Nuclear Board Said to Rebuff Bush Over Iran

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/middleeast/20IRAN.html?hp)


November 20, 2003

Nuclear Board Said to Rebuff Bush Over Iran


By DAVID E. SANGER

VIENNA, Nov. 19 — The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency appears prepared to approve a resolution on Iran's 18 years of secret work on a nuclear program that will stop short of recommending United Nations Security Council action, a setback to President Bush, senior officials from several countries said here Wednesday.

Only hours after Mr. Bush, in Britain, declared that the agency must hold Iran to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, officials here said that the board was likely to adopt a European-sponsored resolution that was being strengthened on Wednesday to include wording that would likely "deplore" Iran's deceptions and declare that they amounted to a "breach" of its obligations.

But Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was unable to persuade more than three of the board's 35 member countries — Canada, Australia and Japan — to vote for a formal censure of Iran. Even the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush's host, sided with France and Germany and said that the best way now to deal with Iran is to encourage its sudden conversion to openness.

(more)


does this mean we'll see the administration ramp up its "iran is bad" rhetoric?

can the US public be whipped into yet another we-should-invade-without-UN-approval frenzy?

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/middleeast/20IRAN.html?hp)



does this mean we'll see the administration ramp up its "iran is bad" rhetoric?

can the US public be whipped into yet another we-should-invade-without-UN-approval frenzy?

We should not invade(yet). Only invade if the refuse to follow the rules. I do not want another war, but if they do not comply the UN telling them they bad and they dont like it wont stop them. I wish it would.

Why are they building nuclear reactors any way. Just to make eveyone else made.

I want no war but if it is neccessary it wont come for a long time. Bush would have to get reelected first and Iraq would have to settle down. I do also note that Iraq would be a great jumping off point to invade Iran.( coinsadince, I tend to think not)!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
We should not invade(yet). Only invade if the refuse to follow the rules.

what if the UN Security Council doesn't write such a resolution?

[wwworry]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Bush would have to get reelected first and Iraq would have to settle down. I do also note that Iraq would be a great jumping off point to invade Iran.( coinsadince, I tend to think not)!

All these people who have never been in a war calling for war. You probably have not even experienced a death first hand. Re-elect the AWOL president so we can go to war.

[Dont Hurt Me]

this is the problem with the U.N can they do anything without the u.s. jamming it down their throat?not really just a big beuracratic mutual admiration society for politicians,lawyers and paper pushers. Anyone who thinks Iran doesnt want the bomb is blind.The U.N see no evil,hears no evil and we all know all they do is talk so im sure a lot of evil is being spoken. perhaps the U.N. should be restricted to simply selling cookies

[mactastic]

Well of course they want the bomb! What other possible lesson would you learn from the differences between the Bushies handling of Iraq and North Korea? NK has nukes, and is safe from US invasion. Iraq didn't have them and was invaded. Calling Pavlov!

And lest we forget, we also control the country to the east of Iran as well... What was the name of that place... Ohhh yeah! Afghanistan! Perhaps that is making Iran even more nervous. Unintended consequences? It wouldn't be the first time our "good deeds" and "spreading of democracy" made things worse down the line.

Oh and the UN has done many good things through many of their missions around the world. Saying they do nothing is a complete falsehood. Saying they don't do everything we want them to is true, but that is hardly the same thing!

[abdul]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The U.N see no evil,hears no evil and we all know all they do is talk so im sure a lot of evil is being spoken. perhaps the U.N. should be restricted to simply selling cookies

the UN follows international law. Innocent until proven quilty is one of the basics of any lawbiding society. if Iran have nukes im sure with the more intensive inspections Iran has signed up they will be found. lets just learn our lesson from Iraq........dont jump the gun

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by wwworry
All these people who have never been in a war calling for war. You probably have not even experienced a death first hand. Re-elect the AWOL president so we can go to war.

Did you read my post. I said I did not want another war, and yes I have experienced death first hand, not in war but still I have. I was not calling for war I was just outlining what would have to happen for one to occur.

About international law. It only exists if the US wants it to. The US is an independant nation and can do what ever it sees fit, just like all of the other countries in the world. International law is a joke. The only people tried in international court are those that lose the war.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
International law is a joke.

truly bad ideas don't scale.

if international law is truly a bad idea, then i have to believe that laws of all levels are a bad idea.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
International law is a joke.
International law is not a joke. It is, however, constantly dismissed by the US as such. When we treat international law as a joke, other nations see no reason to treat it seriously either, though that attitude is starting to change, (see Kyoto Protocol).

Without international law to guide us, relationships between nations would consist of nothing but armed conflict, with the biggest guns winning. Unfortunately, the US continues to follow this policy when international law does not bend to it's whims.

The US is far from the only nation to abuse international law, but in so doing we also damage our reputation and authority world-wide. If we would take a leadership position, rather than a spoiled-brat position, the entire planet would be better off.