warpedskydiver 0 #1 March 8, 2006 Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain' By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours ago VIENNA, Austria - Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to ask for Security Council action. The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran. The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. The meeting is in effect the last step before the Security Council begins considering Iran's nuclear activities and international fears they could be misused to make weapons. It began with both Iran and nations which oppose its enrichment plans sticking to their positions, reflecting the deadlock that prompted the IAEA board to seek Security Council intervention. "The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. "But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll." The statement did not elaborate on what Iran meant by "harm and pain," and Iranian officials were not immediately available to comment. But diplomats accredited to the meeting and in contact with the Iranians said the statement could be a veiled threat to use oil as an economic weapon. Iran is the second-largest producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a boycott could target Europe, China or India. The republic also could cause difficulties in southern Iraq. On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Tehran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq. Iran's statement was unusually harsh, reflecting Tehran's frustration at failing to deflect the threat of Security Council action against it in the coming weeks. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity. "Our nation has made its decision to fully use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and all have to give in to this decision made by the Iranian nation," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in Iran. "We have made our choice." Iran also attacked "warmongers in Washington" for what it said was an unjust accusation that Tehran's nuclear intentions were mainly for military use. It also suggested America was vulnerable, despite its strength. "Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," the statement said. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath." It also threatened broader retaliation, without being specific, saying Iran "will adapt our policy and adjust our approach to conform with the new exigencies." Earlier, U.S. delegate Gregory Schulte insisted in comments to the board that "the time has now come for the Security Council to act." He ticked off Iran's decision to curtail agency inspections, its expanding uranium enrichment program and worrying conclusions by IAEA inspectors that suggest at least past interest in nuclear arms as contributing to "mounting international concerns" about Tehran's nuclear intentions. "Iran has still not come clean," he said. Schulte listed Tehran's possession of plans that could only be used to make nuclear warheads, links between its nuclear programs and the military, and its determination to develop a large-scale enrichment program that could be misused to make nuclear arms. "IAEA inspectors have no doubt this information was expressly intended for the fabrication of nuclear weapons components," Schulte said of documents showing how to form fissile material into warheads. Separately, France, Germany and Britain, which spearheaded the Feb. 4 IAEA resolution clearing the path for Security Council action, warned that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg." It also spoke of "indicators of a possible military dimension to Iran's (nuclear) program" as "a legitimate source of intense concern." "We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" of the IAEA and its board, the European statement said. Ahmadinejad's comments _ and U.S. and Russian statements the day before rejecting any compromise allowing Tehran to enrich uranium domestically _ set the stage for Security Council action once the IAEA board meeting hears about the latest investigations into Iran's nuclear program and debates the issue. Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing appealed Tuesday for more negotiations and suggested Security Council involvement was not needed. The Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement.Quote Does anyone still want them to have nuclear weapons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #2 March 8, 2006 QuoteThe Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement. You can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #3 March 8, 2006 QuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #4 March 8, 2006 Here we go again. If recent history tells us anything: Afghanistan: Harboring and supporting group who attacked US; Result: We dropped a lot of bombs and pretty much forgot about it. Iraq: They say they do not have WMDs. We say we are under imminent threat of attack from Iraqi WMDs; Result: We attack - no WMDs. Oops. Oh well, you sucked anyway. Iran: They admit to a WMD program and their intention to use them; Result: Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going. I don't see how the US has a lot of options here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #5 March 8, 2006 QuoteIsn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? Wow, you've got quite the hard-on for me lately. Flattering. Would you prefer that our diplomats give people the finger when meeting instead? I wonder how many peace accords would get done if people stopped shaking their enemies hands and started telling them to fuck off. That picture argument is the lamest. But, hey... by all means... if it makes you feel like you're scoring points, go ahead.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #6 March 8, 2006 I thought the US didn't negotiate with terrorists? And if Saddam wasn't supposedly a terrorsit, then why was Iraq invaded? And I don't have a hard on for you...wrong thread...we have already established that I have a hard on for Steel.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,114 #7 March 8, 2006 QuoteI thought the US didn't negotiate with terrorists? And if Saddam wasn't supposedly a terrorsit, then why was Iraq invaded? And I don't have a hard on for you...wrong thread...we have already established that I have a hard on for Steel.... He wasn't a terrorist when he was our terrorist go-to guy in the region.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #8 March 8, 2006 What can I tell ya... at one time Saddam wasn't considered a terrorist, neither was Osama, neither was McVeigh. Should a picture of McVeigh and his old elementary school girlfriend be used to show that she was a bad person? Before WW2's build up... they weren't the bad guys either. Things change don't they? Most people on either side see China will be a problem down the road... but just a decade ago... they became our best friends. Russia was an ally in WW2, then things got ugly with us in the 50's. The list can go on... do I need to keep going? I still think you have a hard on for me. It's not my fault you're being a floozy by following more than one of us around! Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #9 March 8, 2006 QuoteWhat can I tell ya... at one time Saddam wasn't considered a terrorist true, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #10 March 8, 2006 Quotetrue, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference. Well, they changed towards US for sure anyway...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,114 #11 March 8, 2006 QuoteQuotetrue, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference. Well, they changed towards US for sure anyway... Who changed? Google "April Glaspie".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #12 March 8, 2006 QuoteWho changed? Google "April Glaspie". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie It would certainly seem that Saddams feelings towards the US changed, wouldn't it? Are you just trying to point out that we did have relations with Iraq because it was felt Iran was more dangerous? What's your point? Oh wait... he thought the US gave him permission to invade Kuwait so you're saying that WE changed then he changed or that he didn't change but we did or that he was a good guy and got screwed over... or.... what are you saying? On a side note, some of you might want to notice that first section in the Wikipedia entry about US support for Saddam. Something shiny.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #13 March 8, 2006 Why don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #14 March 8, 2006 QuoteWhy don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. Iran's bed is already full with the Russians and Chinese in it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #15 March 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? I couldn't find that one. Will this one do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,087 #16 March 8, 2006 >It would certainly seem that Saddams feelings towards the US >changed, wouldn't it? Nope. Our feelings towards HIM changed. If he hated us he wouldn't have asked permission of us before invading Kuwait. Sucks we gave him the go-ahead, eh? Then, after we pounded the shit out of his country, his feelings towards us changed. (Hint - think any americans changed their opinion about Al Qaeda on 9/11/01? If yes, why do you think that happened?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,087 #17 March 8, 2006 >You can always tell which governments are in bed with others >when you see stuff like this. Exactly. We know who's on our side, and who wants peace. Assholes. Don't they know they are either with us or against us? How dare they push diplomacy when violence will accomplish the same thing, but faster! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #18 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? I couldn't find that one. Will this one do? well that is Wild Bill Clinton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #19 March 9, 2006 But after verbally and directly threatening the US and Israel...the best course of action is....*drumroll*....USELESS UN INSPECTIONS AND SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!! The UN is about as useful as the tits on a bull....I can't wait for me to get some JDAM action!...fucking JDAMs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #20 March 9, 2006 QuoteBut after verbally and directly threatening the US and Israel...the best course of action is....*drumroll*....USELESS UN INSPECTIONS AND SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!! The UN is about as useful as the tits on a bull....I can't wait for me to get some JDAM action!...fucking JDAMs. Iraq apples to Iran oranges. Iraq: they said they didn't have it. weapons inspectors said they didn't have it. we invaded and proved them right. Iran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ViperPilot 0 #21 March 9, 2006 That wasn't a sole reference to Iraq, it was a reference to everything in general the UN does. It's a forum for whining in which nothing helpful gets done 99% of the time. You obviously see Iran has them (or trying to make them at least), and claims they plan on using them. Yet how much do you want to bet there's gonna be some pussy UN resolutions before the real men get let in to do their jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #22 March 9, 2006 QuoteYou obviously see Iran has them (or trying to make them at least), and claims they plan on using them. Yet how much do you want to bet there's gonna be some pussy UN resolutions before the real men get let in to do their jobs. I'm sure we and our allies will resort to using force as a last resort, so yes, I'm sure there will be some attempt at a diplomatic solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CornishChris 5 #23 March 9, 2006 QuoteIran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Not strictly true. They claim they wish to pursue a civilian nuclear program in order to develop nuclear power. The big concern over all of this is that actually they wish to purse a military route even though they say they do not. So kind of back to the he-said she-said but with more at risk. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #24 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. Iran's bed is already full with the Russians and Chinese in it. Is it just me or does the threat of harm and pain sound like something from Monty Python? "I threaten you with harm and pain and fart in your general direction!" ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #25 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Not strictly true. They claim they wish to pursue a civilian nuclear program in order to develop nuclear power. The big concern over all of this is that actually they wish to purse a military route even though they say they do not. So kind of back to the he-said she-said but with more at risk. Not exactly he-said she-said. The fact that Iran is so adamant about doing uranium enrichment on their own soil is a sure "tell" about what their ultimate goal is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Trent 0 #2 March 8, 2006 QuoteThe Chinese and Russian statements to the board were relatively moderate, said delegates inside the closed meeting. China urged "more time for diplomacy" before any Security Council action, one delegate said on condition of anonymity, quoting from the Chinese statement. You can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #3 March 8, 2006 QuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #4 March 8, 2006 Here we go again. If recent history tells us anything: Afghanistan: Harboring and supporting group who attacked US; Result: We dropped a lot of bombs and pretty much forgot about it. Iraq: They say they do not have WMDs. We say we are under imminent threat of attack from Iraqi WMDs; Result: We attack - no WMDs. Oops. Oh well, you sucked anyway. Iran: They admit to a WMD program and their intention to use them; Result: Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going. I don't see how the US has a lot of options here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #5 March 8, 2006 QuoteIsn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? Wow, you've got quite the hard-on for me lately. Flattering. Would you prefer that our diplomats give people the finger when meeting instead? I wonder how many peace accords would get done if people stopped shaking their enemies hands and started telling them to fuck off. That picture argument is the lamest. But, hey... by all means... if it makes you feel like you're scoring points, go ahead.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #6 March 8, 2006 I thought the US didn't negotiate with terrorists? And if Saddam wasn't supposedly a terrorsit, then why was Iraq invaded? And I don't have a hard on for you...wrong thread...we have already established that I have a hard on for Steel.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #7 March 8, 2006 QuoteI thought the US didn't negotiate with terrorists? And if Saddam wasn't supposedly a terrorsit, then why was Iraq invaded? And I don't have a hard on for you...wrong thread...we have already established that I have a hard on for Steel.... He wasn't a terrorist when he was our terrorist go-to guy in the region.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #8 March 8, 2006 What can I tell ya... at one time Saddam wasn't considered a terrorist, neither was Osama, neither was McVeigh. Should a picture of McVeigh and his old elementary school girlfriend be used to show that she was a bad person? Before WW2's build up... they weren't the bad guys either. Things change don't they? Most people on either side see China will be a problem down the road... but just a decade ago... they became our best friends. Russia was an ally in WW2, then things got ugly with us in the 50's. The list can go on... do I need to keep going? I still think you have a hard on for me. It's not my fault you're being a floozy by following more than one of us around! Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #9 March 8, 2006 QuoteWhat can I tell ya... at one time Saddam wasn't considered a terrorist true, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #10 March 8, 2006 Quotetrue, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference. Well, they changed towards US for sure anyway...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #11 March 8, 2006 QuoteQuotetrue, though in his case, his behavious never really changed...we just didn't like it anymore...I guess that is the difference. Well, they changed towards US for sure anyway... Who changed? Google "April Glaspie".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #12 March 8, 2006 QuoteWho changed? Google "April Glaspie". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie It would certainly seem that Saddams feelings towards the US changed, wouldn't it? Are you just trying to point out that we did have relations with Iraq because it was felt Iran was more dangerous? What's your point? Oh wait... he thought the US gave him permission to invade Kuwait so you're saying that WE changed then he changed or that he didn't change but we did or that he was a good guy and got screwed over... or.... what are you saying? On a side note, some of you might want to notice that first section in the Wikipedia entry about US support for Saddam. Something shiny.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #13 March 8, 2006 Why don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #14 March 8, 2006 QuoteWhy don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. Iran's bed is already full with the Russians and Chinese in it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 March 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? I couldn't find that one. Will this one do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,087 #16 March 8, 2006 >It would certainly seem that Saddams feelings towards the US >changed, wouldn't it? Nope. Our feelings towards HIM changed. If he hated us he wouldn't have asked permission of us before invading Kuwait. Sucks we gave him the go-ahead, eh? Then, after we pounded the shit out of his country, his feelings towards us changed. (Hint - think any americans changed their opinion about Al Qaeda on 9/11/01? If yes, why do you think that happened?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,087 #17 March 8, 2006 >You can always tell which governments are in bed with others >when you see stuff like this. Exactly. We know who's on our side, and who wants peace. Assholes. Don't they know they are either with us or against us? How dare they push diplomacy when violence will accomplish the same thing, but faster! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #18 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Isn't there a picture of a current VP shaking the hand of a not so current dictator somewhere? I couldn't find that one. Will this one do? well that is Wild Bill Clinton Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #19 March 9, 2006 But after verbally and directly threatening the US and Israel...the best course of action is....*drumroll*....USELESS UN INSPECTIONS AND SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!! The UN is about as useful as the tits on a bull....I can't wait for me to get some JDAM action!...fucking JDAMs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #20 March 9, 2006 QuoteBut after verbally and directly threatening the US and Israel...the best course of action is....*drumroll*....USELESS UN INSPECTIONS AND SANCTIONS!!!!!!!!!! The UN is about as useful as the tits on a bull....I can't wait for me to get some JDAM action!...fucking JDAMs. Iraq apples to Iran oranges. Iraq: they said they didn't have it. weapons inspectors said they didn't have it. we invaded and proved them right. Iran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #21 March 9, 2006 That wasn't a sole reference to Iraq, it was a reference to everything in general the UN does. It's a forum for whining in which nothing helpful gets done 99% of the time. You obviously see Iran has them (or trying to make them at least), and claims they plan on using them. Yet how much do you want to bet there's gonna be some pussy UN resolutions before the real men get let in to do their jobs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #22 March 9, 2006 QuoteYou obviously see Iran has them (or trying to make them at least), and claims they plan on using them. Yet how much do you want to bet there's gonna be some pussy UN resolutions before the real men get let in to do their jobs. I'm sure we and our allies will resort to using force as a last resort, so yes, I'm sure there will be some attempt at a diplomatic solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #23 March 9, 2006 QuoteIran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Not strictly true. They claim they wish to pursue a civilian nuclear program in order to develop nuclear power. The big concern over all of this is that actually they wish to purse a military route even though they say they do not. So kind of back to the he-said she-said but with more at risk. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #24 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy don't the US and Iran just fuck and get it over with. Iran's bed is already full with the Russians and Chinese in it. Is it just me or does the threat of harm and pain sound like something from Monty Python? "I threaten you with harm and pain and fart in your general direction!" ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #25 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteIran: They have it. They claim they will use it. This is a very serious problem. Not strictly true. They claim they wish to pursue a civilian nuclear program in order to develop nuclear power. The big concern over all of this is that actually they wish to purse a military route even though they say they do not. So kind of back to the he-said she-said but with more at risk. Not exactly he-said she-said. The fact that Iran is so adamant about doing uranium enrichment on their own soil is a sure "tell" about what their ultimate goal is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
