Should the U.N. Impose Sanctions on Iran?
A personal historic moment has surfaced today. I agree with a political statement that Bush has made! In fact, in my personal opinion, Bush has not taken his position on the Iran's desire to continue with its nuclear program in defiance of it's President's stance on cooperation, far enough. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies that his country has nuclear weapons, and has been clear that he will not comply with U.N. inspection laws regarding the inspection. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were united against an Iranian nuclear program which Bush called, "a grave threat to the security of the world." Germany, in an historic move, showed its warming of ties with the United States, and agreed that such a standoff by Iran is troublesome, but Bush says it is too early to speak about sanctions yet. Let us not forget that the Bush family is saturated in oil, and Iran possesses about 10 percent of that resource in the world.
Why should Iran not be refrerred to the UN Security Council for a vote imposing sanctions? What sanctions should be sought? To me, sanctions in the form of freezing assets, imposing a travel ban, and breaking diplomatic relations with Iran will send a clear and strong message that inspection compliance is necessary in accordance with the policy of the U.N.
Personally, I see the Iranian President as an irrationally defiant man, ruling in a country where the availability of resources can be exchanged and negotiated for a hateful agenda. There is no question that this man is a Jew hater. He has made statements concluding that Israel should be wiped off the map, that the Holocaust never occurred, that the Jews in Israel should leave the middle east and move to Europe, and that Sharon deserves to be ill and in critical condition. These statements, coupled with his desire to refrain from inspections poses a clear and present danger to the world. Iran is a country of more than 40 million people, and squeezing the economy of a country that holds about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves has staggering consequences.
Do you think that the U.N. should impose sanctions on Iran for failing to comply with inspections regarding nuclear weapons? What, if any additional action should or should not be taken?
Thank you for your minds.
Why should Iran not be refrerred to the UN Security Council for a vote imposing sanctions? What sanctions should be sought? To me, sanctions in the form of freezing assets, imposing a travel ban, and breaking diplomatic relations with Iran will send a clear and strong message that inspection compliance is necessary in accordance with the policy of the U.N.
Personally, I see the Iranian President as an irrationally defiant man, ruling in a country where the availability of resources can be exchanged and negotiated for a hateful agenda. There is no question that this man is a Jew hater. He has made statements concluding that Israel should be wiped off the map, that the Holocaust never occurred, that the Jews in Israel should leave the middle east and move to Europe, and that Sharon deserves to be ill and in critical condition. These statements, coupled with his desire to refrain from inspections poses a clear and present danger to the world. Iran is a country of more than 40 million people, and squeezing the economy of a country that holds about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves has staggering consequences.
Do you think that the U.N. should impose sanctions on Iran for failing to comply with inspections regarding nuclear weapons? What, if any additional action should or should not be taken?
Thank you for your minds.
16 Comments:
will this be another 12 years of sanctions, coddling, and basically not really having any penalty for the breaking of sanctions?
Everyone knows the UN is useless in this capacity... Iran will defy anything the UN says
sanctions are a joke without any power behind them, unfortunately the UN has none
...let them do what they want, who are we to say what they should do?
right?
what I think should happen to Iran - same thing I think should happen to the UN. admit they are backward, corrupt and almost irrelevant
Seal them in. and for IraN STop buying their oil. squeeze them in the gonads ( can you say that here?)
Hi, it feels good to blog again, and although you claim to blog less there's a lot to catch up to. I'm glad you could agree with something Bush decided, he is in charge of the country you live in after all.
There's no question that sanctions should be applied. Dangerous people have to be stopped before it is too late, if isn’t already.
I'm worried...
I have little to no faith in the UN so to a certain extent it makes no difference to me and yes I think that Iran is dangerous.
the UN should invade and take over iran
It's a scary feeling to momentarily agree with W on something, isn't it?
I don't know. Sanctions often don't work, but... where else to start?
Whatever we do, it will be a hornet's nest. We do not have the troop capacity to ight a war in Iran, so a diplomatic strategy HAS to work.
UN Sanctions? what a joke! It will be just as effective as it was on Iraq.
I fear fanatics with WMD's and Iran is run by fanatics. I just do not think they care about sanctions.
I wonder if we will be seeing another mission like the raid on Damascus many years ago?
Bush thinks that UN sanctions are premature, at least this was his thinking as of yesterday.
UN sanctions are often a joke, I agree. Freezing assets, banning travel and trade are a horse of another color, however. But we must realize that China now has strong relations with Iran, which is why the US is treding slowly, at least so it seems.
Whatever we do, it will be a hornet's nest. We do not have the troop capacity to ight a war in Iran, so a diplomatic strategy HAS to work
I don't think this would be a "troop" confrontation... more like a "hey, there's a reactor, boom!" kind of situation...
Sanctions don't work. The real key lies in convincing Russia and China that we are speaking with one voice. If the Iranians have no where else to turn, they'll change course.
Any time Nuclear weapons are present, then it is serious. I really don't think the UN is going to do anything..They might help feed a few poor people but they are chicken when it comes to confronting something serious. There is also a lot of coruption there. Somehow we need to make Iran realize that nuclear weapons are not an option. Their new president has made it perfectly clear how he feels about the rest of the world and he is not a user friendly man.
I read an article recently where it talked about all the nuclear secrets that Bill Clinton give to the Chinese and to Iran. Between the two, Iran is the more dangerous at this time....It's going to be a pandora's box!!!
I find the general disdain for the UN among people from the USA rather disturbing.
It seems to be a very prevalent attitude at the moment.
As for sanctions, I don't know if they will help create peace in the region: it doesn't seem plausible that imposing santions would lead to more good will or dialogues between the conflict parties.
Ahmadinejad certainly seems to be enjoying the attention he has gotten lately. He strikes me as a provocateur (or shit stirrer as I prefer to say).
Iran is a country of more than 40 million people
99% of them are dirt poor...
squeezing the economy of a country that holds about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves has staggering consequences.
...for us yes, for them? possibly, more likely on it's people...
maybe it's a good time to start developing our nuclear facilities again
Sanctions are not going to stop the Iranian government from developing weapons. All sanctions will do is punish the already impoverished country.
Do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons? No. But I don't want *anyone* to have nuclear weapons, and that includes the US.
This is a perfect instance of "do as I say, not as I do." The US has no right to tell another country not to develop weapons of mass destruction beacuse we have them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home