Saturday, March 24, 2007

Joke of the day: U.N. approves tougher sanctions for Iran

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved tougher sanctions on Iran for continuing with its uranium enrichment programme. So, we can happily add these newer improved ones to a string of sanctions that have already been slapped on the Iranians, all of which they'll continue to, defiantly, refuse to comply with.

Expanding on previous sanctions, whereby all member countries were ordered to stop supplying Iran with anything that could potentially be used to enhance their nuclear and missile defense programmes, Iran has now been ordered to stop selling arms to others. Ha! As if they won't, clandestinely, continue to supply the insurgents in Iraq (and elsewhere) with the weapons and arms they've already been supplying them with, now and in the past. They've already called the U.N. an illegitimate organization. Does the Security Council really think that Ahmadinejad is going to suddenly acquiesce to its demands. Please! By its previous actions (or rather, 'inaction'), that useless, wimp of an organization has proved, to all the gangster nations of the world, that regardless of the sanctions it might place on some rogue nation, it won't make a darn bit of difference. Yes, some sanctions might adversely affect the people themselves, but on the whole, I don't think the leaders really care. Saddam didn't. Castro doesn't. Kim Jong Il doesn't. Why should Ahmadinejad? How many U.N. Resolutions did Saddam flatly refuse to comply with before we invaded? No-one pays any attention to U.N. resolutions, and sanctions just don't work.

Adding to the December mandate to freeze certain Iranian foreign assets, several more organizations and people (28 in all) were added. As if that's going to force them to comply.

What's going to happen, is the U.N. Security Council members will continue to bicker over sanctioning Iran, with the usual China and Russia siding against the U.S. and Europeans, while Iran continues to dig in its heels, like a petulant child, until it finally reaches its goals: nuclear weaponry. I hope I'm wrong.


MUD said...

On the surface the UN seems like it should work. It is a great ideal, but the reality is lacking. Having a strong UN would upset more people than the one's that cry about its lack of testicles. Having a UN resolution do one ounce of good makes about as much sense as praying for peace or holding talks to bring Korea, Iran or China back on board the normal wagon. If the British want to be believed, they should have blown the gunboats out of the water when they showed up to "arrest" those sailors. If they were in uniform doing their job, they aren't terrorists or spies, they are sailors. If they harm them, they deserve all the War they can handle. The problem is that England and the US have a populace that is all "warred" out. (and they know it) MUD

Blazing Cat Fur said...

I can't say that I blame Iran for calling the U.N. illegitamate - it is. It has devolved into a smokescreen and cash cow for the Thugs of the World. Sanctions don't work - action does.

Incognito said...

yes, the U.N. could be a very effective organization, but it just never has been, and never will be, as long as it continues on the same track. The whole idea of "peacekeeping" is a useless concept if they aren't allowed to keep the peace, through whatever means possible. they're merely security guards in blue helmets.
And, like you, I don't believe, for one minute, that the Brits invaded Iranian waters. It's a ploy, I'm sure to get the West to make the first move, and then they'll be able to say they are justified in their actions.

and yes, BCF, the Oil for food scandal proved how much of a cash cow it is. Disgusting.

There are some organizations within the U.N. that have been helpful, like the FAO, but that's about it.

Lambent said...

The UN has had a lot of success. A RAND corp study 2 years ago suggets that 2/3 of UN peace keeping missions are a success.

An 80% decline in lethal wars since the cold war ended, also attributal to UN intervention.

Keep in mind that almost every recognised state has a seat in the UN - it's not there to meet out justice as the west sees fit.

Sanctions may not work, what else would you do with Iran right now? Attack them? That has really worked in Iraq when we attacked them to stop their WMD manufacturing.

If the UN had not been rounded by the US and the UK, I put it to you that world right now would be a: a lot safer and b: there would be far fewer weeping mothers and daughters back home wondering what their sons died for.

Iraqi's never took part in any attack on the US. By invading them we haven;t made any safer at all. Inevitably, at some point the US will be attacked somehow again. I don't think it will be Iraqi's in the planes this time either.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

The UN has had a lot of success. A RAND corp study 2 years ago suggets that 2/3 of UN peace keeping missions are a success.

If the goal of the peacekeepers was using their humanitarian aid and force to obtain sex, then I can see where that success rate comes in.

Disgusting to use the food and medicine we have provided to trick the little girls in the Congo to trading for sexual favors when it was supposed to be given for free.

What an organization. Of course, the world only knows how to be angry at the US.

Lambent said...

All I can Stands - do you have ANY idea how stupid it makes people look to pull out an extreme to demonstrate a point?

Even Mother Theresa probably sucked cock once in her life. I'm not going to judge the rest of her life on it.

MUD said...

After 18 or 19 UN resolutions and many sanctions, what was the world to do about Iraq? How many sanctions will we have about Iran? Will the new UN's CEO have family make money from the sanction?
Mother Theresa was the best example I can think of a person or organization putting their life where their heart is. Instead of cloistering herself and praying for care of the sick and poor, she got out in the middle of the problem and did her best to mitigate the suffering.
What are you going to say when that 1/3 to 20% of the failed UN problems nukes another country. How many people will terrorists have to kill in one day to stir your loins?

Blazing Cat Fur said...

Lambent, Iraq definitely did have ties to Al-Queda, they did fund, under Saddam, Palestinian suicide bombers. Would the world truly be safer if we had not toppled Saddam? Ask the Iraqi's who perished in the thousands under his reign, or ask the thousands who were tortured. Much of the sectarian violence currently scarring Iraq is funded, armed and aided by Iran & Syria.

Lambent do you think the terrorists will just go away and leave us alone? Are you one of those root cause lefties who place the Blame on US Mideast Policy? Lambent the Jihadists care squat for historical wrongs real or imagined, their goal is simply the imposition of Islamofascism. They won't let you keep your stuff trust me on that.

Incognito said...

I would say that if the UN were not as you put it "rounded by the UK and U.S" the world would be a major mess.

As for all the successes, see my post today and check out all the links.

As for Mother Theresa, must you be so crude? I'm not Catholic, but I find that rather rude. Not everyone thinks with their prick, those that have them, anyway.