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

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.

They said that? .. the inspectors only said that in light of what they were allowed to see.. stop cherry picking.

The UN inspectors haven't been allowed to visit several sites of interest that they requested to see.. you might have a dead body in your closet and you let me search your house everywhere but that closet... I have no proof you murdered someone but you won't let me in that closet to verify =) .. it's the same deal.

Iran has gone against the UN requests to inspect those suspected sites.. those very sites where nuclear weapon production is thought to be happening.. why would they do that I wonder?

Originally posted by DarknStormy
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.

As I said, two wrongs don't make a right. But the fact one nation has weapons that shouldn't exist in the first place does not mean another nation has the right to acquire them. And I will not profess to know better than the secretary general of the UN in regard to his safety. The fact remains, my opinion is that Iran, just like any other country for that matter, should not be trusted with nukes.

reply to post by Gauss


Sorry dude. I am very passionate. I just assumed from all the that you were up for some flames. I didnt mean to be rude.

In my opinion the UN does not serve the intrests of the NAM movement. They are alot of countriers. They feel like they have been, and are being exploited. I agree with them. The justice seeking nations want justice but the UN isnt going to give it to them.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
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.

I already acknowledged the fact that I wish the US or any of the others didn't have them.. but they already do, pandora's box is opened.. what the US and Russia has been doing is slowly, gradually disarming .. we have a fraction of the nuclear arsenal we had during the cold war.. What we DO NOT NEED is more countries becoming nuclear capable.. That goes against the ultimate goal of no nukes at all ..

So is your point.. just because the US has them Iran should have them? ... that's not a very good argument.. I would reverse that sentiment..

Originally posted by miniatus

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.

You're right. In the 20th Century, the UN did a lot of good and had a lot of bite in the countless UN peacekeeping operations they conducted around the world - Sinai, Cyprus, Congo, Mozambique and Yugoslavia, just to name a few. It has declined lately in favor of NATO "peacekeeping" operations (I won't say they are not peacekeeping, but in my opinion the only troopers that should be allowed to use that term are bluehelmets).

Have you heard of the UN International Legion? If you read the second part of the article, you'll find a tidbit of info about it. So far it's just a concept, but it may be exactly what the UN needs.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
reply to post by Gauss

 

Sorry dude. I am very passionate. I just assumed from all the

that you were up for some flames. I didnt mean to be rude.

In my opinion the UN does not serve the intrests of the NAM movement. They are alot of countriers. They feel like they have been, and are being exploited. I agree with them. The justice seeking nations want justice but the UN isnt going to give it to them.

No worries. Apology accepted.

You have to realize, though, the UN's job isn't to please everybody. It's to maintain and fight for peace, and prevent - or if necessary delay - war. And if war is on the horizon and cannot be avoided, then their job changes to simple damage control. But the job isn't to please member nations or others. That might be a secondary task of the UN, but it's not its main task.

And seeing as how we haven't had a world war since the second one, the UN is doing not a good job, but a decent job. And I think the world is a lot better off than had we not had the UN. But this is, again, just my opinion.

delete

Aside from this being a world issue, why should I as an American care what happens to either Iran or Israel? If either nation wants a war, I say let them have it. But by no means should America be involved in this dispute. The middle east has been at war for hundreds of years. Aiding either is only going to make the issue worse. What we need to do is bring our troops home and put them on our border to deal with the ever growing threat of the cartels. Ignore the holy wars.

Sounds to me that Causus Belli is about to be established......they send this guy to softly threaten the regime....
After this visit, we will see a further tightening of the screws and a harder line with the UN getting more demnding for full open access to irans nuke installations....
Should those too be rejected,(and if the ayetolla wants war, he can have it at this juncture....)
This is the final straw folks......duck!

A lot of people on here think the world would be run well on the Golden Rule, but it's just not like that.

People in positions of power, if given the chance, would risk it all to remove what they deem a "threat" to their Race/Religion.

FACT.

Originally posted by TrueBlood
Aside from this being a world issue, why should I as an American care what happens to either Iran or Israel? If either nation wants a war, I say let them have it. But by no means should America be involved in this dispute. The middle east has been at war for hundreds of years. Aiding either is only going to make the issue worse. What we need to do is bring our troops home and put them on our border to deal with the ever growing threat of the cartels. Ignore the holy wars.

As you say, it's a world issue. And as such, it's my opinion that it's the UN's responsibility to deal with it. If this happens, yes, we will need US military - but they should be wearing blue helmets doing it, not camouflage coloured ones.

Just my opinion. I understand what you're saying, though, and I definitely understand your position on this.

Edit to add: The problem with war between Israel and Iran is two-fold. First, they're not neighbouring countries, which increases the risk of dragging others into the conflict, and secondly, one is a nuclear power, and the other is about to become one. This is not a good thing for any nation of the world if a war breaks out there.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
A lot of people on here think the world would be run well on the Golden Rule, but it's just not like that.

People in positions of power, if given the chance, would risk it all to remove what they deem a "threat" to their Race/Religion.

FACT.

True. Definitely true.

But, and you might not agree with me on this, which is totally fine, that is exactly why we need the United Nations.

reply to post by Gauss


The problem is the UN is already basically the US military. If we are supposed to have a "United Nations", then let's see these other nations, that are supposed to be united, pony up the troops to go on their crusade. America has bigger problems to worry about than running around the world chasing Muslims. Israel can defend itself and this issue is not worth starting a 3rd world war with Russia or China over. As I said, ignore the holy wars.

reply to post by TrueBlood


Stating that the US is UN is an incorrect statement. Allow me to consult my dear friend, Wikipedia on the issue.

The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of September 2010 were Bangladesh (10,736), Pakistan (10,691), India (8,935), Nigeria (5,709), Egypt (5,458), Nepal (5,044), Jordan (3,826), Ghana (3,647), Rwanda (3,635), Uruguay (2,489).[7]

and

About 4.5% of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and less than one percent from the United States (USA).[11]

What you are thinking of, if I assume correctly in that you are thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan, is NATO operations, which is an entirely different matter.

reply to post by Gauss


I stand corrected, I was thinking of NATO.

Then let the UN handle the situation. The US needs to stay as far away from this as possible.

reply to post by TrueBlood


Seeing as this is exactly the kind of thing that the UN was created to deal with, I agree. However, if an invasion of Iran would end up necessary, it's likely that the US would also participate, even if the operation is led by the UN. Probably something similar to the Gulf War (the 1990 one).

It would probably also be the first military operation that the UN has been part of, that was an outright invasion of a country per se.

reply to post by Gauss


I'm not a big fan of the UN in it's current form. I do agree with the theory behind the UN but other than the humanitarian aspects of this organization, it has pretty much failed. I may be wrong as I'm not behind the scenes, I'm only a JAFO.

I'm amazed that someone hasn't equated the UN with the NWO in this thread.

If a war were to break out though, all parties involved are current members of the UN, which tells me that the UN is failing. There is nothing "United" about it.

We've seen that throughout the history of it since it's inception.

reply to post by miniatus

Bottom line is this. Iran has just as much right to enrich uranium as Russia and the U.S. do. The bully in the school yard howls when they bring in someone his own size. The fact is this...the U.S. is the only nation to ever utilize an atomic weapon in a theater of war. Whether or not Iran utilizes it's knowledge ( and enrichment) for peaceful purposes or not is a "what-if" situation.

Originally posted by TrueBlood
reply to post by Gauss

 

The problem is the UN is already basically the US military. If we are supposed to have a "United Nations", then let's see these other nations, that are supposed to be united, pony up the troops to go on their crusade. America has bigger problems to worry about than running around the world chasing Muslims. Israel can defend itself and this issue is not worth starting a 3rd world war with Russia or China over. As I said, ignore the holy wars.

No, it isn't. The vast majority of troops operating under the Blue flag are actually donated by countries such as Bangladesh, India and other developing nations. The US is usually very reluctant to send troops under UN command, preferring to use NATO under a UN mandate.

The largest and longest running peacekeeping OP is actually MONUSCO and, by far, India has donated the most troops over the years. EU nations usually give more troops than the US does, for that matter.

On topic though, all this bluster about "what about Israel?" is pointless. They haven't signed the NPT , where as Iran has. That is the end of the discussion as far as that is concerned.

Granted, in an ideal world it would be nice if Israel played nice as well, but allowing another country who is openly hostile to Israel to have those weapons is madness, especially given Israel's infamous "Samson option". I don't wish to be turned to dust by vengeful Jews any more I wish to be incinerated by vengeful Muslims.

If it were down to me though, the UN should allow the West to invade Israel and declare it a protectorate, sort that mess out at the same time as dealing with Iran. God knows why we allowed people of a particular religion to steal someone else's land is beyond me. The UN needs to be more aggressive in enforcing "international law".

At the moment, it's a joke. Ironically, it worked much better when the USSR and China boycotted the UNSC. Now they are back in, it doesn't work as they veto good resolutions designed to stop people dying so they can prop up their friends.

The day I see the UN treat the US with the same standards as countries like Iran, that will be the day I can justify supporting the UN.