PDA

View Full Version : Iranian president takes on U.S., Israel at U.N.



Damocles
09-19-2006, 08:50 PM
(CNN) -- With the U.N. Security Council meeting this week to consider whether to impose sanctions on Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at the body Tuesday, saying the United States' permanent inclusion on the council undermines its effectiveness and credibility.

"As long as the council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective," the president said.

Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly, Ahmadinejad had particularly harsh words for what he called the council's inaction in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. (Watch Ahmadinejad complain about the U.S. and the UK -- 3:27)

"It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine," he said of the conflicts in which Israel has been engaged in Gaza and the West Bank. "That apparently does not violate human rights."

Click Here for the rest of the story. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.un/index.html)

Damocles
09-19-2006, 08:51 PM
LOL. Isn't this like saying... "Bird flies by flapping its wings! More at 9!"

IHateGovernment
09-19-2006, 10:11 PM
The UN security council idea is dumb. Let's in all perpetuity have the dominant powers at the end of world war two have the ability to shape world policy.

Cypress
09-19-2006, 10:32 PM
The UN security council idea is dumb. Let's in all perpetuity have the dominant powers at the end of world war two have the ability to shape world policy.

Its an artifact of WWII, when the allied powers allowed themselves to be the dominant players at the UN.

In today's world, emerging powers India, Japan, and Brazil have as much right to be a permanent member as the increasingly irrelevant Britain and France.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 12:15 AM
Well at least the Iranian president is open and up front on critisizing the UN unlike Bush and attacking undercover.
I don't really think this was an unexpected speech from Iran.

Gaffer
09-20-2006, 11:12 AM
I was at work and didn't get to hear what ah'malittlehitler had to say. have to catch up on it. But it looks like nothing new there. Like all the little dictaors he wants to control the un.

I did catch shitvez's speech today. He sounds as crazy as ah'malittlehitler. He wants to move the un to venezuela. That sounds like a good idea. We can with draw from that piece of shit organization and they can move it down there and rename it the united dictaors.

Look for iran to develope nukes and begin shipping them to venezuela. north korea will supply medium range missiles and we will have another missile criss. and they are all supported by the I hate Bush crowd.

uscitizen is right, this country is full of stoopid people. They have a mental disorder called liberalism.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 11:21 AM
uscitizen is right, this country is full of stoopid people. They have a mental disorder called liberalism.
//

Lol , Gaffer I did not limit my statement to liberalism, that is your spin.
Of course stupidity is not limited to the USA....

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 11:29 AM
Its an artifact of WWII, when the allied powers allowed themselves to be the dominant players at the UN.

In today's world, emerging powers India, Japan, and Brazil have as much right to be a permanent member as the increasingly irrelevant Britain and France.

Agreed.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 11:30 AM
They have a mental disorder called liberalism.

Thank you Michael Wiener.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-20-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't believe the answer is to simply add more permanent security council members. I think general assembly should be apportioned to the square root of each country (or, possibly, regions) population, and the permanent membership should be abolished. We need to come up with a better method to ensure consensus.

Cancel7
09-20-2006, 08:27 PM
I was at work and didn't get to hear what ah'malittlehitler had to say. have to catch up on it. But it looks like nothing new there. Like all the little dictaors he wants to control the un.

I did catch shitvez's speech today. He sounds as crazy as ah'malittlehitler. He wants to move the un to venezuela. That sounds like a good idea. We can with draw from that piece of shit organization and they can move it down there and rename it the united dictaors.

Look for iran to develope nukes and begin shipping them to venezuela. north korea will supply medium range missiles and we will have another missile criss. and they are all supported by the I hate Bush crowd.

uscitizen is right, this country is full of stoopid people. They have a mental disorder called liberalism.

Oh is Ahmadinejad the new next Hitler? I remember when Saddam was the next Hitler, but now I guess he is the ex-new Hitler making Ahmadinejad the new next Hitler.

I find it so taxing trying to keep with all of the next Hitlers. I'm afraid I might miss one and then he'll be the last next Hitler before I even knew he was the new Hitler.

I do hope the right is going to put out a pamphlet, "The Idiot's Guide To The Next And The Last New Hitlers."

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 08:40 PM
I don't believe the answer is to simply add more permanent security council members. I think general assembly should be apportioned to the square root of each country (or, possibly, regions) population, and the permanent membership should be abolished. We need to come up with a better method to ensure consensus.
how about doing away with the permanent and overpowering veto power of a few nations ?

Gaffer
09-21-2006, 08:51 PM
I still say membership to the un should be limited only to true democracies. It would make for a very small un.

uscitizen
09-21-2006, 09:09 PM
Gaffer, no one would be there at all. there are no true democracies in the world.

AnyOldIron
09-22-2006, 06:03 AM
"As long as the council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective," the president said.

He is right. The UN is essentially the US' puppet, despite recent spats. The US has vetoed more resolutions and used the UN to conduct its foreign policy more than any other nation.

That it ironic that some in the US paint the UN as the anti-Christ.

Unless the UN becomes more democratic and scraps the SC in its current form.

AnyOldIron
09-22-2006, 06:05 AM
In today's world, emerging powers India, Japan, and Brazil have as much right to be a permanent member as the increasingly irrelevant Britain and France.

Neither India, Japan nor Brazil have as much influence on the world stage as the UK. That is a daft thing to claim.

But the UNSC permanent members should be scrapped and replaced with a rotating system.

Until this occurs, powers such as the US, UK, Russia and China will simply continue to abuse their positions.

AnyOldIron
09-22-2006, 06:29 AM
How can you claim that India, Japan and Brazil have more influence than the UK?

The UK has, despite its geographical size, got one of the largest and most advanced economies in the world.

Our military is the leading peacekeeping nation, operating and leading peacekeeping missions across the world, resolving situations such as Sierra Leone and leading the NATO fight against the Taleban.

The British Army is held as the standard for training troops across the world and trains the militaries of many fledgling democracies.

How does this compare to Japan, whose military since WWII is restricted to self defence, India whose military is trained by us and Brazil who have no military to speak of.

Then compare diplomatic influence... Britain is a nation that has modernised the world, something no state has done since Rome. Compare this influence to that of Japan (neglible - only a regional power), India (again, regional power) and Brazil (one step up from Banana Republic).

To compare these nations and then state that they have similar influence is laughable.

IHateGovernment
09-22-2006, 08:34 AM
I still say membership to the un should be limited only to true democracies. It would make for a very small un.

Perhaps this is your way of saying there should be no UN. There are no true democracies since a true democracy is an athenian democracy meaning all laws are made via public referendum.

IHateGovernment
09-22-2006, 08:39 AM
Neither India, Japan nor Brazil have as much influence on the world stage as the UK. That is a daft thing to claim.

Oh?

Japan contributes the second most funds to the UN and more so than the UK. Japan contributes one of worlds largest amounts of foreign aid to developing nations and more than the UK.

Japan produces more consumer goods that are used throughout the world and is the third largest economy significantly larger than Britain.

Care4all
09-22-2006, 08:45 AM
all of these third world countries and first world countries that you believe should have the same, equal weight as the usa..... need to start paying their fair share of the cost of the UN.....

right now, because the usa funds 25% of its costs, it probably feels that it should have more power on how to handle the funds and actions of the UN than a country with the power of and size of...New Jersey...., no?

(playing devil's advocate, in a way)