UN chief warns of risk of 'war' in Iran nuclear row

UN chief warns of risk of 'war' in Iran nuclear row

news.yahoo.com

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Thursday urged Iran to comply with UN resolutions demanding it curb its nuclear activities, warning that heightened international rhetoric over the issue risked degenerating into "war."

He said Tehran should build confidence in its nuclear programme by "fully complying with the relevant (UN) Security Council resolutions and thoroughly cooperating with the IAEA."

Otherwise, he warned, "a war of words can quickly spiral into a war of violence."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bangkokpost.com
www.thejakartaglobe.com

Things are getting heated in the UN. I've never before heard a UN secretary threaten with war - though I'm sure it's happened before.

Personally, I'm torn on the issue. On one side, we have a religious-extremist nation that seems mentally instable in terms of their government - hardly the kind you want to equipp with nukes.

On the other hand, a nation has the right to conduct internal politics, including defense policies, without continually be second-guessed by the surrounding world.

In the end, I personally support UN. Right of might and the fact we'd all die horribly agonizing deaths in a planet-wide Harmageddon if every nation had nuclear weapons, are enough arguments for me to warrant Iran being stopped. A status quo must be maintained, and UN must be the ones to maintain it. But that's just my opinion on the issue.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ill agree with the un on this as soon as they go to war in israel to take their nukes away.

reply to post by phroziac


I don't support Israel as a nuclear nation either. But there's an age-old adage that goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

I know that in the last year or two, ATS has become pro-iran for some strange reason.. but I do agree that they do not need the nuclear program they have in place.. logic fails in how they have moved forward..

They claim it's for peaceful purposes but they refused Russia's offer of providing uranium enriched enough for their claimed needs.. they, against objection even by their own allies.. proceeded to build their own enrichment facilities.. knowing FULL well what the consequences might be... there's NO need for Iran to do this unless they hoped to produce nuclear weapons.. no need whatsoever..

Iran with nuclear weapons is a HORRIBLE idea .. none of their neighbors want it ... Iran is dangerous enough as is .. and before someone starts saying "Iran hasn't started/been in a war in blah blah blah" .. they might not but they are actively engaged by proxy.. they fund groups, they arm groups that work against it's enemies.. now imagine Iran having nuclear weapons capability... all they need to do is provide a suitcase nuke to a group that will go do their bidding for them...

Bottom line .. Iran has NO need to be enriching uranium .. it should stop

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by phroziac

 

I don't support Israel as a nuclear nation either. But there's an age-old adage that goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Yup, i agree. But war doesnt make peace and its clear that the goal is to install a rothschild operated central bank in iran. If it was just about the nukes, the lies wouldnt be so thick. Sad but true. I think if iran did stop working on the nukes, theyll just have a sudden influx of rebels to take over the country, just like libya and syria....

Originally posted by miniatus
I know that in the last year or two, ATS has become pro-iran for some strange reason.. but I do agree that they do not need the nuclear program they have in place.. logic fails in how they have moved forward..

They claim it's for peaceful purposes but they refused Russia's offer of providing uranium enriched enough for their claimed needs.. they, against objection even by their own allies.. proceeded to build their own enrichment facilities.. knowing FULL well what the consequences might be... there's NO need for Iran to do this unless they hoped to produce nuclear weapons.. no need whatsoever..

Iran with nuclear weapons is a HORRIBLE idea .. none of their neighbors want it ... Iran is dangerous enough as is .. and before someone starts saying "Iran hasn't started/been in a war in blah blah blah" .. they might not but they are actively engaged by proxy.. they fund groups, they arm groups that work against it's enemies.. now imagine Iran having nuclear weapons capability... all they need to do is provide a suitcase nuke to a group that will go do their bidding for them...

Bottom line .. Iran has NO need to be enriching uranium .. it should stop

Agreed, dude. The thing is, people say Iran hasn't been in a war for some periods of time. The last war they were in, to my knowledge, was the Iran-Iraq War. That war wasn't exactly a textbook example - from either side - of respect for human rights. So, if we stick to the issue of Iran, and not involve any other nations like Israel for example, in the discussion, the fact remains that a nation like that... I really don't want to see having nukes.

Even though I am for nations having the right to decide their own damn policy in terms of defense without outside interference. This is an exception to that, to me.

The UN Security Council has an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. This is a flagrant form of dictatorship, which is antiquated and obsolete and whose expiry date has passed. It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world.

english.khamenei.ir...

Im pretty sure the awesome speech that the Grand Ayatollah just made at the NAM Summit has alot to do with it. Or the other way round.

The world is starting to openly call the UN out for what it is. Who could argue with him?

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by phroziac

 

I don't support Israel as a nuclear nation either. But there's an age-old adage that goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Yup, i agree. But war doesnt make peace and its clear that the goal is to install a rothschild operated central bank in iran. If it was just about the nukes, the lies wouldnt be so thick. Sad but true. I think if iran did stop working on the nukes, theyll just have a sudden influx of rebels to take over the country, just like libya and syria....

Quite possible. But what is the other option we have? We either intervene, and put a Rothschild on the throne as you say, or we do nothing, and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, not only upsetting the status quo that I personally like, but also risk nuclear war.

I don't know about you, friend, but I'd take a war over a nuclear war any day.

Originally posted by phroziac
Ill agree with the un on this as soon as they go to war in israel to take their nukes away.

I'll second that

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

The UN Security Council has an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. This is a flagrant form of dictatorship, which is antiquated and obsolete and whose expiry date has passed. It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world.

english.khamenei.ir...

Im pretty sure the awesome speech that the Grand Ayatollah just made at the NAM Summit.

The world is starting to openly call the UN out for what it is. Who could argue with him?

I can.

I don't agree with what he says about the UN. I think the concept and the organization has a long and respectable history of peacekeeping. The only thing off-hand that I can say I disagree with when it comes to the UN is the veto right that some countries have. So there's room for improvement, sure, but the organization is a lot better an option than another World War, for example.

And that's what UN was made to prevent - a third world war. Just because the Eastern Bloc has fallen and the Cold War is over doesn't mean there's no longer a risk for that. In fact, I'm thinking in the near future, we're going to need UN more than ever, with all the up-and-coming superpowers that are making their appearance around the world.

lol...i was just wondering when the next Iran threat was coming.
some clown has made a threat against Iran every single week for a the last 3 months

I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME ISRAEL


ok guys ill see you next week for another Iran threat

reply to post by Gauss


Sounds like bank e moon is having some remorse knowing Iran is innocent of anything and he knows his personal army is about to murder more innocent people in the name of "peace" once again...
I'm not torn on this issue, even the UN inspectors say there is no froof nor evidence of foul play.
OP, would you still side with th UN if you had blue helmets in your neighborhood?
UN is a bad thing mmmmkay.

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by miniatus
I know that in the last year or two, ATS has become pro-iran for some strange reason.. but I do agree that they do not need the nuclear program they have in place.. logic fails in how they have moved forward..

They claim it's for peaceful purposes but they refused Russia's offer of providing uranium enriched enough for their claimed needs.. they, against objection even by their own allies.. proceeded to build their own enrichment facilities.. knowing FULL well what the consequences might be... there's NO need for Iran to do this unless they hoped to produce nuclear weapons.. no need whatsoever..

Iran with nuclear weapons is a HORRIBLE idea .. none of their neighbors want it ... Iran is dangerous enough as is .. and before someone starts saying "Iran hasn't started/been in a war in blah blah blah" .. they might not but they are actively engaged by proxy.. they fund groups, they arm groups that work against it's enemies.. now imagine Iran having nuclear weapons capability... all they need to do is provide a suitcase nuke to a group that will go do their bidding for them...

Bottom line .. Iran has NO need to be enriching uranium .. it should stop

Agreed, dude. The thing is, people say Iran hasn't been in a war for some periods of time. The last war they were in, to my knowledge, was the Iran-Iraq War. That war wasn't exactly a textbook example - from either side - of respect for human rights. So, if we stick to the issue of Iran, and not involve any other nations like Israel for example, in the discussion, the fact remains that a nation like that... I really don't want to see having nukes.

Even though I am for nations having the right to decide their own damn policy in terms of defense without outside interference. This is an exception to that, to me.

When it comes to possession of weapons that can obliterate entire countries or have disastrous effects on the world at large ( nuclear radiation ) .. then it is no longer a sovereign right in my mind... it's bad enough we in the US, Russia, China, the UK, Israel and all the rest have them.. in a perfect world, none of us would.. but it's already done.. we don't need another nuclear power.. especially not Iran.

reply to post by miniatus


No need for the US to have nukes either... Whats the purpose of them? Same as Israel who cry when ever they are questioned about their illegal stockpile.. Sorry, Iran have the right to defend themselves whether we believe they are fanatical or not... I admire their ability to not bend over and get anally molested by the western leaders. If they were so fanatical, Ban Ki Moon would not be on their soil to start with threatening war against them for not complying.. Iran will stand up for themselves again and BanKiMoon will fly home empty.

reply to post by Gauss

I don't agree with what he says about the UN. I think the concept and the organization has a long and respectable history of peacekeeping. The only thing off-hand that I can say I disagree with when it comes to the UN is the veto right that some countries have.

How arrogant.

And because the United states cant bully the world into getting its way anymore they just find ways around the UN. You really think the League of Nations had anything to do with helping the world? Or is it set up to maintain the power on Western Governments.

And you think the UN has a proud history? Did you write that with a straight face?

edit- "we'? Who is "we"? You are brainwashed. You think you are advanced dont you? You think you are better.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Gauss

 

Sounds like bank e moon is having some remorse knowing Iran is innocent of anything and he knows his personal army is about to murder more innocent people in the name of "peace" once again...
I'm not torn on this issue, even the UN inspectors say there is no froof nor evidence of foul play.
OP, would you still side with th UN if you had blue helmets in your neighborhood?
UN is a bad thing mmmmkay.

I had blue helmets in my neighbourhood. My father was a UN observer in some of the worst ratholes in the world - Kosovo and Bosnia, Israel, Syria and Mozambique. When I was four, in 1990, during the Gulf War, my father worked as a UN observer in Israel, and we lived there with him. So, you'll excuse me if my opinion on the UN differs quite a bit from yours.

If you have blue helmets in your neighbourhood, chances are they're there because there is a war going on, and said war is fought against innocent civilians.

Originally posted by Gauss

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist

The UN Security Council has an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. This is a flagrant form of dictatorship, which is antiquated and obsolete and whose expiry date has passed. It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world.

english.khamenei.ir...

Im pretty sure the awesome speech that the Grand Ayatollah just made at the NAM Summit.

The world is starting to openly call the UN out for what it is. Who could argue with him?

I can.

I don't agree with what he says about the UN. I think the concept and the organization has a long and respectable history of peacekeeping. The only thing off-hand that I can say I disagree with when it comes to the UN is the veto right that some countries have. So there's room for improvement, sure, but the organization is a lot better an option than another World War, for example.

And that's what UN was made to prevent - a third world war. Just because the Eastern Bloc has fallen and the Cold War is over doesn't mean there's no longer a risk for that.

In fact, I'm thinking in the near future, we're going to need UN more than ever, with all the up-and-coming superpowers that are making their appearance around the world.

I agree whole heartedly ... the UN needs to exist and the veto powers that some nations have needs to go away.. it gets abused.. I think the role of the UN will increase, especially if more nations go nuclear.. I think the biggest issue with the UN now is that they don't have enough bite.. they warn and warn and warn.. then warn again.. and a few more times... but don't often act .. this is why countries don't take them very seriously.. Oh, the UN issued another warning.. gosh what ever shall I do? ... it's like they get thrown in the glove box with all the parking tickets.

reply to post by miniatus

They claim it's for peaceful purposes but they refused Russia's offer of providing uranium enriched enough for their claimed needs.. they, against objection even by their own allies.. proceeded to build their own enrichment facilities..

That makes sense!!
I do not have to bake my own bread, I could simply buy it from the local store for x100 percent it's cost for me to bake it.
I don't have to repair my own vehicle, I could take it to a dealer and have them do it for $200 an hour and a 275 percent markup on parts.
I don't have to roll my own cigarettes, I could buy them pre made with all sorts of added chemicals for 4 times the price.
I do things for myself as it is cheaper and I learn skills, this used to be a matter of pride for some folks.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
reply to post by Gauss

 

I don't agree with what he says about the UN. I think the concept and the organization has a long and respectable history of peacekeeping. The only thing off-hand that I can say I disagree with when it comes to the UN is the veto right that some countries have.

How arrogant.

And because the United states cant bully the world into getting its way anymore they just find ways around the UN. You really think the League of Nations had anything to do with helping the world? Or is it set up to maintain the power on Western Governments.

And you think the UN has a proud history? Did you write that with a straight face?

edit- "we'? Who is "we"? You are brainwashed. You think you are advanced dont you? You think you are better.

edit on 30-8-2012 by freemarketsocialist because: (no reason given)

And why are you getting so offensive? If you can't engage in a civilized debate, then you should stay out of the discussion. Resorting to name-calling like a five year old just because I don't agree with you is unbecoming of an ATS-member.