The World United on Iran? (Not Exactly)

ChronWatch ^ | February 07, 2006 | J. B. Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

In the famous words of Ronald Reagan, “Here they go again,” the United Nations is once again being given the chance to prove itself more than an obsolete international debating society made up of third world dictators, first world perpetual negotiators, and second class wannabe despots.

As Iran continued to flip the finger at the world over its nuclear ambitions, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) threw up its hands and headed for the U.N. Security Council.

The 35-nation board of governors at the IAEA were all but united in their 27-3 vote to refer the matter to the United Nations. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and Yemen all voted to refer the matter immediately.

Three nations voted NO--Cuba, Syria and Venezuela--while five others were unable to choose a side at all. Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, and South Africa, each abstaining from the vote altogether. It seems these eight nations missed the news concerning the current regime in Iran (see my recent column Democracy… It’s NOT for Everyone!) Or did they?

But these eight dissenting nations are not really alone in their ultimate support of a nuclear Iran. While Russia voted in favor of sending the matter to the U.N. Security Council, the country is also warning the United States and the world against taking any serious action against Iran, signaling that once again, Russia's alliance with the free world may be more ceremonial than substantive.

[.cnI redruM]

No, the world's not united. They don't have to be. They know we will behave the same way no matter what they do. This leads to moral free riding.

[scooter2]

The 35-nation board of governors at the IAEA were all but united in their 27-3 vote to refer the matter to the United Nations.

So the U.N. can do the same thing it did with Iraq? 17 resolutions and absolutely NO action, until G. W. Bush had the guts to say "Enough is enough!"

[PlainOleAmerican]

Now THAT's the truth!

[PlainOleAmerican]

That appears to be the plan.....

[rip033]

Really interesting caller on Rush today. He mentioned that one of the nations that will hold the presidency of the Security Council in the upcoming months will be DENMARK! I looked it up on the UN website and they are slated to hold it in June. Here's the address to it. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

Hum..... Can anyone deny the coincidence? I suspect Iran is expecting to prevent any UN sanctions or at most slow down any votes for the next few months. The question is how much more time Iran needs to complete a nuke? It may be less than a year seeing the way things are playing out. I hope others in State, Defense and NSC are smarter than me on this! Time is running out. It doesn't look good.

[Terriergal]

Time is running out. It doesn't look good.

I'm sure Israel has a plan.

[.cnI redruM]

SO do you think Iran would threaten to pop a nuke right in the middle of Copenhagen the first time they got referred?

[Terriergal]

I thought this article was good.
Sounded a little more optimistic. Iran has got to be dealt with in any case.


SPEAKING FREELY
Iran and the jaws of a trap
By Paul Levian

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html

[rip033]

No.

I would expect Iran to continue to delay to continue to develop. Time is on Iran's side. They must be within 12 to 15 months to producing something. Once they develop and test a nuke weapon then it's M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction)in the Middle East. But would this policy work with a hard core Islamic Fundamentalist state? M.A.D. kept the Soviets in check from committing all out aggression against the West. I'm doubtful M.A.D. can contain the Islamic Revolution that begun over 20 years ago and has continued to grow across the world and continued to destroy lives. My good instincts tells me that Iran knows that by stirring trouble up against Denmark using their religious ties with militant groups around the world they can deflect the real issue. Should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons? Time is on their side.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Let the USA be the hero and the devil. They always do.
Always comes down to us and a few solid allies anyways.
They get it both ways, get to be in a safer world and condemn us. Win-win for those that dont unite behind us.
We should deny foriegn aid of any kind to nations that do not support us in war. THEN you might see better support.