EU warns iran of consequences

Faeryland... that has got to be some of the most ignorant writing I have seen for a while. You are correct on one point, that is the fact that this is a holy war, not created by Muslims however but by Judeo-Christian nutjobs in our own Western countries. To say that Muslims want to impose their beliefs on all of us and destroy the free world is laughable.
Apparently they do see the Western world as a bad influence but I can see their point.

As for your second part, bringing up the tired old "Muslims mistreat their women" argument, perhaps you should also look at the statistics for the number of cases of assault, rape and murder against women in your own civilised Christian country too before slinging mud

Britguy,

Do you remember 9/11?

The people that were responsible for the fall of the twin towers in New York were not Judeo-Christian religious fanatics.....they were Muslims.

This whole war started because we were attacked.

At least in my country, women have rights, and there are laws against beating, killing, etc., and I can live without the fear that my husband can kill me because I "brought shame to him" or whatever.

Women can be killed over there for whatever reason without consequence.

That is just one example of their beliefs....i'm sure there are many others that you would not be willing to adhere to if you lived there.

You missed my point totally....this is a holy war, they believe we are a bad influence, and want to destroy us.

Originally posted by BadMojo
The UN is worhtless...unless you have oil and need food.

Kofi "Invertebrate" Annan should take his lackey-of-a-son and guard a school crosswalk in Karachi or something. Wait, no. They might swindle the kids out of their lunch money and have it taken from them by some playground bully.

Mind telling that to the people in indonesia?
Or some of the people in africa?
The UN makes mistakes, "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
Mahatma Gandhi

Originally posted by Alias Jones
The United Nations are impotent. The United States will, again, enforce the resolutions of the UN, just like Iraq. No one ever mentions the fact that Iraq WAS IN CLEAR VIOLATION of several key UN resolutions. The USA stepped up and enforced the UN becasue the UN wasn't capable nor willing to enforce their own resolutions. Everyone says it was Bush and the Neo con's this, American hegemony that , Pax Americana etc, but really it was the US standing up for wahat the international community had decided but was to weak to do themselves

So wait, the US isnt a member of the UN?
The UK or the co-alition of willing didnt go to iraq?
The US has the right to act as police man of the world and lastly, do you have any idea how the UN works?

Same thing with Iran. The EU is the illegitimate red headed bastard stepson of the UN ( no offense to redheads ). As if the EU would do anything ...please. Oh I see - there lame negotitans failed , there " Euro - politicking " didn't work with Iran so what dio they do ? refer it to the UN - big friggin deal. So the UN can put up resolutions that Iran won't follow only to ultimately be enforced by the USA , with likley opposition from the EU. The irony ....I mean I could go on and on about this.

Umm what?
The EU is not a military alliance, where did you get that idea?
The EU is trying to be diplomatic and NOT go in guns blazeing.
The UN has the largest assortment of weapons, troops, firepower, intelegence and bascially anything military in it, you do relise this.....right?
The USA is a major player in the UN...same with many other countries, the UN is not another country it is made up of countries which BTW the US is one of.
If the other big 4 dont agree bang there goes the veto action, funny the US has used that card with isreal a lot.

The EU is a joke militarliy

The EU is not military.

- the UN is obsolete and ineffective.

The UN has saved hundreds from mines, some of which where put there by both my and your government, do you wish those hundreds dead?

Everyone in the world knows it will be up to the United States to do something about the Iran nuclear problem, and we will, with echoes of the worlds politicians dissecting our motives as we enforce THEIR resolutions

Technically it is YOUR resolutions, YOU wanted them, YOU want to enforce them.
The US is a major player so unless your saying that mabye the UK should lead the assualt on iran with our massive 3 carrier battle fleet and under armed and under equipped armed forces you better just accept the fact that if the US wants to keep its security council seat and veto it needs to respect that it needs to do work.

Unbelievable
[edit on 13-5-2005 by Alias Jones]

Yes your understanding of both the EU and the UN are....

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by Faeryland

Do you remember 9/11?

The people that were responsible for the fall of the twin towers in New York were not Judeo-Christian religious fanatics.....they were Muslims.

This whole war started because we were attacked.

At least in my country, women have rights, and there are laws against beating, killing, etc., and I can live without the fear that my husband can kill me because I "brought shame to him" or whatever.

Women can be killed over there for whatever reason without consequence.

That is just one example of their beliefs....i'm sure there are many others that you would not be willing to adhere to if you lived there.

You missed my point totally....this is a holy war, they believe we are a bad influence, and want to destroy us.

Are you trying to say the entire muslim comunity is "against" the west?
If so...look up malcom X.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp

The US has the right to act as police man of the world and lastly, do you have any idea how the UN works?

So what give the US the right to act as world police? Does every other country on the globe pay taxes to the US government? If not, then we (the US) does in fact not have the right to be the world police patrol.

Are you trying to say the entire muslim comunity is "against" the west?
If so...look up malcom X.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Malcom X is a racist. Please, do some reading as you suggested.

However, with this being said, I do have to say that your evaluation of the EU was quite correct and spot on. It was just these two things mentioned above that I dissagree with. I realize that none of your responses were directed specifically at me, but this is ATS after all, just had to put my cent and a half in. (Inflation sucks)

Originally posted by Faeryland
...because the problem is the fact that Iran is run by religious fanatics, who will not rest until they have obliviated the rest of the free world, simply because we do not share their beliefs.

There is no sense in trying to negotiate with these people, and we're all stupid to think that we can.

i assume this is what makes them evil....

please think; who labelled middle eastern and arab countries as an 'axis of evil'? who threatened these countries and slandered(and continues to slander) their way of life? who sent soldiers to destroy their countries and their way of life (no less sacred than your own) and set up governments who share 'our' beliefs and imposed them on these countries?

an iranian could just as easily speak your words against your country and they would be no less false. i'm not saying iran are blameless, but it's this sort of blind hate that makes iran feel threatened and makes them want to have The Bomb.

news.yahoo.com...

The Iranians backed down from defying the agreement they made. The Europeans wins!!!!!!

Arjan over at Zacht Ei has a great plan for the Netherlands to invade Iran: Say no to Europe: declare war on Iran

Originally posted by Catechista

Originally posted by Faeryland
...because the problem is the fact that Iran is run by religious fanatics, who will not rest until they have obliviated the rest of the free world, simply because we do not share their beliefs.

There is no sense in trying to negotiate with these people, and we're all stupid to think that we can.

i assume this is what makes them evil....

please think; who labelled middle eastern and arab countries as an 'axis of evil'? who threatened these countries and slandered(and continues to slander) their way of life? who sent soldiers to destroy their countries and their way of life (no less sacred than your own) and set up governments who share 'our' beliefs and imposed them on these countries?

an iranian could just as easily speak your words against your country and they would be no less false. i'm not saying iran are blameless, but it's this sort of blind hate that makes iran feel threatened and makes them want to have The Bomb.

Well, first of all, I didn't label them as "evil". Also, I see your point.....oh those Americans pushing democracy and freedom.......soooo bad. Anyway, the current leaders of the Middle East are the ones that are religious fanatics.

I believe if you do some research, you will find that the younger people in those countries (even the younger men) actually WANT freedom and democracy, they WANT opportunity, they WANT education, they WANT what we have in respect to our way of life.

It is the older regime that insists on their way of living now.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Faeryland]

Originally posted by Faeryland

I believe if you do some research, you will find that the younger people in those countries (even the younger men) actually WANT freedom and democracy, they WANT opportunity, they WANT education, [snip]

Sounds like the young college generation in America.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
So what give the US the right to act as world police?

None.

Does every other country on the globe pay taxes to the US government? If not, then we (the US) does in fact not have the right to be the world police patrol.

Thanks for agreeing

Malcom X is a racist. Please, do some reading as you suggested.

He was the first to come to mind, sorry, he was racist before he went on his pilgramidge then he actually sided with MLK for a while.....then he was killed.
But seriosly there is a whole muslim culture in america, orginisations like the nation of islam.

However, with this being said, I do have to say that your evaluation of the EU was quite correct and spot on. It was just these two things mentioned above that I dissagree with. I realize that none of your responses were directed specifically at me, but this is ATS after all, just had to put my cent and a half in. (Inflation sucks

)

Thank you, wait did I miss type earlier and say the US had the right?
Hey chip in your cent and a half or 3 pence , always good to hear u kid.

faeryland, i am just trying to point out that the iranian leadership probably view america with just as much hysteria as the american leadership view them. i bet the media in iran say the same about america as the media in america do about iran.

e.g "all the Young people in america didn't vote for bush. they WANT peace! they DON'T WANT to send their children to kill our children! they WANT to resolve this nuclear impasse peacefully! it's only the corporations and extreme christian religous groups trying to tell the young americans how to live..."

do you see? iran fears america for the same reasons you fear iran. the difference is; america have the Might to do something about it. that's why iran want The Bomb. to defend themselves (not to kill your children and convert you all to islam and march you through the street in a birka, that's just plain nonsense.).

get rid of irans fear of america and you can get their agreement not to pursue The Bomb. then you get rid of americans fear of iran. iran will still not live up to our demacrotic ideals of freedom, but that will change. as you say, half the population of iran is under 25 and they want reform. they can't achieve this with america as their countries enemy.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Thank you, wait did I miss type earlier and say the US had the right?
Hey chip in your cent and a half or 3 pence

, always good to hear u kid.

I just went back and reread your post. It appears you were repeating something someone else said as an exclimintative question. I misunderstood the context it was used in. Think you can forgive me DW?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
I just went back and reread your post. It appears you were repeating something someone else said as an exclimintative question. I misunderstood the context it was used in. Think you can forgive me DW?

Tis ok, I forgive you...**hugs kid***..

I would say the Iranians have far better reasons to fear us than we to fear them. We've invaded two countries on their borders and are constantly talking about "preemptive strikes" against them. We have thousands of nuclear weapons at hand, they have none.

Aside from some fiery hyperbole directed at us (by politicians desperately trying to score political points domestically), they have done exactly nothing against the US in at least two decades. Meanwhile, the North Koreans, who almost certainly have WMD, threaten to use it against us on an almost daily basis. However they have no oil, and are not threatening Israel, so for the most part we simply ignore them.

[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
I would say the Iranians have far better reasons to fear us than we to fear them. We've invaded two countries on their borders and are constantly talking about "preemptive strikes" against them. We have thousands of nuclear weapons at hand, they have none.

Aside from some fiery hyperbole directed at us (by politicians desperately trying to score political points domestically), they have done exactly nothing against the US in at least two decades. Meanwhile, the North Koreans, who almost certainly have WMD, threaten to use it against us on an almost daily basis. However they have no oil, and are not threatening Israel, so for the most part we simply ignore them.

[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]

i doubt we are ignoring the North Koreans since we still have troops at the border. I wonder why.

Because they've been there for 50 years maybe?

And actually, US forces in SK have been redeploying to areas further from the border for the last few years. The policy towards NK is and has been one of containment, barring any actually attack by NK on us or it's neighbors, it is likely to stay that way.

Not that I think this is wrong, in fact I support it wholeheartedly.
In fact if we had stuck with a policy of containment with Iraq, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Originally posted by xmotex
Meanwhile, the North Koreans, who almost certainly have WMD, threaten to use it against us on an almost daily basis. However they have no oil, and are not threatening Israel, so for the most part we simply ignore them.

It's because USA is now engaged in Middle East it cannot make everything at once. Besides NK has China as neighbour, more powerfull army than Iran, nukes etc. Iran is weaker and it still doesn't have nukes so they will come first. Besides while NK is totalitarian regime, they have not suported terorist groups, nor held whole US embassy as hostages.

Deviswasp - so you are a Brit huh ...?

Well let me first say that that the men and women and resources deployed by the UK are respected and appreciated , althoughbeit minute in comparison to the US deployment and expenditures.

My understaning of the EU and UN are comprehensive, as yours had better be to debate me on this topic.

The United Nations where established as means to bring about diplomatic discussion in a coinsortium of " peers " to wrangle over global problems ( based in NYC by the way ). The charter has never been for military action - rather the nations vote and veto untill a resolution is passed - see resolution as an issue being " RESOLVED " hence the name.

Regarding Iraq - the UN passed 16 resolutions that Iraq was in clear violation with hence :
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.


UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs

Now we all know tha the UN did NOTHING to enforce it's own resolutions , so the United STates decided in order for the UN to maintain any relevance that it would take on, itself, with a coalition of the willing the Iraqi regime and force them into complinace of the UN resolutions by military force. The EU was divided:

IRAQ - WHO STANDS WHERE

Fully or broadly behind US - UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark
Fully or broadly opposed - France, Germany, Greece, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg
No clear position - Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Finland

But I am sure that you being so knowledgable are fully aware of this already.

The UN has NO jurisdiction to act unilaterally on its own - in fact its own armed forced are comprised of other natios military

check here to view in Adobe the contributing nations, and amount of troops, civilians, and police:

www.un.org...

So you see my British friend it IS the United States that have aided the UN in its fight against its own declared violators,. The USA has the ability and the responsibility to do what is necesarry to enforce the rule of the UN , and more importantly its own self interests

I like the way Bush put it best - you are either with us or with the enemy - the choice is yours.

Respectfully,

Alias Jones

they have not suported terorist groups

Somebody ought to tell the South Koreans that. They might beg to differ.
Actaully, they haven't "supported" terrorist groups, they have directly launched terrorist attacks in SK, though not so many recently.

You might want to tell the Japanese too, IIRC NK has kidnapped quite a few of them.

Iran is "next on the list" primarily because they have lots of oil, and secondarily because the far right wishes to consolidate power at home by igniting a global religious/cultural conflict.

Don't kid yourself.

I like the way Bush put it best - you are either with us or with the enemy - the choice is yours.

As far as I am concerned, both the Dominionist/Neocon Axis at home, and the Islamic fundamentalists abroad, are "the enemy." Unfortunately I think Bush and supporters are a far more immediate threat to my liberty, as they have far more power and are much closer to home.

[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by Alias Jones

Originally posted by Alias Jones

Regarding Iraq - the UN passed 16 resolutions that Iraq was in clear violation with hence :

Iraq being in violation of security council resolutions is not authority to invade. Military action is only legitimate when explicitly authorised by the security council.

So you see my British friend it IS the United States that have aided the UN in its fight against its own declared violators.

International law does not permit countries to take the law into their own hands even if they perceive themselves to be upholding the will of the security council.

Furthermore, I question the notion that the US government was invading Iraq in order to uphold the will of the United Nations anyway. Remember the abuse the UN got (and France is still getting) because it wouldn't authorise military action. That doesn't speak of a country with much respect for the UN or it's resolutions. I believe the US invaded Iraq for it's own selfish reasons.

The USA has the ability and the responsibility to do what is necesarry to enforce the rule of the UN , and more importantly its own self interests

Yes, the US has the ability but it does not have the responsibility to enforce the UN until charged to do so by the security council.

and more importantly its own self interests

Yes, one thing we agree on.

I like the way Bush put it best - you are either with us or with the enemy - the choice is yours.

Must be nice living in that hyper-polarised world.