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.

 

And So It Begins - U.N. gives Iran 30 days

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend Uranium enrichment



"The text gives Iran 30 days to cooperate with the IAEA and suspend its uranium enrichment"


Can't wait to hear the response from Iran. Russia and China are going to have their hands forced as well.

The line is drawn, the sides are soon to be selected.

Step right up, step right up. Get your tickets now for the big fight. Ringside seats available.

www.cnn.com...

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



(headline fix)

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Riwka]




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Iran will not be the next Iraq people. This country is much larger, much more developed, has a high population, and a much better equipped fighting force.
However, Iran will not be the next Iraq in another sense, more than likely, the United States will not use a ground assualt to attempt to overthrow and dismantle Iran's government. Surgical or even secretive airstrikes would more than likely solve the issues this administration and the UN have with Iran. (Another) However, Iran will more than likely not take airstrikes inside its borders lightly, and retaliation, probably in the Middle East not on American soil, will not be far behind.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Oh my. It was a statement though, not an order, but:



"...even though the statement is not legally enforceable, the talks have been extremely sensitive because of the statement's larger significance."


However, Iran continues incalcitrant and Bush continues to flex American muscle.

Will Bush make his big move when bird flu strikes and the world is in chaos? Are the nanobots ready?

Stay tuned.



[edit on 29-3-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
If i was Iran i would call the lot of them Hypocrites casur thats all they are. Is Iran realistically going to try and nuke America come on!



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Oh and also how will airstrikes solve it, the material will be spread throughout the country with backups. And the knowledge will still be there. You overestimate the capability of airstrikes.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
So we bomb iran, do the surgical strikes, we still won't occupy any territory, nor do we have the people in the armed services to do so. In the mean time Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel and completely blows them off the map, we counter, Russia and China counter us, we call that the end of the world as we know it. This whole thing needs to be defused, bush needs to put his ego away as it is not backed with brain power, Iran needs to negotiate and everyone needs to watch out for the russians and chinese.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
It's funny how china supports Iran,I bet if Japan wanted to build nukes then China would call for war against them.Maybe even let Tiawan have some of our older nuke technology see how supportive China is over that!



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
It's funny how china supports Iran,I bet if Japan wanted to build nukes then China would call for war against them.Maybe even let Tiawan have some of our older nuke technology see how supportive China is over that!


I totally agree with you. If Japan or Taiwan obtained nukes through development or as gifts from the U.S. then China and North Korea would flip.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The Cry and Widow- What you are saying doesnt really change what AMERICA is about to do, and to be fair Iran isn´t on your doorstep and was once part of your country as Taiwan is with China. Open your eyes away from America you are not the only country in the world.


Tuk

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
It's funny how china supports Iran,I bet if Japan wanted to build nukes then China would call for war against them.Maybe even let Tiawan have some of our older nuke technology see how supportive China is over that!


I might be wrong, but it's my understanding that China is supporting Iran mainly because Iran can sell tons of oil barrels to oil hungry China.
Not because China want's to oppose US and rest of the world.

China and Russia won't attack US or anyone else because of Iran. That would be very bad for their economies.. And i don't think they even would want to do that. All they might do is selling Iran some weapons.

Widow and cry:
Of course China would flip if US would supply Taiwan with nukes. Remember what happened in 60s when Soviets tried to put nukes on Cuba..
TIP: It was'nt Cuba who flipped and almost destroyed entire world..



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
The Cry and Widow- What you are saying doesnt really change what AMERICA is about to do, and to be fair Iran isn´t on your doorstep and was once part of your country as Taiwan is with China. Open your eyes away from America you are not the only country in the world.


Yeah but wait a minute here, wasn't it Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said Isreal should be wiped off the map? The only reason reason why China and Russia back Iran is becasue of politics not oil and If China and Russia want to back a president like that then it is only fair that the U.S plays the same game.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecry
Yeah but wait a minute here, wasn't it Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said Isreal should be wiped off the map?


Personally... I don't I should believe even that (he actually said that). It's very difficult for me to trust what's in the mainstream media anymore. They put spin on their side, we put spin on ours.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
The Bandit,

that statement was reported by Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency Irna itself.

It was condemned by leaders from London to Moscow. And the United Nations condemned it.

That's not "Mainstream Media" made.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The U.N. matters some what. U.S. defied the U.N.
Iran defies the U.N.
.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
What are you saying, the U.S. defioes the U.N.? In reference to invading Iraq? If that be the case, the U.S. followed the U.N. resolutions and the U.N. was ignoring the U.N. for financial reasons (on behalf of Kofi's family and on behalf of individual members).
Speaking of hypocrisies, let's not even turn the direction toward the U.N. It'll be an all day affair better done in its own thread.
As far as Iran being stymied from its pursuit of nuclear weaponry after its long-standing backing of terrorism, unstable speeches and the like, that is right on track with what the Unirted Nations was allegedly founded to do in the first place. Not that it has EVER been good at doing what it was supposed to do, and not that they really created it for such righteous reasons (I'd link you to my United Nations article in an old copy of the ATS Weekly if I could find the link to the archives), but let's pretend maybe such a motice could actually exist.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
The Bandit,

that statement was reported by Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency Irna itself.

It was condemned by leaders from London to Moscow. And the United Nations condemned it.

That's not "Mainstream Media" made.


Yes but many seem to interpret it as literally wiping the country off the map as in nuking it..
Apperantly they say what he meant was to get rid of the Israeli state hence no more Israeli controlled government but one chosen by the Palestinian-Arab people..

The correct translation that I saw on the net was "Israel is a stain on the Islamic dress and should be wiped off", not sure the exact sentence but something along the lines of that..

Its kinda obvious that he did not mean erasing the country through violence.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What are you saying, the U.S. defioes the U.N.? In reference to invading Iraq? If that be the case, the U.S. followed the U.N. resolutions and the U.N. was ignoring the U.N. for financial reasons (on behalf of Kofi's family and on behalf of individual members).
Speaking of hypocrisies, let's not even turn the direction toward the U.N. It'll be an all day affair better done in its own thread.


When I read stuff like this I can't help but think the American Media is the most powerful force here. Did you actually read the UN Resolution 1441? It says nothing like what you wrote here. Koffi had no power to stop anything. The resolution said nothing about invading Iraq, or any penalties.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
And who is part of the UN security council,

The Council has five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

the Republic of China
the French Republic
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
the United States of Americaen.wikipedia.org...

Didnt we see the same scenario drawn before the invasion of Iraq? Same people same clause. We will see some opposition to balance the power but at the end what the US wants is what will happen.

I hope the Geneva convention is held, however bush has notoriously defied the clause.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Frankly its amusing, you let power mongers get nukes who will jump for joy at getting to wipe someone out, but when someone wants them because people are threatening them, you call them down and say they are lunatics and evil. Frankly anyone who proliferates nukes like the USA and China are the real nutcases not the little nation who wants a few to keep you OUT of their country. They KNOW that if a nuclear war ensues they are dead along with everyone else, so thats motivation NOT to use them unless they are already dead. It wont matter HOW many nations in the world attack Iran, they WILL retaliate and that retaliation WILL go into Iraq and Afghanistan and wipe out the US military/British military that is stationed there, they have a hard enough time holding Baghdad and Afghanistan let alone having to hold out invaders and who knows what else, China WILL NOT allow the US to just take the oil fields without a fight, they need that oil.
This is one of those events that could lead to open warfare between the nations of the world, not so much as a conventional war but one where all sides start to fund each others enemies to see them dead and everyone knows about it but they still trade with each other so as to not die. Its a screwed up world we live in, no question about that.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Is a war with Iran a possibility? I think this is a good opportunity for those interested in this forum to reflect on what happened in Iraq before a war was declared. I do understand the sensitivity of the situation and the lives that may be lost due to such a move however I think it is important to construct the events which lead to the war in Iraq, which could stipulate the probable path to the looming war on Iran.

A resolution was passed on the 8th of November 2003 by the UN Security council to resume weapons inspection in 45 days. The following is an extract from the webpage,





“The United Kingdom’s representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity. The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice: between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security



www.un.org...

It is quite interesting to note, that despite the measure taken by UN to ensure a peaceful resolution to the tension, the war could not be prevented.

Let us consider some of the aspects to the lead up. On February 5th 2003 the then US Secretary of State Colin Powel addressed the UN Security Council. Going through the extract it is quite evident that a case was being built up to justify a war on Iraq based on the claims of WMD.
www.whitehouse.gov...

The following is a link which has the transcript which Hans Blix presented to the UN Security Council on March 7th 2002

www.cnn.com...

Hans Blix requested for more time to investigate however he was forced to ensure Iraq complied to UN’s demand to disarm in 10 days.

www.guardian.co.uk...

The following article gives a brief of a build up to the events leading to an attack on Iraq

politics.guardian.co.uk...


What is the economics of the attack on Iraq? The article which I have attached gives the reader a good insight into the finer points which lead to the build up.

www.serendipity.li...

On the issue of Iran, the UN council has issued a statement raising the importance or re establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including research and development.

www.un.org...

The war on Iran is a possibility. As we have clearly seen and noted, what Bush wants is what he will get, however there is an interesting article by Ehsan Ahrari, CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia-based defence consultancy.

He has highlighted some good points and the article is attached for the readers to analyse.

www.atimes.com...

I have tried to highlight the events which lead to the invasion of Iraq. Iran is as such a country which has not moved back from threatening US as did Iraq. I have not read anything yet to US response on the statement issued by the UN council on Iran however the coming days will reveal more information on the build up.

Cheers

Knowledge23

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.











[edit on 1-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join