The Big Powers Agree

2008-01-22 20:46:52

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7031|132 and Bush

The U.N. Security Council’s permanent members and Germany agreed Tuesday on a new draft resolution on sanctions against Iran, strengthening existing measures over the country’s refusal to suspend its nuclear program, officials said.

Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Germany, France and Great Britain would submit the draft to the Security Council, for discussion in coming weeks.

“We agreed together today on the contents of such a resolution,” he said after meeting his counterparts from the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China.

Officials said that all six in attendance at the two-hour meeting would vote for the resolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008 … htm?csp=34

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-01-22 20:50:04

#2

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7192

Hmmm.. well according to this forum it was just the US. Interesting what facts do. Your bold text makes that point fairly clear.

However, I do not see what good this will do.

2008-01-22 20:52:59

#3

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7082|USA

Kmarion wrote:
The U.N. Security Council’s permanent members and Germany agreed Tuesday on a new draft resolution on sanctions against Iran, strengthening existing measures over the country’s refusal to suspend its nuclear program, officials said.

Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said Germany, France and Great Britain would submit the draft to the Security Council, for discussion in coming weeks.

“We agreed together today on the contents of such a resolution,” he said after meeting his counterparts from the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China.

Officials said that all six in attendance at the two-hour meeting would vote for the resolution.
http://i30.tinypic.com/72t2yt.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008 … htm?csp=34

I wonder who will supply the rubber bands to shoot them with. Mybe they will break out the big guns and snap them on the ass with a wet towel!!

2008-01-22 20:56:22

#4

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6896|Melbourne - Home of Football

Haha, you need a by-line at the bottom that says "Emphasis added by Kmarion"

2008-01-22 20:58:46

#5

lavadisk: I am a cat ¦ 3; +369|7260|Denver colorado

well at least they are addressing the problem.

2008-01-22 21:11:41

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6960|Global Command

lavadisk wrote:
well at least they are addressing the problem.

With empty words and bluster.

2008-01-22 21:12:25

#7

Mason4Assassin444: retired; +552|7093|USA

usmarine2005 wrote:
Hmmm.. well according to this forum it was just the US. Interesting what facts do. Your bold text makes that point fairly clear.

However, I do not see what good this will do.

I concur with your doubts of effectiveness. It's just too bad the majority of Iranians are pro-American but we seem destined to destroy them due to their "threatening" leader. Now there are other people involved (new facts we Americans like to roll with and say i told you so with even though we had no evidence to refer to prior) if it comes to an invasion, let them do it. We're broke.

Comically marine, you'll use this story to poke at the so called "anti-America" crowd here yet in another thread shit all over the UN for something or another that was dumb and stupid because they are an irresponsible ineffective organization.

I still love you though.

2008-01-22 21:14:30

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7031|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:
lavadisk wrote:
well at least they are addressing the problem.
With empty words and bluster.

Yea, see image in OP .

My point was that it's amazing that they are in agreement on anything.

Now for the contrast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ … on_study_7

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-01-23 05:27:07

#9

Jepeto87: Member; +38|7116|Dublin

I was under the impression that the national intelligence report noted that there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Alas, I must have been mistaken.

2008-01-23 05:49:06

#10

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6986

Perhaps the likes of usmarine, and everyone else for that matter, should hold their typing until we find out what it is exactly that they've agreed. I can be pretty certain that Russia and China have vetoed any possibility of military action and that the 'agreement' will be as soft as shit.

2008-01-23 05:50:46

#11

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6430|...

CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps the likes of usmarine, and everyone else for that matter, should hold their typing until we find out what it is exactly that they've agreed. I can be pretty certain that Russia and China have vetoed any possibility of military action and that the 'agreement' will be as soft as shit.

I agree really, if russia and china have agreed with the other nations on this subject the agreement must be worth zero.

inane little opines

2008-01-23 05:57:18

#12

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6841|'Murka

Jepeto87 wrote:
I was under the impression that the national intelligence report noted that there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Alas, I must have been mistaken.

No, it said they had suspended their nuke weapons progam in 2005. That is entirely different than "no evidence" of a program.

Kmarion wrote:
Now for the contrast.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ … on_study_7

What a riot. After the fact, some journalists (who I'm sure have nothing but pure, altruistic intentions) find that the information the US (and the rest of the Western world) had on Iraq prior to 2003 was incorrect. Earth shattering. And they frame it as "hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq", implying an intention to mislead when the truth is that the information was bad...which led to statements that turned out to be wrong. There is a huge difference between saying something that is incorrect and making a false statement...at least in connotation. What utter fucking yellow journalism.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-23 08:45:18

#13

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7031|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps the likes of usmarine, and everyone else for that matter, should hold their typing until we find out what it is exactly that they've agreed. I can be pretty certain that Russia and China have vetoed any possibility of military action and that the 'agreement' will be as soft as shit.

Are you saying the US has proposed military action?

Why are China and Russia allowing any sanctions? ... weak as they may be.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-01-23 08:47:50

#14

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|7080

Lets agree.....

to disagree.

2008-01-23 09:21:15

#15

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7192

CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps the likes of usmarine, and everyone else for that matter, should hold their typing until we find out what it is exactly that they've agreed. I can be pretty certain that Russia and China have vetoed any possibility of military action and that the 'agreement' will be as soft as shit.

Awwwwww...you know you are wrong and cannot admit you are the one who puts the blame solely on the US. And I feel bad that you know damn well you cannot call France for example a puppet of the US, which destroys most of your arguments. But I agree, let us wait and see. Ignore the fact however that ALL of them are working on it. Just the fact they are meeting on it should piss off Iran right?

I also notice how you did not say anything to the OP. Very nice move.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-23 09:26:47)

2008-01-23 09:25:34

#16

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6923|Connecticut

Iran is fixin to get voted off the island.

Malloy must go

2008-01-23 09:25:46

#17

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7260|Grapevine, TX

CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps the likes of usmarine, and everyone else for that matter, should hold their typing until we find out what it is exactly that they've agreed. I can be pretty certain that Russia and China have vetoed any possibility of military action and that the 'agreement' will be as soft as shit.

QFE just like the resolutions on Iraq post the Gulf War, UN resolutions...

_{i cant belive it either, im quoting Cam for emphasis +1 man}

2008-01-23 20:24:22

#18

maffiaw: ph33r me 傻逼; +40|6851|Melbourne, AUS

Hah, isn't it ironic that 6 stronger countries "decide" the fate of another without even consulting them?!
Such is the way of global political interest.

I wouldn't downplay such a meeting as being inconsequential in the big scheme of things. To put it simply, not only does the West and especially the US need the credibility of the UN to keep Iran "in check" via the IAEA, they also need the influence of the other veto members (namely Russia and China) to come to some sort of compromise regarding the construction and supply of nuclear infrastructure in Iran. Don't forget that the Russia has already offered to build power plants in Iran should they agree.

2008-01-23 21:28:00

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7105|Canberra, AUS

Wha?

Germany? They're not a member of the permanent security council, why is their word so impotant?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-01-24 08:31:47

#20

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6986

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205285.stm

I love being right all the time. Congrats to dayarath and Teflon for backing me.

2008-01-24 08:46:15

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7031|132 and Bush

No one said that they would be "tough sanctions". My question is why are they (the Russians) imposing any sanctions?... let me be more specific, why are they saying "be vigilant in your trade with Iran". Shouldn't they be saying that about Israel as well? Their nuclear program isn't even declared.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-01-24 08:55:59

#22

NantanCochise: Member; +55|6409|Portugal/United States

From BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205285.stm : "Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the draft agreed on Tuesday did not require tough new measures against Tehran. But it does call for countries to be vigilant in their trade with Iran, Mr Lavrov said."
Isnt Russia Irans biggest supplier of weapons and nuclear technology. Its the usual bla bla bla from Russia, good that they are signing though. But I am suprised the US is on board considering a much lighter resolution package on Iran.

Last edited by NantanCochise (2008-01-24 08:58:03)

2008-01-24 09:43:46

#23

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6973|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7205285.stm

I love being right all the time. Congrats to dayarath and Teflon for backing me.

That article didn't say anything either...in fact they both don't say much.

Sounds like they are just agreeing to talk about Iran.

2008-01-24 14:32:25

#24

maffiaw: ph33r me 傻逼; +40|6851|Melbourne, AUS

Spark wrote:
Wha?

Germany? They're not a member of the permanent security council, why is their word so impotant?

Who speaks for the EU? France and Germany.

BF2S Forums The Big Powers Agree

Kmarion wrote:

lavadisk wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

ATG wrote:

lavadisk wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Jepeto87 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer