Hey, Eric5273, any comments on the latest report from the IAE agency regarding its finding that Iran is in defiance of the U.N. Security Council?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12526794/

They are indeed in defiance of the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council has demanded that they stop uranium enrichment. However, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty states that all countries can pursue this technology if used for peaceful purposes. So as is very often the case, the UN Security Council members are ignoring the treaty that they are all a signature to.

But there are many countries in defiance of the UN Security Council. There is one country that has been in defiance of the UN Security Council for 38 years. Look up UN Security Council Resolution #242.

What do you think the UN should do about that one? Should they take action against the country that has been in defiance for 38 years before they do so against the country that has been in defiance for just a few hours? Or should they selectively ignore certain cases of defiance and cherry pick which ones they respond to?

The US and Palestinians have both been at odds with Isreal over 242 since its inception in 1967. However I think everyone involved knows that the Jews and Arabs have been fighting over this land since the days of Solomon and that it would be foolhardy for anyone to believe that any UN resoultion would be successful in solving these long standing issues. At least Israel has made positive moves in recent times toward satisfying 242 such as the complete pull out of the Gaza strip last year. I don't think anyone ever expected to see them do that. In spite of this, Palestine is still being run by the terrorist group Hamas and nothing changes for Isreal having to put up with an islamic extremist regime as a neighbor. Who suffers because of this never ending struggle? Israel and Palestine. Their war does not threaten the safety of most of the world.Iran however is a different story. If their plans were really for a "peaceful" nuclear program then I might buy your arguement that they are not in violation of the UN Security Council. Statements made in the past by their own leaders leave no doubt as to what their real intentions are. Iran is a hostile nation. Especially hostile to interests of the United States and Israel. By responding to this new clear and present danger does not constitute "cherry picking". The United States should and will defend itself against any threat to its well being even if it means taking preemptive action. You seem to be an intelligent guy. You know as well as anyone else that Iran does not have "peaceful" civilian objectives planned with regard to its nuclear enrichment program. Stop defending them for the sake of making a good argument. What they are doing now is indefensible.

0.1% of the US GDP amounts to a number that is many times larger than what all of the other countries gave cumulitively.

What scares me is that when the president gives speeches accusing these little third world countries of being the biggest threat to the world and to America, he reminds me of someone else....

-----
By the most brutal methods of terrorism, a regime sought to maintain an existence that was condemned by the overwhelming majority of its people...I have tried to persuade the responsible authorities that it is impossible for a great nation, because it is unworthy of it, to stand by and watch millions belonging to a great, an ancient civilized people be denied rights by their government... I have endeavoured to find some way to alleviate a tragic fate. One agreement was signed only to be broken. I then tried a second time to bring about an understanding. A few weeks later, we were forced to the conclusion that the government [of Austria] had no intention of carrying out this agreement in the spirit that had inspired it, but in order to create an excuse. I have determined, therefore, to place the help of our country at the service of these millions. Since this morning, our soldiers are on the march across all of Austria's frontiers."
-----
We have no interest in oppressing other people. We are not moved by hatred against any other nation. We bear no grudge. I know how grave a thing war is. I wanted to spare our people such an evil. It is not so much the country [of Czechoslovakia]; it is rather its leader [Dr. Edward Benes]. He has led a reign of terror. He has hurled countless people into the profoundest misery. Through his continuous terrorism, he has succeeded in reducing millions of his people to silence. The Czech maintenance of a tremendous military arsenal can only be regarded as a focus of danger. We have displayed a truly unexampled patience, but I am no longer willing to remain inactive while this madman ill-treats millions of human beings."
-----
The wave of appalling terrorism against the [minority] inhabitants of Poland, and the atrocities that have been taking place in that country are terrible for the victims, but intolerable for a Great Power which has been expected to remain a passive onlooker. We will not continue to tolerate the persecution of the minority, the killing of many, and their forcible removal under the most cruel conditions. I see no way by which I can induce the government of Poland to adopt a peaceful solution. But I should despair of any honourable future for my own people if we were not, in one way or another, to solve this question."
-----

Care to guess who the speaker was?



Something tells me that if we were having this discussion 4 years ago about Iraq, you would have said the same thing.

Not even close. France, UK, and the Netherlands gave more combined than the United States. And the populations of those 3 countries combined is less than half of the population of the US. The combined GNP of those 3 countries is about one third of the GNP of the United States.

Compare me to whoever you want to. Still does not change the fact that Iran is a nation with an extreme islamic fundamentalist government which practices radical unstable doctrine. This country is seeking to become a nuclear power. In the best interests of ourselves and everyone else they will have to be dealt with. Just like with Iraq people like you will go the distance kicking and screaming about how wrong it is, but inevitably you and your offspring will live in a better, and safer world as a result. Oh.....and you are correct. I would have supported removing Hussein 4 years ago. Its something that should have been done during Gulf war I.

Eric, I myself as you am an american Jew, and stand by Israel. all points and facts and history aside and I was personally thrilled sadam got outsted, Iran might not be a "threat" today but tomorrow it can and will be, lets put it this way even IF they dont use it they will sell it to those who will such as say osama aladin and the magic carpet, not to say that there isnt plenty of this stuff on the black market but i am sure they have their hands in aladins pockets. so for the sake of Israel and the United States i think its best to remove them

granted i am not necessarily for war because i dont want to see our guys dying for someone else's cause but i also dont want the guy and girls of the IDF (israeli defence forces) having to dye because of hamas and whatever it is they use because at the end of the day they want Jews gone and they want Americans gone and being both its a simple mathematical equation get to them before they get to you