Bias anti-Iranian resolution passed at the U.N.

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
...saying that it had nothing to do with the resolution at hand, but at the same time, they have no problem banning Iran from selling weapons to other nations. Stupid resolution and stupid Americans and their Israeli masters. It's a shame that the United States and Great Britain uses the Security Council as a tool for their foreign policy. No wonder they've ignored the Iraqi refugee problem. God willing, they will fail in their endeavours.

link

UN Security Council unanimously approves tighter Iran sanctions

By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, News Agencies and Haaretz Service


The UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to tighten sanctions on Iran but without the presence of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had wanted to defend his country's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

The measures, aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program, targets the country's arms exports, the state-owned Bank Sepah and the elite Revolutionary Guards.

The decision prohibits Iran from supplying, selling or transferring weapons either directly or indirectly to other countries, and prohibits all UN member states from transporting Iranian-made weapons by air or sea.

A Western diplomat said that the resolution's significance lies in the fact that weapons transfers from Iran to Syria will henceforth represent a violation of the Security Council resolution.

The White House welcomed the vote, saying it showed unity among many countries in demanding Iran suspend its uranium enrichment.

White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the vote sent a "strong message to Iran's leaders: stop isolating your country and your people, suspend your program and come to the table."

Johndroe added, "The international community is united, it's time for Iran to comply or potentially face harsher measures in the future."

In response to the resolution, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran does not seek confrontation nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable rights."

"I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," he added. "Suspension is neither an option or a solution."

"The Security Council's decision to try to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear program is a gross violation" of the U.N. Charter," Mottaki said.

Late on Friday, Ahmadinejad canceled his appearance before the 15-member council because visas for his flight crew were delivered too late for his private plane to arrive in New York before the vote. Washington disputes this.

Instead, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who took a commercial flight, came to the council to address suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

The sanctions would be suspended if Iran halted enrichment work.

"It is suspension for suspension," acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said earlier. "It is not a high bar for Iran to meet."

Germany and the permanent council members with veto power - the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China - spent a month in intensive negotiations drawing up the text.

To get the support of South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar, they added the importance of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and highlighted the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

South Africa's UN ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, who had submitted amendments that deleted all the sanctions, said he voted in favor because of Pretoria's opposition to nuclear weapons but criticized the resolution for penalizing Iranian institutions beyond the nuclear sphere.

The new measures are a follow-up to a resolution adopted on Dec. 23 banning trade with Iran in sensitive nuclear materials and ballistic missiles, as well as freezing assets of individuals and institutions associated with Tehran's atomic programs.

Saturday's resolution may affect Iran's economy but does not touch on its oil industry. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

It imposes an embargo on all conventional weapons Iran can sell and freeze the assets abroad of 28 individuals, institutions and companies, including Bank Sepah, as the United States has already done, isolating it from international financing.

The text calls on - but does not order - nations and international financial institutions to restrict new grants, credits and loans to Iran.

The resolution also calls for a voluntary travel embargo on Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guard commanders listed in the text and urges restrictions on the import of heavy weapons to Iran.

Earlier Saturday, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the capture of 15 sailors and marines by Iran must not complicate a push to impose further sanctions on Tehran because of its disputed nuclear program.

Solana said a second UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its program to enrich uranium would go ahead as planned.

Also Saturday, Germany - the current president of the EU - demanded the immediate release of 15 navy personnel.

"The Presidency of the Council of the European Union calls upon the Iranian government to immediately release the 15 British seamen detained yesterday," a statement issued by the German Foreign Ministry said.

It said the German Embassy in Tehran had raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters ealier that Berlin had obtained official confirmation that the troops were under arrest for an alleged border violation.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair avoided reporters' questions about Iran on arrival in Berlin for ceremonies marking the EU's 50th anniversary.

Solana told journalists in Berlin that the EU was cooperating with British authorities.

"They [British authorities] have our support and solidarity," he said.

"The resolution will follow its course," he said. "It will probably be approved today New York time or tomorrow. It would be a tremendous mistake if these two things were mixed."

"The approach to the resolution is not going to change because of the events of the last days. Nobody wants to change that, not even the British government."
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Two good things:

1)These sanctions are a slap on the wrist.

2)Iran has no intention on backing down.

There will never be serious sanctions (the kind that the US and GB want) issued by the security council as long as China and Russia are permanent members. Iran knows this. You don't bite the hand that feeds you billions in oil and natural gas.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Two good things:

These sanctions are a slap on the wrist.

Iran has no intention on backing down.

There will never be serious sanctions (the kind that the US and GB want) issued by the security council as long as China and Russia are permanent members. Iran knows this. You don't bite the hand that feeds you billions in oil and natural gas.

I hope so. I hate the hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East where we supported the Germans when they were building nuclear reactors for Iran up until the 1979, which restored Iranian independence from its foreign masters (after the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in 1953). Now they can't have it? Geez, I wonder why. This country, if it continues its double standard in that region, is going to have hell to pay in the coming years and decades. Those people have been around far longer than we have and they know how to fight.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
What are you, some muslim fundy? You talk just like one. Oh, and yeah I guess the entire fvcking world is bias against Iran because the measure was passed unanimously. Goddamn bias security council. Maybe YOU are the one that is bias?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
What are you, some muslim fundy? You talk just like one. Oh, and yeah I guess the entire fvcking world is bias against Iran because the measure was passed unanimously. Goddamn bias security council. Maybe YOU are the one that is bias?

I'm no fundy, just a realist. The hyporcisy is too obvious. As for it passing unanimously, I'm sure the UN has its own pork, except it's called corruption, where promises are made to individuals and nations.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
OP, you are a complete tool. There's enough to criticize about US foreign policy without trying to pin UN resolutions on us as well. If the UN is simply a tool of the evil Americans and Israelis, then why did we have such trouble getting the world to follow us into Iraq?

Then again, Narmer sees conspiracy in everything and probably belongs in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself or anyone else.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, you are a complete tool. There's enough to criticize about US foreign policy without trying to pin UN resolutions on us as well. If the UN is simply a tool of the evil Americans and Israelis, then why did we have such trouble getting the world to follow us into Iraq?

Then again, Narmer sees conspiracy in everything and probably belongs in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself or anyone else.

Everyone has their price and their limits.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
...saying that it had nothing to do with the resolution at hand, but at the same time, they have no problem banning Iran from selling weapons to other nations. Stupid resolution and stupid Americans and their Israeli masters. It's a shame that the United States and Great Britain uses the Security Council as a tool for their foreign policy. No wonder they've ignored the Iraqi refugee problem. God willing, they will fail in their endeavours.

link

UN Security Council unanimously approves tighter Iran sanctions

By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, News Agencies and Haaretz Service


The UN Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to tighten sanctions on Iran but without the presence of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had wanted to defend his country's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

The measures, aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program, targets the country's arms exports, the state-owned Bank Sepah and the elite Revolutionary Guards.

The decision prohibits Iran from supplying, selling or transferring weapons either directly or indirectly to other countries, and prohibits all UN member states from transporting Iranian-made weapons by air or sea.

A Western diplomat said that the resolution's significance lies in the fact that weapons transfers from Iran to Syria will henceforth represent a violation of the Security Council resolution.

The White House welcomed the vote, saying it showed unity among many countries in demanding Iran suspend its uranium enrichment.

White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the vote sent a "strong message to Iran's leaders: stop isolating your country and your people, suspend your program and come to the table."

Johndroe added, "The international community is united, it's time for Iran to comply or potentially face harsher measures in the future."

In response to the resolution, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran does not seek confrontation nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable rights."

"I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy," he added. "Suspension is neither an option or a solution."

"The Security Council's decision to try to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear program is a gross violation" of the U.N. Charter," Mottaki said.

Late on Friday, Ahmadinejad canceled his appearance before the 15-member council because visas for his flight crew were delivered too late for his private plane to arrive in New York before the vote. Washington disputes this.

Instead, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who took a commercial flight, came to the council to address suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

The sanctions would be suspended if Iran halted enrichment work.

"It is suspension for suspension," acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said earlier. "It is not a high bar for Iran to meet."

Germany and the permanent council members with veto power - the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China - spent a month in intensive negotiations drawing up the text.

To get the support of South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar, they added the importance of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and highlighted the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

South Africa's UN ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, who had submitted amendments that deleted all the sanctions, said he voted in favor because of Pretoria's opposition to nuclear weapons but criticized the resolution for penalizing Iranian institutions beyond the nuclear sphere.

The new measures are a follow-up to a resolution adopted on Dec. 23 banning trade with Iran in sensitive nuclear materials and ballistic missiles, as well as freezing assets of individuals and institutions associated with Tehran's atomic programs.

Saturday's resolution may affect Iran's economy but does not touch on its oil industry. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

It imposes an embargo on all conventional weapons Iran can sell and freeze the assets abroad of 28 individuals, institutions and companies, including Bank Sepah, as the United States has already done, isolating it from international financing.

The text calls on - but does not order - nations and international financial institutions to restrict new grants, credits and loans to Iran.

The resolution also calls for a voluntary travel embargo on Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guard commanders listed in the text and urges restrictions on the import of heavy weapons to Iran.

Earlier Saturday, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the capture of 15 sailors and marines by Iran must not complicate a push to impose further sanctions on Tehran because of its disputed nuclear program.

Solana said a second UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its program to enrich uranium would go ahead as planned.

Also Saturday, Germany - the current president of the EU - demanded the immediate release of 15 navy personnel.

"The Presidency of the Council of the European Union calls upon the Iranian government to immediately release the 15 British seamen detained yesterday," a statement issued by the German Foreign Ministry said.

It said the German Embassy in Tehran had raised the matter with the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters ealier that Berlin had obtained official confirmation that the troops were under arrest for an alleged border violation.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair avoided reporters' questions about Iran on arrival in Berlin for ceremonies marking the EU's 50th anniversary.

Solana told journalists in Berlin that the EU was cooperating with British authorities.

"They [British authorities] have our support and solidarity," he said.

"The resolution will follow its course," he said. "It will probably be approved today New York time or tomorrow. It would be a tremendous mistake if these two things were mixed."

"The approach to the resolution is not going to change because of the events of the last days. Nobody wants to change that, not even the British government."


Good, hopeflly this is the first small step to removing these people from power before they try to flex it any longer (with deadly consequences).
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, you are a complete tool. There's enough to criticize about US foreign policy without trying to pin UN resolutions on us as well. If the UN is simply a tool of the evil Americans and Israelis, then why did we have such trouble getting the world to follow us into Iraq?

Then again, Narmer sees conspiracy in everything and probably belongs in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself or anyone else.

Everyone has their price and their limits.
How much are the Iranians paying you?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, you are a complete tool. There's enough to criticize about US foreign policy without trying to pin UN resolutions on us as well. If the UN is simply a tool of the evil Americans and Israelis, then why did we have such trouble getting the world to follow us into Iraq?

Then again, Narmer sees conspiracy in everything and probably belongs in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself or anyone else.

Everyone has their price and their limits.
How much are the Iranians paying you?

I'm not working for them. I just don't like hypocrites.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,203
7
81
These sanction's won't do crap. Also, any sanctions strong enough to do serious damage to Iran would only hurt the citizens and not really the government, unless conditions became serious enough to cause some kind of massive unrest....but all the hate would just be channeled at the US (and probably Israel) anyway even if this happened, rather than the Iranian government.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, you are a complete tool. There's enough to criticize about US foreign policy without trying to pin UN resolutions on us as well. If the UN is simply a tool of the evil Americans and Israelis, then why did we have such trouble getting the world to follow us into Iraq?

Then again, Narmer sees conspiracy in everything and probably belongs in a padded cell so he doesn't hurt himself or anyone else.

Everyone has their price and their limits.
How much are the Iranians paying you?

I'm not working for them. I just don't like hypocrites.


So you defend Muslims talking about Israel and Iranian leadership?

You have selective likes and dislikes when it comes to who to defend on hypocritism it seems.
 

k1pp3r

Senior member
Aug 30, 2004
277
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
What are you, some muslim fundy? You talk just like one. Oh, and yeah I guess the entire fvcking world is bias against Iran because the measure was passed unanimously. Goddamn bias security council. Maybe YOU are the one that is bias?

Agreed, look at the history of the UN, most of the time nations vote AGAINST the US i think its the majority of the time to. If this passed with unanimous vote, then there is nothing Bias about it.

"It's a shame that the United States and Great Britain uses the Security Council as a tool for their foreign policy."

Now OP, thats just plain dumb, the UN is for countries to express their foreign policy and ask the council to do something about it when they see something wrong.

The people of Iran are not the danger, their gov are the reckless ones that the world needs to keep an eye on.

That said, Iran will not accept or stick the the sanctions, they never will because their gov has a big head, and one day their luck will run out.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Narmer
Bias anti-Iranian resolution passed at the U.N.
That is a crock of sh8. There's more than enough blame to go around in the middle east, but allowing a nut case like Ahmadinejad to come anywhere near having active nukes or the ability to make fissionable material is ridiculous, and believing anything he says is a fool's mission.

Nuclear power is a bad idea for any nation, and it's even more stupid to start if they're not already dependent on an existing nuclear infrastructure. By the time the Iranian people wise up enough to dump Ahmadinejad, maybe they'll realize that they've got enough oil to sustian themselves while they spend the time and money developing a better, safer alternatives.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Two good things:

These sanctions are a slap on the wrist.

Iran has no intention on backing down.

There will never be serious sanctions (the kind that the US and GB want) issued by the security council as long as China and Russia are permanent members. Iran knows this. You don't bite the hand that feeds you billions in oil and natural gas.

I hope so. I hate the hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East where we supported the Germans when they were building nuclear reactors for Iran up until the 1979, which restored Iranian independence from its foreign masters (after the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in 1953). Now they can't have it? Geez, I wonder why. This country, if it continues its double standard in that region, is going to have hell to pay in the coming years and decades. Those people have been around far longer than we have and they know how to fight.

If they want civilian power then they have nothing to hide. You are ignoring the fact that Iran's nuclear program is being run by the military.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
What hypocracy?

We can have nukes but Iran can't? Thats not hypocritical. Not every country supports Hezbollah and threatens to wipe a nation off the map.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I suspect that any vote to sanction Iran would fail miserably in the UN General Assembly. Only in the Security Council can the Admin gain any traction... then represent the results as some sort of international consensus...

The whole thing reminds me of the runup to the invasion of Iraq- lots of innuendo and accusations, no facts. As Molly Ivins would have said, "All hat, no Cattle".

It'd be tough for the Iranians to divert nuclear materials from their fuel program to any other purpose so long as IAEA inspectors are onsite... and there have been no credible accusations that facilities not monitored actually exist. But they're trying, as we can read from this blurb from El Baradei, Who's become mighty compliant since his personal and private meeting with Condi- Karl Rove could have written this-

"The International Atomic Energy Agency "has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the IAEA's board. But the agency was not "in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran," the report added."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/02/27/AR2006022701326.html

We're not in a position to conclude that Sasquatch doesn't roam the Pacific Northwest, either, and never will be...

 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Narmer
no wonder they've ignored the Iraqi refugee problem.

I hate to break it to you, but the Iraq refugee problem is a lot less serious than some asshole with a Napoleon complex acquiring nukes. I would be more comfortable with Saddam having nukes than Ahmadinejad. I mean you look at this guy and you just know he's not mentally stable. On top of that he has made serious threats. ...but it gets worse...

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5410

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 21 ? Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told senior leaders of a radical Palestinian group in Damascus on Friday that the Middle East conflict has become ?the locus of the final war? between Muslims and the West, Iran?s official news agency, IRNA, reported.

Ahmadinejad, who was speaking on the second day of his two-day trip to Syria, told the leaders of Hamas, ?Today, victory in Palestine has become a matter of life and death for the Islamic world and for Global Arrogance (the West)?.

The Iranian president urged the Palestinians to reject moves such as Israel?s withdrawal from Gaza.

?Some point to the withdrawal of the occupiers from parts of Palestine, but this event has already been greatly detrimental to Muslims?, Ahmadinejad said.

?If the occupiers stay on even one inch of Palestinian soil, the goal of Palestine will not be realised?, Ahmadinejad told Hamas leaders, who included Khalid Mash?al, the head of the group?s political bureau.

?We must not let our guard down now for even one moment against the enemies? plots. Belittling the goal of Palestine is a great plot that the enemies are after?, he said.

Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a ?myth? and said that Israel must be ?wiped off the map?.

....and on top of that he has fantasies about Armageddon. Worse comes to worse, the world may actually realize that it is a good thing that Israel has nukes.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I suspect that any vote to sanction Iran would fail miserably in the UN General Assembly. Only in the Security Council can the Admin gain any traction... then represent the results as some sort of international consensus...

...at least they didn't just get around a table and condemn Iran. These sanctions should have been in place a year ago.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Yeh, well, KK, if you're depending on the Israelis to translate, you're bleeding in shark infested waters. They lend new credence to the Italian phrase "Traduttore tradittore"- meaning that the translator is a traitor...

Just one example-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17197.htm

I picked up this link elsewhere- it's a long video, but is likely the only thing many of those contributing here have ever seen from inside Iran, other than the newsreels about demonstrations or the latest claimed atrocity du jour-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4679426685869498072

These are the people the Admin is so anxious to bomb into the dirt...
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
KurskKnyaz, you're quoting stories from IranFocus.com.

Instead of just laughing you out of the building, I'll offer some advice. Stick to sources with some shred of credibility.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
lol, why would Israel care to "frame" some Muslim charity, even if the Muslim charity supports Hamas, when their support is just a drop in the bucket?
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
I actually just ran into that page. I mean, sure, they can be biased but they wouldn't fabricate Ahmadinejad quotes.