you cant smell.

I thought we were talking about Iran and their nuclear programme? Now youre talking about a man who's hellbent on starting a religious war.


Originally posted by NumberCruncher
The sooner this gets referred to the UN the better.

The sooner what gets referred? The fact that Ahmadinejad says things we dont like? Can I refer George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard to the UNSC for the same things?

[edit on 8/1/06 by subz]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me, snafu, but while the UN gives me a real bad taste in my mouth, the blood "we have given" was not commissioned by the UN.


what about beirut? somalia? haiti? sudan? bosnia? each time the world called and we answered with american blood.



In fact, as I remember, and I remember well, the UN was urging us to a more diplomatic stance and we called them "irrelevant".

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Valhall]


now, i have said over and over that i dont agree with our reasons for going to iraq and i was against the war from the onset. but we have to finish what we've started. and i guess we know now why these UN officials were urging diplomacy...because they were making a freaking killing off of the oil for food program. they didnt want to lose there big money maker. regardless of this, the world considers us the evil empire....until they need us. then we're the greatest thing since sliced bread.....for as long as it takes to get the job done, and then we are the bad guys again. this double standard is BS, and i dont think we should put up with it anymore. the UN thinks iran is a problem? fine, let them deal with it. we've got our own problems. let somebody else be the cavalry for a change.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Err snafu7700, this article is concerning the US pushing for a crisis vote in the UNSC. Are we reading the same article? It's the US who is going to the UN, not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Err snafu7700, this article is concerning the US pushing for a crisis vote in the UNSC. Are we reading the same article? It's the US who is going to the UN, not the other way around.


try reading all the posts and not just my last one subz.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We invade to clear out one of the nastiest, most dangerous nests of evil in the world against a UN who voted against the war because of personal corruption of everyone involved. And we're pariahs for it.

Now we do things the way we're "supposed" to. And being criticized for it. If America is as bad as so many want to believe, we would have finished off Iran awhile ago. But we haven't, and I believe it's because we know damn well they have a limited nuclear arsenal. We know we better have world support for when the Ayatollah starts lobbing fissionables.

But, it's better to wait-wait to see what happens when their first prototypes are detonated from boats in populated harbors or driven across unsecured borders, or shipped in a container along with UN "perks" like just another Mercedes.

It amazes me how people here, either out of ignorance or more nefarious reasons, fail to understand Islam. To write off a leader's words as "just one man's opinions" is bunk. Islam, to a Muslim, is not a religion. It is not a "lifestyle choice". It *IS* life, and everything around it. Politics do not separate from religion, they are one hundred percent part of religion. And a mullah or an Ayatollah does not speak *for* Allah-he speaks *With Allah's voice*. The priesthood are believed to be direct sons of Mohammed-and to say their word is law is an inderstatement of monumental proportion. Law can be broken, the word of Allah cannot.

To witness a Muslim live his life, his faith is inspirational-it is demonstrated in how he acts, even how he conducts business and relates to his family. The mosque is holy. Even the most devout Christians I have known come nowhere near the relationship of life and religion that even the average Muslim lives.

When a son of Mohammed speaks, and his words are a threat, a wise man prepares. Only a fool, or the allies of Islam practicing "Al Takeyya", would deny his threat is tangible, real, and dangerous.


Originally posted by subz
Err snafu7700, this article is concerning the US pushing for a crisis vote in the UNSC. Are we reading the same article? It's the US who is going to the UN, not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I am a 'European' and I have seen nothing of these claims that

"Support is growing in European capitals for the United States to play "tough cop" to Iran"


- In fact quite the contrary, 'Europe' absolutely does not support the idea of the USA embarking on another disasterous ME war; the last one got little enough support.

Neither for that matter does Russia.

Which is interesting considering how 'we' would all be well within range of this imagined nuclear armed Iran; wouldn't you say?

Whilst we may have concerns about Irans nuclear program (which we think can be dealt with by negotiation - so long as the threats and intimidation are turned down) what really concerns us the seemingly insatiable lust for conflict by some in the US and their Israeli friends (and often with a similar 'line' as was used to 'justify' Iraq).



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It seems that now all five of the UNSC permanent members are on board:



ABC News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have sent strong messages telling Iran to halt plans for nuclear fuel research and resume talks with European powers, a senior U.S. official said on Monday.

A senior State Department official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the so-called P5 — Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China — had sent separate notes to Tehran in recent days over its plans to resume research on nuclear fuel.

The United States had been looking for a strong joint statement but finally settled on separate statements with the same message — that Iran should not resume the research.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I doubt Iran will back down though...it'll be interesting to see what happens.

My, my we are living in interesting times!




top topics



 
2

log in

join