+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/23/2018 04:27 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.470 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/01/2005 11:08 AM ID: 49929 Permalink   

US Gathering Support for Iran Sanctions


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."

    WebReporter: NuttyPrat Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Deja Vu  
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).
  by: Flashby     09/01/2005 11:38 AM     
  bitch, bitch, bitch  
bitch if the US doesn't use the UN and sactions, bitch of they do...sounds like all you want to do is bitch.
  by: YourKiddingRight   09/01/2005 01:09 PM     
No, don't apply sanctions, it really is as simple as that. Its nice to see you take an intellectual stance on the issue. You do yourself justice.

BTW Scooby Doo is on the TV. You're missing it.
  by: Flashby     09/01/2005 01:45 PM     
My thoughts exactly

.... anyone know that the stats are on Iranian population ...can't dig them up anywhere..

Heres one that slipped through the net though 50% of the Iraqi population are 15 or younger ..

(better source that in case someone gets on my ass

According to:
US Senator Robert Byrd
in Senate Floor Speech
on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 )

Just like to know what the age of the population make up of the region is before the US pushes for starving them out of exsistance.

  by: Hugo Chavez     09/01/2005 02:08 PM     
  Iran is part of the Iraqi Exit strategy  
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 “
  by: Hugo Chavez     09/01/2005 02:40 PM     
  I'd like..  
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.
  by: StarShadow     09/01/2005 02:55 PM     
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.
  by: Flashby     09/01/2005 04:40 PM     
anyone find it funny that the most dangerous country is the one inposing sanctions... bullies of the world... world police call it what you will.
  by: HAVOC666     09/01/2005 05:40 PM     
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?
  by: StarShadow     09/01/2005 06:12 PM     
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.
  by: kmazzawi     09/01/2005 08:27 PM     
Well, sure the infrastructure and lifestyle in general wasn't great under Saddam, but just look how quickly it deteriorated under Bush.
  by: maytag   09/01/2005 08:28 PM     
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.
  by: StarShadow     09/01/2005 08:42 PM     
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..
  by: StarShadow     09/01/2005 08:47 PM     
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!!
  by: Flashby     09/01/2005 09:48 PM     
  What support?  
I don't see a great deal of support.
And why is it ok for some nations to have Nukes and not others?
First in first serve is it?
  by: Thinking   09/02/2005 05:14 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: