Bush embraces sanctions on Iran

[Ironslave]

This is getting just scary. If the internet didn't exist, they'd have been in there LONG ago.

Associated Press Writer

KRANJ, Slovenia (AP) - President Bush and European allies on Tuesday threatened tougher sanctions to squeeze Iran's finances and derail its potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Bush said the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran would endanger world peace.

``They can either face isolation, or they can have better relations with all of us,'' Bush said of Iran's leaders while capping his final European Union-U.S. summit.

The president and EU leaders embraced new financial sanctions against Iran unless it verifiably suspends its nuclear enrichment. They said Iran must fully disclose any nuclear weapons work and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that work.

Iran is also under fire for defying three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions and continuing to enrich uranium - which can generate both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for the core of nuclear warheads. Iran insists that it has only civilian uses in mind for its nuclear program.

The president flatly said Iran ``can't be trusted with enrichment.''

``A group of countries can send a clear message to the Iranians,'' Bush said. ``And that is: we're going to continue to isolate you, we'll continue to work on sanctions, we'll find new sanctions if need be if you continue to deny the just demands of a free world.''

Speaking to reporters on the lush, sun-splashed lawn near Brdo Castle, Bush also fielded questions on economic woes at home and climate change.

Bush essentially rejected the idea of possible government intervention to prop up the value of the U.S. dollar. He said he believed in a strong-dollar policy, but that world economies will end up setting the value of the dollar.

On global warming, Bush declared, ``I think we can actually get an agreement on global climate change during my presidency,'' which ends on Jan. 20, 2009.

He said no global warming agreement can be effective without China and India. The United States has been at odds with allies about whether any climate strategy should include mandatory emission reductions, among other sticking points.

Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa, the president of the European Council, said European members and the United States might have different approaches to some of its common challenges. He said a global agreement without the developing countries would be a short-term solution.

But he added ``those who are the most developed have to take the leading role.''

The summit, consisting of about three hours of meetings and a working lunch, took place in a modern glass building on the vast Brdo grounds in the shadow of Slovenia's jagged mountain peaks. The president had a long list of issues to cover with his European counterparts, but Iran seemed to dominate.

Six world powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britian, Germany and France - are developing a package of fresh penalties and incentives aimed at reining in Tehran's alleged atomic ambitions. The EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, plans to visit Iranian leaders soon in Tehran to appeal to them to accept negotiations over the nuclear standoff.

Bush and the heads of the EU, a political and economic coalition of 27 countries that works to promote security and commerce across the continent, called on Tehran to stop its support for terrorist organizations destabilizing the Mideast. The statement said the United States and the EU would work to ensure that ``Iranian banks cannot abuse the international banking system to support proliferation and terrorism.''

It was unclear whether the freshly stated concern over Iranian banks meant that Europeans had signed on for the kind of tough measures the U.S. favors, such as banning business with Iranian banks, or merely represented a repeat of previous calls for closer monitoring of dealings with them.

The Bush administration has warned that Iran is using an array of deceptive practices to hide involvement in nuclear proliferation and terrorist activities.

Iran insists that it has only civilian uses in mind for its nuclear program. Yet it is under fire for defying three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions and continuing to enrich uranium, which can generate both nuclear fuel and the fissile material for the core of nuclear warheads. Iran has also stonewalled attempts by the IAEA to delve into allegations that several Iranian projects appear to represent different components of a nuclear weapons program.

``A mutually satisfactory, negotiated solution remains open to Iran,'' the statement said. But the leaders also said that they would fully implement U.N. sanctions against Iran and were ``ready to supplement those sanctions with additional measures.''

Bush warned that if Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon, ``the free world is going to say why didn't we do something about it at the time? ... Now's the time for there to be strong diplomacy.''

Iran's central bank, also known as Bank Markazi, is involved in these deceptive acts, according to the U.S. government. The White House has been looking at new steps to cut off more Iranian banks from the international financial system and has been seeking backing from European allies.

Tensions over Iran are only rising. An Israeli Cabinet minister warned Friday that Israel will attack Iran if it doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert distanced himself on Sunday from the statements but didn't explicitly reject them.

Verbal threats and political tensions have increased between Iran and Israel after Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in 2005 that Israel should be ``wiped off the map.''

``First of all if, if you were living in Israel you'd be a little nervous, too,'' Bush said. ``If a leader in your neighborhood announced that they, he'd like to destroy you. And one sure way of achieving that means it through the development of a nuclear weapon. Therefore, now is the time for all of us to work together to stop them.''

Bush Saudi Arabia's call for a summit between oil producing countries and consumer states to discuss soaring energy prices was ``an interesting idea.''

The leaders also called for the United Nations to send a team to Zimbabwe to monitor the human rights situation ahead of the second round of presidential elections on June 27. And they urged all sides to refrain from further violence over Tibet.

Bush was to fly to Berlin later Tuesday for a social dinner with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. During his weeklong stay in Europe, he also is going to Italy, France, London and Belfast.

Associated Press Writers Snjezana Vukic and William Kole in Kranj, Slovenia, contributed to this report.

 

[Duality]

do you think what the US and other powers are doing is wrong IS? i'm reading this and i see nothing wrong with what the other countries are doing to this isolated hostile shithole of a country.

 

[Ironslave]

do you think what the US and other powers are doing is wrong IS? i'm reading this and i see nothing wrong with what the other countries are doing to this isolated hostile shithole of a country.

That came very close to a neg rep.


You're going to have to justify your thinking, or lack thereof, on this topic.

 

[Duality]

we'll the vibe i got from the article was that the united states as well as the other major countries listed, are done with iran and it's complete disregard for the UN and countinuing to enrich uranium. i agree with bush when he says we need to halt iran before it ever manufactures one of these weapons. now unless this is all a cover like iraq was just to invade and occupy the country, then why is this so bad? that's a serious question to btw, that's just what i got from the article, why do you say it is so wrong?

 

[Ironslave]

we'll the vibe i got from the article was that the united states as well as the other major countries listed, are done with iran and it's complete disregard for the UN and countinuing to enrich uranium. i agree with bush when he says we need to halt iran before it ever manufactures one of these weapons. now unless this is all a cover like iraq was just to invade and occupy the country, then why is this so bad? that's a serious question to btw, that's just what i got from the article, why do you say it is so wrong?

Why can America enrich uranium but Iran can't? America has done FAR more harm on a global scale than Iran ever could.

Worry about Iran getting a weapon? Give me a break. Ever hear the expression "dont tug on Superman's cape"? Iran would have a death wish to ever attack America.

 

[Braaq]

Why can America enrich uranium but Iran can't? America has done FAR more harm on a global scale than Iran ever could.

Worry about Iran getting a weapon? Give me a break. Ever hear the expression "dont tug on Superman's cape"? Iran would have a death wish to ever attack America.

I know , we think we can be the decider's on whether another country can develop nuclear energy or even weapons. Now I do agree with the world making North Korea stop it's nuclear ambitions. We know they were developing weapons and that madman will definitely use them, or sell them to others. Bad news for everyone

 

[Duality]

Originally posted by Ironslave
Why can America enrich uranium but Iran can't? America has done FAR more harm on a global scale than Iran ever could.

Worry about Iran getting a weapon? Give me a break. Ever hear the expression "dont tug on Superman's cape"? Iran would have a death wish to ever attack America.

wow i thought you were gonna say something enlightning or something, but really? this isn't a matter of what is and isn't fair. if all the world's super powers fear that this country will act out if they get ahold of a nuclear weapon, i'm inclined to support them. your making this out to be just the US, but according to this article 5 other very powerful countries are in support of this. Iran is OBVIOUSLY a terrorist supporting country. ANY COUNTRY that has a leader who says they'd like to see israel "wiped off the map" needs to be held in check and no, they should not be allowed to enrich uranium. and these people obviously don't fear death, i doubt iran would attack a given country if they got ahold of a nuclear weapon, they would likely supply it to a terrorist orginazation that would be more than happy to use it on the US and die in the process.

 

[Ironslave]

Sigh...

all this time here, and you haven't learned anything about foreign policy? Yes, there are religious battles between Iran and Israel, but Israel has committed TONS of injustices to Palestine, Lebanon, Iran , but somehow they always get a pass.

No country supports terrorism more than America.

 

[Tech]

I support Iran if they want to eradicate Israel.

hell, if I didn't live in America, I'd probably support them if they wanted to eradicate the US.


The US government is the biggest terrorist group in the world. They're responsible for killing more innocent civilians than all the middle-eastern "terrorist" groups combined.

:wutyousay:

although, I just wish everyone could mind their own business and get along.

 

[Skeptic]

Sigh...

all this time here, and you haven't learned anything about foreign policy? Yes, there are religious battles between Iran and Israel, but Israel has committed TONS of injustices to Palestine, Lebanon, Iran , but somehow they always get a pass.

No country supports terrorism more than America.

Werd.

 

[Braaq]

Sigh...

all this time here, and you haven't learned anything about foreign policy? Yes, there are religious battles between Iran and Israel, but Israel has committed TONS of injustices to Palestine, Lebanon, Iran , but somehow they always get a pass.

No country supports terrorism more than America.

I have studied the history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, trust me, both sides have done their fair share of fucked up things.

 

[Ironslave]

I have studied the history of the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, trust me, both sides have done their fair share of fucked up things.

exactly.

 

[Braaq]

exactly.

IMO one of the major causes of the problem are the surrounding Arab countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria that refuse to absorb the Palestinian refugees. They keep them in camps to draw attention to the "problems" caused by the creation of Israel, and at the same time keeping the hate and resentment brewing in these camps creating terrorist groups against Israel. If they absorbed the refugees in their population this would not be as big of a problem as it currently is. Also, Israel has tried several attempts at peace and every time a Palestinian terrorist faction will attack Israel. Israel then attacks ten fold on the camp or country harboring the attackers, so this is where Israel makes the mistake. All in all, the whole situation is really messed up and pointing the finger at Israel is not warranted.

 

[Bulkboy]

i see no problem with isolating Iran whatsoever. its not even slightly relevant to argue that: well since the US have nuclear weapons, then iran should have them too. we are talking about an extreme regime, led by a man who have publicly said that he has the destruction of israel as the highest priority. the danger is not that iran would necessarily carry out a nuclear attack against the US or israel, as that would obviously lead to their own destruction, its rather the danger of them giving a weapon to a terrorist organization and making them do their dirty work. on top of that comes the increased unstability and danger in the already chaotic middle east that nuclear weapons for iran would lead too.

 

[Skeptic]

well since the US have nuclear weapons, then iran should have them too

pretty sure thats not what they meant.... they meant, why should the USA be ALLOWED nuclear capability if they are stopping other countries.

 

[Duality]

i see no problem with isolating Iran whatsoever. its not even slightly relevant to argue that: well since the US have nuclear weapons, then iran should have them too. we are talking about an extreme regime, led by a man who have publicly said that he has the destruction of israel as the highest priority. the danger is not that iran would necessarily carry out a nuclear attack against the US or israel, as that would obviously lead to their own destruction, its rather the danger of them giving a weapon to a terrorist organization and making them do their dirty work. on top of that comes the increased unstability and danger in the already chaotic middle east that nuclear weapons for iran would lead too.

dude you always do a great job elaborating your point. this is exactly what i was saying. i agree with you whole heartedly.

IS is unfarily putting the blame of these sanctions on the US, correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the article say that china, russia, germany, france, and britain ALL support this, why is the US getting all of your blame? you think all these countries are wrong in their combined effort to deny iran, a KNOWN terrorist supporting regime a nuclear weapon? i sure don't.

 

[Braaq]

pretty sure thats not what they meant.... they meant, why should the USA be ALLOWED nuclear capability if they are stopping other countries.

I guess we rule the world?? .... or so we think

 

[Bulkboy]

pretty sure thats not what they meant.... they meant, why should the USA be ALLOWED nuclear capability if they are stopping other countries.

still not very relevant, the US have 25000 nuclear weapons, so does russia, a heritage from the cold war. obviously theyre not going away by themselves, ever so much i wish they did. the thing is that allowing more countries to obtain these weapons, and especially countries like iran, who are capable of actually giving them to terrorists and threaten peace and stability is irresponsible.

 

[Ironslave]

i see no problem with isolating Iran whatsoever. its not even slightly relevant to argue that: well since the US have nuclear weapons, then iran should have them too. we are talking about an extreme regime, led by a man who have publicly said that he has the destruction of israel as the highest priority. the danger is not that iran would necessarily carry out a nuclear attack against the US or israel, as that would obviously lead to their own destruction, its rather the danger of them giving a weapon to a terrorist organization and making them do their dirty work. on top of that comes the increased unstability and danger in the already chaotic middle east that nuclear weapons for iran would lead too.

Sigh. Can you please learn something other than what your TV or internet homepage news updates tell you?

It's not relevant in isolating a country? Give me a fucking break, what is that going to accomplish? What makes them so "extreme"? For one, the President of Iran who said that Israel should be "whipped off the map" is far far from being the leader of the country, this is ignorance. Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has infinite times more power in Iran than the President of the country does.

Now, let's analyze some things that Khamenei has said.

In 2005 Khamenei responded to President Ahmadinejad's alleged remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map" by saying that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country." Moreover Khamenei's main advisor in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.

So lets see... he wants peace, and his "right hand man" has spoked against the human atrocities of the holocaust.

At this point, you can probably tell that this post is going to pretty well refute all the nonsense you always talk about.

Khamenei has called human rights a fundamental principle underlying Islamic teachings, that precedes western concern for human rights by many centuries. Human Rights in Islam include the rights to live, to be free, to benefit from justice and to welfare. He has attacked Western powers who have criticized the rights record of the Islamic Republic for hypocrisy by economically oppressing people in Third World countries and supporting despots and dictators

Anything wrong or inaccurate in this notion? None whatsoever.

America speaks of war in order to expand its domination and influence in the world. This is arrogance. Any nation and any government that is intimidated with this literature and this way of treatment and surrenders to it, is digging its own grave and acting against itself.

In response to Western complaints of human rights abuses in Iran he has stated that the American administration has committed many crimes and is therefore not fit to judge the Islamic Republic

Still accurate.

The longer they [the US] stay [in Iraq], the worse it will become. This region does not tolerate occupation. They say [they] want to turn the Middle East into a region of democracy. This is a shameless lie. They are opposed to democracy. They know that if they turn to the people's votes in Iraq at this very moment, the decisive majority of the people will take a decision, will take the step, will elect those people who would not allow the Americans to stay in Iraq for a single day. (Crowd chants Allahu Akhbar or God is greatest)

In Afghanistan, in the poor and wronged country of Afghanistan, they [the US] entered the arena under the guise of combating a group or even a few individuals. They did not get their hands on those individuals, but they massacred many innocent people, bombarded them, and killed them. They are violent, but this imposition of violence or expression of violence cannot help America achieve its aims and succeed.

Still completely, 100% correct.

4. The Supreme Leader believes in an American—Zionist plan to take over the Muslim world from the Euphrates River in Iraq to the Nile River in Egypt. He believes Sharon and Bush met to discuss this scheme.

According to reports, at the meeting between the prime minister of the Zionist regime and the American president last week the American president present him with a map of Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. What does that mean? How can Islamic countries believe their words? How can they regard America as an arbitrator in the Palestinian issue? That aggressive, bullying, usurping and wrong slogan — from the Nile to the Euphrates — was the cursed and condemned slogan of the Zionists. Recently they have denied it, saying: No, that is a lie, we have no such intentions. Now these American warmongers are advocating it. That has exposed them to the Muslim world.

Still no problems. Now, for the good stuff, his stance towards Israel.

Brothers and sisters, today the Palestinian people's struggle has fallen into place; it revolves around the axis around which the hope of victory lies. In other words, the nation has come onto the stage. Israel is a contrived regime. It is an illegal regime. It is a usurper regime. They have taken a country from its people by force, through injustice and with ploys. Hence, any kind of negotiations that is based on the acknowledgement of this regime is an illegitimate negotiation and it is a negotiation that will not endure.

In order to gain mastery over Palestine, arrogance has to fight Islam and fighting Islam means fighting the world of Islam. This fight will not lead anywhere. The solution to the problem of Palestine does not consist of these imposed, fraudulent solutions. The solution to the problem of Palestine is for the true people of Palestine — not usurper, occupying immigrants — the true people of Palestine, whether the ones who remain inside Palestine or the ones who are outside Palestine, must determine their own country's ruling system. This is the only solution . . . .

The Zionists imagine that they have managed to gain mastery over Palestine and that Palestine is theirs forever. No, this is not true. The destiny of Palestine is that the country of Palestine will definitely become Palestinian one day.

So basically, he wants Israel to gtfo of illegally occupying Palestine... and what is the problem with this?

His response to foreign relations with America?

He has declared that it is "clear that conflict and confrontation between" Islamic Republic of Iran and the U.S. "is something natural and unavoidable" since the United States "is trying to establish a global dictatorship and further its own interests by dominating other nations and trampling on their rights." However, while "cutting ties with America is among our basic policies," and "any relations would provide the possibility to the Americans to infiltrate Iran and would pave the way for their intelligence and spy agents," Khamenei holds the door open to relations with the U.S. at some future date, saying "we have never said that the relations will remain severed forever. Undoubtedly, the day the relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation I will be the first one to approve of that."

So to summarize... America is a global imperialist bully, yet, he's willing to have diplomatic relations with them.... but America isn't prepared to do the same?

On September 14, 2007, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (on 1st Friday prayer of Ramadan) predicted that George Bush and American officials will one day be tried in an international criminal court to be held "accountable" for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He has also blamed the United States for "blind terrorism" after its invasion of Iraq. He asserts that the United States is the main cause of insecurity in Iraq.

While he's wrong that the Bush govt will ever be tried for its crimes, they damn well should be. He's also completely right about America being the main cause for Iraq instability.

Here's a REALLY good one.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khamenei condemned the act and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities all over the world, whether in the United States, Palestine, the Balkans, or elsewhere. He is quoted as saying, "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be"

Wow, this man sounds like such a crazed, evil terrorist who wants to do bad things to good people just for shits and giggle

I could go on, but I've made my point, and I'm getting bored refuting your mainstream media sound byte nonsense, so I'll leave it at this.

Finally, the major point you NEED to understand is this. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS THE BIGGEST SUPPORTER OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD. You talk about Iran giving its weapons to "terrorists", which is such a crock of shit. If the bully's of the world, America and its trusty sidekick Israel, would stop fucking around in other nation's affairs for their own imperialism, what would be the incentive to attack? If you think any country, or terrorist group, could ever come close to the human atrocities that America & Israel have committed over the years, you are completely 100% wrong.

 

[Skeptic]

still not very relevant, the US have 25000 nuclear weapons, so does russia, a heritage from the cold war. obviously theyre not going away by themselves, ever so much i wish they did. the thing is that allowing more countries to obtain these weapons, and especially countries like iran, who are capable of actually giving them to terrorists and threaten peace and stability is irresponsible.

lol... it is relevant... but nobody has the power to stop america or russia from having their nuclear weapons are they. And besides, i highly doubt any terrorist organisation is stupid enough to launch a nuclear strike on any of the powerful countries or their allies