Iran Warns U.N. Referral Would End Diplomacy

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 31, 2006
Filed at 12:11 p.m. ET

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran struck back Tuesday at the Big Five powers' decision to refer Iran's nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, saying the move would mean the end of diplomacy over its atomic program.

Gold tops $575 as silver stakes gains

Iran nuclear standoff prompts safe-haven buying

By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 PM ET Jan 31, 2006

Overnight, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China all agreed that the Security Council in March should consider Iran's situation, which could result in punitive action.

Russia surprisingly backed the move after long resisting a referral, though it's unclear whether Russia would back Security Council sanctions against Iran.

Meanwhile, the Tehran government said a referral would mean the end of any attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Oil-rich Iran has consistently denied claims that it's aiming to create nuclear weapons, arguing that its research is solely aimed at generating energy for civilian purposes.

Gold tops $575 as silver stakes gains

Iran nuclear standoff prompts safe-haven buying

By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 PM ET Jan 31, 2006

Overnight, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China all agreed that the Security Council in March should consider Iran's situation, which could result in punitive action.

Russia surprisingly backed the move after long resisting a referral, though it's unclear whether Russia would back Security Council sanctions against Iran.

Meanwhile, the Tehran government said a referral would mean the end of any attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Oil-rich Iran has consistently denied claims that it's aiming to create nuclear weapons, arguing that its research is solely aimed at generating energy for civilian purposes.

Least we forget, the ZOGs murdered over 500,000 Iraqi children alone thru sanctions and embargos of foods and medicine (1990-2000).

Remember what the jewess Secretary of State Madeline Albright said about the murders of those 500,000 children ?? "We think it was worth it." And she said it on national TV.

Meanwhile, Falwell, Robertson, Graham, John Haggar (ms), et.al., beat Israel's war drums while telling their lemming flocks they'll burn in hell if they criticise the GD kikes, deny Israel trillions in American tax dollars, or refuse to send their goyim sons and daughters to fight and die in more and more jew wars, indefinately.

Lets just hope Irans' pres has more balls than Saddam.

You KNOW they are gonna get attacked, and when they do, they should unleash their entire arsenal on Izzyhell.

Lets just hope Irans' pres has more balls than Saddam. You KNOW they are gonna get attacked, and when they do, they should unleash their entire arsenal on Izzyhell.

My sentiments exactly. This president of theirs is a fighter, maybe a bit like old Adolf H. Like the old Fuhrer, he is onto izzy and his tricks. He's hosting an international conference for holohoax sceptics, wher an open and frank discussion of thet REALLY happened to all those kikes in WW2.

Then he'll use the resources of the state to make sure the entire world hears just what a crock of bullshit that 6 million gassed izzies always was. Iran and Syria combined would give Israhell a very hard time.

All the fuss about nukes, is just for public consumption. Without nukes, Iran could give izzy a really bad Sunburn. Right now. I hope we get to see good footage.
The nukes are just the WMD of this trip around the terror wheel.

I would expect that the Iranians might do a surprise attack against US ships in the region if it becomes clear that they inevitably will be attacked. Otherwise they may not get to use their Sunburn missiles. I doubt that Iran's tanks will be much of a consideration. It is likely that as in Iraq it will be the unconventional warfare, after the tanks are all fried, that will be the serious problem. The State of Israel will also pay a serious price when all the missiles in southern Lebanon are launched.

I said in early 2003 that Iran was the bigger objective, because Iran is the real problem for the State of Israel.

See this book by John Poole,

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963869574/002-6527759-3067205?v=glance&n=283155

Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods (Paperback)
by H. John Poole, Ray L. Smith (Foreword) "As America struggles to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, it must remember that this region has hosted cultures much older than its own..." (more)

The US military has been gaming Iran invasion for years, havent they? Why is invasion now any more likely than a year ago? I remember people predicting invasion a year ago, or two. Why?

This may end up a thing where we lob a few missiles in to save face, and leave it at that. I think that Iraq is such a total goatfuck that the military could mutiny if they really had to invade and occupy Iran as well as Iraq. It's really not feasible. Look at how long the logistics train would be. I really doubt it, even though Bushy is saber-rattling. Now with Sharon dead, the peacenik left in Israel is preparing to try and win the next election and this Ehud Olmert is a nonentity. The Israeli left does not want an Iran invasion at this time, and they will inform their operatives in the US Jew Diaspora to attack Bush and thus to hamstring his ability to launch any sustained military effort.

I am now betting against invasion of Iran. That seems more unlikely to me now than ever. I know that's counterintuitive to many of these obvious trends, but like I said I don't really think it's all that feasible.

Did you hear Gen Odom former head of NSA said that the USA should "cut and run in Iraq?" A USMC vet stood up at the Q&A part of the speech and said, "what did you say?" And the Gen Said: "CUT AND RUN. We would have needed 700,000 troops to do the Iraq job right and we have 150 there now. CUT AND RUN." Think about that.

Yes, yes, all very valid points, but.... Do you think Bush is a man of reason? Do you think he will allow Iran to start selling oil for euros next month? Did you know Iraq was going to do that exact same thing before we invaded last time?

Iraq is almost America's downfall, Iran will be it's downfall because no one will pay attention to anything America says ever again. Iran is not going to nuke anybody, that is the WMD arguement they are trying to use again, nukes are deterrants, Pakistan, Israel and India haven't nuked anyone yet and neither will Iran because the thing is with nukes if you send one out you get one back.

Meanwhile, Falwell, Robertson, Graham, John Haggar (ms), et.al., beat Israel's war drums while telling their lemming flocks they'll burn in hell if they criticise the GD kikes, deny Israel trillions in American tax dollars, or refuse to send their goyim sons and daughters to fight and die in more and more jew wars, indefinately.

Isn't it the sickest thing in the world that the supposed 'men of God' are lower and cheaper than a midway barker in a sleazy carnival ? The pathetic sheep that follow these frauds, I don't know wether they deserve pitty or contempt. How can white adults be childishly gullible and swayed by religious hucksters ?
Christianity seems to have degenerated into jew worship and little more.

"There are more devils behind pulpits than there are devils in hell . " old English adage