The Bush administration is seeking the support of other nations in an effort to impose United Nations sanctions on Iran. The sanctions would aim to pressure Iran into negotiating an end to its nuclear programme.
Nicholas Burns, the US Undersecretary of State said "We fully expect that the IAEA will refer this issue to the United Nations Security Council, where it should be. Iran must (face the) judgment of the international community..."
French President Jacques Chirac said "The use of civilian nuclear energy, which is perfectly legitimate, must not serve as a pretext for pursuing activities that could actually be aimed at building up a military nuclear arsenal."
Here we go again. Impose sanctions to steadily weaken the country and drive its ppl into poverty while their government, if anything, gets a stronger grip internally. Then while the sanctions do their job, demonise the victim in preparation for the use of military force under a false pretense. Its Iraq all over again.
The US government asks why an oil-rich nation such as Iran could possibly need nuclear power for its energy needs. So why did the US approve plans to build TWENTY nuclear reactors in the 70's when their puppet the Shar was in power? Is it not possible that MAYBE the Iranians want a portion of their countrys energy to come from nuclear sources? Isn't the burden of proof with the US to demonstrate how the Iranians have a military dimension to their nuclear plans? How can the Iranians prove that they do not have something or do not intend on having something?
And with Bolton now in there with the UN and changing it as much as possible, the UN will just be a tool for the US to use to legitimise the attacking of another independant nation (it had to undermine and bypass the UN to go after Iraq but now we know why - no legitimate reason remains today for the Iraq invasion and the UN, along with various countries, has been proved right).
You hear a lot of “isn’t Bush stupid” and how stupid they are and oh they didn’t know that this could lead to civil war. You know no matter how barbaric their plans are they all come down to the same old “divide and conquer” strategy its rational (from a certain perspective) , not morally correct nor will it work imho but Smaller nations are easier to conquer, just like Yugoslavia, split em up and then control them, just like the USA, get them all bickering about abortion or gays or some bullshit and they’re easier to conquer, this strategy has been around long before the Romans.
A lot of people are beginning to compare this to Nixon’s desperate attempt to pull out of Vietnam with honor (by bombing the shit out of Cambodia) . it would appear that Bombing Iran (by saying that the terrorists are hiding behind their borders (or wmd's etc) would do ) meanwhile slip Iraq into civil war , a perfect reason to get the hell out of there ( and Bush has to get out of there if the Republicans want to win another election ) and not to worry too much about the oil it’ll be there for the taking after the Iraqis shoot the hell out of each other and set up separate states which will be easier to install puppet capitalist democracies in which will no doubt repress their populations and be favorable to an American corporatocracy … y Vola …”Mission Complete “
to know how they are so sure it will be referred to the security council. The IAEA has already completed it's inspection of the centrifuges and concluded the residue of highly enriched uranium was in fact contamination (ie the centrifuges and their traces of enriched uranium came from Pakistan), and not from an Iranian weapons program.
Unfortunately Bush will probably be pinning his hopes at nobody looking past the 'centrifuges contain highly enriched uranium' headline. Thats the kind of straw that they seem only too willing to grasp at in order to launch an attack. Look at the build-up to Iraq - they got away with false flags such as 'uranium from Niger' to proceed with the bombing.
considering that the sanctions on Iraq did sweet f!ck all. Saddam kept building palaces and the general population starved, infrastructure crumbled, etc. So I'd like to know just what sanctions are supposed to accomplish. Rich people with power (ie people like Saddam, Bush, and other money/power hungry leaders) never suffer from sanctions. It's the general public that suffers. Keeping in mind that Iran's new leader is a religious hardliner, I ask again, what are sanctions against Iran going to accomplish?
Re: Building Palaces. This building of palaces is generally exagerated to get people to hate Saddam. Iraw was the country with the 4th highest income per capita. This country is run by rich families, each family would own several palaces and call one of them Saddam's palace, it was a way to ingratiate themselves to the top. The number I heard was 56 palaces for Saddam.
I only mentioned the palaces as an example, a bad example apparently. My point still remains though, even with sanctions firmly in place Saddam was living a privileged lifestyle.
You're quite right and I agree. However that wasn't my point. About the only thing I could see sanctions against Iran accomplishing is a (dramatic) increase of hate towards the US, from the people who would suffer the most, the general population of Iran. Considering the current events in that part of the world, I just can't see how that could be a good thing..
all to do with the capitalisation of the Muslim world. Its the last outpost of the 'old world' and the captains of industry see it as their own crusade to conquer it and syphon off its potential wealth just like they've done or are doing in the rest of the world. NWO!!
