US announces introduction of Iran resolution at UN

[ECH1969]

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton announced on Wednesday that the Western powers were introducing a draft resolution to the full U.N. Security Council aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"We and the British and the French expect (to) introduce the draft resolution this afternoon," Bolton told reporters minutes before a closed meeting of the 15-member council.

He said it would be a resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes demands legally binding. "It will make mandatory on Iran the suspension of all uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing activities," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_un_dc

[SteppingRazor]

1. I think it's pretty obvious that either China or Russia will veto n/t

[DrDebug]

3. Doesn't matter. It's part of the plan

Then they are going to nag about China and Russia and decide to do it alone, because those damn ex-commies are blocking them again.

[uppityperson]

4. next step in the game towards BOOM! is it in DU rules to swear in subject?

or must I wait to say MURDERING INSANE ASSHOLES in the message area?

[SteppingRazor]

5. Fuck no n/t

[uppityperson]

9. Shit thanks. nt

[DrDebug]

7. I think we can swear only if it is related to Bush or the Republicans n/t

[SteppingRazor]

8. I think even Bush would have to concede that the U.S....

can no longer "go it alone" against the Swiss Guard at Vatican City, much less the nation of Iran. George Bush is, quite simply, running out of time. The guy's only got two years left and he knows that America has neither the resources nor the political will for another war in the middle east. He'll do everything he can to get his way in Iran short of invading -- possibly including air strikes against specific targets -- but we won't see another war the size and scope of the one in Iraq.

[paparush]

11. Yeah..but if he makes it out of office Un-Indicted...

he will be painted forever and ever as Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Truman rolled into one. Ya know- the Greatest President Ever!!! <<me goes and bazooka vomits>>

[Crayson]

21. Hey watch it !

They got halberds!!
No messing around with somebody who'se got a halberd!


(oh, and assault rifles somewhere in the back...)
^_^

[TRUTHSEEKER_01]

19. I Agree..this wont go anywhere

[Vincardog]

2. Bolt on has started his job to piss off the UN and prove that aWoL must

"Go it alone" again. Are we going to let them get away with it AGAIN?
I hope China pulls the credit carpet out from under the NeoConvicts before they start the next stage in *'s crusades.

[Ghost Dog]

17. "International Community", "Friends and Allies", blah blah n/t.

[OregonBlue]

23. Bolt On? I love it, haven't heard this one before but I think all

DUers should use it!! Bolt On or Dolton!

[LSparkle]

6. How long til we can yank this wanker out of the U.N. job?

Doesn't he have to leave in '07 (expiration of his "recess appointment")?

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Important (emphasis added)

The text, obtained by Reuters, does not threaten any punitive action but still faces opposition from Russia and China. It would be under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes demands it legally binding and gives Iran another chance to comply with the council's demands.

[tocqueville]

12. "could trigger sanctions" is the term

Britain, France Introduce Iran Resolution By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - Britain and France introduced a U.N. Security Council resolution Wednesday that could trigger sanctions against Iran if it does not abandon uranium enrichment.

The resolution has the support of the United States but is opposed by Russia and China.

The Western nations hope the council will adopt the resolution before foreign ministers convene in New York on Monday, the ambassadors of France and the United States said before a Security Council meeting to discuss the issue.

The resolution mandates that Iran "shall suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities," according to the text presented to the council.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_1

[Jack Rabbit]

14. At least it isn't "any means necessary"

Which might mean "could trigger a nuclear strike." I'm sure the neoconservatives in the Bush regime know that they couldn't that through the Security Council given their record of veracity.

There are two problems at which the world should work to solve. First, get Bush and the neocons to sit down and shut up. They lied to the entire world once and should not be allowed to do it again; even if Iran has plans to produce a nuclear Bomb, that is not an imminent threat and requires no use of force at this time. Action can and should wait at least until a responsible administration is in power in Washington. Second, get Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. The Iranians claim to have no nuclear weapons ambitions, but I would like know that they don't.

[tocqueville]

15. it's tougher than you think

The text, which is still opposed by Russia and China, does not contain sanctions but goes further than a Security Council approved in late March. It threatens to consider unspecified "further measures as may be necessary" to ensure Iran's compliance, a veiled warning of sanctions the West wants if Iran does not comply.

The draft calls on all nations to "exercise vigilance" in preventing the transfer of materials and technology "that could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and missile programs."

The resolution is under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which makes it legally binding. It gives Iran another chance to comply prior to a deadline that has not yet been decided but diplomats hoped it would be in early June.

A Chapter 7 resolution allows sanctions or even war to enforce compliance but a separate resolution is required to define and activate either step.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060503/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_un_dc_9




This time I think it's not comparable with Iraq. The West cannot allow Iran to build a Shiite Empire stretching from Balochistan to Lebanon, which means a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia (some say that the nukes are already purchased) and Egypt... Even the Russians don't like the idea... after all it's their southern border...

you might be surprised to see that the EU goes along with the US that time... but they expect it will be under Hillary... so they try to win time...

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Thank you. That should be opposed

One would think the UNSC would have learned by now to keep Bush on a short leash.

[peacetalksforall]

13. Anything going on at the UN is just more positioning, just as they are

physically positioning. It was sometime LAST year that a DUer reported that their soldier child was already on the way to Iran (inside Iran- I assumed it was for spying or assessing). This started last year. They put Bolten in the UN. They got Powell out of the way. There have been all kinds of talks with Turkey to use their space or to get some agreement with them for the attack on iran, they have Farsi speaking people already there, and we have had recent reports of positioning troops or batallions. There have been first line reports about deployments. There have been all kinds of reports of dealing with Israel. We've been told that the geographical area of interest is southern Iran - where their oil is (and where all their nuclear work is? I don't know).

It certainly does look like things are in the hands of China and Russia. I'm sure Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have already pledged to UK, US, (and France?).

No to more killing. No to more victims. No to more maiming. No to more mental wrecks. No to more chemical deaths. No to barbarians.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Fuck Russia and China!

Both countries need to wake up and not just on this issue, but on the issue of Darfur!

[Nihil]

20. Why pick on them?

The countries that REALLY need to wake up on this issue
(and many others) are the US and the UK.

[Crayson]

22. The UN is not a welfare organisation

The UN is a political body where every nation tries to follow their agenda, FIRST OF ALL the U.S.

Every UN veto/ok of the veto powers is bought some way or another.

Forget about world peace and welfare and food for everybody.

The UN is more like a family therapist you visit before you really go to war on a divorce.
And everybody has a saying there... the children, the uncle, the mother in law, even the family dog!

The outcome is never "peace on earth" but the result of months of haggling and harassing.

And if it's not the desired outcome the people go for divorce anyway (like in unilateral action).