cojohnle Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Russia called new sanctions against Iran "unacceptable," saying the new punishments would hurt efforts to talk with Tehran. The Russian Foreign Ministry posted a statement Tuesday, a day after the United States announced tougher sanctions against Iran -- joining Britain and Canada in a coordinated effort to tighten the screws around the country's suspected nuclear weapons program. "Russia sees such extraterritorial measures as unacceptable and against international law," the statement says. "Such a practice seriously obstructs advancement toward a constructive dialogue with Tehran. Stronger sanction pressure, which some of our partners see almost as a goal in itself, will not encourage Iran to sit down at the negotiating table." full article ateuronewsweek international Quote
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 These sanctions are there with only one purpose. To hurt ordinary Iranians. How many iraqis did the US kill through their systematic sanctions in the 90s. No rational person can deny this as a genocide. And we are going to watch them do it again?!!! As with Iran, tougher sanctions will bring nationalistic sentiments amongst younger generations of Iranians and will bolster the position of an otherwise unpopular government. And quite rightly so. If you come to screw another country don't expect a pat on the shoulder and expect to receive hey thank you for coming in to "liberate us" in the name of demmocrASSy... If you were always bulied by a guy with a stick you could stop the bully by gettting your own stick. Iran wants self preservation like any other country. If the west wants to impose sanctions on Iran's oil and gas export it strengthens the case why Iran should seek alternative energy in the form of civilian nuclear energy. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 These sanctions are there with only one purpose. To hurt ordinary Iranians. How many iraqis did the US kill through their systematic sanctions in the 90s. No rational person can deny this as a genocide. And we are going to watch them do it again?!!! The post Gulf War sanctions against Iraq were supported and enforced by many nations / UN, including Canada. So why did Canada commit "genocide" against Iraq? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 The post Gulf War sanctions against Iraq were supported and enforced by many nations / UN, including Canada. So why did Canada commit "genocide" against Iraq? Yes...The sanctions were a genocide committed against ordinary iraqi civilians. Under the US pressure UN and other nations complied as they are already doing the same with Iran. dejavu! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Yes...The sanctions were a genocide committed against ordinary iraqi civilians. Under the US pressure UN and other nations complied as they are already doing the same with Iran. dejavu! Under US pressure, eh? Not Canadian pressure, or UK pressure, or French pressure? You were either not alive at the time or choose to purposely ignore the political dynamics for many nations. And it was not "genocide"....not for Kurds, not for southern Iraqi Shia, and many others. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Under US pressure, eh? Not Canadian pressure, or UK pressure, or French pressure? You were either not alive at the time or choose to purposely ignore the political dynamics for many nations. And it was not "genocide"....not for Kurds, not for southern Iraqi Shia, and many others. Oh I am well alive but then refuse to keep my head in the sand unlike some of the ignorant nominees for the republican electorate who cannot even get their geography right and yet want to talk about ME politics: Speaking about foreign aid at the CNN leaders debate, Rick Santorum referred to Africa as a "country on the brink". Africa is a continent, made up of some 56 countries. Santorum is not the first Republican candidate to mix up their African geography. In an earlier debate, Michele Bachmann found herself confused by Libya's location. "Now with the president, he put us in Libya," said Bachmann. "He is now putting us in Africa." Libya is located in North Africa. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10768206 It is no secret who in the UN pulls its muscle to change this dynamic. It has always been the US the biggest financial sponsor of the UN. Infact US and Israel have been pushing further sanctions against Iran by trying to get recognition from other member states... It's interesting how selective you are when looking at events concerning kurds, shi'ites and sunnis that make up iraqis. Fact is Saddam killed many kurds and Iranians in halabja in 80s with chemical weapons. Where was the US the mighty saviour prior to the Gulf war when these attrocities were committed??? Fact still remains the sanctions imposed by the US/UN post gulf war did hurt iraqi civillians being a kurd, sunni or shia. Edited November 23, 2011 by kactus Quote
Wild Bill Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 It is no secret who in the UN pulls its muscle to change this dynamic. It has always been the US the biggest financial sponsor of the UN. Infact US and Israel have been pushing on this agenda against Iran and trying to get recognition from other member states for further sanctions... If I understand you correctly, the US is causing the problem by being the biggest financial sponsor of the UN. Couldn't many of the other countries prevent this simply by ponying up their own delinquent dues and stop being deadbeats? This would drastically dilute that "hated American influence". Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 .... Fact still remains the sanctions imposed by the US/UN post gulf war did hurt iraqi civillians being a kurd, sunni or shia. Then you must be critical of the UN and all its members, not just the United States. Shame on all those nations, including Canada for causing "genocide". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 With the new language by the EU, and France specifically, it seems that the Western World is moving ever closer to war with Iran. If we go to Iran, does that mean we decide to continue ignoring what's happening in Syria? Quote
Bonam Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 With the new language by the EU, and France specifically, it seems that the Western World is moving ever closer to war with Iran. If we go to Iran, does that mean we decide to continue ignoring what's happening in Syria? We can only invade so many countries at once. Others will just have to wait their turn. Quote
Wild Bill Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 We can only invade so many countries at once. Others will just have to wait their turn. And sometimes what happens to one influences the actions of others. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 With the new language by the EU, and France specifically, it seems that the Western World is moving ever closer to war with Iran. If we go to Iran, does that mean we decide to continue ignoring what's happening in Syria? Yes, as Syria does not present an immediate threat to EU/NATO interests. There is nothing fair about foreign policy by definition. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not saying we should go to Syria first, I'm just saying that if things don't change, that should be where we go after Iran, since I think that war with Iran is becoming rather inevitable. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not saying we should go to Syria first, I'm just saying that if things don't change, that should be where we go after Iran, since I think that war with Iran is becoming rather inevitable. I don't think war with Iran is even a possibility at this time barring overt action on Iran's part. This is just foreplay! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Don't tell that to Rick Santorum. He might mix up Iran for Israel and launch an attack on the holy land if he became president god forbid Judging by the level of lobbyists however that would be unlikely. Quote
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 These rhetorics amounts to nothing but than hurting Iranian civilians in the form of sanctions. Afterall, this is not the first time these sanctions were levied on Iran and still it's business as usual. The regime is still in tact only the ordinary average iranians suffering. But then again since when did West ever cared for Iranian people for that matter. Iranians embassy is still operating in UK as it has always been. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Don't tell that to Rick Santorum. He might mix up Iran for Israel and launch an attack on the holy land if he became president god forbid Judging by the level of lobbyists however that would be unlikely. Campaign rhetoric changes to sobering reality once seated as US president. Santorum is only a candidate with a slim chance of getting his party's nomination, let alone winning a presidential election. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 If I understand you correctly, the US is causing the problem by being the biggest financial sponsor of the UN. Couldn't many of the other countries prevent this simply by ponying up their own delinquent dues and stop being deadbeats? This would drastically dilute that "hated American influence". If you understand me correctly you will know that the whole premise for attacking Iran is because of nuclear weapons. To date there are still no conclusive evidence that Iran has the bomb. Critics argue that for all the racheting up the pressure on Iran, Iran should abandon NPT treaty and call the bluff of americans. Afterall, North Korea is detterent of an attack. Hell, Israel and South Africa were never clear about their nuclear capability but both of them have them have it. Maybe we should drastically dilute this policy and make the whole middle east a nuclear free zone including Israel. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 If you understand me correctly you will know that the whole premise for attacking Iran is because of nuclear weapons. To date there are still no conclusive evidence that Iran has the bomb. There is ample evidence that Iran is in violation of the NPT, to which it is a ratified signatory. Critics argue that for all the racheting up the pressure on Iran, Iran should abandon NPT treaty and call the bluff of americans. Then why doesn't it do so? Afterall, North Korea is detterent of an attack. No, the DPRK's deterrent is...China Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Campaign rhetoric changes to sobering reality once seated as US president. Santorum is only a candidate with a slim chance of getting his party's nomination, let alone winning a presidential election. Nevertheless, it's a sad reality why someone who calls Africa a 'country' slim or non-slim chance could potentially become a candidate for presidency deciding on foreign policies...Terrifying prospect... Edited November 23, 2011 by kactus Quote
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) There is ample evidence that Iran is in violation of the NPT, to which it is a ratified signatory. Still fails to answer the question...If there was a proof why can't the report show conclusively that Iran has the bomb? Then why doesn't it do so? Because they claim that it's for civilian purposes therefore no need to abandon the NPT. No, the DPRK's deterrent is...China Could be...but you cannot take away the fact that their nuclear capability makes the north koreans deterrent. Edited November 23, 2011 by kactus Quote
dre Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) It doesnt matter what Russia or anyone says. I think war is pretty much a forgone conclusion. The recent IAEA report that says "the possibility exists" that Iran has some elements to its program that might suggest weaponization.... Is being run in the wester press as "UN Report Shows Iran Building Bomb!". And the IAEA report is based in part on western intelligence... from the same bunch of people that brought us Iraq, mobile chemical weapons factories, resurgent nuke programs, massive WMD capabilities etc. This whole thing has already been decided. Its just a matter of going through the motions... diplomacy, sanctions etc. Everyone knows none of that stuff is going to work... and at this point even if Iran suspended enrichment and completely opened up every facility in the country to full monitoring and inspections, the march to war would continue. Edited November 23, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Nevertheless, it's a sad reality why someone who calls Africa a 'country' slim or non-slim chance could potentially become a candidate for presidency deciding on foreign policies... No, it's just reality and consistent with the political processes of many nations. He already is a candidate, like dozens of others who you have never even heard of, but may appear on ballots. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 Still fails to answer the question...If there was a proof why can't the report show conclusively that Iran has the bomb? Even if there was "proof" it wouldn't change matters much. The report is what it is...same as in Iraq. Those that criticize/support the IAEA or UNSCOM do so only when it is convenient for their point of view. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 23, 2011 Report Posted November 23, 2011 It doesnt matter what Russia or anyone says. I think war is pretty much a forgone conclusion. The recent IAEA report that says "the possibility exists" that Iran has some elements to its program that might suggest weaponization.... Is being run in the wester press as "UN Report Shows Iran Building Bomb!". And the IAEA report is based in part on western intelligence... from the same bunch of people that brought us Iraq, mobile chemical weapons factories, resurgent nuke programs, massive WMD capabilities etc. This whole thing has already been decided. Its just a matter of going through the motions... diplomacy, sanctions etc. Everyone knows none of that stuff is going to work... and at this point even if Iran suspended enrichment and completely opened up every facility in the country to full monitoring and inspections, the march to war would continue. Seems like no lessons have been learned from the past...All this will do will radicalise more people aligned with their otherwise unpopular government. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.