UN? Why hello there. How goes it?ATG wrote:
( sound of crickets )
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/UN_nu … _0122.htmlusmarine2007 wrote:
"Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list from entering the country, the foreign minister said Monday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_ … an_nuclear
Would the UN like to enforce their sanctions this time?
U.N. repliesusmarine2007 wrote:
UN? Why hello there. How goes it?ATG wrote:
( sound of crickets )
Not bad. Got any oil for food for me?ATG wrote:
U.N. repliesusmarine2007 wrote:
UN? Why hello there. How goes it?ATG wrote:
( sound of crickets )
Not bad. We categorically oppose every goal you have, no matter what we say or what deals we sign, how are you?
I am I the only person that finds that you posted two links for articles written by the same person, but you act as if they are independent sources?BN wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/UN_nu … _0122.htmlusmarine2007 wrote:
"Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list from entering the country, the foreign minister said Monday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_ … an_nuclear
Would the UN like to enforce their sanctions this time?
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/is_this_bad_rep.html
Good on them standing up to bullies
Only if you are willing to let us rape a few of the locals.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not bad. Got any oil for food for me?ATG wrote:
U.N. repliesusmarine2007 wrote:
UN? Why hello there. How goes it?
Not bad. We categorically oppose every goal you have, no matter what we say or what deals we sign, how are you?
For keen observation skills, you are commended.dubbs wrote:
I am I the only person that finds that you posted two links for articles written by the same person, but you act as if they are independent sources?BN wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/UN_nu … _0122.htmlusmarine2007 wrote:
"Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list from entering the country, the foreign minister said Monday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_ … an_nuclear
Would the UN like to enforce their sanctions this time?
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/is_this_bad_rep.html
Good on them standing up to bullies
Last edited by ATG (2007-01-22 18:50:24)
Taken from the article.the article wrote:
"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar.
"The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran, so stopping 38 of them will not impede its ability to carry out inspections, at least in the short term," he said. The move "demonstrates Iran's unwillingness to accept the U.N. Security Council mandate that it suspend enrichment."
Fitzpatrick said the decision to bar some inspectors was largely "a symbolic act of defiance."
Apparently you quote history but do not learn from it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Taken from the article.the article wrote:
"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar.
"The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran, so stopping 38 of them will not impede its ability to carry out inspections, at least in the short term," he said. The move "demonstrates Iran's unwillingness to accept the U.N. Security Council mandate that it suspend enrichment."
Fitzpatrick said the decision to bar some inspectors was largely "a symbolic act of defiance."
Means as much as Hugo Chavez saying, "Go to hell gringos."
I learned that a Head of State with a history of anti-American worthless rhetoric acts like himself and people should have no reason to start rattling sabers.usmarine2007 wrote:
Apparently you quote history but do not learn from it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Taken from the article.the article wrote:
"The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar.
"The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran, so stopping 38 of them will not impede its ability to carry out inspections, at least in the short term," he said. The move "demonstrates Iran's unwillingness to accept the U.N. Security Council mandate that it suspend enrichment."
Fitzpatrick said the decision to bar some inspectors was largely "a symbolic act of defiance."
Means as much as Hugo Chavez saying, "Go to hell gringos."
Sorry? I made no representations about authenticity or independence of the links or articles.dubbs wrote:
but you act as if they are independent sources?BN wrote:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/UN_nu … _0122.htmlusmarine2007 wrote:
"Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list from entering the country, the foreign minister said Monday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_ … an_nuclear
Would the UN like to enforce their sanctions this time?
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/01/is_this_bad_rep.html
Good on them standing up to bullies
Try again...BN wrote:
BTW the story is the fact that the news article that features on yahoo is not "fact checked" or verified.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-01-22 19:18:49)
And?usmarine2007 wrote:
Try again...BN wrote:
BTW the story is the fact that the news article that features on yahoo is not "fact checked" or verified.
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press
Never mind. My point is made by your response.BN wrote:
And?usmarine2007 wrote:
Try again...BN wrote:
BTW the story is the fact that the news article that features on yahoo is not "fact checked" or verified.
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press
point = ?
come on smartarse. Whats ur point?usmarine2007 wrote:
Never mind. My point is made by your response.
Are you trying to tell me the AP is not a worthy source of news? If so, then what news do you read or watch?BN wrote:
come on smartarse. Whats ur point?usmarine2007 wrote:
Never mind. My point is made by your response.
His point is get out of B&ST if you don't know how to speak or find appropriate sources.BN wrote:
come on smartarse. Whats ur point?usmarine2007 wrote:
Never mind. My point is made by your response.
AP shot themselves in the foot with me once i read "The IAEA cannot and does not generally issue specific responses when dealing with a country, because the matters are confidential"usmarine2007 wrote:
Are you trying to tell me the AP is not a worthy source of news? If so, then what news do you read or watch?BN wrote:
come on smartarse. Whats ur point?usmarine2007 wrote:
Never mind. My point is made by your response.
Ok...so who is credible then?BN wrote:
AP shot themselves in the foot with me once i read "The IAEA cannot and does not generally issue specific responses when dealing with a country, because the matters are confidential"usmarine2007 wrote:
Are you trying to tell me the AP is not a worthy source of news? If so, then what news do you read or watch?BN wrote:
come on smartarse. Whats ur point?
I used to read drudge until I saw him appear a few times on fox news giving them a little helping hand.ATG wrote:
ffs, you have to read a story from three different sources to make your own opinion. Everything is slanted and only suckers pull from the same source all the time.
msnbc is famous for being liberal, yet they have a brilliant time line feature on the GWOT on their website, so I go there. I never do fox news, online. Mostly Drudge and www.myway.com