Iran rejects U.N. nuclear deadline

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#1
Proof that I haven't forgotten good old World News:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give his nation until August 31 to suspend uranium enrichment.

Instead, Ahmadinejad insisted Tehran would pursue its nuclear program.

"My words are the words of the Iranian nation. Throughout Iran, there is one slogan: 'The Iranian nation considers the peaceful use of nuclear fuel production technology its right,"' Ahmadinejad said.

The Security Council passed a resolution Monday calling for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of August or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Ahmadinejad said Iran will not give in to threats from the United Nations, referring to the resolution though he didn't not specifically mention it.

"If some think they can still speak with threatening language to the Iranian nation, they must know that they are badly mistaken," he said in a speech broadcast live on state-run television.

"Our nation has made its decision. We have passed the difficult stages. Today, the Iranian nation has acquired the nuclear technology," Ahmadinejad added.

Iran's ambassador to the United Nations on Monday also rejected the Security Council's action, saying the resolution would make negotiations more difficult surrounding a Western incentives package offered in June to Iran in exchange for suspending enrichment.

Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the resolution's text was watered down from earlier drafts that would have made the threat of sanctions immediate. The resolution now requires the council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions.

It was passed by a vote of 14-1. Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, cast the lone dissenting vote.

Iran has said it would formally respond on August 22 to the incentives package, but a top Iranian lawmaker said Tuesday the Security Council resolution has effectively killed the package.

"Response to the proposed package is null and void since the Security Council resolution means the package is of no use," said lawmaker Hamid Reza Haj Babaei.

U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday praised the resolution and said it sent a message to Iran that "the world is intent on working together to make sure that they do not end up with a nuclear weapon or the know-how to build a nuclear weapon."

The United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the allegation and maintains its program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html

So what's the next step? How does the US win with Iran in the nuclear endgame?
 
M

Mecha

Guest
#2
The bomb is free. I think we need to be somewhat used to that now, either we stop nations from building them, or we don't. Hell, Pakistan is expanding its nuclear program with US help...

I just know one of these days, Pakistan is going to announce they gave nukes to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria or something. It'd certainly make the US/Israel think things over a bit, that'd be sure.</weird idea>

~Mecha
 
T

The Comrade

Guest
#3
iran is pushing and pushing and pushing to see everyone's response. it's like a little kid that keeps poking a bigger kid. the bigger kid will take for only so long and then BAM smack to the face.
 
S

Sypin

Guest
#4
This is ridiculous!

"Can someone please define how Iran is a 'threat' ?

Can anyone explain how iran, which is more than 6000 miles away from the US is a threat to one of the most advanced countries in the world in anyway? Has there been any terrorist attacks in the US since sept 11? Any threats from Iran against the US that should be taken seriously? (The rhetoric used by Ahmedinejad is also used by a dozen other countries... even Nelson Mandela, Jacques Chirac, King Fahad, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Shinzo Abe, all voiced their personal opinion on American foreign policy which sounded quite similar)

OK, maybe i am not exposed to the same level of "what ifs" and "maybes" that are there in the US. But still!

I don't even know where to begin: should it be the misinformation of Iran's progress regarding nuclear energy?
Or maybe the use of political rhetoric as evidence to start a conflict with a potential enemy?

Even when it comes to the Holocaust convention issue...
I don't deny the holocaust... its not possible! the level of death and destruction simply cannot be hindered or watered down in any way. BUT it is true that Israel will refer to the Holocaust as a scapegoat for many inexcusable actions.

Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime, including the Roma, Soviet POWs, disabled people, gay men, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic Poles, and political prisoners.
Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at nine to 11 million.
The official death toll of Jews was 5.89 million, but will round it off to 6 million.

You do the math. This "Holocaust denyers convention" is an exagerrated form of a rumor. It was a convention to remember the other victims of the holocaust that so many of us have forgotten. Don't get me wrong, it was terrible what happened to the Jews and it disgusts me every time i see a referrence, but they were not the only victims... thats all im saying.

Although that is besides the point, just wanted to clear that up...

the Russia-Iran nuclear deal ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm )
is nothing new... and after years of cooperative work. The US decides "we don't like that" and tells Russia to cease its co operation. At the drop of a hat, just like that... "oh sure, never mind the years and millions spent on this, we will drop it. anything else? freedom fries maybe?"
Why didn't they say anything back in 1990 when Russia and Iran signed a $800 million contract for a nuclear plant at Bushehr on the Gulf coast?

Why now? so it looks like "Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons" ??

Even the director general of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei is trying to get all parties back to the negotiating table, but guess who doesn't want to be a part of it? (no, not Iran but the US).

Mr. ElBaradei made clear his doubts both about calls for more sanctions and the so-called "international community´s" emphasis on suspending enrichment.
( http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus...an/index.shtml )

Look, we all know what happens when the US goes against the judgement of every international body, so should we really go down this road again?
 

Duke1985

EatsApplePieShitsFreedom
#5
I think were Iran has been problematic as of late is their involvment in Iraq.
I don't really know all the details as I haven't seen the news in awhile. I think they're running weapons into Iraq or something like that.
 
S

Sypin

Guest
#6
Haha... If Iran were involved with Iraq in any way- it would be to help kill them off...

There's alot of bad blood between the two for centuries..

Besides... the Arab League are very sttrict in their policies concerning the middle east- the consequences would be quite severe if they got involved, and with this whole nuclear thing going on... there really not going to risk it!

But yeah, there's been 'speculation' and "reason to suspect" that weapons found in Iraq come from Iran... I wonder why they can't exclusively say that the weapons found are from Iran. Anyways.. it doesn't matter, with enough repetition- it will become standard rhetoric and thats all that they need.