UN votes 89-2 on Israeli nukes

[mhgaffney]

Although western states blocked a stronger resolution, the UN nonetheless voted 89-2 on a resolution that called on Israel to open its nuclear sites to IAEA inspection. The two "no" votes were cast by the US and Israel.

Obviously the world is concerned about Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal -- the existence of which the US has never acknowleged. A google search showed no evidence this story was reported by the US press.

Western nations foil bid to declare Israel nuke 'threat'    

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/international.asp?dismode=article&artid=165170574

VIENNA: Western nations have foiled a bid by Arab and Islamic states to declare Israel's reputed nuclear arsenal a threat that must be removed in a politically charged vote at a UN atomic watchdog meeting. Canada sponsored a 45-29 "no-action" ballot that prevented International Atomic Energy Agency member states from voting on a motion demanding Israel use atomic energy only for peaceful purposes and help set up a Middle East nuclear arms-free zone.

But the gathering voted 89-2 for a milder resolution on Israel, also initiated by Arab states, "affirming the urgent need for all states in the Middle East to accept full-scope IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities". Israel neither admits nor denies having atomic weapons but most experts believe it has about 200 nuclear warheads. Feverish negotiations failed to dissuade Arab delegates from pushing the two resolutions to a vote due to heightened resentment over Israel's battering of south Lebanon in war with Iranian-backed Hezbollah guerrillas. Diplomats said many Arabs were fuming at the West's perceived slowness to stop Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon that killed mainly civilians before an Aug 14 ceasefire imposed by a UN Security Council resolution.

"The (Western) blocking manoeuvre is astonishing when innocent blood has not yet dried in Lebanon," said Syrian delegate Ibrahim Othman. He said Israel's exclusive nuclear might in the region caused a destabilising imbalance of power. The United States, European and other Western allies combined to stifle the "threat" resolution. They said it was politically divisive and undermined the IAEA's traditional consensual approach.

Israel said a regional nuclear arms-free zone was a noble idea in principle but dangerous for it so long as some neighbours continued not to recognise the Jewish state, with Iran openly calling for its destruction. "Current realities in the Middle East force Israel to entertain no illusions. The fundamental goal as in other regions is attaining peace with security and stability, not arms control per se," said Israel Michaeli, Israel's envoy to the IAEA. US foes such as Venezuela and Cuba and some developing nations like South Africa joined the unsuccessful Arab-Islamic effort to put it to a floor vote. Arab and Islamic anger also simmered over "double standards" seen in Western pressure on Iran to shelve its fledgling nuclear energy programme while Israel faced none despite a batch of UN resolutions urging it to scrap its alleged atomic warheads. Nineteen nations, including India and Russia, abstained over the "threat" measure, and three in the safeguards vote. Israel and its closest ally the United States were the sole "no" votes on the IAEA safeguards resolution.
-- Reuters

[W*GS]

Gee, the Arabs (once again) want to use the UN to bash Israel, and mhgaffney falls for their tactic (once again).

Wadda shocker.

[Stuck In Texas]

While I wish that nobody had nuclear weapons, I believe if anybody truly needs them, it's Israel. They are surrounded and greatly outnumber by countries who want nothing more than to wipe them off the map. Without their nuclear deterrant, they would be invaded from all sides and overwhelmed.

[Rigs11]

Gee, the Arabs (once again) want to use the UN to bash Israel, and mhgaffney falls for their tactic (once again).

Wadda shocker.

And again the jewpublican thinks that Israel doesn't need to abide by international inspections, but every other nation does. Bashing? You've run out of any intelligence haven't you? Spin monkeyboy spin!!

[W*GS]

How far back in your dresser do you have your swastika armband hidden, Boy Wonder?

[Rigs11]

How far back in your dresser do you have your swastika armband hidden, Boy Wonder?

Spin monkeyboy spin!!!

[W*GS]

Answer the question... If you're willing to man up and 'fess up, Boy Wonder.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It seems obvious to me because of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, other ME countries must develop their own for self defense. Does that make sense?

And why does the U.S. have the right to demand nuclear oversight in Iran and not in Israel?

[defenseman]

It seems obvious to me because of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, other ME countries must develop their own for self defense. Does that make sense?

And why does the U.S. have the right to demand nuclear oversight in Iran and not in Israel?

The UN ordered hezbollah this , hezbollah that in Lebanon and what happened? Not a damn thing. The UN is USELESS. If there were ever the eptiomy of a paper tiger, it's the UN and it's crooks. I could care what the rest of the world thinks. Israel disarms, they'll get walked on. Arm the muslim extremists countries with nukes, israel gets annihilated. You can't win for losing with the muslim extremist. It's a no win , no win, and the vote at the UN is worth spit on a sidewalk....dman

*Move them all to switzerland, I don't care. they do nothing good for the US. Nothing...

[defenseman]

Gee, the Arabs (once again) want to use the UN to bash Israel, and mhgaffney falls for their tactic (once again).

Wadda shocker.

Yep, best part is once the muslim extremists are done with israel, they'll check the block and it's onto the next on the list, us. Hopefully gaffney has his prayer rug and koran ready to go so he doesn't get decapitated by the oncoming horde. the UN needs to cease to exist. It's a waste of time and breeds corruption on a world wide scale. Send them to France, they'll fit right in there...dman

[Rigs11]

Answer the question... If you're willing to man up and 'fess up, Boy Wonder.

Oh the irony. Besides we've all heard the nazi copout statement from you before. it's all you got left.

[mhgaffney]

While I wish that nobody had nuclear weapons, I believe if anybody truly needs them, it's Israel. They are surrounded and greatly outnumber by countries who want nothing more than to wipe them off the map. Without their nuclear deterrant, they would be invaded from all sides and overwhelmed.

This is the common perception -- but is it true?

No. Israel's nuclear arsenal has tempted its leaders to think they can dispense with negotiations and simply impose their will on the Palestinians and on their Arab neighbors. Even while the so called peace process continued in the 1990s Israel accelerated the confiscations of Arab land in the W Bank, home demolitions, and settlement construction. This occurred even though Israel had promised to suspend all new construction during the talks. This policy of creating facts showed to the Palestinians that the Oslo process was a sham. The despair surrounding this realization explains the start of the suicide bombings around 1994.

Bill Clinton told us that Israel offered the Palestinians a state and Arafat refused -- but it was a lie. What Israel offered was a form of apartheid -- only much worse than what existed in S Africa. A series of ghettos -- all separated by a system of fences, highways and corridors inaccessible to Palestinians and controlled by Israel. A prison describes it more accurately.

Despite all this, in 2002 the Arab world made another attempt to jump start peace negotiations - offering Israel an end to the conflict -- normalized relations -- if Israel would abide by UN resolutions on Palestine, i.e., end its illegal military occupation of Gaza, Golan and the W Bank.

Israel never even responded to this peace offer. Obviously Israel is determined to hold onto the W Bank. The new security wall is further evidence. The Israelis built the wall on Palestinian land-- not inside Israel. It winds across the W Bank like the great Wall of China -- and effectively annexes 40% of the W Bank -- slicing through towns and cutting Palestinians off from their famland, schools, hospitals, families, businesses etc. The wall is the final nail in the coffin of the Palestinian economy, which has now been destroyed. The people survive today only because of UN food hand outs.

In 2003 and again in 2004 Iran's top Mullah made it known that Iran also supports the 2002 Arab offer. Israel has responded with preparations for war against Iran, which has no nuclear weapons.

The facts make mincemeat of the stereotypic perceptions -- which are carefully stage managed by the US media, to present Israel in the best possible light. We truly live in the age of Orwell. When peace is war and slavery is freedom.

[W*GS]

Oh the irony. Besides we've all heard the nazi copout statement from you before. it's all you got left.

Spewing "jewpublican" rhetoric doesn't help your cause at all, Boy Wonder.

In any case - my comment was off. Your swastika armband isn't in the dresser, it's on your arm.

I understand Ben-Gay will help ease the pain in your elbow from your constant "Sieg Heil" saluting.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The UN ordered hezbollah this , hezbollah that in Lebanon and what happened? Not a damn thing. The UN is USELESS. If there were ever the eptiomy of a paper tiger, it's the UN and it's crooks. I could care what the rest of the world thinks. Israel disarms, they'll get walked on. Arm the muslim extremists countries with nukes, israel gets annihilated. You can't win for losing with the muslim extremist. It's a no win , no win, and the vote at the UN is worth spit on a sidewalk....dman

*Move them all to switzerland, I don't care. they do nothing good for the US. Nothing...
Once again you miss the point. We don't get to pick and choose who gets to play God in this world no matter how much you think we do.

[elsid13]

Once again you miss the point. We don't get to pick and choose who gets to play God in this world no matter how much you think we do.

But we do get to choice our friends and allies and how we support them.

Should Israel acknowledge thier nukes and allow international inspection yes, but then so should India and Pakistan.

[Rigs11]

Spewing "jewpublican" rhetoric doesn't help your cause at all, Boy Wonder.

In any case - my comment was off. Your swastika armband isn't in the dresser, it's on your arm.

I understand Ben-Gay will help ease the pain in your elbow from your constant "Sieg Heil" saluting.

Why is it rhetoric? You alway come to the rescue of the republicans and the jews. The name suits you just fine. Hey at the very least it's original. Way more so than you're tired "nazi" copout.

[W*GS]

Why is it rhetoric? You alway come to the rescue of the republicans and the jews.

Believe whatever you want - but your rhetoric betrays you as an anti-Semite.

[W*GS]

[...]in 2002 the Arab world made another attempt to jump start peace negotiations - offering Israel an end to the conflict -- normalized relations -- if Israel would abide by UN resolutions on Palestine, i.e., end its illegal military occupation of Gaza, Golan and the W Bank.

Israel never even responded to this peace offer. Obviously Israel is determined to hold onto the W Bank.

A little problem that cropped up in 2002:

In March 2002 all 22 Arab heads of state at a summit in Beirut agreed to end the conflict if Israel withdrew completely to its pre-1967 borders. However, the initiative came the day after a suicide attack in which Hamas, an Islamist group dedicated to destroying Israel, killed 29 elderly Israelis in Netanya, an atrocity the summiteers ignored.

Gee, do you think a suicide bombing that the Arabs ignored might have something to do with Israel's response?

[BroncoBuff]

Gee, the Arabs (once again) want to use the UN to bash Israel, and mhgaffney falls for their tactic (once again).

Wadda shocker.

Geez, W*GS ... the vote was 89 to 2 !! ... with USA and Israel being THE TWO!

Ya think maybe .... just maybe .... we're on the wrong side of this one? It's like being a contestant on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" ... and you don't know which actress played "Daisy Duke" in the movie version of Dukes of Hazzard. So you ask the audience, and 94% say "B - Jessica Simpson". But you're just not convinced. You think it's Lindsey Lohan ... so you say, "no offense to this smart looking audience, Regis .... but I'm gonna say C- Lindsey Lohan."






Is that your final answer?


.

[ClevelandBronco]

Is that your final answer?

To hell with W*GS's "final answer."

I'm more troubled by guys such as the poet Gaffney, who come off like fans of a "final solution."

[mhgaffney]

To hell with W*GS's "final answer."

I'm more troubled by guys such as the poet Gaffney, who come off like fans of a "final solution."

It isn't my final solution, it's the judgement of the entire world. UN Security Council decided long ago where the line must be drawn in the sand and the terms of the final solution. UN resolutions (242 and 338) are binding as international law.

The US agreed to this final solution -- even though in recent years US presidents have reneged for reasons having to do with domestic politics, i.e., the special relationship with Israel.

None of this changes the fact that sooner or later there will be a reckoning. Israel cannot stiff the world forever -- nor can the US continue to block a peace settlement indefinitely.

It is only the US veto that blocks the UN from putting peacekeepers on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank and stopping the violence. The fact that the US has allowed the violence to continue is a disgrace to every American who cares about the human values we supposedly stand for as a people.

[ClevelandBronco]

It isn't my final solution, it's the judgement of the entire world.

Wrap it in any pretty paper you want to wrap it in.

You want the Jewish nation dead to every man, woman and child.

**** you, and **** your message, poet.

[Taco John]

I wouldn't give a single ounce of creedence to any vote the UN has made. It's a worthless organization. Here we have a body of government where each country is given a voice and a vote, even if the governments involved dont provide the same luxuries to their own people. The UN is a farce, and hardly a valid organization.

The United States should withdraw from the UN, and charter a new organization called "The League of Democratic Nations," where only nation-states that provide democratic liberty can join. And then we should open all trading borders with the nations who participate in this league free of tarriff. And those who aren't part of the league get their goods taxed through the moon.

[Ninjafied]

The UN has become the forum for bashing Israel. Not that Israel doesn’t deserve its due attention, but there's the rest of the world too. In the past two years the UN Commission on Human Rights has had 101 human rights resolutions passed against Israel. Whereas other members like Iran has had two resolutions passed against it, Syria only one resolution and Saudi Arabia none. That’s three countries that hold public executions, amputations, stonings, absolute discrimination of anything non-Islamic, social, political & female repression and, “oh,” just possibly torture. Other members of the Council with poor records on human rights: China, Cuba, Tunisia, Pakistan, Sudan and Russia. All this under the under the chairmanship of Libya.
Back in 2003, the UN called three emergency sessions to condemn Israel and the General Assembly passed 18 resolutions that singled out Israel for criticism. The entire rest of the world, that’s 191 countries and well over 5 billion people, drew only four resolutions!
Why focus on issues like Darfur, Rwanda, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Zimbabwe and Bosnia (just to name a few) when Israel’s around. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is 56 Islamic states and almost 30 per cent of the UN membership, certainly likes to keep the UN’s criticism focused.
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Report_ONU_gb.pdf

The UN has proven itself ineffective year in and year out. And people wonder why ever would the US act as the global policeman when the world has the UN, which acts more like a passed out drunk night watchman? Its just a shame Uncle Sam can’t get it right every time, but he certainly makes a good fall guy.

[alkemical]

My thing with israel is they sell our weapons to countries that aren't our friends too -

[BroncoBuff]

To hell with W*GS's "final answer."

I'm more troubled by guys such as the poet Gaffney, who come off like fans of a "final solution."

My point is that, in my experience, when anything is voted 89 to 2 - the 89 are correct.

It's not like these 89 are all just "Israel haters" or "Opponents of Zionism," .... these are 89 countries from around the world - Mexico, Australia, Japan, Ukraine, Brazil, Italy, India, Iceland, Zimbabwe - even ENGLAND - unless they abstained, because only TWO COUNTRIES voted no - US and Israel.

.

I'm no IAEC expert ... but what's wrong with inspections?

[defenseman]

My point is that, in my experience, when anything is voted 89 to 2 - the 89 are correct.

It's not like these 89 are all just "Israel haters" or "Opponents of Zionism," .... these are 89 countries from around the world - Mexico, Australia, Japan, Ukraine, Brazil, Italy, India, Iceland, Zimbabwe - even ENGLAND - unless they abstained, because only TWO COUNTRIES voted no - US and Israel.

.

I'm no IAEC expert ... but what's wrong with inspections?

I have no problem with inspections. However, Iran does. How about they play ball , then israel plays ball? Seems fair to me...dman

[W*GS]

Geez, W*GS ... the vote was 89 to 2 !! ... with USA and Israel being THE TWO!

Ya think maybe .... just maybe .... we're on the wrong side of this one?

(Dicking around with sizes and colors doesn't make your argument better).

If the vote was 89-2 that you were an imbecile and ought to be kicked off the OM, you'd meekly go along, eh?

Like others have said, the UN has no moral value, so whatever "votes" they hold are completely irrelevant. That you hang so much importance on what the UN says is pathetic.

[W*GS]

I wouldn't give a single ounce of creedence to any vote the UN has made. It's a worthless organization. Here we have a body of government where each country is given a voice and a vote, even if the governments involved dont provide the same luxuries to their own people. The UN is a farce, and hardly a valid organization.

The United States should withdraw from the UN, and charter a new organization called "The League of Democratic Nations," where only nation-states that provide democratic liberty can join. And then we should open all trading borders with the nations who participate in this league free of tarriff. And those who aren't part of the league get their goods taxed through the moon.

Not a bad idea at all...

[bendog]

Rather than the UN, why not push a regional defense/economic cooperative? The arabs have offered trade normalization for a Palestinian state. Why not the saudis, egypt, jordan and isreal agreeing to mutual security, shared info on terrorists and a nuke free zone. Iran would be painted into an unpopular corner if it opposed that ....

oh wait, we don't talk to iran cause they're 'evil doers.'

[Rigs11]

(Dicking around with sizes and colors doesn't make your argument better).

If the vote was 89-2 that you were an imbecile and ought to be kicked off the OM, you'd meekly go along, eh?

Like others have said, the UN has no moral value, so whatever "votes" they hold are completely irrelevant. That you hang so much importance on what the UN says is pathetic.

Yeah after all, what other countries think has no relevanceLOL I swear you get stupider with every post.Nice way to try to justify it by comparing what happens in an international level to what happens on a forumHilarious! Could it..could it be that this disregard for what other countries think fuels hatred towards america?Simply saying that the UN has no moral value is a copout.

[TailgateNut]

Yeah after all, what other countries think has no relevanceLOL I swear you get stupider with every post.Nice way to try to justify it by comparing what happens in an international level to what happens on a forumHilarious! Could it..could it be that this disregard for what other countries think fuels hatred towards america?Simply saying that the UN has no moral value is a copout.


Get a scuba tank, because you're wasting your breath trying to reason with W*gs. As you pointed out, one of the primary reasons for the dis-content with America is our arrogance. While the majority of nation attempt to solve issues at a table we send bombs and insults!
This administration legacy will be that they have not only divided the nation, but have also alienated the world!

[mhgaffney]

I have no problem with inspections. However, Iran does. How about they play ball , then israel plays ball? Seems fair to me...dman

You've uncritically swallowed the Bush mantra, which isn't true -- no matter how many times it's repeated. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors in to every requested site --- much much more intrusive inspections than anything the US has allowed. Which is probably why the IAEA recently blasted Bush's statements on Iran.

Of course, the difficulty is that it's impossible to prove a negative. There's always a chance that Iran is moving ahead with its bomb program at secret sites. But so far, there is no hard evidence for this -- despite what Bush says. Moreover, detection technology has come a long way in recent years, and the IAEA would probably have sniffed out a program -- if it existed.

No doubt this is why China and Russia will not support sanctions on Iran at this time. Iran is an important trading partner for both states. Who can blame them? With no hard evidence there is no case for sanctions.

[defenseman]

You've uncritically swallowed the Bush mantra, which isn't true -- no matter how many times it's repeated. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors in to every requested site --- much much more intrusive inspections than anything the US has allowed. Which is probably why the IAEA recently blasted Bush's statements on Iran.

Of course, the difficulty is that it's impossible to prove a negative. There's always a chance that Iran is moving ahead with its bomb program at secret sites. But so far, there is no hard evidence for this -- despite what Bush says. Moreover, detection technology has come a long way in recent years, and the IAEA would probably have sniffed out a program -- if it existed.

No doubt this is why China and Russia will not support sanctions on Iran at this time. Iran is an important trading partner for both states. Who can blame them? With no hard evidence there is no case for sanctions.

You are wasting your time Ghaff, I've never forgiven what Iran did "on my watch". They really pissed me off, I'll NEVER trust them again...dman

[W*GS]

Yeah after all, what other countries think has no relevance

The UN doesn't represent citizens or people - it represents governments. Many of those governments are not representative of the people living under them. (Insert Boy Wonder's snide remark regarding Bush here).

Nice way to try to justify it by comparing what happens in an international level to what happens on a forum

As always, you don't get it. Just because the UN says X by a vote of 89-2, or 100-1, or 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 means absolutely nothing about the moral value of X.

Got it?

Could it..could it be that this disregard for what other countries think fuels hatred towards america?

If someone hates you because you're a male, does that mean you should take their opinions into account? I honestly don't care what the governments of other countries believe about the US. Some will hate us no matter what we do or say. Eff 'em, and eff the UN.

Simply saying that the UN has no moral value is a copout.

It's not a copout, it's the truth. Claiming that this or that position or policy has some moral standing because the UN voted in favor of it means absolutely nothing. The results of a UN vote are orthogonal to the moral nature of whatever it was being voted upon. Period.

[W*GS]

While the majority of nation attempt to solve issues at a table we send bombs and insults!

This is one of the most ignorant and idiotic comments I've ever seen.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wouldn't give a single ounce of creedence to any vote the UN has made. It's a worthless organization. Here we have a body of government where each country is given a voice and a vote, even if the governments involved dont provide the same luxuries to their own people. The UN is a farce, and hardly a valid organization.

The United States should withdraw from the UN, and charter a new organization called "The League of Democratic Nations," where only nation-states that provide democratic liberty can join. And then we should open all trading borders with the nations who participate in this league free of tarriff. And those who aren't part of the league get their goods taxed through the moon.
LOL
You really have no idea how Capitalism works at all, do you? :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wrap it in any pretty paper you want to wrap it in.

You want the Jewish nation dead to every man, woman and child.

**** you, and **** your message, poet.

Yikes!

You, sir, are a complete lunatic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My point is that, in my experience, when anything is voted 89 to 2 - the 89 are correct.

It's not like these 89 are all just "Israel haters" or "Opponents of Zionism," .... these are 89 countries from around the world - Mexico, Australia, Japan, Ukraine, Brazil, Italy, India, Iceland, Zimbabwe - even ENGLAND - unless they abstained, because only TWO COUNTRIES voted no - US and Israel.

.

I'm no IAEC expert ... but what's wrong with inspections?

But...but...but...it's all just one big world conspiracy against the Jews!

Can't you see, Buff?

Ha!

[Rigs11]

The UN doesn't represent citizens or people - it represents governments. Many of those governments are not representative of the people living under them. (Insert Boy Wonder's snide remark regarding Bush here).

What a bunch of rubbish.So we shouldn't have a congress because they vote and not the people?:welcome:



As always, you don't get it. Just because the UN says X by a vote of 89-2, or 100-1, or 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 means absolutely nothing about the moral value of X.

Got it?


Obviously you don't get it.Votes are held for a reason. You mean to tell me that 89 nations voting for something and 2against it means nothing?:spit: Where do you come up with this crap? Moral? Says who? You?




If someone hates you because you're a male, does that mean you should take their opinions into account? I honestly don't care what the governments of other countries believe about the US. Some will hate us no matter what we do or say. Eff 'em, and eff the UN.

Of course you don't care. Another copout from the genius that is wigged. Whenever you're in the minority you simply declare that you don't care.This same ignorant type of thinking is what gets the US laughed at and hated.Some will hate us, but what's important is how many and to what extent. This is reflected by the decisions made.Seriously man is it that hard to comprehend?


It's not a copout, it's the truth. Claiming that this or that position or policy has some moral standing because the UN voted in favor of it means absolutely nothing. The results of a UN vote are orthogonal to the moral nature of whatever it was being voted upon. Period.

Did it ever occur to you that the results of the vote signify wether something is justifable or moral?You're gonna trust the minority?Give it up, it's obvious that you favor the jews regardless of what the argument is. Whether they are wrong or not. Regardless of wether they are held to a higher degree than other countries.

[elsid13]

There are 191 countries in the UN what happened to the other 100 nation in this vote???

By the way I gues we should use the real story when talk about this:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Posted on Sun, Sep. 24, 2006</TD><TD width=15 rowSpan=7>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/images/common/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/images/common/spacer.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>

Arab nations fail to get vote on Israel's weapons


The Associated Press

<!-- begin body-content -->VIENNA, Austria - Arab nations on Friday failed to get a vote on a resolution labeling Israel's nuclear capabilities a threat at the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual meeting.

The draft resolution, which also called upon Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, was blocked from going to a vote by Israel's allies and other nations.

The final session of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's weeklong meeting did pass a separate resolution calling on all Middle Eastern nations to accept IAEA safeguards and take steps toward the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone.

The measure calling Israel's program a threat was co-sponsored by Iran. It was kept from going to a vote after 45 nations backed a motion by the Canadian delegate to adjourn the debate Friday evening.

Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear status, but is considered to be the only nation in the region with nuclear weapons.

Among those supporting the effort to block the vote were the United States, Israel, France, Germany, Britain and Finland, which was at the conference on behalf of the European Union.

Arab nations at the conference have regularly threatened to submit such a resolution, but in past years have opted instead to voice their concerns about Israel's nuclear program through a statement from the conference president, which carries less weight than a resolution.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/15596769.htm

[elsid13]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2006/09/22/1883393.html


VIENNA, Austria — More than a dozen Arab countries were blocked by a Canadian motion in their bid to have a vote on a resolution labelling Israel’s nuclear capabilities a threat on the final day of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s annual meeting.

The draft resolution, which also called upon Israel to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, was blocked from going to a vote Friday by the Canadian delegate.

The final session of the UN nuclear watchdog agency’s weeklong meeting did adopt a separate, non-binding resolution calling on all Middle Eastern countries to accept IAEA safeguards and take steps toward the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone. Israel and the United States were the only two countries that voted against it. Three countries abstained.

The measure calling Israel’s program a threat, which was co-sponsored by Iran, was kept from going to a vote after 45 countries backed a no-action motion by the Canadian delegate, effectively adjourning the debate Friday evening.

Among those supporting the effort to block the vote were the United States, Israel, France, Germany and Britain. Those abstaining included China, Russia and Nigeria, among others.

The 15 Arab countries behind the resolution, which would also have been non-binding, had hoped to send a signal to Israel following its monthlong war with Hezbollah, which killed hundreds of people — most of them civilians — in Lebanon.

“Peace and nuclear weapons are two enemies — there is no cohabitation,” said Ramzy Ramzy, head of the Egyptian delegation to the meeting and his country’s ambassador to Austria.

In co-sponsoring the resolution, Iran was also seeking to counter criticism of its own nuclear program, which the United States and others insist is aimed at the production of atomic weapons. Iran insists it only wants to generate power.

“Iran...has always called for establishing a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction...It is of profound regret that this issue is trapped in a vicious cycle,” said Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA.
Arab countries at the annual conference have regularly threatened to submit such a resolution but in past years have opted instead to voice their concerns about Israel’s nuclear program through a statement from the conference president, which carries less weight than a resolution.
The last time such a resolution was submitted at the annual IAEA conference was in 1991. It passed. Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear status but is considered to be the only country in the region with nuclear weapons. Israel does not accept IAEA controls on its nuclear activities.

Israel’s ambassador to the IAEA said efforts to bring security to the Middle East should be focused on peace efforts, not necessarily arms control.
“The fundamental goal in the Middle East, as in other regions, is obtaining regional peace, security and stability, not arms control per se,” Israel Michaeli said.
The draft resolution was submitted earlier this week by 15 countries: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By the way I gues we should use the real story when talk about this:


Sounds like you didn't bother to read the original story:

Although western states blocked a stronger resolution, the UN nonetheless voted 89-2 on a resolution that called on Israel to open its nuclear sites to IAEA inspection. The two "no" votes were cast by the US and Israel.

[Ninjafied]

You've uncritically swallowed the Bush mantra, which isn't true -- no matter how many times it's repeated. Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors in to every requested site --- much much more intrusive inspections than anything the US has allowed. Which is probably why the IAEA recently blasted Bush's statements on Iran.

Of course, the difficulty is that it's impossible to prove a negative. There's always a chance that Iran is moving ahead with its bomb program at secret sites. But so far, there is no hard evidence for this -- despite what Bush says. Moreover, detection technology has come a long way in recent years, and the IAEA would probably have sniffed out a program -- if it existed.

No doubt this is why China and Russia will not support sanctions on Iran at this time. Iran is an important trading partner for both states. Who can blame them? With no hard evidence there is no case for sanctions.

Funny stuff.

It is absolutely amazing that you come here selling 101 conspiracy theories ranging from the evil US empire to jews taking over the world, but have yet to explain why Iran, sitting on one of the world’s largest natural resources reserves, would ever waste the time and money to develop a civilian nuclear energy program. There has to be millions of poor Iranians that could better use those funds. Or another option would be to build a gasoline refinery rather than importing it. Instead they have invested how many billions in 15 nuclear facilities throughout the country.

So ask yourself, gaffney, what would the mullahs need to become the regional big boy or even a global superpower and see if any crazy theories pop into your head. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not a peaceful program and maybe, just maybe, they could hide a program away in the millions of square miles of mountainous countryside. If you can get your head around that idea you’re on your way to understanding why IAEA inspectors have in fact turned up evidence of clandestine plutonium experiments, black-market centrifuge purchases and military links in their nuclear program.

[24champ]

I wouldn't give a single ounce of creedence to any vote the UN has made. It's a worthless organization. Here we have a body of government where each country is given a voice and a vote, even if the governments involved dont provide the same luxuries to their own people. The UN is a farce, and hardly a valid organization.

The United States should withdraw from the UN, and charter a new organization called "The League of Democratic Nations," where only nation-states that provide democratic liberty can join. And then we should open all trading borders with the nations who participate in this league free of tarriff. And those who aren't part of the league get their goods taxed through the moon.

I agree to a point, I think we should all embrace Hugo Chavez's idea and move the UN down to Venzuela and we can pull out of the UN and have somebody else pay for the 22% of the UN budget that the Americans pay for.

[elsid13]

I agree to a point, I think we should all embrace Hugo Chavez's idea and move the UN down to Venzuela and we can pull out of the UN and have somebody else pay for the 22% of the UN budget that the Americans pay for.

No way the foreign diplomats go for that, they lose access to all the good American Hotel Porn.

[24champ]

No way the foreign diplomats go for that, they lose access to all the good American Hotel Porn.

Yeah but they would get access to all the good Venzuela crack.

[BroncoBuff]

(Dicking around with sizes and colors doesn't make your argument better).

If the vote was 89-2 that you were an imbecile and ought to be kicked off the OM, you'd meekly go along, eh?

Screw "meekly" ... I'd QUICKLY go along ...

But what's with your colors problem and OM "kick BUff off" scenario ... why not address the substance? W*GS, show me an 89-2 type of vote where the "2" were later proven correct.

The point about "Iran should comply first, then Israel will," SOUNDS reasonable, but it's just silly. Most of us learn in kindergarten that such arguments don't work ... (they don't work in court, either.)

[mhgaffney]

Funny stuff.

you have yet to explain why Iran, sitting on one of the world’s largest natural resources reserves, would ever waste the time and money to develop a civilian nuclear energy program. There has to be millions of poor Iranians that could better use those funds. Or another option would be to build a gasoline refinery rather than importing it. Instead they have invested how many billions in 15 nuclear facilities throughout the country.

So ask yourself, gaffney, what would the mullahs need to become the regional big boy or even a global superpower and see if any crazy theories pop into your head. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not a peaceful program and maybe, just maybe, they could hide a program away in the millions of square miles of mountainous countryside. If you can get your head around that idea you’re on your way to understanding why IAEA inspectors have in fact turned up evidence of clandestine plutonium experiments, black-market centrifuge purchases and military links in their nuclear program.

The answer is that the US and other western nations did a very thorough job during the heyday of Atoms for Peace in the 1950s-1970s of selling the world on the importance of basing economic development on nuclear power. It was our program. We started it and we promoted it. We sold it to the Shah and just about every one else. In fact, several of the Bush neo cons were instrumental players in persuading Iran to follow the nuclear path. Now, of course, they scream bloody murder.

In those days the US nuclear industry saw dollar signs everywhere instead of mushroom clouds. We have since learned painful lessons about the advisability of nuclear power.

So I agree with you that nuclear is a bad idea for Iran -- but it's also a bad idea for America and every other nation. Until and unless we ourselves renounce nuclear here at home and move in the direction of a clean and abundant alternative -- we have no business badgering and bullying others away from the path we ourselves followed. Today the Iranian people regard their nuclear program with pride as a symbol of their national progress. It's a very popular program -- viewed as a status symbol. These are values America inculcated in the world. If they are false values we have only ourselves to blame.

We will never lead the world except by the path of example. Nor do we have the right to block a signatory of the NPT (Iran) from developing nuclear power.

I have no doubt that Iran has done research in the nuclear weapons field to keep their nuclear options open. However, this basic research does not equate to a bomb program. Given US belligerence and aggression under Bush who can blame them?

Today the US is moving ahead with the most sweeping modernization of our nuclear force structure since the Cold War. This includes development of nuclear bunker busters, and is in flagrant violation of the NPT (article 6). For this reason we are violators ourselves, and are on weak ground pointing fingers at others. When we do this we are nothing but hypocrites, which is another reason why the US has lost the world's respect.

It's time to start practicing what we preach. End of sermon.

[Ninjafied]

The answer is that the US and other western nations did a very thorough job during the heyday of Atoms for Peace in the 1950s-1970s of selling the world on the importance of basing economic development on nuclear power. It was our program. We started it and we promoted it. We sold it to the Shah and just about every one else. In fact, several of the Bush neo cons were instrumental players in persuading Iran to follow the nuclear path. Now, of course, they scream bloody murder.

In those days the US nuclear industry saw dollar signs everywhere instead of mushroom clouds. We have since learned painful lessons about the advisability of nuclear power.

So I agree with you that nuclear is a bad idea for Iran -- but it's also a bad idea for America and every other nation. Until and unless we ourselves renounce nuclear here at home and move in the direction of a clean and abundant alternative -- we have no business badgering and bullying others away from the path we ourselves followed. Today the Iranian people regard their nuclear program with pride as a symbol of their national progress. It's a very popular program -- viewed as a status symbol. These are values America inculcated in the world. If they are false values we have only ourselves to blame.

We will never lead the world except by the path of example. Nor do we have the right to block a signatory of the NPT (Iran) from developing nuclear power.

I have no doubt that Iran has done research in the nuclear weapons field to keep their nuclear options open. However, this basic research does not equate to a bomb program. Given US belligerence and aggression under Bush who can blame them?

Today the US is moving ahead with the most sweeping modernization of our nuclear force structure since the Cold War. This includes development of nuclear bunker busters, and is in flagrant violation of the NPT (article 6). For this reason we are violators ourselves, and are on weak ground pointing fingers at others. When we do this we are nothing but hypocrites, which is another reason why the US has lost the world's respect.

It's time to start practicing what we preach. End of sermon.

The values America inculcated in the world went right out the Iranian door with the revolution – or maybe the nuclear part was the only bit worth keeping, right?
Nonetheless, your little sermon was very well articulated; well done.
Just understand that the world is not fair; never was and never will be. Geopolitics is hypocrisy at its finest, but when it comes down to it I’d rather the US have nukes than Iran. You impressing that they should be treated as equals, but they can’t even give their own citizens equal rights. I’d feel at least a little better if they were a democracy, for a start.
Another example, I’m more comfortable with India over Pakistan – but that’ll be another problem another day.