U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on Iran


UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Saturday imposing sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, culminating two months of tough negotiations aimed at pressuring Tehran to return to negotiations and clarify its nuclear ambitions.
The resolution orders all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It also imposes an asset freeze on key companies and individuals in the country's nuclear and missile programs named on a U.N. list.

Another toothless threat from the U.N. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/23/un.iran.ap/index.html) Does Iran qualify for a 10 year head start like Iraq did, or will somebody actually do something? Only time will tell.

It wont be the US doing it, I can tell you that. At least not anytime in the near future.

What do you suggest, es?

How about doing away with the UN to begin with? The League of Nations was a lost cause even before they began, as was the U.N. Try something else

Does Iran qualify for a 10 year head start like Iraq did, or will somebody actually do something? Only time will tell.

I hate to say this BUT, unless the U.S. or the Euroweenies get nuked by Iran, nothing is going to be done. The U.N. is USELESS, but the U.S. will run into a storm of controversy if it takes military action.

How about doing away with the UN to begin with? The League of Nations was a lost cause even before they began, as was the U.N. Try something else
Not going to happen, just like your fascist "Everyone should join the military" idea.

Not going to happen, just like your fascist "Everyone should join the military" idea.


HAHAHA OH GOD! I was just imagining myself in the military... I'd definitely be more of a hindrance than a help, what with the extreme nearsightedness, bad depth perception, bad hand-eye coordination, bad balance, general clumsiness.... :lolhit:

Let me point out that there's no mention of military action or "serious consequences" in this resolution. It merely prohibits the sale of nuclear technology and materials to Iran. So let's not jump the gun and start talking about war, because it's currently not on the table.

This resolution, unlike Resolution 1441 on Iraq, does seem like one that the UN has the capability to enforce. I also suspect that the sanctions may actually work. Ahmadinejad's political opponents have been gaining ground, as seen in their recent elections, so Ahmadinejad may yield to the UN's demands simply for the sake of his political career.

In order to fight another war in the Middle East right now, we would have to increase the size of the active duty military by a considerable amount. This could be done in one of several ways. We could call up more of the reserves, but that would remove workers from the economy, possibly hurting the economy as experienced workers are replaced by less capable new workers.

Another possibility is increasing recruitment. This is not easy, especially in time of an unpopular war in Iraq. It would probably require increasing incentives.

Still another possibility is to increase recruitment overseas. This increases the liklihood that terrorist organizations could penetrate our military, and even gain citizenship.

Another possibility is a draft. This would likely cause an increase in anti=war activism, and would be politically unpopular.

Regardless of which method we use to increase the size of the military, military spending would need to increase. We already are running a large deficit, and increasing the deficit risks inflation in the economy. Alternatively we could increase taxes to raise funds. That is also going to be politically unpopular.

The only other way to get roops for a war in Iran is to persuade other countries to join the effort. That seems unlikely in the current world political climate.

I agree that the U.N. is pretty useless at the moment. We seem to be moving toward a world war, and just as the League of Nations was helpless to do anything about World War II, the U.N. is helpless to do anything about this one. I don't know what the answer to this dilema is, but I fear for the future of the world. A nuclear war would benefit no one.

How about doing away with the UN to begin with? The League of Nations was a lost cause even before they began, as was the U.N. Try something else
A lost cause because the only nation with no desire to do anything happens to be the most powerful on the planet? How can you have a United Nations when certain nations refuse to be united? An actual fighting force has been suggested numerous times over the years in the UN, but low and behold, the US will have absolutely nothing to do with it. They don't want US soldiers to be under the command of anybody but US generals. Fucking bullshit. In one hand we refuse to cooperate and in the other hand we claim that the organization we wont help is incapable of doing anything. The final result ends up being the US whinning about cleaning up messes that are now 10 times larger then they were 10 years ago because 10 years ago it wasn't "politically" in our best interests to help. The world would be a much better place if people cooperated instead of living like middle school kids on the playground. One bully backstabbing another.

The UN sucks,why.
It has been hijacked by the United States and its allies.

The U.N. should be respected. This world is heading toward an international government and that needs to be done because an international government is the only thing that can solve issues like population control and environmental demolition.

The U.N. should be respected. This world is heading toward an international government and that needs to be done because an international government is the only thing that can solve issues like population control and environmental demolition.

Gee, Leper, when the U.N. starts doing things worthy of respect, then respect I'll give. That Oil For Food scandal, the routine condemnation of Israel and the awful slaughter going on in Rwanda while the world does nothing has kind of soured me on "respecting" the U.N. Dammit. Come to think of it, is genocide a form of population control? Because they're doing a bang-up job of it over in Africa. Environment? Try telling the Chi-Coms and the Ruskies not to pollute so damn much and see what response you get, dammit. The U.N. is a joke. It gives too much credit and respect to the worst sort of thugs and tyrants on this planet. The U.N., as a rule, won't go and do anything to ANYBODY who is capable of hitting back. For that job, it's been the U.S. that needs to step in and settle things, dammit.

I think that every single time the U.N. gets reported in the news, it should be accompanied by that song the aliens were playing in the Mos Eisly Cantina in the original Star Wars movie, dammit.

I think that every single time the U.N. gets reported in the news, it should be accompanied by that song the aliens were playing in the Mos Eisly Cantina in the original Star Wars movie, dammit.
make sure you watch the Rose Bowl Parade this year!:alien:

The UN will not be respected until the 5 permanent security members
United States,United Kingdom,France,Russia and China are removed from these positions of power and control.With the exception of the US,the other four live in delusions of past glory.

With the exception of the US, the UN is nothing but a buncha little girls who stand up on the chairs and scream when the rats some out.

The UN will not be respected until the 5 permanent security members United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are removed from these positions of power and control.

Absolutely right, it is like Al Capone's, or Lucky Luciano's Councils.

With the exception of the US, the UN is nothing but a buncha little girls who stand up on the chairs and scream when the rats come out.

Of course this is the opinion of someone from the US, but probably most other countries are like real men, who don't need a gun (to go killing animals or people, specially those from other countries who don't have equal guns to defend themselves), or a fuckin' pick up truck, or a stupid bike to feel that they are men.

(No gun, or no pick up truck, or no bike = no man)

With the exception of the US, the UN is nothing but a buncha little girls who stand up on the chairs and scream when the rats some out.
Correct,thats why it should be scrapped.

The UN will not be respected until the 5 permanent security members
United States,United Kingdom,France,Russia and China are removed from these positions of power and control.With the exception of the US,the other four live in delusions of past glory.

I'm going to agree on this one. :thumbs: Good post.

Gee, Leper, when the U.N. starts doing things worthy of respect, then respect I'll give. That Oil For Food scandal, the routine condemnation of Israel and the awful slaughter going on in Rwanda while the world does nothing has kind of soured me on "respecting" the U.N. Dammit. Come to think of it, is genocide a form of population control? Because they're doing a bang-up job of it over in Africa. Environment? Try telling the Chi-Coms and the Ruskies not to pollute so damn much and see what response you get, dammit. The U.N. is a joke. It gives too much credit and respect to the worst sort of thugs and tyrants on this planet. The U.N., as a rule, won't go and do anything to ANYBODY who is capable of hitting back. For that job, it's been the U.S. that needs to step in and settle things, dammit.

I think that every single time the U.N. gets reported in the news, it should be accompanied by that song the aliens were playing in the Mos Eisly Cantina in the original Star Wars movie, dammit.

I'm not denying the U.N. has many flaws and weaknesses. But this planet needs an international government as long as there are problems that encompass international territories, and the U.N. is the only thing resembling an international government out there....it just needs lots of time and nurturing to grow into an effective government.

The reason you scoff at it now is because the U.N. doesn't have much power. But it's power will grow if humanity continues to advance its civilization...it just needs more time to grow.


Yeah, I mean the UN is the stepping stone to the comming one-world govt lol.

No really, it is.

First its the EU, then the North American Union, then, East Aisa, Africa, South America, Middle East, all under the UN. Yippie.

Then maybe they will actually be able to do something worthwhile, but at the moment I consider the UN to be the apex of inaction.

I mean, you can only write so many resolutions, resolutions that dont resolute anything lol.

I'm not denying the U.N. has many flaws and weaknesses. But this planet needs an international government as long as there are problems that encompass international territories, and the U.N. is the only thing resembling an international government out there....it just needs lots of time and nurturing to grow into an effective government.

One way to look at that evolution is that we make the international body stronger after each World War. The League of Nations grew out of World War I, and had no enforcement mechanism. growing out of World War II, the United Nations tried to correct that with the Security Council, which has the right to call for economic sanctions, and even to call for troops to intervene (although they must be voluntarily supplied by member nations).
The five permanent members of the Security Council, who have the veto power, were chosen because they were the first five nations to have nuclear weapons.
One way of improving the ability of the U.N. to actually function as a world government would be to give it the powers of a government. The most important ones being the right of taxation, and the right to have it's own military. Perhaps this will happen someday, but probably not until after the next World War, when the memories of the horror overcome the reluctance of national governments to surrender sovreignty.