Alright liberals, spin this one (Iran content)

[MadeInNewJersey]

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. nuclear watchdog Saturday reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council in a resolution expressing concern that Tehran's nuclear program may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes." Iran retaliated immediately, saying it would resume uranium enrichment at its main plant instead of in Russia.

The landmark decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top U.N. body, which has the authority to impose economic and political sanctions.

Still, any such moves were weeks if not months away. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition the council take no action before March.

Twenty-seven nations supported the resolution, which was sponsored by three European powers — Britain, France and Germany — and backed by the United States.

Cuba, Syria and Venezuela were the only nations to vote against. Five others — Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa — abstained, a milder form of showing opposition.

Those backing the referral included India, a nation with great weight in the developing world whose stance was unclear until the vote.

Iran reacted immediately, saying a proposal by Moscow to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia was dead.

"Commercial scale uranium enrichment will be resumed in Natanz in accordance with the law passed by the parliament," Javad Vaeidi, deputy head of the powerful National Security Council, told Iran state television in a telephone interview from Vienna.

Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, central Iran, on Jan. 10 and resumed research on nuclear fuel — including small-scale enrichment — after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Full-scale uranium enrichment can produce the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

The Kremlin had proposed that Iran shift its large-scale enrichment of uranium to Russian territory to allay world suspicions that Iran might use the process to develop a nuclear bomb.

Vaeidi also said that after approval by the Iranian council, Iran would stop honoring an agreement with the IAEA allowing its inspectors broad powers to monitor and probe Tehran's nuclear activities.

Iran says it wants to enrich only to make nuclear fuel, but concerns that it might misuse the technology accelerated the chain of events that led to Saturday's Security Council referral.

The IAEA resolution refers to Iran's breaches of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and lack of confidence that it is not trying to make weapons.

It expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program." It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations" to the nonproliferation treaty, and it expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

It requests IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to "report to the Security Council" steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions.

The resolution calls on Iran to:

_Reestablish a freeze on uranium enrichment and related activities.

_Consider whether to stop construction of a heavy water reactor that could be the source of plutonium for weapons.

_Formally ratify an agreement allowing the IAEA greater inspecting authority and continue honoring the agreement before it is ratified.

_Give the IAEA additional power in its investigation of Iran's nuclear program, including "access to individuals" for interviews and to documentation on its black-market nuclear purchases, equipment that could be used for nuclear and non-nuclear purposes and "certain military-owned workshops" where nuclear activities might be going on.

The draft also asks ElBaradei to "convey ... to the Security Council" his report to the next board session in March along with any resolution that meeting might approve.

Agreement on the final wording of the text was reached just hours before Saturday's meeting convened, after Washington compromised on Egypt's demand that the resolution include support for the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Egypt and other Arab states have long linked the two issues of Iran's atomic ambitions and Israel's nuclear weapons status.

The resolution recognized "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and ... the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery."

A Western diplomat at the meeting said the United States felt strongly about not linking Israel to nuclear concerns in the Middle East when it considers Iran the real threat. But the Americans relented in the face of overwhelming European support for such a clause.

Support for Iran shrank after Russia and China lined up behind the United States, France and Britain — the other three permanent Security Council members — earlier in the week.

So the UK, Russia, China, France & Germany are all major players that support the UN and the U.S. stance on this.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

 

[NAD]

Nuke the whales?
Gotta nuke somethin.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

did either of you even read the article?

 

[NAD]

I did. What do you want me to say, that since several other countries in the world back the US decision it's somehow okay to start bombing another country for HEAVEN FORFEND developing crude versions of weapons the US has had for decades?

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

Team America: World Military Police -- martial law edition

 

[NAD]

It always makes me laugh that somehow this country, or the UN, or whoever has some moral authority to say who can and who cannot develop which weapons. Because for starters a) the moral foundations of our political system is just as bad if not worse than any other, b) it's all a political game anyhow, it matters only who is your ally at the time (the classic example of why we aren't "spreading freedom" to countries like Saudi Arabia), and c) it's extraordinarly hypocritical. Unless a massive deweaponization program gets underway, I don't want to hear shit from some trigger happy asshole in charge.

I don't trust this government any more than I do Iran, or North Korea, or any other "axis of evil" state because any one of them are just as likely to hit the Big Button and light up half the globe, as I am to take a massive shit the morning after a big beering session.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I did. What do you want me to say, that since several other countries in the world back the US decision it's somehow okay to start bombing another country for HEAVEN FORFEND developing crude versions of weapons the US has had for decades?

Now I didn't say anything about this being a reason to attack Iran; I'm NOT, I repeat, I'm NOT a warmonger.

This has merely been a test to see if the pantywaists could come up with some way of spinning this so that the U.S. is in the wrong here.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

It always makes me laugh that somehow this country, or the UN, or whoever has some moral authority to say who can and who cannot develop which weapons. Because for starters a) the moral foundations of our political system is just as bad if not worse than any other, b) it's all a political game anyhow, it matters only who is your ally at the time (the classic example of why we aren't "spreading freedom" to countries like Saudi Arabia), and c) it's extraordinarly hypocritical. Unless a massive deweaponization program gets underway, I don't want to hear shit from some trigger happy asshole in charge.

I don't trust this government any more than I do Iran, or North Korea, or any other "axis of evil" state because any one of them are just as likely to hit the Big Button and light up half the globe, as I am to take a massive shit the morning after a big beering session.

Are you SURE you read the article?

Because if you did, you'd realize that it was the U.K., France & Germany who sponsored this referendum. THEN the U.S. supported it, as did India, China, Russia, etc.

Shockingly, the only nations who did NOT support it were Syria , Cuba and Venezuela

I realize you're most likely hungover, so I'm giving you a pass today. Let me know if you want me to explain it further to you though.

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

The US is wrong. cause. Gugs is supporting the US or some shit. I dunno. And i'm not a panty waist. I wear them on my head. Or hang them from a ceiling fan.

 

[NAD]

Well, I just said they were, and I'll say it again: I don't want to hear a peep out of this country damning some other state for developing weapons. We have them too, LOTS of them.

Why is it if several countries back up a US decision it somehow makes it okay? Fucking Thrasymachus man, might makes right is such bullshit that it makes me cringe.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

It's like beating a head into a fucking brick wall with you.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Reading comprehension and you, a marriage NOT made together.

 

[NAD]

I don't care who the decision came from, why does that matter? Imposing economic sanctions doesn't do shit to stop a government from acting how it wants, it just makes more starving citizens.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

I don't care who the decision came from, why does that matter? Imposing economic sanctions doesn't do shit to stop a government from acting how it wants, it just makes more starving citizens.

If you can somehow explain the relevance of what you've just written here, I'll gladly comment on it.

 

[NAD]

"The landmark decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board sets the stage for future action by the top U.N. body, which has the authority to impose economic and political sanctions."

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

No, right, I got that part. But again, the "landmark decision" was crafted NOT BY THE U.S.

Why are you directing the same amount of vim & vigor at the U.K., France and Germany? Oh right, because you just like to bitch about the U.S. as the "great evil nation."

 

[Conspicuously Absent]

or because 99.9999% of the time, it's the US spearheading this shit.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

Yeah, I'm sure you can back that ridiculous claim up.

Fucking Canadians.

 

[NAD]

Fuck 'em all. I attack the US with more strength because I know more about it and I live here, I don't have the same ammo to attack the government of other countries.

But again, fuck 'em all. Any country that has a massive weapons cache that has the audacity to tell another "you can't do that" is an asshole.