U.N 'Strongly Deplores' Iran Nuclear Cover-Up

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm saying that for the moment that such statements are irrelevent and shed no real light on the current situation as can be seen by the previous detour we took in that direction.

What real situation? The real situation is that the UN put some deploratory language, but basically Iran sil get to choose if they will abide by all the newer inspection rules without being forced to like the US wanted.

It's statements like this that make me think you don't know what you are talking about when the EU is paraising Iran for telling the truth about its nuclear program.

"paraising"? The only reason that language made it in was becuase that is how far the US could push the committee (again, from having egg on our face due to Iraq). Notice, it is not a condemnation..the language "seems" strong, but it is not. The meat of the matter is that the IAEA is still hoping Iranian moderates win out and allow for the tougher inspections, and thus beat back all US attempts to try to force a mechanism of going to the UNSC to discuss sanctions if Iran did not. It is statements like that that makes me think you do not know everything that lead us to this point, and thus don;t know what we are talking about

[atawa]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

You mean the freedomfighters

You mean the idiotic fantasy realm you seem intent on dragging the thread to?

Nah, just stating the truth, not the American propaganda you seem to fall for.

[oedo]

my appreciation of the US position would be way higher, if it wasn´t the USA itself holding the largest and most deadly nuclear arsenal and if it wasn´t the USA itself as the the only country really considering actually using it.
what the hell goes on in a people´s mind, which condemns other countries´deadly weapons while praising their own even more deadly weapons?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
"paraising"?

Oh how far we've fallen.

Notice, it is not a condemnation..

This would be a lot more fun if you'd read the original post when it has direct bearing on what you are talking about.
The United Nations (news - web sites) nuclear watchdog condemned Iran Wednesday over an 18-year cover-up of sensitive atomic research and said any future breach of nonproliferation obligations would not be tolerated.

The meat of the matter is that the IAEA is still hoping Iranian moderates win out and allow for the tougher inspections,

Hardly a repudiation of the US position considering they don't care how it gets done so long as it gets done.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by atawa


If the US wants terrorists why dont we send some...

you know flying a boeing.

I wish Iran would. That'd end this whole situation with them real quick.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This would be a lot more fun if you'd read the original post when it has direct bearing on what you are talking about.
The United Nations (news - web sites) nuclear watchdog condemned Iran Wednesday over an 18-year cover-up of sensitive atomic research and said any future breach of nonproliferation obligations would not be tolerated.

Oh Dino, how far have the mighty fallen when they confuse the words of the reporter with those of the UN- did the UN paper say "we condemn" or "we deplore"..to a reporter they are the same..NOT to the UN though. Not going to be a diplomat, are we?

Hardly a repudiation of the US position considering they don't care how it gets done so long as it gets done.

Actually, this paper is a defeat for the admin., becuase the US wanted the IAEA to condemn Iran and state that the matter would be brought up for discussion at the UNSC and sanctions would be discussed. None of that happened. And as for saying the admin. does not care how long it takes..that is based on exactly what? Certainly not comments by the administration.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh Dino, how far have the mighty fallen when they confuse the words of the reporter with those of the UN- did the UN paper say "we condemn" or "we deplore"..to a reporter they are the same..

and to most people on earth. But if we are going to go by diplospeak, I ask you to tell me what "failiures" and "breaches" mean as they are applicable to the resolution?

And as for saying the admin. does not care how long it takes..

I never said that they don't care how long this process takes. I said that they want tougher inspections and don't care how they come about. If they can be obtained without sanctions so much the better for them. If it takes sanctions its also no skin of their nose.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Who btw, I dont remeber them ever saying anything about Iraqs nuclear program.

Exactly. Thus, we are not talking about Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by atawa


Nah, just stating the truth, not the American propaganda you seem to fall for.

Yep we all think Palestinians eat babies...



































... when you KNOW the truth is that it's Israelis that eat babies

[atawa]

Everything is in the eye of the beholder, one mans freedomfighter is another mans terrorist.

I dont remember who it was but one former Israeli (Prime?) minister was wanted by the English for terrorism yet he is considdered a freedomfighter by the Israeli.

[Kuciwalker]

Everything is in the eye of the beholder, one mans freedomfighter is another mans terrorist.

Not quite. There is a definition for "freedom fighter" and a definition for "terrorist". There are cases where they overlap, but there are also many cases where they do not. For example, a "freedom fighter" must fight for "freedom".

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
because my knowledge is admittedly limited.

Finally something Dino says that I agree with...

[atawa]

Originally posted by skywalker
Not quite. There is a definition for "freedom fighter" and a definition for "terrorist". There are cases where they overlap, but there are also many cases where they do not. For example, a "freedom fighter" must fight for "freedom".

Witch is what the Palestinians and Hezbollah are doing.

And most of these definitions are highly political motivated.