U.S. Warns Iran to Back Down

[freethefly 6]

How soon untill the "Shock and Awe" event to show just how determined the US is to dominate the Mideast? How soon untill the entire Mideast turns on the US? Bush is an insane warmonger hell bent on creating death and destruction in a region that is quickly understanding that US policy is bend to our will or die like the rest. Anymore of this war waging policy and the entire world will come down on the US and bring an end to what was once an example to follow. The fall of the US will lie soley on this administration.


Jan 23, 9:36 AM (ET)
By JIM KRANE
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.

Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was "not possible" until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

"Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.

Iran is in a standoff with the West over its defiance of U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is aimed solely at generating energy, but the United States and some of its allies suspect it is geared toward making weapons. The U.N. imposed limited sanctions on Iran last month.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran is "ready for anything" in its confrontation with the United States.

Iran conducted missile tests on Monday, the first of five days of military maneuvers southeast of Tehran.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. buildup in the Gulf was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.

The American aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and several accompanying ships are heading toward the Gulf to join an aircraft carrier group already in the region, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Stennis is expected to arrive in late February.

The Stennis's arrival in the Middle East will mark the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq invasion in 2003 that the United States has had two carrier battle groups in the region.

The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that the minesweeper USS Gladiator arrived in the Persian Gulf, one of six such ships - four American, two British - now plying the Gulf for anti-ship mines. U.S. officials have long said Iran was likely to block busy Gulf shipping lanes in a conflict.

Some among the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts complained that American wars in the Middle East were already threatening the region's stability and asked Burns to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.

"What we are not interested in is another war in the region," Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. "Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess."

Burns' speech appeared to respond to similar comments by Iranian officials in Dubai and Bahrain last month. In December, Iran's top national security adviser, Ali Larijani, appealed to Gulf Arabs to shut down American bases on their soil and instead join Iran in a regional security alliance.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Skyrad 0]

Funny, I don't see Irans Navy sitting off the coast of California.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Funny, I don't see Irans Navy sitting off the coast of California.

You're in the UK, silly. California isn't visible from there.

[billvon 3,118]

> . . .warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the
>region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.

Because god knows we wouldn't want Iran to be mired in a civil war losing 1000 soldiers a year! That would make them unpopular, and it would make it harder for them to try to get a nuclear program up and running. No, best we keep them out of that region, and let US soldiers soak up the bullets.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

Funny, I don't see Irans Navy sitting off the coast of California.

You're in the UK, silly. California isn't visible from there.

Oh.......That must be the Isle of Wight then

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[dan_iv 0]

The reasons behind the current war in Iraq as well as the pressure that is being put on Iran are due to things set in motion well before Bush took office.

Iran is breaking the treaty they signed for Nuclear Non proliferation. There uranium enrichment program they are currently running is a direct dis-regard of the NNPT that they have signed and are a member of.

As I said in another thread, look up UNSCOM and research that to better understand the actual roots to the cause of the Iraq war.

[billvon 3,118]

>Iran is breaking the treaty they signed for Nuclear Non proliferation.

NNPT Article 4:

"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."

[Amazon 7]

Quote

things set in motion well before Bush took office.

Gee see what happens when democrats get blowjobs.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

>Iran is breaking the treaty they signed for Nuclear Non proliferation.

NNPT Article 4:

"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."

You left some important information from that article out of your response...

" Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."

to my knowledge, there is no co-operate happening, I.E. no other treaty members are involved with the program which is the reason that I stated what I did.

Of course, I may be wrong as the verbiage they chose to write the 4th article in isn't exactly clear either.

the bottom line is that without any other party being allowed to co-operate with them it is hearsay, they could be only running their enrichment program for peaceful reason, or they may also have other ideas. That was the whole reason for UN inspectors in Iraq in the first place, having a third party present to ensure the security of other members of the treaty as well as the other states.

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Quote

things set in motion well before Bush took office.

Gee see what happens when democrats get blowjobs.

nice response.

If you actually took some time to research a little more history about it you would have realized that I was NOT implicating that it started with Clinton.

[freethefly 6]

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

I am assuming that this is what you are refering to. The resolutions are also listed. But it has been proven that Iraq did disarm and that no WMD's were found and that Saddam was being truthful (imagine that!). This in itself makes the invasion unlawful. I fully agree that Iran is playing a dangerous game but, a build up in the Gulf and the threat of an invasion will do nothing to deter them. The build up in the late 70's and early 80's should be the lesson to be remembered. That build up became support for Saddam and his war on Iran. This time around we will be on our own with no support from any Arab nations. There is good reason to believe that any threats to Iran will be viewed as a threat to any and all Arab nations. Bend or die is not a good message to send to the Mideast. We are simply out numbered.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Amazon 7]

Quote

things set in motion well before Bush took office.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee see what happens when democrats get blowjobs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


nice response.

If you actually took some time to research a little more history about it you would have realized that I was NOT implicating that it started with Clinton.

DUDE.. get with the program.THIS IS SC... and EVERYTHING that has gone wrong with this administrations approach to the WORLD are striclty Clintons blow job that is to blame.( actually I be he got a lot more than one)

[steveorino 7]

I know it is wrong on so many counts, but ever since 1979 I've been waiting to kick a little Iranian butt.

j/k guys, well, mostly.

steveOrino

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

I am assuming that this is what you are refering to. The resolutions are also listed. But it has been proven that Iraq did disarm and that no WMD's were found and that Saddam was being truthful (imagine that!). This in itself makes the invasion unlawful. I fully agree that Iran is playing a dangerous game but, a build up in the Gulf and the threat of an invasion will do nothing to deter them. The build up in the late 70's and early 80's should be the lesson to be remembered. That build up became support for Saddam and his war on Iran. This time around we will be on our own with no support from any Arab nations. There is good reason to believe that any threats to Iran will be viewed as a threat to any and all Arab nations. Bend or die is not a good message to send to the Mideast. We are simply out numbered.

have you read the entire report? Saddam did NOT tell the truth.

Here are some quotes from the UN timeline from the Link you supplied, (which I have read).

"9 Sep 1998 Security Council resolution 1194 (1998) unanimously condemns Iraq’s decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM, terming Iraq’s actions a totally unacceptable contravention of Iraq’s obligations; demands Iraq rescind its decision and decides not to conduct the 60-day sanctions reviews until Iraq does so and the Commission reports to the Council that it is satisfied that it has been able to exercise its full range of activities, including inspections."

"12 Nov 1997 Security Council resolution 1137 (1997), condemns the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations, including its unacceptable decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM. It also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in the instances of non-compliance."

"Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors."

"Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX."

[freethefly 6]

I blame EVERYTHING on Monica for not swallowing. Ungrateful bitch. Now, look at what has happened.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,118]

>the bottom line is that without any other party being allowed to co
>operate with them it is hearsay, they could be only running their
>enrichment program for peaceful reason . . . .

Correct.

>That was the whole reason for UN inspectors in Iraq in the first place . . .

I agree. However, the UN has voted to impose sanctions on Iran based on what they are doing with their nuclear program, a program that, even when UN inspectors were in Iran, showed no signs of being a military program. If the UN voted to impose sanctions on the US's semiconductor industry, and then said "we want to send some more inspectors over there to look at what you're doing" - would you agree to their presence?

We are screwing this up bigtime, and giving Ahmadinejad exactly what he needs - justification to deny inspectors entrance while at the same time "proving" that the US is the enemy of the Iranian people.

[freethefly 6]

Yes, I did read it and also read a good number of the resolutions. Yet, days before the invasion, he was being truthful. If Bush allowed the inspectors to finish their work it would had been shown. True, Saddam did have a reputation to be anything but honest but this time he was. Unfortunately for him, his reputation did him in.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I know it is wrong on so many counts, but ever since 1979 I've been waiting to kick a little Iranian butt.

j/k guys, well, mostly.

I take it that you also were in the Gulf at that time. Such fond memories of Iranian gunboats coming alongside and then hours upon hours of general quarters... We had our chance to crush them and then blew it.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Yes, I did read it and also read a good number of the resolutions. Yet, days before the invasion, he was being truthful. If Bush allowed the inspectors to finish their work it would had been shown. True, Saddam did have a reputation to be anything but honest but this time he was. Unfortunately for him, his reputation did him in.

well according to the UNMOVIC report just weeks prior to the Iraq invasion they were still not cooperating, as well as not providing the information necessary. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/baghdad_press_briefings/march/UNMOVIC%20IAEA%20Press%20Statement%2015%20Mar%2003.pdf

If you look at all the weapons, chemical or otherwise that were being destroyed over the years that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC supervised it is alarming.

[Skyrad 0]

Pakistan, India and Israel all have Nukes, you can hardly blame Iran for wanting to cover its ass.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I know it is wrong on so many counts, but ever since 1979 I've been waiting to kick a little Iranian butt.

j/k guys, well, mostly.

HEY DARIUS! Bend over

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[freethefly 6]

All that shows is that Iraq kept a large number of names secret. Would the US give up all of its names of scientist? Most likely not. I fully agree that Iraq was being less than fully honest. What nation is fully honest? My answer is, none. Still, this is not a reason to invade.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Pakistan, India and Israel all have Nukes, you can hardly blame Iran for wanting to cover its ass.

None of those countries have signed the treaty

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I know it is wrong on so many counts, but ever since 1979 I've been waiting to kick a little Iranian butt.

j/k guys, well, mostly.

I take it that you also were in the Gulf at that time. Such fond memories of Iranian gunboats coming alongside and then hours upon hours of general quarters... We had our chance to crush them and then blew it.

Actually, my A-Team went in right after hostages were taken in Nov '79. We bought/leased trucks and warehouses to function as a safe house when Delta was to take the hostages out. After that fiasco in the desert it took months to get out alive. They were very suspicous of anybody that looked western. duh.

steveOrino

[dan_iv 0]

It also states that they were still, (after over a decade), destroying weapons which were suppose to have been destroyed by the governing regime well before.

"An UNMOVIC missile team supervised at the Taji Technical Battalion the destruction of 3 more Al Samoud 2 missiles, one launcher, and some parts of warhead and propellant tank. Another missile team went to the Al Qaid Warhead Filling Plant of the Al Qaa Qaa State Company and placed tags onto 5 Al Fatah warheads."