Iran to World: Piss Off

Iran announced Tuesday it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, a dramatic breakthrough in its disputed atomic drive that defies a UN Security Council demand for the work to be halted.

The announcement came just 15 days before the expiry of a Security Council deadline for Iran to freeze enrichment — a process that can be extended to make the fissile core of an atom bomb.
dw-world

Now, leave aside whether or not it is a good idea to attack Iran - what should the UN reaction be to the Iranian defiance of its resolutions.

We know based on the Iraq go round what that reaction will be: a long series of mildly bolder resolutions with no actual consequences for non-complaince.

If this pattern is repeated with Iran - which rather clearly is in the priocess off acquiring WMDs the UN as a body is finished. Seriously, why bother? The UN has fialed in Rwanda, the Balkans, the Sudan, Iraq and now Iran. It can’t even get rid of the murderously delusion dictator of Zimbabwe.

It is time for the place to be shut down as it is apparently incapable of useful work. It is also time for the Canadian government to lead the way to the exits….as if.

Written by jay on April 12th, 2006 with 6 comments.
Read more articles on International and Uncategorized.

Related articles

6 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Robert McClelland
#1. April 12th, 2006, at 4:53 AM.

Why should reaction to Iran joining the nuclear club be any different than the reaction to any other nation joining the nuclear club? Sorry, any answer involving the right’s paranoid conspiracies about how nuclear bombs will end up in the hands of terrorists is unacceptable.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com DCardno
#2. April 12th, 2006, at 5:07 AM.

Okay - how about a paranoid fantasy about acquisition of nuclear weapons by a nation led by a man who has made public statements that a (reasonably) peaceful and undeniably democratic nation should be “wiped from the face of the Earth” or that the same nation is “an abomination.” Oh, wait - that’s not a fantasy.

As for what it says about the UN - well, I think Jay covered that pretty thoroughly.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Robert McClelland
#3. April 13th, 2006, at 5:42 AM.

I’m waiting, Jay.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com jay
#4. April 13th, 2006, at 5:48 AM.

Well, I’d say DCardno gets it about right.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com lrC
#5. April 14th, 2006, at 1:40 AM.

Norway joining the nuclear club is different from Iran joining the nuclear club. If that isn’t stark enough for you, you probably haven’t sufficient knowledge or intelligence to discuss the implications of less stark distinctions.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Mike
#6. April 21st, 2006, at 5:32 AM.

… I don’t know, something about me thinks the idea of a country run on religious beliefs, without any separation of church and state, which goes against international opinion, which does all it’s research in an extremely closed manner, which has shown religious fanatisism, which believes in the Cresent above all nations, which has a mouthpiece that speaks of genecide, couldn’t possibly be BAD to have Nuclear Weaponry.

*/sarcasm*

Well, America can’t really do anything. Israel doesn’t want to use their boys, but is willing to give their birds. Europe is too weak handed, the UN incompetent, and Russia is Iranian oil-dependant.

Jay says the right thing about Canada. The only nations able to do anything are the Commonwealth. Israelli birds, US (Iraq) airspace, and Commonwealth pilots? Could do the job nicely. Just about the only thing each nation is willing to give, too.

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .