Could the IAEA be anymore toothless?

Quote:

---

Diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be quoted, made clear that insufficient progress by Sept. 3 could lead the board to consider reporting Iran to the
U.N. Security Council, which has the power to slap the regime with crippling sanctions.

---

So, Iran is in violation of it's treaties and had been running a covert nuclear program, now they do it flagrantly out in the open and the best the IAEA can do is "We'll let you go to it for another month.... but THEN we just might, maybe, think about reporting you to the security council if you don't stop, or at least talk about stopping, maybe."? Yeah guys, that'll learn em.

LINK

P###ies....

I, er...I hope that the US will completely by-pass the UN-security council, takes no heed of world opinion and launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran to stop it from gaining WMD's.

The world doesn't need nuclear-armed ayatollahs.

I seriously do, I'm not being sarcastic


Dang! 500 posts.
:hide:

Louis mon ami...what are you saying, bête? You could lose your citizenship for taking such a stance!!! Non, non, non. When you find yourself agreeing with an American administration, particularly a Republican one, you must seek psychiatric help! :dizzy2: Les américains est toujours erroné.

We've talked about this numerous times in the Backroom. No way the US/UK are going it alone again. If it's not another coalition, consider Iran nuclear armed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So, Iran is in violation of it's treaties and had been running a covert nuclear program, now they do it flagrantly out in the open and the best the IAEA can do is "We'll let you go to it for another month.... but THEN we just might, maybe, think about reporting you to the security council if you don't stop, or at least talk about stopping, maybe."? Yeah guys, that'll learn em.

LINK

---

To answer your question (the topic title), yes, they CAN be more toothless. ~;)

But, true, this is pathetic. The UN should've got something done already had it not been because too many people would lose their own precious nuclear programs if Iran is to stop. Iran is just playing the usual game and everybody knows that. Look at North Korea for example! Those bunch of bastards are destabilizing the region already, with or with the nuclear bombs. It could've been easier just to do it the Israeli way though, bomb [only] the facilities to hell and see what can THEY (Iran, North Korea, and those bunch of government-based nuclear-loving fanatics) complain about after that, and who will care to listen.

Your (US) military is capable of that, isn't it. And (no sarcasm nor offense intended, honest) Bush proves he is capable of aggressively doing something reckless and blunt. Just what we need now.

*sigh* looks like another case for the World Police to sort out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Louis mon ami...what are you saying, bête? You could lose your citizenship for taking such a stance!!! Non, non, non. When you find yourself agreeing with an American administration, particularly a Republican one, you must seek psychiatric help! :dizzy2: Les américains est toujours erroné.

---

Non, pas toujours! ~;)

And I don't need to seek psychiatric help. I need to seek political asylum if they ever find out... :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

It could've been easier just to do it the Israeli way though, bomb [only] the facilities to hell and see what can THEY (Iran, North Korea, and those bunch of government-based nuclear-loving fanatics) complain about after that, and who will care to listen.

---

What's to keep the Isrealis from doing it again? A large portion of their flight path has now become "friendly skies"...

Don't look for the U.S. to do anything on this one. The Iraqi WMD claims have effectively hamstrung any authority we might have had on such issues.

I guess we'll have to leave it up to the French. Lord help us.

Thanks, UN. Told ya so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I guess we'll have to leave it up to the French. Lord help us.

---

:end:

It was made toothless by the powers that set it up so that they themselves could not be told no more testing... French South Pacific Nuclear testing anyone...

This is what happens when a rubber stamp commission is setup. Eventually they rubber stamp something that isn't so palatable.

If 9/11 proved anything, it proved that doing nothing isn't "the safe play"; very often "doing nothing" is what gets us killed.

If we do nothing, we don't just empower Iran, we empower every other tin horn dictatorship to spend every dime so they can get to the 'nuclear safe zone'. The belief will be that once you go nuclear the Americans must talk to you. If we allow this to be the standard we guarantee hundreds of other states with nuclear weapons. You might be prepared for a nuclear Iran, but are you prepared for a nuclear Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Saudi Royal Family? I don't even want these guys in the Admirals Club at JFK much less sitting across the negotiating table saying "we got nukes - give us 5 billion dollars -or else".

We pushed Iran over once before with a little help from our friends in the CIA. I would think with the help of 70,000 Persian expats we could do a pretty good job of throwing them off balance. We must end this menace, quickly. For our sake and for the sake of the Iranian people who if we do nothing will be condemned for another generation to live under the rule of the mullahs. We cannot allow another generation to live in the taliban-lite nightmare that comes from Tehran, not just for their sake, but because by allowing it we condemn ourselves and their neighbors to eventual all out nuclear warfare.

I've said it before, our only choice here is fighting them when they have the bomb or fighting them before they have the bomb, you only have to decide which of those scenarios have odds that favor our success.

Iran has no moral order which will keep them from using the bomb. If we let them get the bomb, they will use the bomb. They will use it on us.

Unlike Pakistan which has the deterrent of Nuclear India, Iran has no opposing nuclear force on its border. As far as "Israel as an opposing force", Iran welcomes a war with Israel, they are not deterred by the idea of a war with Israel, it's their actual goal.

Action in Iran is going to happen, one way or the other.

Pakistan is a far different scenario from that of Iran.

Pakistan in its more democratic heyday had female prime ministers.

Also the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf was a response to Muslim hardliners trying to make the democracy into a dictatorship and/or theocracy.

Quote:

---

In 1997, Nawaz Sharif was elected Prime Minister after his party, the Pakistan Muslim League won the national elections with a large majority. Sharif's party obtained enough seats in parliament to change the constitution, which he amended to eliminate the formal checks and balances that restrained the Prime Minister's power. Institutional challenges to his authority, led by the civilian President Farooq Leghari, military chief Jehangir Karamat and Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah were put down and all three were forced to resign - the Chief Justice did so after the Supreme Court was stormed by Sharif partisans.

---

Pervez Musharraf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Pakistan is a far different scenario from that of Iran.

Pakistan in its more democratic heyday had female prime ministers.

Also the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf was a response to Muslim hardliners trying to make the democracy into a dictatorship and/or theocracy.

---

Interesting, thanks!

So Musharraf is actually an enemy of radical Muslims and that the Pakistani practically had to accept him as a deterrent against further such attempts...that would explain lots of his highly pro-US policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Louis mon ami...what are you saying, bête? You could lose your citizenship for taking such a stance!!! Non, non, non. When you find yourself agreeing with an American administration, particularly a Republican one, you must seek psychiatric help! :dizzy2: Les américains est toujours erroné.

We've talked about this numerous times in the Backroom. No way the US/UK are going it alone again. If it's not another coalition, consider Iran nuclear armed.

---

Sorry Don, but I'm just curious: When was the last time the US/UK had to "go it alone" disarming a nuclear power?

Aside from that, I agree: the U.N. needs more teeth. But since only the U.S. really has the power to give it teeth, I guess it will never happen.

its true, the fuse is burning and we can not trust the unstable UN fools who only want the safty of there country and are jealous of the most wounderous U.S. to do anything about it.
if bush was afraid of weapons of mass destruction in iraq then he is pissin his pants at this prospect. he needs to set aside his image in the media and step in NOW. in ten years it will look as if the action was useless but when one does something truly right it looks as if you did nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Aside from that, I agree: the U.N. needs more teeth. But since only the U.S. really has the power to give it teeth, I guess it will never happen.

---

The United Nations did not want to do the right thing for 14 years in regards to Iraq - and the United States is blamed for the United Nations failures to enforce not one resolution - but 14 of them. But if the United Nations want more teeth - it is up to the United States to give it more teeth.

Now that is funny in my opinion. The United Nations failed in its obligations to meet its own charter not once but several times. Why should the United States give it any more teeth - when as a body its failed to meet its own imposed resolutions and enforce its own resolutions against other member nations.

It needs reformed and revamped - not given more teeth in its current corrupted form.

Indeed, it won't be the US that blocks UN action on Iran. And it isn't the US that is blocking UN action in the Sudan. But I guess it's fashionable to blame us nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Pakistan is a far different scenario from that of Iran.

Pakistan in its more democratic heyday had female prime ministers.

Also the dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf was a response to Muslim hardliners trying to make the democracy into a dictatorship and/or theocracy.

---

Yes, but unfortunately, the Muslim hardliners will win in Pakistan. Trying to keep a lid on a radical movement with a strongman is only going to work so long. Eventually, the fundamentalist whack jobs will have control. I'm trying to envision a scenario where there is a transition without and Islamic revolution and control by clerics, but I'm coming up empty. Everything I hear says that a true open election in Pakistan would result in an easy win for extremists. It would not suprise me at all if India has to use their nukes in self defense some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So let them have nukes. What makes them so different from the USSR or China, when they got Nukes? They clearly only want them as a deterrant.

It's not worth another war over.

---

So you advocate that international treaties should not be enforced by the signator nations? That breaking your word should have no reprecussions at all?

This is the same Iran that is currently supplying Iraqi insurgents with bomb making equipment and is also suspected of harboring Al Qaeda fugitives. I for one, don't trust them with nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They clearly only want them as a deterrant.

---

Huh? Who's that clear to? I thought the 'Let's just ignore it' crowd learned their lesson on 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I'm saying to hell with the treaty, these people are no threat to us. It's not worth a war.

---

So violations of treaties are not worth taking other countries to task over?

GC, you sound like Neville Chamberlain.

That being said, I fear the die is already cast on this one. There's a reason the US isn't playing a strong hand, and that most likely is we know things the clowns in the INRC don't, namely that Iran is already armed. We're not afraid of them developing a bomb, we're worried about them developing warheads (ability to pack it onto a medium range missile). I suspect we're dealing with them behind the scenes and bribing them not to sell it to North Korea, and my guess is as long as that works, we'll remain quiet on this front.

The US isn't going to be the ones to prosecute this one. My estimation is that we're going to wait for Russia to have a few issues with Chechens getting some dirty bombs, and the Chinese, getting some issues with their muslim rebels up in the Western mountains all of a sudden getting some weapons they shouldn't. When the security council calls us in, we'll be ready. But we already know, by virtue of the fact that we were the ones who introduced the resolutions, they'll be shot down. There's no denying that. It has to be France, Russia or China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So you advocate that international treaties should not be enforced by the signator nations? That breaking your word should have no reprecussions at all?

---

Maybe their congress disagree with the international treaty ?? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So let them have nukes. What makes them so different from the USSR or China, when they got Nukes?

---

The difference is single party religious rule. Religious rule is quite often irrational (Taliban anyone?) The USSR even at its worst was still rational. (Yes, even Stalin, he was absolutely ruthless, but he understood the concept of deterrent and he wanted to protect Ole Joe, no matter what else happened.) China is also rational, but ruthless.

I've been more concerned about North Korea than either Iran or Iraq (pre-invasion.) The North Korean regime has been completely insane historically. They've sent suicide missions into the South frequently. They are not even single party rule, instead it is single person rule, and the person is a lunatic.

The younger generation of Iran is more modern in their thinking. Remember that the Revolution was a reaction to an oppressive dictator, who was also suppressing religion. That generation still has power, but things should eventually change. The Bush "crusade" comments and "axis of evil" talk was a setback for moderates in Iran. It gave the hardliners more ammo to crack down and use fear of "the Great Satan" to remind the population of an external enemy again. This was a case of playing into the hands of the hard liners, few Iranians will side against their own country when it is being called evil. The religious characterization has a personal nature, when the real target should be the *government* not the nation on a personal level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Maybe their congress disagree with the international treaty ?? ~;)

---

Too bad for them since they ratified it in what, 1968? Cute though. ~;)

Ah yes, Red Harvest, Iran was on it's way to being a Westernized Democracy. If only Bush hadn't called them names and destroyed their blood enemy, Saddam Hussein, freeing the Shi'ites in that country. :dizzy2:

One of these days, you're going to have to learn that not everything bad that happens in the world is Bush's fault. I know it's tempting for you, but seriously... Bush didn't cause the Tsunami. Bush didn't cause the locust infestation in Niger. And he didn't cause the Iranians to go hardline religious. They were already there, and despite this nice piece of revisionist history you're offering us, never showed any signs of making strides towards democratic reforms. Oh have you forget what Hizbollah was up to in the 90's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You want to go after someone with Nukes? Go after Kim Jong Il. Be a man and attack the real threat.

---

Quote:

---

Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles.[7] Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours.[8] Finally, if North Korea does have one or two deliverable nuclear weapons, nuclear retaliation (or nuclear threats) would also be available to North Korea leaders.

---

Any guess what kind of global depression would result if the World's 11th largest economy is shelled back to the Garden of Eden? This isn't black and white, Cube.

You haven't looked much into any likely scenarios about what would happen if we 'be a man,' have you?