Iran Doesn't Give A Fuck

VIENNA, Austria - Iran "won't give a damn" about any U.N. resolutions concerning its nuclear program, its president said Friday, hours before an expected finding that Tehran has failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

The anticipated finding by U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei will set the stage for a confrontation at the Security Council.

If Iran does not comply, the council is likely to consider punitive measures against the Islamic republic. While Russia and China have been reluctant to endorse sanctions, the council's three other veto-wielding members say a strong response is in order.

The United States, France and Britain say that if Tehran does not meet the deadline, they will make the enrichment demand and other conditions compulsory and they want punitive measures to stay on the table.

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program.

"The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Khorramdareh in northwestern Iran.

"Today, they want to force us to give up our way through threats and sanctions but those who resort to language of coercion should know that nuclear energy is a national demand and by the grace of God, today Iran is a nuclear country," state-run television quoted him as saying.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won broad support from NATO allies for a tough diplomatic line on Iran if Tehran fails to comply.

However, NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, did not offer any specific threat of sanctions against Iran, in part to avoid a rift with Russia and China.

"On Iran, there was unanimity," Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters. "Although the clear message to the Iranian authorities is one of firmness, we have to continue with the diplomatic path."

Rice said it was time for the Security Council to act if the world body wished to remain credible.

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state," Rice said.

On Thursday, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammad Saeedi, met with Olli Heinonen, the International Atomic Energy Agency's deputy director general in charge of Iran's nuclear file, handing over material on Tehran's nuclear program in a bid to stave off sanctions.

Diplomats, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss confidential details of the IAEA's Iran probe, said they had no details of what Saeedi had brought to the table.

Still, they characterized the meeting between Saeedi and Heinonen as unlikely to blunt the report's main finding: that Tehran has ignored council requests to suspend uranium enrichment.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton already has said he plans to introduce a resolution requiring Tehran to comply with the council's demand to stop its enrichment program. The resolution would not call for sanctions now, but it would be introduced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for sanctions and is militarily enforceable.

Iran's U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said Tehran will refuse to comply with such a resolution because its activities are legal and peaceful. Enrichment can be used to generate fuel or make the fissile core of nuclear weapons.

"If the Security Council decides to take decisions that are not within its competence, then Iran does not feel obliged to obey," he said Thursday in New York.

He also said Tehran was prepared to return to discussions of the offer it made in negotiations with the Europeans last year if the international community agrees to "stop this nonsense, pressure tactic."

A Russian proposal to move Tehran's uranium enrichment to Russian territory "is still alive," he said, "and Iran is prepared to consider any proposal that will guarantee Iran's rights."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, insisted the U.N. nuclear watchdog should continue to play a central role in the dispute. "It mustn't shrug this role from its shoulders and pass it on to the U.N. Security Council," Putin said.

But a top French diplomat laid out a starkly contrasting position reflecting U.S. and British views: The Security Council should not only have primacy in dealing with Iran but also should start considering how to increase the pressure. But, the diplomat said, a U.N. resolution would not automatically mean resorting to military action.

The Security Council adopted a statement a month ago giving Iran until Friday to suspend all activities linked to enrichment because it can be used to make the highly enriched uranium used in the core of nuclear warheads.

Instead of complying, Iran — which says it seeks the technology only to generate electric power — has upped the ante recently, announcing it had for the first time successfully enriched uranium and was doing research on advanced centrifuges that would let it produce more of the material in less time.

Western concern has grown since 2002 when Iran was found to be working on large-scale plans to enrich uranium.

While the IAEA has found no "smoking gun" proving Iran wants nuclear arms, a series of reports have revealed worrying clandestine activities — like plutonium processing — and documents, including drawings of how to mold weapons-grade uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

Its just how the United States views things, I don't blame them.

So if you see them on the block with two glocks screaming fuck the world like Tupac

They just don't give a fuck

yeah fuck you too

No need for unpleasantries Doyle

Eminem song "Just don't give a fuck".

S-a-r-c-a-s-m, spell it out bitch.

I can't spell

Give me a nigger.

Why does there always have to be a conflict?

Cos there is no other way to deal with this situation. Fair enough, in Iraq maybe there could have been ways around going into striaghout war. But Iran has been fucking about for a long, long time. Sanctions won't do shit, a lot of the kids are starving in the streets as it is, and it won't stop them buying weapons because they already have them in abundance. Can't ask them politely to shut down the labs because you just get a "Fuck you, infedel" right back.

I'm all in favour of tanking Iran into dust as long as it stops the possibility of any of that uranium getting over the border and into Saudi or Syria. Because if it does, you can bet your life it will find its way to the streets of London, or New York, or any Western city.

Maybe Iran will 'give a damn' when its bunkers are getting cosy with a few American cruise missles.

It is a scary thought though. I dont think they would be saying "fuck you" if they never had the arms and power to stand a chance. If one country needs to be nuked it is them.

Its a shame though as alot of people there dont agree with him and it will be them that will die.

The Iran administration doesn't stand a chance. They will get fucked. Maybe, maybe they'll use chemical weapons on an invading battallion. But if they do that, every other Western power will come down on them like a ton of bricks, and the nation will be fucked economically and militarily for about 150 years. The only real struggle in taking Iran will be insurgency after the invasion, like we're currently seeing in Iraq. In that event, it won't be Iran that would be fighting, it would be Al Qaeda.



Yeah, it is a shame. Mind you, if it comes down to a choice between them and me, they bite the bullet every time. Call me heartless, but a few hundred civilians thousands of miles away can die as long as I don't get a dirty bomb around my area any time soon.

yeah man I 100% agree. But do you think they may have some weapon or something to take US or someone out already?

I personaly dont give a shit about the people in iran... if they dont agree with this guy then they should get out now

Your'e not heartless, I don't give a fuck about them either.
What do you mean they don't have a chance? Isin't that what we thought about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq? I think if we did start a war with them, without nukes, we would be econimiclly fucked in the A. Maybe nukes would be the way to go.. but then there would be the possibility of a nuclear war.

Vietnam was a problem because the terrain was so unfamiliar to US troops. With Iran, its land that the US has been marching through for almost 20 years.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, they are on no near parrallels with the type of disaster Vietnam was. To be honest, I think taking and holding Iran would be easier than Iraq. Since Iran actually deserves it, a lot of extremist groups would come under heavy criticism from the Islamic community for helping out, so many probably will just stick to trying to 'liberate' Iraq from the evil Western dictators.

As for being economically fucked, are you kidding? The US is raking cash in, even more so after Iraq. Spending more money on fucking with Iran would be simple, especially with the aid that other countries would give in favour of the move.

I always wondered why arnold schwarzenegger can't just invade iran himself, like in Commando. he took on that entire base single handedly. those movies are real.

Vietnam was a problem because the terrain was so unfamiliar to US troops. With Iran, its land that the US has been marching through for almost 20 years.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, they are on no near parrallels with the type of disaster Vietnam was. To be honest, I think taking and holding Iran would be easier than Iraq. Since Iran actually deserves it, a lot of extremist groups would come under heavy criticism from the Islamic community for helping out, so many probably will just stick to trying to 'liberate' Iraq from the evil Western dictators.

As for being economically fucked, are you kidding? The US is raking cash in, even more so after Iraq. Spending more money on fucking with Iran would be simple, especially with the aid that other countries would give in favour of the move.

....

I always wondered why arnold schwarzenegger can't just invade iran himself, like in Commando. he took on that entire base single handedly. those movies are real.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran threatened on Tuesday to attack Israel in response to any "evil" act by the United States and said it had enriched uranium to a level close to the maximum compatible with civilian use in power stations.

The defiant statements were issued shortly before world powers meet in Paris to discuss the next steps after Tehran rejected a U.N. call to halt uranium enrichment.

Senior officials from the U.N. Security Council's permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany were to discuss how to curb an Iranian program that Western nations say conceals a drive for atomic warheads.

Iran denies the charge and refuses to back down from what it calls its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Driving home that message, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, said his country had now succeeded in purifying uranium to 4.8 percent, at the top end of the 3 to 5 percent range for fuel used in nuclear power plants.

"Enrichment above 5 percent is not on Iran's agenda," Aghazadeh told the students' ISNA news agency.

Iran has previously said it had enriched to more than 4 percent, far below the 80 percent level needed for bomb-making.

It has used a test cascade of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium so far and is building two similar cascades. It says it will start installing 3,000 centrifuges later this year -- enough to yield material for one bomb within a year.

The United States and Israel have vowed to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Washington has not excluded war if diplomacy fails, while Tehran has sworn to retaliate if attacked.

TARGETING ISRAEL

"We have announced that wherever America does something evil, the first place that we target will be Israel," ISNA quoted a senior Revolutionary Guards commander, Rear Admiral Mohammad-Ebrahim Dehqani, as saying on Tuesday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map."

Iran's deputy oil minister said there was "some possibility" of a U.S. attack on his country over its nuclear program.

"I am worried. Everybody is worried," Mohammad Hadi Nejad-Hosseinian said in New Delhi after talks on a proposed $7-billion pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan.

Concerns that Iran's dispute with the West could lead to disruption of its oil output pushed oil prices above $74 a barrel, close to the record of $75.35 touched last month.

The United States, Britain and France are expected to introduce a resolution to the Security Council this week that would legally oblige Iran to comply with U.N. demands. The three countries favor limited sanctions if Tehran remains defiant.

Iran said Russia and China, also veto-wielding permanent council members, would not back any punitive measures.

"The thing these two countries have officially told us and expressed in diplomatic negotiations is their opposition to sanctions and military attacks," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Iran's Kayhan newspaper.

China and Russia both have big energy interests in Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil exporter. Russia is also helping Iran build its first atomic power plant in the Gulf port of Bushehr.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. under-secretary of state for political affairs, said in Paris that Tuesday's meeting would seek to keep the Security Council members and Germany united before a meeting of foreign ministers in New York on May 9.

Asked about Mottaki's comments, he said: "All I know is that China and Russia say that they don't want a nuclear-armed Iran. And China and Russia have voted with us against the government of Iran. So we intend to preserve this unity."

Burns said he expected a consensus to emerge over the next 30-40 days on the need to send a "stiff message" to Iran, adding that a range of sanctions had been discussed privately.

These included restricting exports to Iran of dual-use technology that could support its research and development or help it fabricate fissile material or a nuclear device.

Other options were travel curbs on Iranian officials and a ban on arms sales to Iran, such as a planned Russian missile deal. Oil and gas sanctions were not being discussed now.

"We hope that the U.N. Security Council, through a resolution, will send a firm and united message to Iran," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said in Paris.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says it cannot confirm that Iran's goals are peaceful, but has found no proof of a military program.

A U.N. resolution would be adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, making it binding in international law. A separate resolution would be required for sanctions or military action.

(Additional reporting by Alireza Ronaghi and Parinoosh Arami in Tehran, Mark Heinrich in Vienna, Jon Boyle in Paris and Himanghsu Watts in New Delhi)

What is this licking India's ass action of Bush supposed to be?
Why is India nd Pakistan owning nuclear weapons safer than Iran?
Both India and Pakistan are all the time threatening each other of using nukes as a last resort.
Israel threatens Iran to use nukes as a last resort, mybe even as "preemptive" "solution".
The word "preemptive" is misused here. What they are talking about is PREVENTIVE.
Same with Americas "preemptive" strikes.
More on the fine difference you can read in every text concerning international law.
Everybody is violating international law, geneve conventions and crying that all the others don't abide by it.