Universal condemnation, what exactly does that mean?

What do you suggest?

Iran and North Korea have as much right to have nuclear weapons as the United States. They are only voluntarily bound by the NPT.

Avoiding an Iraq in Iran

Pundits, politicians, and the press are still so possessed by President Bush's handling of Iraq that they're not hearing the drumroll to a potentially bigger confrontation in the Middle East.
Iran has been given just five weeks to comply with a demand by the International Atomic Energy Agency to show it's not making bomb-grade nuclear material. On Sunday, the IAEA will send inspectors to Iran for the first time since the Vienna-based body set an Oct. 31 deadline. They will attempt to look over uranium-enrichment facilities at the city of Natanz.
If Iran's ruling mullahs bar the inspectors or miss the deadline, the IAEA could quickly ask the United Nations Security Council to impose economic sanctions on Iran - much like the sanctions on Iraq that never really worked.
Iran is blaming the United States for this showdown. But it was Australia, Canada, and Japan that led the IAEA to take a tough stance.
Still, the US and the UN-affiliated body are working together - in contrast to the UN-US split over Iraq. The West knows an Iranian bomb would push a nuclear arms race in the region, endangering Israel. And in fact, a lively debate has opened up in Tehran over how to react to the IAEA.
The West may try using both sanctions and incentives to bring Iran around. In fact, France, Britain, and Germany have offered to help it develop safe nuclear power - and this despite Iran's vast oil reserves.
But there's tension over whether to keep one card on the table: the threat of a military strike on Iran, or at least on its nuclear facilities. The US and Europe should avoid splitting over this issue and do everything short of war to make Iran comply.

And when everything short of war does no good as IMO it will, than what?
Hopefully the US not take the bull by the horns. Cowgirl Bush will be able to be restrained.

Craven

I quite agree that is why the question is asked. Universal condemnation, what exactly does that mean?

It will mean economic sanctions if the UN determines that Iran is in violation.

If you are saying that we are basically powerless to stop them legally I agree. And so it should be.

Craven
That is exactly what I am saying. The UN is a toothless debating society. You can not turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And you can not turn an organization in which half it's members come from totalitarian regimes into a democratic body.

That might be what you are saying but it's not what I am saying. I do not think the UN should have the power you speak of (to arbitrarily decide that some nations can have nukes and others cant).

That's like calling cops powerless because they are not allowed to invade homes at will.

The point is that it's a power the UN should not have.

Craven
I did not mean to infer that the UN should have that power. What I am saying is the UN is a paper tiger.

I feel you, AU.
I was reading the UN Resolutions that took place in the run-up to the Gulf War... Starting at around 630's/640's, they read something like this:

guessing at numbers...

630-- Saddam has taken over Kuwait, raped, pillaged, plundered and killed. This is bad. We demand him to stop it.
631-- This is bad. Stop it.
632-- OK. This is really bad. Stop it.
633-- Um. Stop it.
634-- Red Rover, red rover, let Lichenstien come over.
635-- OK, Saddam, if you don't stop it, we're going to...um... well stop it.
636-- We're going to talk about what we're going to do if you don't stop it.
637-- Where do you guys want to go to lunch, after we talk about making Saddam get out of Kuwait.
638-- OK Saddam. We've agreed that you better get out of Kuwait, or we're all going to be really mad.
639-- Um. Never mind. That bossy American has thrown you out of Kuwait. But, you'd better abide by the cease fire Resolution!
640-- We mean it.
641-- We'll get mad it you don't abide by the cease fire resolution.
642-- OK, we'll get really mad...

No wonder Bush got tired of waiting.

Au,

I know your feelings about the UN, what I didn't appreciate was you attempting to associate me with them.

I was not saying the UN is a paper tiger. I disagree with that and think that the only people who say it are people who WANT the UN to be a paper tiger.

Craven


I am not sure what I did for you to make that statement. No malice intended.

Not malice au. I posted and you said:

"That is exactly what I am saying. The UN is a toothless debating society."

That was not what I said. That's all.

BTW, would you spupport turning all of the US military power over to the UN to give it teeth?

Would you loan your penis to Gustav so he can get a girl?

I'd not cede the US military to the UN either. My point is that Au is complaining about the UN being a paper tiger when that is exactly what he WANTS it to be.

craven
I am sure you know the answer to that question. The UN is a wonderful concept that just does not seem to be working.

Craven--or anyone, I guess--
Have you read the Resolutions preceding the Gulf War? How long should they have waited before they called upon the armies of the world to eject Saddam from Kuwait? If they had called upon us, we would have done it.

Do you see why we go off on our own? They DON'T ACT. They just send out meaningless Resolution after Resolution. They could have directed the Gulf War, but they waited, and Kuwaitis continued to suffer and die, and Saddam dug in. So, our govt, and many of our citizens, see them as a necessary evil, many times impeding progress, rather than forging it.

Sofia,

I HAVE read the resolutions. I find them completely justified.

A) The Arab nations firmly believed they could convince Saddam to leave. The minute they found out otherwise they supported the resolution.

B) Not a single day was wasted on resolutions. Mobilization takes time and while the mobilization was taking place the UN was holding out for some luck.

They didn't get luck and the war started.

Your claim that theyu don't act and just send out resolutions is absurd. They sent out the resolution that sanctioned our actions, and want to know something? The UN did not delay the US by ONE day.

It's a meaningless accusation. It's an indictment of beaurocracy.

Did you know that the US had to be coddled into action? Do you agree that the UN passed a resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait?

Do you realize that the war was not delayed ONE day because of UN resolutions?

Some of what you are saying is, IMO, simply unfamiliarity with beaurocracy.

The same crap goes on in the US about every decision, if you look at the paperwork you might start calli8ng everyone indecisive.

The bottom line is this:

The decision to remove Saddam from Kuwait was made by the UN after other options were explored. The other options were explored duringa time in which it made no difference to the timetable for the war.

The decision to go to war was made without wasting time.

You might consider it fanciful for Arab nations to talk Saddam into withdrawing.

But the very notion of invading Kuwait was considered fanciful back then as well.

I'll have to find the link, but do you remember telling me recently that the UN did not agree with the US Gulf War? That was why I was trawling the Resolutions.

Gotta go offline. Will resume later.

Craven
What are the UN's accomplishments? Africa is aflame, the middle east is burning and people are at war in one way or another and throughout the world. And the UN passes resolutions. Can they do more than issue condemnations? Yes, they can form or at least attempt to form coalitions of member nations to force a settlement. To date the only one that ever did that was the US and NATO. The UN IMO is a moribund organization. Should it be disbanded? No. It needs to grow some balls.

1 or 2? Which one are ya talking about (seriously, you lost me)?