The UN is almost worthless!! 15 Brits were kidnapped by Iran and all they can do is express grace concern.




U.N. expresses 'grave concern' over Iran's seizure of Brits
Friday, March 30, 2007

By Edith M. Lederer, The Associated Press



UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council yesterday expressed "grave concern" over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute, but Iran's chief international negotiator suggested that the captives might be put on trial.

The council's statement wasn't as tough as Britain had hoped, though, and the divide seemed to deepen.

As the standoff drove world oil prices to new six-month highs, Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, reportedly sought to calm tensions by urging Iran to let a Turkish diplomat meet with the detainees and to free the lone woman among the Britons.

Tensions had seemed to be cooling a day earlier, but after Iran offended leaders by airing a video of the prisoners and Britain touched a nerve in Tehran by seeking U.N. help, positions hardened even more yesterday.

Iran retreated from a pledge by Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki that the female sailor, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, would be released soon. Mr. Mottaki then repeated that the matter could be resolved if Britain admitted that its sailors mistakenly entered Iranian territorial waters last Friday.

Britain's Foreign Office insisted again that the sailors and marines were seized in an Iraqi-controlled area while searching merchant ships under a U.N. mandate and said no admission of error would be made.

With Britain taking its case to the United Nations, Ali Larijani, the top Iranian negotiator in all of his country's foreign dealings, went on Iranian state radio to issue a warning. He said that if Britain continued its current approach, "this case may face a legal path" -- a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors and marines in court. "British leaders have miscalculated this issue," he said.

Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's military chief, blamed the backtracking on releasing the British woman on "wrong behavior" by her government. "The release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr said.

The Security Council's statement was a watered-down version of a stronger draft sought by Britain to "deplore" Iranian actions and urge the immediate release of the prisoners, primarily because Russia and South Africa opposed putting blame on the Tehran regime, diplomats said. Russia also objected to the council's adopting Britain's position that its sailors were operating in Iraqi waters when they were captured, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

With agreement required from all 15 members for a statement's wording, the parties spent more than four hours in private talks before emerging with wording softer than had been sought by Britain, which is also known as the United Kingdom.

"Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws," the statement said. "Members of the Security Council support calls including by the secretary-general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 U.K. personnel."

South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said negotiations were needed to ensure that the statement focused on the agreed facts.

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry expressed satisfaction with the statement and said he hoped that it would send "the right message" to the Iranian government that it should provide immediate access to the prisoners and bring their prompt release.

Late last night, Britain's Foreign Office told the AP of contacts with Iran over the detained Britons.

"The Iranian government has sent a formal note to the British Embassy," a spokeswoman said.

The spokeswoman, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with Foreign Office policy, refused to provide any other details.

Earlier, Iranian state television reported what was believed to be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first comment on the standoff, saying he accused Britain of using propaganda rather than trying to solve the matter quietly through diplomatic channels.

Had you been in charge of the UN, what would you have done?

The UN is almost worthless!! 15 Brits were kidnapped by Iran and all they can do is express grace concern.




U.N. expresses 'grave concern' over Iran's seizure of Brits
Friday, March 30, 2007

By Edith M. Lederer, The Associated Press



UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council yesterday expressed "grave concern" over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute, but Iran's chief international negotiator suggested that the captives might be put on trial.

The council's statement wasn't as tough as Britain had hoped, though, and the divide seemed to deepen.

As the standoff drove world oil prices to new six-month highs, Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, reportedly sought to calm tensions by urging Iran to let a Turkish diplomat meet with the detainees and to free the lone woman among the Britons.

Tensions had seemed to be cooling a day earlier, but after Iran offended leaders by airing a video of the prisoners and Britain touched a nerve in Tehran by seeking U.N. help, positions hardened even more yesterday.

Iran retreated from a pledge by Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki that the female sailor, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, would be released soon. Mr. Mottaki then repeated that the matter could be resolved if Britain admitted that its sailors mistakenly entered Iranian territorial waters last Friday.

Britain's Foreign Office insisted again that the sailors and marines were seized in an Iraqi-controlled area while searching merchant ships under a U.N. mandate and said no admission of error would be made.

With Britain taking its case to the United Nations, Ali Larijani, the top Iranian negotiator in all of his country's foreign dealings, went on Iranian state radio to issue a warning. He said that if Britain continued its current approach, "this case may face a legal path" -- a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors and marines in court. "British leaders have miscalculated this issue," he said.

Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's military chief, blamed the backtracking on releasing the British woman on "wrong behavior" by her government. "The release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr said.

The Security Council's statement was a watered-down version of a stronger draft sought by Britain to "deplore" Iranian actions and urge the immediate release of the prisoners, primarily because Russia and South Africa opposed putting blame on the Tehran regime, diplomats said. Russia also objected to the council's adopting Britain's position that its sailors were operating in Iraqi waters when they were captured, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

With agreement required from all 15 members for a statement's wording, the parties spent more than four hours in private talks before emerging with wording softer than had been sought by Britain, which is also known as the United Kingdom.

"Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws," the statement said. "Members of the Security Council support calls including by the secretary-general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 U.K. personnel."

South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said negotiations were needed to ensure that the statement focused on the agreed facts.

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry expressed satisfaction with the statement and said he hoped that it would send "the right message" to the Iranian government that it should provide immediate access to the prisoners and bring their prompt release.

Late last night, Britain's Foreign Office told the AP of contacts with Iran over the detained Britons.

"The Iranian government has sent a formal note to the British Embassy," a spokeswoman said.

The spokeswoman, who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with Foreign Office policy, refused to provide any other details.

Earlier, Iranian state television reported what was believed to be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first comment on the standoff, saying he accused Britain of using propaganda rather than trying to solve the matter quietly through diplomatic channels.

Their basically a huge cliche of cheatin card sharks.
They never even made good for the scandal in - Oil for Food -.
They're worse than worthless.
Their only in business to make illegitimate regimes seem somewhat
disfranchised.Their the biggest bully on the World stage of
organizations.Remember the UN delegate from Saddam's Iraq.?
Man,he shore nuff flew the coop,as soon as Iraqi Freedom started.

Their basically a huge cliche of cheatin card sharks.
They never even made good for the scandal in - Oil for Food -.
They're worse than worthless.
Their only in business to make illegitimate regimes seem somewhat
disfranchised.Their the biggest bully on the World stage of
organizations.Remember the UN delegate from Saddam's Iraq.?
Man,he shore nuff flew the coop,as soon as Iraqi Freedom started.

Ladies and gentlemen, George W. Bush has decided to join an online forum.

Had you been in charge of the UN, what would you have done?
Had I been in charge, I would've suitcase-nuked it.

The UN is almost worthless!! 15 Brits were kidnapped by Iran and all they can do is express grace concern.
What's "grace" concern, Sisko? ;)

Had I been in charge, I would've suitcase-nuked it.

Overly-diplomatic as usual Prae.

Had I been in charge, I would've suitcase-nuked it.
Had I been in charge I woulda nuked "Russia, China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Canada."

Vote Evak '08.

Wait..... "The UN is useless."

Duh?

But its the platform for a one-world goverment right? Part of the "vast right-wing conspircy," hmmmm?

As for what would I have done is I were the UN? I would have annexed Canada in the name of the US.

The United Nations was a noble experiment, and one that began with every good intention. But in the end, it has been a miserable failure.

The present-day UN is a toothless, morally-bankrupt, and flacid organization. And for all the good they may do behind the scenes in monitoring human rights violations and dispensing food and medicine worldwide, they have proven utterly worthless when it comes to controlling the world's dictators and criminals.

Hold meetings all you want, UN, and impose dozens and dozens of sanctions against Iran and North Korea. It'll do no good, and everyone knows that. (Saddam Hussein ignored the UN sanctions levied against him, and laughed in your face. It took an Allied presence with strength of conviction to bring his ass down, remember that.)

But its the platform for a one-world goverment right? Part of the "vast right-wing conspircy," hmmmm?

Oh come on, it is far more of a left-wing conspiracy than a right-wing. The right-wing conspiracy version wouldn't use diplomacy nearly as much, albeit the current UN does need to have more power for it to be effective at all.

Oh come on, it is far more of a left-wing conspiracy than a right-wing. The right-wing conspiracy version wouldn't use diplomacy nearly as much, albeit the current UN does need to have more power for it to be effective at all.

heh, good point.

leftist conspiracy, i knew it!

The United Nations was a noble experiment, and one that began with every good intention. But in the end, it has been a miserable failure.

The present-day UN is a toothless, morally-bankrupt, and flacid organization. And for all the good they may do behind the scenes in monitoring human rights violations and dispensing food and medicine worldwide, they have proven utterly worthless when it comes to controlling the world's dictators and criminals.

Hold meetings all you want, UN, and impose dozens and dozens of sanctions against Iraq and North Korea. It'll do no good, and everyone knows that. (Saddam Hussein ignored the UN sanctions levied against him, and laughed in your face. It took an Allied presence with strength of conviction to bring his ass down, remember that.)
I didn't have the strength to write that. Well put, as usual, Sparky.

Another issue, amongst many, that I have with the UN involves what's happening right now with the British Naval hostages in Iran -

The English government and Washington are widely regarded as aggressive defenders of their interests in the face of Islamist aggression, but the present Iranian hostage crisis shows, again, how these would-be defenders of our lives and freedoms are pathetically timid while our enemy is shameless and confident.

Iran is a leading world sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism and has long been waging a terrorist proxy war against the West, through groups such as Hezbollah. In Iraq, Iran's proxies have been slaughtering U.S. and British troops, and while Iran initiates all of this aggression *to say nothing of its nuclear weapons program* with confidence that it has an Allah-given right to murder. No surprise, then, that when 15 British naval personnel came near Iranian waters, Teheran took them hostage, and unabashedly demanded an apology from Britain, its victim.

What has been the British and American response to Iran's outrage? What has the West done in the face of such a confidently evil regime??? Did Britain give Iran an ultimatum backed by the threat of force? Far from it. With Washington's endorsement, London meekly protested, renounced using force to free its troops, and solemnly vowed to pursue "patient diplomacy". It has brought up the issue at the international sewer, otherwise known as the United Nations, but since the U.N. is packed with Iranian allies and sympathizers, even a futile statement issued by the UN "deploring Iran's actions" is unlikely to happen.

What underlies this unconscionably weak response? Fundamentally, it's the corrupt moral principle that dominates the West - the principle that regards selflessness as a virtue and self-assertion in pursuit, and defense, of one's interests as immoral. To punish Iran militarily for its many acts of war would be wrong, it would flout the will of the 'international community'...it would, on this premise, be "selfish", eh? It's this premise that inhibits, and thus disarms, the West in the face of the enemy, and, as a result, spurs Iran's power.

While the British may hope that their timid, deferential approach will avoid inflaming the crisis and antagonizing Iran, they are accomplishing the opposite. The spectacle of Western nations bowing in submission is an encouragement to Iran and Islamic totalitarians worldwide.

Iran and other evil regimes grow stronger and more threatening precisely because the morally good nations, who should defeat Iran's regime, are cowardly, apologetic, and meek.

That's what the UN does for the world....

Sorry, Spark - I had to one-up ya. :)

What has been the British and American response to Iran's outrage? What has the West done in the face of such a confidently evil regime??? Did Britain give Iran an ultimatum backed by the threat of force?

What sort of realistic threat would you suggest the English make?

Admittedly this action on Iran's part could be considered an act of war, but do you recommend a declaration of war by Britain over this incident? How would you prosecute a war with Iran?

What sort of realistic threat would you suggest the English make?

Admittedly this action on Iran's part could be considered an act of war, but do you recommend a declaration of war by Britain over this incident? How would you prosecute a war with Iran?
naval blockade...wait-it wouldn't even take that if they could get the support of it's former colony, India, Iran's only source of refined fuel:thumbs:

The UN is Worthless...
The UN is almost worthless!!.



Flip Flopper... :lolhit:

What sort of realistic threat would you suggest the English make?

Admittedly this action on Iran's part could be considered an act of war, but do you recommend a declaration of war by Britain over this incident? How would you prosecute a war with Iran?

In the least,the Brits oughta capture and pull the same shit with
15 Mullahs.And don't let em eat cake,either.You'd see an immediate
change.Kinda like when Mooky Al-sadr fled Iraq to Tehran,after
learning about a surge.
Call these camel-breath Morons BLUFF.Big Time.

I don't prevent any matter while neither developing nuclear weapon nor helping terrorism nor abusing people nor launching for war nor spreading drug.

(´･ω･`)< Please don't ask me too many 'nor.'


UN is just like well-balanced diet. It's worthless when catching cold, but it makes resistance to catch cold.

naval blockade...wait-it wouldn't even take that if they could get the support of it's former colony, India, Iran's only source of refined fuel:thumbs:

A naval blockade isn't a horrible idea, but it is an escalation. I wonder what would happen if they took a shot at one of our warships and got lucky. Things could get even messier than they already are.

I guess nobody could treat Iran...

The uniquely American fondness for dissing the UN is quite extraordinary. It is the height of hypocrisy, for no country has had its interests served better by the UN than the United States.

The arrogance of it is astounding. Remember America sneering over the rights of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea to use their rotations on the Security Council to pass judgment about Iraq? (No such sneering when senators from the microscopic states of Rhode Island or Delaware threaten to block a piece of legislation on Capitol Hill.) As Dag Hammarskjold famously said, -- "The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell".

If wanting keeping influence to Iran by army, we need more forces.
But US doesn't have it.

Oh come on, it is far more of a left-wing conspiracy than a right-wing. The right-wing conspiracy version wouldn't use diplomacy nearly as much, albeit the current UN does need to have more power for it to be effective at all. Why is it always left v right? Has it ever occured to you that almost every single societal conflict is upper class vs lower class?

They need to show some teeth.

Give them 24 hours. On hour 25 start bombing. Then be quiet and listen.

See if they want to talk after that.


What sort of realistic threat would you suggest the English make?

Admittedly this action on Iran's part could be considered an act of war, but do you recommend a declaration of war by Britain over this incident? How would you prosecute a war with Iran?

A naval blockade isn't a horrible idea, but it is an escalation. I wonder what would happen if they took a shot at one of our warships and got lucky. Things could get even messier than they already are.
they could take a shot now-Iran's govenment has never been known for being rational.

In the least,the Brits oughta capture and pull the same shit with
15 Mullahs.

Wow.

""Hey, iffin they capture summa are guys, we'll pull a raid an git summa theirs!""

A fucking nine year old could come up with a more mature and constructive countermeasure.

Wow.

""Hey, iffin they capture summa are guys, we'll pull a raid an git summa theirs!""

A fucking nine year old could come up with a more mature and constructive countermeasure.


How's about a great, gaping, smoking, crater where downtown Teheran used to be? Think that might get their attention that Britan is upset about their troops being confined? Is Iran itching for a fight? Do they think they've got something special that's not been tried before? Face it - poking at the U.S., especially from that mid-east direction - is like poking at a coiled & cornered rattlesnake. The planning folks in NATO, Britan, the U.S. and all have most likely approved a variety of responses to Iran, from small teams of highly trained professionals to full scale invasion on 3 fronts and everything in-between. Maybe it'll only take 2 or 3 months of continual bombing to get their attention.

Why is it always left v right? Has it ever occured to you that almost every single societal conflict is upper class vs lower class?

Because the upper class controls the media and they have a vested interest in keeping the conflict focused on vague conceptual terms instead of on the harsh economic realities.

How's about a great, gaping, smoking, crater where downtown Teheran used to be? Think that might get their attention .........

Absolutely. It would serve to do more than simply "get their attention".

Killing a few hundred thousand completely innocent people because 15 Brits were taken hostage would further cement in the mind of the rest of the planet what sort of callous, cold-blooded bastards those in the West are.

...poking at the U.S., especially from that mid-east direction - is like poking at a coiled & cornered rattlesnake....

It's like poking at the world's most greedy and murderous bully.......and the largest exporter of State terrorism on the planet.

Absolutely. It would serve to do more than simply "get their attention".

Killing a few hundred thousand completely innocent people because 15 Brits were taken hostage would further cement in the mind of the rest of the planet what sort of callous, cold-blooded bastards those in the West are.
We're cold-blooded because we reacted to their overt act of war when they took 15 of our boys (or close enough) hostage???? Puhleeze, FT. :rolleyes: Killing a "few" hundred thousand isn't anywhere near enough. Their "elected" mouthpiece for the ayatollah is responsible for their deaths, not us. They can deal with the repercussions. Who's fucking dumb enough to run up to a Kodiak and slap it in the face anyway? It'll be a proud day for America AND England when Teheran is no more. Of course, I wouldn't be averse to using chemical weapons, but I guess that kind of shit isn't very "PC" nowadays. Nevertheless, we'll make sure to give them a quick and painless death via a few high tonnage carpet bombs. Sink one of our carriers, will you? Fine - we'll keep heaven packed with fresh souls...

Millions of them if necessary.

Your choice, Amadinejad.
It's like poking at the world's most greedy and murderous bully.......and the largest exporter of State terrorism on the planet.
We're not the ones taking hostages. We're not inciting them in anyway, whatsoever. Just whose side are you on anyway??? Oh yeah - that's a stupid question, I know....

A naval blockade isn't a horrible idea, but it is an escalation. I wonder what would happen if they took a shot at one of our warships and got lucky. Things could get even messier than they already are.
See above.

We're not the ones taking hostages. hostages? So if Iranian soilders were found ina disputed boundry between the US and Cuba we wouldn't capture them and demand an explaination?

There is no "disputed" boundary between the US and Cuba. Maritime boundaries are usually (read; 99% of the time, that is) very clear. All the Iranians are doing is committing suicide. The only thing staving off their inevitable destruction is the UN with the help of other assorted peacenik pencil-dicks living here and abroad.

Love the avatar, BTW...