It is pretty funny that most of the time the UN is a useless, corrupt organization, to most people on here, until they can be used to justify aggressive action. Nothing happens at the UN without US approval. They just veto everything else. Palestinian sovereignty comes to mind.
Iran under Sanction Pressures – Reaction?
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
It is pretty funny that most of the time the UN is a useless, corrupt organization, to most people on here, until they can be used to justify aggressive action. Nothing happens at the UN without US approval. They just veto everything else. Palestinian sovereignty comes to mind.
You aren't obligated to stick up for your "friend" if he swaggers into a Hell's Angel's club and exclaims, "Any of you pussy bikers want to fight?".
Unlike the US and Israel, Iran hasn't started any unprovoked wars and they are compliant with the mandatory parts of the NPT. Canada is under no obligation to take any action against Iran. Maybe if Iran is found guilty of something serious, Canada could take action, but until then US/Israeli allegations about Iran's nuclear weapons remain as unproven as their allegations about Iraq's WMD stockpiles. How many times can the same sources get caught in a lie before suckers like you finally become skeptical?
Canada never asked the US to start an unprovoked war in Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and made millions more homeless refugees. We rightfully stayed out of that conflict, just like we should stay out of a similar unprovoked war with Iran.
Canada has no obligation to support Israel's injustice, oppression and creeping ethnic cleansing. If we had balls and a sense of justice, we'd do the right thing and criticize Israel's gross human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Canada is under no obligation to support yet another unprovoked war based on false allegations.
Last edited:
Is Iran compliant with the IAEA?
Both - Those boys at the top are scary as hell.
I'm pretty sure if the fundie Christians were to get control of the US military, they would make the loonies in control of Iran look like kindergarten bullies.
And why is that? Do you think it might have had something to do with US meddling in their internal affairs? Could it be that all this sanction BS has to do with the Iranians kicking out the US pretty boy Shaw?
Sanctions against Iran a balancing act for U.S. | Investing | Financial Post
MORE SCALPEL THAN AXE
The new U.S. measures target both private and government-controlled banks, including central banks, and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period depending on the transactions.
U.S. officials acknowledge that allies such as Japan have concerns, and have built in several provisions designed to make the new law more of a scalpel than an axe.
The law allows Mr. Obama to exempt institutions in a country that has significantly reduced its dealings with Iran. He may also grant waivers deemed to be in the U.S. national security interest or otherwise necessary for energy market stability.
Mr. Obama would need to notify Congress and waivers would be temporary but they could be extended.
White House officials declined to say which countries have sought waivers or how they expect the sanctions to impact U.S. relations with Iran’s oil customers.
China, the No. 1 customer for Iran’s oil, and Russia have both resisted additional sanctions on Tehran and are unlikely to be swayed by the new U.S. law, analysts said.
But for countries such as Turkey, which gets about 30% of its oil from Iran, or India, which gets 11 percent, the prospect of a U.S. waiver could reduce anxieties over the sanctions and consolidate support for Washington’s aggressive stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“There is increased frustration from many of these nations when they see that previous rounds of sanctions haven’t done what they were intended to do,” said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert and head of the National Iranian American Council.
“Part of the administration argument going into an election against a Republican candidate is that Obama has been able to create a much stronger international coalition against Iran. You can’t make that argument if you end up in a conflict with some of those allies.”
Waivers also could be selectively granted for humanitarian reasons or for institutions that have forward contracts with Iranian companies – blunting the immediate impact of the new law, while retaining the threat of full implementation.
TENSIONS AND TALKS
The new U.S. sanctions came at a moment of increasing tension with Tehran, which in recent days Iran has tested long-range missiles and staged 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf. Iran also warned it could shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of world oil is shipped, if sanctions were imposed on its crude exports.
Tehran already is subject to four rounds of U.N. sanctions because of its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities and faces more pain if the European Union follows the United States and bans imports of Iranian crude oil.
Tehran signalled during the weekend that it was ready to resume talks on its nuclear program with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany that stalled in January.
So much posturing and political double speak. Oil is king and those that got it are gods. Like the cold war, there is nothing of substance here but it serves well to keep the sheeple trembling in their boots.
Do you think that other countries in the Mid East will or will not go nuclear when Iran does?
The IAEA is an agency, not an agreement. Iran signed the NPT. They did not sign the IAEA.
The IAEA has a mandate regarding the NPT and it doesn't include demanding NPT compliant nations prove they aren't planning to build nuclear weapons. That the IAEA would demand that Iran prove a negative (a logical impossibility) as per US/Israeli demands indicates its objectivity has probably been compromised. Certainly the IAEA has acted outside their legal NPT mandate with respect to Iran:
...the role of the IAEA, as agreed with the Iranian government, is limited to applying and monitoring safeguards on fissionable material and related facilities within the territory of Iran, with the purpose of assuring that no such fissile material is diverted from peaceful nuclear activities to military purposes. The IAEA is given no authority to inquire into or to examine activities within Iran that are not directly related to fissile materials, even if they may possibly relate to the development of a nuclear explosive device. Again, the IAEA has a limited legal mandate that does not include being a general nuclear weapons watchdog. Thus, in conducting these investigations into technologies other than fissile materials and producing this report, the IAEA is acting wholly outside of its authority pursuant to its safeguards agreement with Iran....
http://jurist.org/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php
Gotta stay current
IAEA Board Adopts Resolution on Iran
At the end of deliberations beginning 17 November, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of the UN Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The resolution expresses deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions. It also stresses the need for Iran and the Agency to "intensify their dialogue" aiming at the urgent resolution of all outstanding substantive issues for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding those issues.
The resolution urges Iran once again to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. Expressing continuing support for a diplomatic solution, the resolution calls on Iran to engage seriously and without preconditions in talks aimed at restoring international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
It further requests the Director General to include in his progress report to the March 2012 meeting of the Board of Governors an assessment of the implementation of this resolution.
The resolution on the implementation of safeguards in Iran was adopted by a majority.
-- by Rodolfo Quevenco, IAEA Division of Public Information
At this time, no evidence exists that proves Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.
The nuclear countries in the region include Israel, Pakistan and India.N one of these countries signed the NPT, let alone open their nuclear facilities up to IAEA inspections.
Iran has signed the NPT.
Iran allows the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities.
The IAEA has found no evidence which proves Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapon technoilogy.
2 easy questions - Yes or no.
Has Iran cooperated fully with the IAEA - The UN Police for Nukes?
Will other countries in the Mid East go the Nuke Wpns route if Iran does?
The IAEA is acting outside its mandate. Iran respects the parts of the NPT that they signed. Therefore Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology. The IAEA's mandate includes assisting Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The IAEA has no mandate to interfere with Iran's peaceful nuclear program. The UNSC can pass all the resolutions they want. It still does not change the fact that Iran has a NPT defined right to peaceful nuclear technology.
Not according to the UN -
As to the UNSC - When they pass what you agree with, they are right, when they do not, they are not relevant. Gotta stay consistent.
Iran has signed disclosure agreements with the IAEA - The Agency that policies the NPT - Iran has not cooperated fully.
One question partially answered. Please research what the IAEA can or cannot do before coming to the table with personal opinion.
2nd question. Answer for that, still waiting.
Iran respects the mandatory parts of the NPT.
Iran respects the voluntary confidence building parts of the NPT that they signed.
Iran has no obligation to respect other "voluntary" confidence building NPT protocols until they agree to them.
When are the US, Russia, China, the UK and France going to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals as per the "mandatory" parts of the NPT? Until these nations comply with the mandatory parts of the NPT, they are being hypocritical regarding their demands that Iran respect all the additional voluntary confidence building NPT protocols.
Also, Iran's NPT obligations aren't retroactive. Their obligations came in force on the day they agree, not before. Therefore Iran was not obligated to declare their nuclear enrichment activities until after they agreed to that voluntary confidence building measure, which they did in 2003.
The only part of the NPT that Iran doesn't respect is that they don't notify the IAEA during the planning stages, which is voluntary, not required. Iran does notify the IAEA at least 1 year before installing any nuclear technology in the new facility. Yes Iran was digging a hole and they didn't tell the IAEA about it until a year before the first centrifuge was planned to be installed. A hole in the ground is hardly a reason to go to war.
Let me know when you have proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Until then, all the US and Israel has are unsupported allegations, similar to their unsupported allegations that Iraq had WMD stockpiles....
Iran respects the voluntary confidence building parts of the NPT that they signed.
Iran has no obligation to respect other "voluntary" confidence building NPT protocols until they agree to them.
When are the US, Russia, China, the UK and France going to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals as per the "mandatory" parts of the NPT? Until these nations comply with the mandatory parts of the NPT, they are being hypocritical regarding their demands that Iran respect all the additional voluntary confidence building NPT protocols.
Also, Iran's NPT obligations aren't retroactive. Their obligations came in force on the day they agree, not before. Therefore Iran was not obligated to declare their nuclear enrichment activities until after they agreed to that voluntary confidence building measure, which they did in 2003.
The only part of the NPT that Iran doesn't respect is that they don't notify the IAEA during the planning stages, which is voluntary, not required. Iran does notify the IAEA at least 1 year before installing any nuclear technology in the new facility. Yes Iran was digging a hole and they didn't tell the IAEA about it until a year before the first centrifuge was planned to be installed. A hole in the ground is hardly a reason to go to war.
Let me know when you have proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Until then, all the US and Israel has are unsupported allegations, similar to their unsupported allegations that Iraq had WMD stockpiles....
Last edited:
Again with not answering - Iran signed legal agreementa that they have not kept - as such they are in contravention -
Now will other countries go the Nuke route when Iran does?
Iran has met all their agreed NPT obligations. If you believe otherwise, please give an example of an agreement that they signed and subsequently broke.
Why do you care? To have nukes is insane. Those that have them are just as dangerous as those you fear having them. In the overall picture of the Universe, it is inconsequential what happens to this insignificant planet or our insignificant species. If you are going to spend your life worrying about crap you have no control over, you will lose control over your life. You may as well be dead already. The only important question for humanity is, are we to get rid of the stupid things or continue this insane game of "you are either in the club or you are not? If you are not then, you suck." The pettiness of this stupid game is not really worthy of wasting any time on. I obviously have too much time on my hands.