Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/13/2005 3:35:59 PM EDT
We all know he UN was on the take from Iraq (oil for food, some countries selling weapons, etc.) so that is the reason they refused to support us removing Sadaam.

Is there any reasons we know of that they will not support stopping Iran? I know they are a bunch of wussies, but they did support some things... Somalia, Kosovo, Gulf War I, etc. so will they support force against Iran if it comes to that?

Or will Israel beat everyone to it? :)
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:29:12 PM EDT
If it doesn't benefit kofi and his goons, they will not support it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:29:43 PM EDT
No
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:33:12 PM EDT
I'd take out the UN first.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:34:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
If it doesn't benefit kofi and his goons, they will not support it.




G-54


I-16


O-77


BINGO!!!
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:39:43 PM EDT
Since the Iranians are absolutely meddling in our business in Iraq, and the world knows it, and in light of the GB speech of 'you're either with us, or against us', I think we have little choice.
Ironically, I think Iran will get little simpathy. It's pretty obvious they're trying to get us killed.

This could be the kind of escalation that brings a lot of the terrorist support infrastructure of the middle east into our crosshairs. Anything Iran tries to bring to bear against us will evaporate pretty quickly. I'm all for it if they produce evidence, and it sounds like they damn sure can, of iran sending advanced weaponry to iraq.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:43:23 PM EDT
The U.N. won't support any action other than "INACTION" that may hurt someone's feelings!
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:57:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:03:24 PM EDT
I'm sure China and Russia will.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:21:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By REALM:
We all know he UN was on the take from Iraq (oil for food, some countries selling weapons, etc.) so that is the reason they refused to support us removing Sadaam.

Is there any reasons we know of that they will not support stopping Iran? I know they are a bunch of wussies, but they did support some things... Somalia, Kosovo, Gulf War I, etc. so will they support force against Iran if it comes to that?

Or will Israel beat everyone to it? :)



why do I care? Go ahead and attack, I don't care. Get our women back from over there. All those so-called "wives" tricked into going there and forced to stay(yes there's plenty of cases like that, not just a plot for a stupid movie).
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:11:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 6:12:54 PM EDT by glockguy40]
Germany's Schroeder on Iran: "Leave military options aside"

Sat Aug 13, 4:19 PM ET

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050813/wl_mideast_afp/irannucleargermanyus_050813201954


German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pushed aside the option of using force to contain Iran and its uranium enrichment activities, saying that military options were worthless.

"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schroeder said during an electoral meeting in the northern city of Hanover.

The chancellor's statement followed an interview aired Friday on Israeli public television in which US President George W. Bush said that "all options are on the table" when asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomacy with Iran.

In an interview to be published Sunday in the German weekly Bild am Sonntag, Schroeder said he considered any military option "extremely dangerous".

"This is why I can with certainty exclude any participation by the German government under my direction," he said.

The Social Democrat chancellor -- who in polls leading up to early legislative elections on September 18 is lagging behind his Christian Democrat challenger Angela Merkel -- added that he was "very concerned" by the situation in Iran.

Tehran must not be allowed to manufacture nuclear weapons, he said, adding that numerous European propositions had been made "in order to induce Iran to change its position".

Schroeder vehemently opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has since opted to train Iraqi security forces in the United Arab Emirates rather than deploying German troops to the battle zone.

"Military operations always introduce the risk of unmanageable escalation," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said on the sidelines of an electoral meeting Saturday in Schwerin. "We must again place our bets on diplomatic means," he added.

Friedbert Pflueger, a spokesman for the opposition Christian Union parties, criticized Schroeder in an interview to appear Sunday in the newspaper Welt am Sonntag, saying that he "must not try to campaign on this issue".

Schroeder's criticism of the looming Iraq war during the 2002 election campaign was widely seen as key to his reelection.

Iran broke the seal on its uranium conversion facilities in Isfahan on Wednesday under the auspices of recommencing its nuclear energy program.

Suspicious of Iran's 18 years of concealments, Western countries are worried that Tehran is using the energy program as a cover for the secret development of nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board of governors adopted a resolution on Thursday expressing "serious concern" at Tehran's decision to resume uranium conversion activities, and demanding their immediate suspension.

European Union members Britain, France and Germany have taken the lead in the negotiations with Tehran launched after satellite photos revealed the existence of two Iranian nuclear sites in December 2002.

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


In other words, no.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:13:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:17:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 6:17:58 PM EDT by glockguy40]
Going to security council wont do a damn thing. China has oil and gas contracts with Iran in excess of $100 billion. Just this week the Chinese envoy to the IAEA said taking Iran to the security council would not be productive.... AKA they would veto any such move.

And Iran is basically keeping Russia's nuclear industry a float.... so again, no.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:18:49 PM EDT
What are the chances of war woth Iran? How is their military forces? Do they have any allies?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:20:30 PM EDT
No, they wouldn't support a war against Satan himself.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:24:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 6:33:44 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:
Germany's Schroeder on Iran: "Leave military options aside"

Sat Aug 13, 4:19 PM ET



German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder pushed aside the option of using force to contain Iran and its uranium enrichment activities, saying that military options were worthless.




Rough Translation: Germany is making gazillions out of supplying Nuclear Technology to Iran…


ANdy



Actually, Germany has passed up gazillions due to not doing business with Iran. German companies are afraid of retalitory US sanctions and losing US business, therefore, they forego engaging in nuclear cooperation with Iran.

Russia, on the other hand, has no qualms about doing nuclear business with Iran. The Russians blend down their weapons grade plutonium stockpile and turn it into reactor fuel for the US nuclear plants. We dont want to threaten Russia with sanctions on their nuclear industry because we rather have them destroy their excess weapons grade plutonium then take action to try to persaude them to stop helping Iran.

Its a tough call which is the bigger threat.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:30:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 6:32:13 PM EDT by glockguy40]
This is about the most in-depth analysis of Iran's military forces I have seen in the open literature available... I have read it, and it is pretty good, though it does not take account of all Iran's recent military procurement programs and recent developments. It uses a lot of old and out dated info but gives some what a rough picture of their capabilities.

www.csis.org/burke/mb/041208_IranDevMilCap.pdf
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:40:51 PM EDT
Statement by the Chinese envoy to the IAEA:

Referring Iran to UN Security Council would not be "helpful" : Chinese envoy

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050810/wl_asia_afp/irannuclearchina_050810184813

Wed Aug 10, 2:48 PM ET

China's UN ambassador Wang Guangya said that it would not be "helpful" to haul Iran before the UN Security Council over its removal of UN seals to bring online a key nuclear fuel plant.

Iran broke the seals placed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors on the uranium conversion plant in Isfahan, giving the facility full operational capacity after Iran ended a nine-month shutdown there on Monday.

Tehran's action came as the IAEA argued over a resolution calling for a halt to Iran's sensitive atomic activities.

Asked whether Iran should be referred to the Security Council, Wang replied: "It would not be helpful... We all want a peaceful solution to the Iranian issue. So I think the best place is the efforts between the EU (European Union) and (the) Iranians or the IAEA."

"The council has too many things on the table. Why should we add more?," the Chinese envoy said. "I think the EU and Iran have not given up their efforts to work together for a solution... This issue deserves a diplomatic solution."

Last week, China, one of the Security Council's five permanent veto-wielding members, urged Iran and the EU to be patient in negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program and expressed the hope that issue could be resolved through diplomacy.

Earlier Wednesday, Washington condemned Iran's decision to break the IAEA seals.

The EU and the United States have expressed serious concern about Iran's resumption of uranium conversion and its angry rejection of economic and security incentives offered by Britain, France and Germany to persuade it not to develop nuclear weapons.

A draft resolution put forward to the IAEA by the European Union urged Iran to cease all activities related to nuclear enrichment, the process that follows conversion and can be used for both civilian and military purposes.

But in an indication of the difficulty of pushing the resolution through, a meeting was canceled Wednesday as non-aligned states led by Malaysia opposed the draft as it risked causing a backlash from Tehran, diplomats said.

Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:44:12 PM EDT
Not intending to thread fart but....


WHO CARES??

The UN is at best an irrelevant debating society who won't even implement their own resolutions, and at worst as thuggish as the human feces we are flushing out of Iraq.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:45:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
The U.N. won't support any action other than "INACTION" that may hurt someone's feelings!



Unless of course that action will serve to poke America in the eye.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 6:51:16 PM EDT

"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schroeder said during an electoral meeting in the northern city of Hanover.


He should ask Saddam about that, or maybe he thinks Saddam is still in power in Iraq. He's as bad as people who say "violence never solves anything", when in fact it's solved every major conflict the world has ever seen, including the one his countryman with the funny mustache started.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 7:03:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:

"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schroeder said during an electoral meeting in the northern city of Hanover.


He should ask Saddam about that, or maybe he thinks Saddam is still in power in Iraq. He's as bad as people who say "violence never solves anything", when in fact it's solved every major conflict the world has ever seen, including the one his countryman with the funny mustache started.



Apparently, German appeasement and collaboration with madmen and dictators is still alive and well, despite the lessons learned in the first half of this century.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:26:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:
I'm all for it if they produce evidence, and it sounds like they damn sure can, of iran sending advanced weaponry to iraq.




Yep. Let's not leave any Ho Chi Allah trails in this fight.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 8:33:20 PM EDT
UN has failed and failed again, Iran will be no different.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 1:18:45 AM EDT
View Bush's statement and then view Scrotum's and see which makes the most sense.

"All options are on the table."

"Only diplomatic means should be used."

Which sounds most effective to you?

Sure, we need to exhaust diplomatic means first. But if they fail, then what...Mr Pansy Ass German? Military options MUST be left on the table, otherwise there will be little motivation to encourage Iran to stop. And without that option, you have no back-up plan if diplomacy or sanctions fail.

It's fucking stupid to back yourself into a corner and deny yourself options when they are available.
Top Top