What does the US have to gain by this?
Does it make the world safer?
Does it make the US seem like a stubborn bully?
What harm is being done by talking?

don't know, but you have to trust the U.S. It could be some other reason, maybe National Security reasons.

I quit trusting the US a long, long time ago.

They're just being pricks. The UN should decide to move elsewhere.

I don't trust the Iranians either. I'll stick with the Obama Administration thank you.

The UN needs to be re-tooled. Anyone who does any sort of reading would know how corrupt it is.

I would personally like to see our UN cash go to infrastructure and education here in the US, but maybe that makes me a nationalistic flag-waiver.

they receive a few billion a year and they had Osama hiding out in their country! If that's not a reason to cut off aid, I don't know what is.

I don't understand why all of this is "off the table."

Why is it so crazy to want some new schools and roads here instead of Afghanistan? That isn't anti-Afghan, that is just looking out for my children.

move them to Europe

between Israel and the US. The US is known to kowtow to Israel's demands.

The US was against statehood in 1948. So were the "Palestinians." Get a grip on history. The Palestinians chose NOT to have a state. War i
was a better idea. Don't forget who they supported during WWII.

WTF does that have to do with the US not granting Visas to the Iranian delegation? It is a known fact that recent history, years after WWII, the US does kowtow to Israel, and the Israelis know it.

It's shaming itself and goes against what the UN was created for. I agree that the UN should move to another country where they can reasonably do the work that is necessary to make the world a better place. Parties have to come to the table for debate to take place. Sadly this move reeks of something the Bush Administration would do and also hurts the movement for democracy within Iran as it emboldens the Iranian government. It's a highly counter productive move and I'm relatively sure it is once again the hand of Israel within the US government pulling the strings.

These policies from the Bush days have been largely held over. It's not Obama's own doings, it's the people who're actually in charge.

For the country engaging for over a decade in war of choice, this is an arrogant effort to further cast blame on Iran when substance is otherwise lacking. International law doesn't mean much anymore. Raw power and willingness to attack do. Not much Iran can do about it, is there?

What the hell is that supposed to even mean?

to all the neocon appointees from the Bush Administration. Why the "what the hell is that supposed to mean"? It should be obvious to anyone who's been keeping up.

Then yours is speculation. If I wanted that, I could have done it on my own. It should be obious the person is NOT talking about appointees for anyone keeping up.

Let me speculate on something else instead. Your tone in your posts seems over reactionary and loud. Why? Can you possibly debate without all the emotion?

Your tone suggests arrogance and a likely undeserved sense of superiority. Why? Can you possibly discuss things without attitude?

Tone is difficult to discern in a written post unless there's obvious exclamation marks (shouting) or rude comments. As far as superiority goes I'm no better than you nor do I presume to be. I'm just some person sitting in front of a computer engaging you in a debate.

You are doing nothing more than passing judgment on me. I asked that poster a very specific question. Exclamation marks are not shouting...THIS IS SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET! I don't mind your rude comments, but if you make them you always take the chance the person who is on the receiving end will respond to them, and in some cases, in kind.

And wish you a good night.

I saw a post yesterday that had me thinking the same thing as BtA did when I read the post in this thread. I don't know if I'm allowed to link to hidden posts, so I won't, but it was an Israel did 9/11 post that was imo, on the nose...

to be represented at the UN.
Iran has many problems that concern the world: As a signatory to the atomic non-proliferation treaty, they seem to be either violating it or on the verge of doing so. Of course Israel has many atomic weapons and is as much a regional threat as Iran. I would argue moreso because of its blank check from the USA.
Whatever, UN delegates need to be able to come and go and take part.

This is a government that makes being gay an imprisonable offense. And they want to attend the fucking Third Committee?

What, is there an exceptionally good lunch buffet?

and Gulf States that imprison people for public kissing? Or African countries with corrupt regimes that conduct their version of the "law"? Or Western countries, like ours, that illegally invade other countries while bugging the UN to implement that illegal invasion. And what of Ukraine and Belarus with their supposedly corrupt leaders?

The UN is where the world is supposed to go to resolve issues. To deny a country the right to attend says more about the country that issues that verdict than it does about the country that is being denied. How will denying Iran a seat at the table help abolish the death penalty for homosexuals or anyone for that matter? If anything it's counter productive as it will cause people to sympathize with Iran's leaders. This is simply not a good move by the US. Especially when we need to regain the worlds respect in regards to international treaties and respect for other countries in general. We don't have to respect Iran but we should respect the institution of the United Nations.

They already have "a seat at the table."

They attempted to add new people to their delegation under the pretense of those people attending a meeting that is as relevant to them as a coconut convention is to the mayor of Fairbanks.

The proposed new "delegates" then didn't pass the security screening. No visa for them.

Iran wails and gnashes its teeth. The more credulous Westerners join them. But all involved parties knew exactly what was going on here, because it's all a game both sides are playing all the time.

Take their ball and head home.

Correct me if I am wrong but Iran will still have a delegation, right?

But look how the US treats Cuba. What is wrong with talking to them? They have longer memories going back to 1954.

It's not like A-jad and his crew of crazies have never been to the US for UN meetings before.

Unless there's some specific intel on those that were requesting the visas, I just find this pointless. But then again, any human rights commission or council with Iran on it is automatically pointless.

I think it would be better for all parties if the UN were to move. It would mean lost revenue for NYC though. But overall, I think a smaller country, with a more neutral presence on most world affairs (like say, Switzerland), would be a better home. Or some small island somewhere.

That's exactly how I feel about the US being on any human rights commission.

then you compare the two

to a third country to be tortured like we do with rendition.

-or-

When Iran sends in drones to bomb villages killing scores of women and children like we do in Pakistan.

-or-

When Iran sends in its secret services to engineer the overthrow of a foreign government and install a torture and murder happy government like we did in Chile.

-or-

When Iran allows its citizens to go without basic medical care like we do.

-or-

When Iran shoots down a civilian US jetliner and refuse to even apologize.

THEN you can compare the two.

maybe they should stay home