US pushes for crisis vote on Iran's nuclear program

[allemand]

By Philip Sherwell, Washington
January 9, 2006

AMERICA is to push for a crisis vote to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council if Tehran goes ahead with its threat to resume banned research on uranium enrichment-related operations today.

Support is growing in European capitals for the United States to play "tough cop" to Iran, which has consistently shown disdain for diplomatic efforts to solve the stalemate.

The Bush Administration is so furious with Iran that it is preparing to push for the scheduled March board meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to be brought forward.

The US wants a vote referring Iran to the Security Council for sanctions.

More:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-pushes-for-crisis-vote-on-irans-nuclear-program/2006/01/08/1136655086984.html

[Oversea Visitor]

1. Yawn

Got Veto Power :crazy:

[rooboy]

2. With John Bolton, there's no chance the US can play "good cop"... n/t

[leftchick]

5. if not Bolton there would be someone else

pushing the neocon fantasy of WWIII.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. What crisis -- bushie's poll numbers?

The dimwit thinks people will "love" him again if he makes another war?

Iran is 10 years away from "crisis" --

I never thought that I'd agree with Sharon on anything -- but in his last interview he said that Iran could be contained using sanctions etc.

I hate to even think of the vast damage that bushie will be able to do in the next three years.

[Tom Joad]

4. AIPAC been pushing this "crisis" for years.....

See this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x79889

[IndianaGreen]

29. Sharon: 'Iran Could be Stopped with Sanctions'

in one of his last interviews before his stroke, Sharon threw cold water on any idea of attacking Iran:

'Iran Could be Stopped with Sanctions'
By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Jerusalem
Published: Saturday, January 07, 2006
zaman.com

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in his last interview before becoming ill that if the international suppression over Iran continues Tehran's nuclear studies may be prevented.

Sharon giving an exclusive interview to Japanese newspaper, Nikkei Shimbun, recalled Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin ordered to attack Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. To a question about a possible Israeli offensive against Iran, Sharon responded, the conditions are different now.

"I was in the cabinet in 1981 and played an important role in the operation decision. The conditions were different then. I believe that we are still in the negotiations period and we can stop Iran with sanctions."

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060107&hn=28378

[no_hypocrisy]

6. If it's such a "crisis", then why isn't another voting member like

France, China, Russia, Germany, . . . Poland, etc. making such a demand of the U.N.? One would think that this problem is too important to wait for another member to bring this issue to the fore.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. The EU is extremely unhappy with Iran over this.

I can't imagine them standing in the way of it.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Then I indict any EU member votes that votes in favor of the U.S.

resolution on the charge of criminal facilitation, perhaps conspiracy as well.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Criminal facilitation of what, exactly? n/t

[Massacure]

36. Russia is the wildcard.

Russia generally likes Iran. It would be interesting to see at what point Iran starts to piss Russia off.

[still_one]

7. Who decides which countries have nuclear capibilites or not?

[0007]

21. If my neighbor has a gun why can't I?

Shouldn't the U.S. be working for dismantling all nuclear programs in the world?

Who'd listen to Carl Sagan or Mordechai Vanunu?

[zanne]

8. And this is why Bush wanted Bolton in so badly.

Bush certainly didn't appoint Bolton so we could start getting along with other countries. He's already getting us into another war, and if we don't try to stop him now, it'll be too late. Just as he did with Iraq, he's getting all his ducks in a row.

[leesa]

10. There is no crises except the one the US and Israel are manufacturing.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. What do you think Iran's intentions are with respect to nuclear arms? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

14. They intend to defend themselves against aggression.

Iran has no history of aggressive behavior at all. They have every right to defend themselves against a very aggressive nation currently militarily occupying a neighboring country, a country that has called for the destruction of the Iranian government, and that has made no secret of its intentions in this area, and that has the military capability to destroy a conventionally armed Iran.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. Bullshit.

Iran has a history of supporting terrorists in Israel and elsewhere. They have a history of threatening Israel with anhilation. It would be completely foolish to overlook their history, and the current comments of their President, when reviewing this matter. I'm sorry, but I do not buy the "poor little defenseless Iran" theory. They brought this scrutiny upon themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Which nations has Iran attacked?

None.

Iran of course has supported palestinian groups that you are going to label terrorist. I'd rather they didn't, but they do. And indeed the current president is trotted out every other week or so to make a deliberately taunting announcement. However Iran has no history of military aggression. That is a simple fact.

Iran has a border with Iraq. Iraq is occupied by our military. The PERSIAN GULF is full of our warships. Our president announced that Iran was part of the axis of evil and had to go. We demanded that Iraq comply with UN disarmament resolutions - and then proceeded to invade and destroy Iraq while the Iraqi regime was busy complying with our demands. On what rational basis would the Iranians think that not building a military deterrent against our aggression would be sensible? What other choice do they have?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. I'm trying to label them terrorists?

Try Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. And yes, I'd rather they didn't support them either, seeing as they have no business whatsoever involving themselves in that conflict.


Iran has a border with Iraq. Iraq is occupied by our military. The PERSIAN GULF is full of our warships.

Then now probably isn't a good time for them to be fucking around with nuclear weapons, eh?

On what rational basis would the Iranians think that not building a military deterrent against our aggression would be sensible?

I see no way that Iran building a nuclear arsenal incapable of attacking the US is in any way a deterrent against US agression.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. So then Iran should just bow down to our authority?

I don't see what other choice they have. They have the examples of Iraq and North Korea to draw from. One nation is destroyed the other survives. One obeyed our demands the other defied us.

"I see no way that Iran building a nuclear arsenal incapable of attacking the US is in any way a deterrent against US agression."

They do not need to build an arsenal to attack the USA, they need to have enough nukes to make an invasion of Iran impossible. That would be 1-6 small weapons.

But once again: they cannot build a conventional force that could stop an attack by our forces. We have publcicly announced our intentions to destroy their government. We actually have military forces on two sides of Iran and our navy is sitting right off their coast. We destroyed their neighbor Iraq in a conventional military confrontation in two weeks. What choice do they have?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Iran should accept Russia's offer...

...to enrich uranium in Russia for use in Iranian nuclear reactors. They should start cooperating with the EU. They should attept to avoid being referred to the security council. There is absolutely no reason why Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. They have made their intention to destroy Israel clear.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Oh nonsense.

Iran has no border with Israel, consequently it is not going to have a conventional war with Israel. Israel has the third largest nuclear force on the planet. Israel has submarine ICBM launch capability, which makes it invulnerable to any first strike. Iran is not going to nuke Israel. You may not like Iran, I certainly don't, but they have the right to defend themselves, and as I keep pointing out, they have every reason to believe that we intend to destroy them, and we certainly have the capability to do just that. How about we and the Israelis disarm our nukes first? How about we get our troops and ships out of their neighborhood? Perhaps then the Iranians could be convinced of the merits of a mutual military stand down. As it is all the standing down being proposed is unilateral and I see no reason at all for the Iranians to buy into it.

[Gregorian]

20. Does "imminent" suddenly have a new definition?

These guys are in such big trouble, even if they stop torturing and invading right away. What a sham. But then, it's never been any different in the history of mankind. We're always having to fight the biggest and meanest.

[Gregorian]

22. Bush is America's number one threat.

Not Iran. Not Saddam. Not Bin Laden. BUSH.

[doublethink]

23. Lets see 17 posts .....

so far in this thread and not one mention of The Iranian Oil Bourse going into effect March 20 2006. That's the 'crisis'. Thought I was watching MSM in this thread, well not quite but hopefully ya'll get my drift. EOM. Peace. :)

on edit: make that 23 posts and counting ....

[tatertop]

26. Looks like that is sinking in slower than expected

Those non-existent nukes are the red herring.
The trumped up casis belli designated to fool the 'murican people.

[truth2power]

32. Thanks, doublethink. The oil bourse is the "crisis".

Ergo...we gotta start blowing the arms and legs off their children by March at the latest.

[doublethink]

33. sigh ......

:( ..... Peace.

[Odin2005]

24. Bush is definitely grasping at straws...

...but that doesn't mean an Iran with The Bomb is any less dangerous. The argument that Iran should be allowed to have nukes to defend itself is BS. Nuclear proliferation must be stopped at all cost. Yes, it is hypocritical somewhat, but untill the current Nuclear club has the moral spine to get rid of nukes entirely it is a double standard we must live with to prevent a nuclear Doomsday.

[fujiyama]

25. This is a good example

of how Bush has thrown away any and all diplomatic credibility in the world.

Here, similar to NK (but potentially moree serious because these mullahs are bigger fanaatics than thhe NK commies), the US is unable to really say anything and have it taken seriously in the world community.

Clark has mentioned this frequently.

Even if this is referred to the SC, little will be done. Iran, almost definetely will have nukes, short of an Iranian or US bombing campaign, which would also be disasterous.

[Rex]

27. They so love starting wars in March!

Trying to start a trend I guess.

[Auntie Bush]

34. The weather is perfect for a March invasion...not to hot and not to cold.

:bounce: LET'S INVADE" :bounce:

[IndianaGreen]

28. Let the US attack Iran, it will be as foolish as Germany attacking Russia

A US attack on Iran will radicalize the Shias in Iraq and elsewhere against American imperialism, it will totally break the back of Bush's imperial armies, and will get no support from allies.

Another war will expedite the collapse of American imperialism and hegemony.

[HuffleClaw]

30. 'crisis' my foot

what a complete crock. just more of their usual 'the sky is falling' rhetoric and propaganda. the security council will NOT play their game, so why even bother?

oh right, so bush can, during his SOTU speech, declare once again that the UN is 'irrelevant' and DEMAND that 'the international community do its duty'. and ALWAYS remember that, despite all their claims to the contrary, this is not in the least bit about terror or nukes, but about the 'iranian oil bourse'. its about MONEY. they are on an increasingly tight deadline too, they NEED to act before the 'bourse' goes into effect in march.

the usual 'atrocity' stories are starting up and other tales of 'imminent' threats. expect some silly tales linking al qaeda to iran to surface soon enough too, for its rather likely bush is going to claim that he already has 'authority' to act against iran from that post-911 anti-terror bill.

this is going to get really silly really fast.

[Nomen Tuum]

35. Looking for any excuse to bomb Iran

They are looking for ANY excuse to bomb Iran.