UN votes for another new sanctions on Iran over nuclear issue - Polidicks

[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10276276.stm[/URL] [quote=BBC]The UN Security Council has voted in favour of fresh sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. The council voted 12 to two, with one abstention, in favour of a fourth round of sanctions, including tighter finance curbs and an expanded arms embargo. US President Barack Obama said the sanctions were an unmistakable message on stopping the spread of nuclear arms. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the sanctions should be thrown in the dustbin like a "used handkerchief". The US and its allies fear Iran is secretly trying to build a nuclear bomb, but Tehran insists its programme is aimed solely at peaceful energy use. Heavy weapons The Security Council resolution was opposed by Turkey and Brazil. They had earlier brokered a deal with Iran on uranium enrichment. Lebanon abstained. The new sanctions were passed after being watered down during negotiations with Russia and China on Tuesday. There are no crippling economic sanctions and there is no oil embargo. Those passed include prohibiting Iran from buying heavy weapons such as attack helicopters and missiles. They also toughen rules on financial transactions with Iranian banks and increase the number of Iranian individuals and companies that are targeted with asset freezes and travel bans. There is also a new framework of cargo inspections to detect and stop Iran's acquisition of illicit materials. Mr Obama accused Iran's leaders of "hiding behind outlandish rhetoric". But he said the sanctions did "not close the door on diplomacy" and he urged Iran to "choose a different and better path". Mr Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iran's Isna news agency as saying: "I gave one of the [world powers] a message that the resolutions you issue are like a used handkerchief which should be thrown in the dustbin. They are not capable of hurting Iranians." UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the decision sent a "strong statement of international resolve", increasing the pressure on Iran to meet its obligations. China's UN ambassador Zhang Yesui said the sanctions were trying to prevent nuclear proliferation and would not hurt "the normal life of the Iranian people". However, both Turkey and Brazil spoke out in opposition, saying the deal they brokered with Iran had not been given time. Brazilian ambassador to the UN Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti said: "We do not see sanctions as an effective instrument in this case. They will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran and will play into the hands of people on all sides who do not want dialogue to prevail." Turkey's envoy Ertugrul Apakan said the Turkey-Brazil deal had created "a new reality" on Iran's nuclear programme and Turkey was "deeply concerned" that sanctions would have a negative impact. Prof Abbas Edalat, the founder of the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that the sanctions would make "everything worse". He said: "What the US has done has proved conclusively beyond any doubt that it is not interested in negotiations with Iran... There has been massive hypocrisy here." The BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says this new round of sanctions is unlikely to have any more effect on Iranian policy than the first three. Iran's vital economic interests have not been targeted, he says, and Tehran has in any case developed systems of evasion. The deal Iran had earlier agreed with Turkey and Brazil would see Tehran deposit 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium with Turkey in return for reactor fuel. But the deal has not been accepted by world powers and on Wednesday, the US, Russia and France outlined their concerns in letters to the IAEA. The letters were not made public, but US envoy to the IAEA Glyn Davies said the deal "would still leave Iran with substantial stocks [of low-enriched uranium], decreasing the confidence-building value of the original proposal". Three earlier rounds of UN sanctions blocked trade of "sensitive nuclear material", froze the financial assets of those involved in Iran's nuclear activities, banned all of Iran's arms exports and encouraged scrutiny of the dealings of Iranian banks. [release][INDENT][Sanctions] will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran [/INDENT]Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazilian envoy to UN[/release] [release] [B]Analysis[/B] [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48035000/jpg/_48035764_barbara_plett_sep09.jpg[/IMG] [B]Barbara Plett,[/B] [B]BBC UN correspondent[/B] The sanctions are tough but fall short of what Western nations wanted because of pressure from Iran's allies Russia and China. However, they do open the way for stronger measures by the US and European states. But council members Turkey and Brazil said any sanctions at this moment were counter-productive and insisted Iran had made concessions in a recent agreement they brokered. The two "no" votes were the strongest opposition yet in four rounds of sanctions, weakening international unity the Americans have tried to build to isolate Iran. [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10271316.stm"]Last resort or lost opportunity?[/URL][/release] [/quote] [release] [B]HOW THE COUNCIL VOTED[/B] FOR [LIST] [*] Permanent (with power of veto): China; France; Russia; UK; US [/LIST] [LIST] [*] Non-permanent (term ends 2010): Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Gabon; Japan; Mexico; Nigeria; Uganda [/LIST] AGAINST [LIST] [*] Non-permanent: Brazil and Turkey. Had both brokered a deal with Iran in which Tehran would send low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for reactor fuel [/LIST] ABSTAINED [LIST] [*] Non permanent: Lebanon. Had voiced opposition to the sanctions. Iran-backed Hezbollah is part of the government [/LIST] [/release] To be honest; this is ridiculous. First, Iran finally agreed to the nuclear swap deal a few weeks ago then all of a sudden Hilary is like "oh Iran is just trying to divert sanctions :downs:" proposed sanctions then gets passed, on the SAME day the nuclear swap deal was agreed. Iran then said, they will pull out of the Western endorsed nuclear swap deal and nuclear talks if [B]this [/B]sanction gets approved. It did. Really, these sanctions are counter-productive, Iran allows IAEA inspectors throughout its facilities, gets sanctioned. Agrees to Western backed Nuclear Swap deal, gets sanctioned etc. It has now become clear Iran will be sanctioned and punished regardless of what it does, evidently shown here. (Also, in case someone brings it up, Iran never said they will wipe Israel off the map)

Iran's motions towards Israel are unmistakeably hostile. You realize that, right? Actions speak louder than words.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;22492151]Iran's motions towards Israel are unmistakeably hostile. You realize that, right? Actions speak louder than words, my friend.[/QUOTE] This happens vice-versa. If you're going to tell me actions speak louder than words, then why bring up that Iran has been hostile to Israel? [editline]08:34PM[/editline] Actions speak louder then words, right?

So basically starpluck, you say that Iran doesn't support Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Is that correct?

[QUOTE=IshMadhim;22492317]So basically starpluck, you say that Iran doesn't support Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Is that correct?[/QUOTE] Don't know where you got that from, but the sanctions are only related to its nuclear programme, not its support for Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

[QUOTE=Strongbad;22492151]Iran's motions towards Israel are unmistakeably hostile. You realize that, right? Actions speak louder than words.[/QUOTE] poor israel :(

Starpluck, every new day you sound more like just a attention making heckler, in my opinion.

Who cares how many times the U.N has condemned Israel, in reference to your avatar?

What the fuck! Iran actually looked like it was willing to work with the west, and honestly I don't blame them for pulling out now. EDIT ENOUGH FUCKING TALK ABOUT ISRAEL!!! CUNTS WILL BE CUNTS AND LETS LEAVE IT AT THAT!!!

[QUOTE=starpluck;22492385]Don't know where you got that from, but the sanctions are only related to its nuclear programme, not its support for Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.[/QUOTE] Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore, it supports the destruction of Israel and will do it themselves if they got a nuke.

Nobody can take the UN seriously because they're all a bunch of losers.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;22492913]Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore, it supports the destruction of Israel and will do it themselves if they got a nuke.[/QUOTE] He thinks Iran would actually fire a nuclear warhead at anyone. :v:

[QUOTE=bravehat;22493449]He thinks Iran would actually fire a nuclear warhead at anyone. :v:[/QUOTE] Well they could deliver them to terrorist organizations and use them as proxies for their intentions.

Is that them firing a nuclear warhead? No it isn't. And besides russia is missing a few of it's nuclear arsenal. A tiny amount but some are missing.

[QUOTE=bravehat;22494020]Is that them firing a nuclear warhead? No it isn't. And besides russia is missing a few of it's nuclear arsenal. A tiny amount but some are missing.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a terrorist organization use every nuke it gets immediately (after planning, of course)? It just doesn't make any sense for them to keep it. They're not an organized country, they have nothing to lose. Were you being sarcastic when you replied to my post?

For fucks sake, why doesn't Iran just withdraw from NPT considering they continuously get harassed by the International Community over their Nuclear Program even though they allow their nuclear facilities to be inspected and follow every NPT meanwhile Israel, India and Pakistan, non-Signers of the NPT gets away with having Nuclear Weapons without anyone bothering to sanction them

Maybe it's the same as an army stockpiling. Nuclear warheads are easily caught, and nuclear terrorism is closely watched.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;22492913]Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore, it supports the destruction of Israel and will do it themselves if they got a nuke.[/QUOTE] If you honestly think Iran will nuke Israel, which will kill more Palestinians then Israelis, then kill more Arabs from the neighboring countries due to nuclear fallout, then you seriously need help.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;22494098]Wouldn't a terrorist organization use every nuke it gets immediately (after planning, of course)? It just doesn't make any sense for them to keep it. They're not an organized country, they have nothing to lose. Were you being sarcastic when you replied to my post?[/QUOTE] A nuke is the ultimate negotiation device, so it would make sense not to use it. Besides it's not like you can slap a nuke in the trunk of a car and drive across a border with it undetected.

What worse than Christians with nukes? Islam with nukes. I wished i had a nuke to.

[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;22505716]What worse than Christians with nukes? Islam with nukes. I wished i had a nuke to.[/QUOTE] WBC with a nuke is probably the worst case scenario. "GOD HATES THE WORL..." [img_thumb]http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/nuke-test.jpeg[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22492472]Starpluck, every new day you sound more like just a attention making heckler, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] lol

The UN just radiates with brilliance don't they. [/sarcmark]

[QUOTE=Strongbad;22492151]Iran's motions towards Israel are unmistakeably hostile. You realize that, right? Actions speak louder than words.[/QUOTE] So are a lot of other countries. [editline]07:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=IshMadhim;22492317]So basically starpluck, you say that Iran doesn't support Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Is that correct?[/QUOTE] Israel supports Lebanese terrorists who were responsible for the Sabra shatilla massacres. [editline]07:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22492472]Starpluck, every new day you sound more like just a attention making heckler, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] as opposed to... [editline]07:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;22492913]Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore, it supports the destruction of Israel and will do it themselves if they got a nuke.[/QUOTE] and i'm a fucking fairy [editline]07:37PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;22493913]Well they could deliver them to terrorist organizations and use them as proxies for their intentions.[/QUOTE] not really [editline]07:37PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;22494098]Wouldn't a terrorist organization use every nuke it gets immediately (after planning, of course)? It just doesn't make any sense for them to keep it. They're not an organized country, they have nothing to lose. Were you being sarcastic when you replied to my post?[/QUOTE] Fear is a more effective weapon.

[QUOTE=starpluck;22503302]If you honestly think Iran will nuke Israel, which will kill more Palestinians then Israelis, then kill more Arabs from the neighboring countries due to nuclear fallout, then you seriously need help.[/QUOTE] Iran supports and supplies terrorists, who may use the bomb somewhere else like America or Europe.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;22513253]Iran supports and supplies terrorists, who may use the bomb somewhere else like America or Europe.[/QUOTE] Uh, Israel does too...