Skip to comments.
IAEA adopts resolution on Iran's nuclear program
AFP ^
Posted on 09/24/2005 8:52:55 AM PDT by s2baccha
The UN atomic watchdog adopted by vote Saturday an EU proposal that sets Iran up for referral to the UN Security Council, a spokesman said, in what would be a sharp escalation of the West's face-off with the Islamic Republic.
The vote was by 22-1, with 12 abstentions on the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood told reporters.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: algeria; argentina; atomicwatchdog; australia; axisofevil; belgium; brazil; canada; china; equador; ezekiel38; france; germany; ghana; hungary; iaea; india; iran; islamicrepublic; italy; japan; korea; mexico; netherlands; nigeria; nukes; pakistan; peru; peterrickwood; poland; portugal; republicofkorea; russia; singapore; slovenia; southafrica; srilanka; sweden; toothlesswatchdog; tunisia; uk; un; unres1696; unresolution; usa; venezuela; vietnam; waronterror; wot; yemen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: Valin
" Not only a resolution...but a STRONGLY WORDED resolution." 5-10 more of those and well pass one that threatens "serious consequences. But it takes some unknown number after that or were rushing to war.
21
posted on
09/24/2005 11:01:22 AM PDT
by
elfman2
(2 tacos short of a combination plate)
To: hail to the chief
"Or else we will be very angry, and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are." You would prefer the UN were capable of enforcement?
22
posted on
09/24/2005 11:43:30 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Carry_Okie
To: hail to the chief
Of course! I see. You want the UN to have an army under UN command.
I suggest to you that, if the UN was capable of enforcing resolutions against one state, it would seek to be capable of enforcing those same resolutions against ANY state, including the USA.
No thanks. I'm happier with it as a debating society. Giving an inherently corrupt organization more power is not a good idea. There is no such thing as recourse with a global government.
24
posted on
09/24/2005 11:54:49 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: RobFromGa
I didn't say the French
were tough, only that they
sounded tough.
The French made noises that Saddam must disarm, they voted for 1441, and they assured our Secretary of State they would be with us. I remember that at one point the French even claimed they were all for military action, if only we would give it another six months or a year.
Of course we now know they were privately assuring Saddam that they would save his bacon and that Chirac bagman Patrick Maguin was in receipt of Iraqi payola. And you are right in that at the end of the day Chirac brandished the veto to prevent further UN resolutions.
To: s2baccha
26
posted on
09/24/2005 12:06:16 PM PDT
by
F14 Pilot
(Democracy is a process not a product)
To: s2baccha
The actual votes by country -
FOR: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Equador, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, USA
AGAINST: Venezuela
ABSTAIN: Yemen, Algeria, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Viet Nam
Chavez. Mexico abstained? They should get a riot act reading. Notice the commies, Islamic countries, and oil producers on the list.
27
posted on
09/24/2005 12:17:50 PM PDT
by
JasonC
To: JasonC; nuconvert
India, which had originally opposed the EU resolution, inexplicably voted for it.
Russia and China have long opposed efforts to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the Security Council.
Both countries fear a UN referral will cause the standoff over Iran's program to escalate into an international crisis. The EU resolution requires Tehran to be reported to the Security Council, but at an unspecified date -- watering down an earlier demand from the Europeans for an immediate referral.
This means Iran would most likely not be referred to the Council until the IAEA Board meets in November, diplomats say. The resolution, which diplomats said was prepared in close consultation with Washington, says Iran's "many failures and breaches" of its NPT Safeguards Agreement "constitute non-compliance" with the pact.
'It added that there was an "absence of confidence" that Iran's atomic program was exclusively peaceful and this gave rise to questions "within the competence of the Security Council". For two years, the EU's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have tried to persuade Iran to give up its right to uranium enrichment, a demand which runs counter to the NPT.
Last month, the talks collapsed after Tehran resumed uranium processing and rejected an EU offer of economic and political incentives if it scrapped its uranium enrichment program, prompting the EU trio to join Washington in calling for the case to be sent to the Security Council. On Friday, diplomats said the Iranian delegation showed some board members and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei two unsigned letters informing the IAEA what would happen if the EU resolution were approved.
One letter said that Iran would begin enriching uranium, a process that produces nuclear fuel, at the Natanz facility. The second says Tehran would end short-notice inspections under a special NPT protocol.
http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=233325
28
posted on
09/24/2005 12:42:33 PM PDT
by
AdmSmith
To: s2baccha
Good vote! Does anyone have the breakdown of the actual vote? Who were 1 against, with 12 abstentions?
29
posted on
09/24/2005 2:15:14 PM PDT
by
M. Espinola
(Freedom is never free)
To: ellery
"YIKES!!! A resolution that may lead to a (gasp) referral! Terrifying!!!!"
Now, we're really getting somewhere.
30
posted on
09/24/2005 2:54:56 PM PDT
by
Cautor
To: FairOpinion
31
posted on
09/24/2005 2:56:55 PM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: thoughtomator
32
posted on
09/24/2005 3:39:00 PM PDT
by
newzjunkey
(CA: Stop union theft for political agendas: YES on Prop 75!)
To: JasonC
Thanks for finding that info.
33
posted on
09/24/2005 3:41:23 PM PDT
by
newzjunkey
(CA: Stop union theft for political agendas: YES on Prop 75!)
To: Carry_Okie
It is irrelevant whether the UN has command of an army. Clearly they would never use military force to back up their resolutions. What I was referring to was the lack of willingness on the part of the nations involved to act for their own good, instead of waiting for permission from such an inept organization. If nobody takes action, this resolution may as well not exist. The mullahs don't care about resolutions from the UN; if they were interested in our opinions, they wouldn't be building weapons to attack us in the first place.
To: hail to the chief
It is irrelevant whether the UN has command of an army. Clearly they would never use military force to back up their resolutions. They'll fail until they get the powers they want.
What I was referring to was the lack of willingness on the part of the nations involved to act for their own good, instead of waiting for permission from such an inept organization.
That has nothing to do with whether the UN has a standing army.
The mullahs don't care about resolutions from the UN; if they were interested in our opinions, they wouldn't be building weapons to attack us in the first place.
Best not to obsess too much about our current opponent and forget the Chinese in the process.
All I was pointing out is that to put a standing UN army in place only to turn the US military over to Hillary would be a potentially fatal move. It may not look so bad in Bush's hands, but that's not enough. Expecting an American veto to protect us from a UN reorg into a world government when the abmassador is Hillary's is a very foolish risk.
35
posted on
09/24/2005 3:59:00 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Paul_Denton
Sharon has stated publicly that Israel will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, no chance. So if the UN Security Council doesn't have the guts to handle it, Israel will.
36
posted on
09/24/2005 4:01:23 PM PDT
by
moose2004
(You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)
To: Carry_Okie
I apologize; I didn't communicate clearly. I absolutely do not want the UN to have control of an army. The only intention of my posts was to say that I think military action should be given stronger consideration by the US and our stronger allies, instead of bickering about it in the UN for another decade while Iran builds bombs.
To: hail to the chief
No arguent there.
38
posted on
09/24/2005 4:07:44 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: hail to the chief
That'd be a big step for them.
To: s2baccha
The Feckless Carter should have declared war on Iran the instant they attacked our sovereign embassy.
40
posted on
09/24/2005 7:36:05 PM PDT
by
dodger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson