NationStates Jolt Archive

World Leaders Condemn Iranian's Call to Wipe Israel 'Off the Map'.
Washington, Friday, October 28, 2005; A16

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221_pf.html

Blair: comment was "completely and totally unacceptable."

Chirac: Iran risked "being left on the outside of other nations."

_________________________________________________________
...If you hear what other World Leaders (heads of state, PMs, etc) had to say about the Israel wipe thing...be-my-guest...post it here.

Not much of a surprise. That comment was a little extreme even for Iran (an Iran suspected of developing nuclear weapons and aiding fighters in Iraq), and Israel still has poltical capital from the Gaza withdraw.

The EU says
http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107293561746&a=KArticle&aid=1129043426235&date=2005-10-27
"EU leaders meeting at Hampton Court today condemned in the strongest terms the comments in respect of the State of Israel attributed to President Ahmedinejad of Iran. Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community.

Such comments will cause concern about Iran's role in the region, and its future intentions. The fact that these comments were made on the same day as a horrific attack on Israeli civilians should reinforce the lesson that incitement to violence, and the terrorism that it breeds, are despicable and unacceptable acts. For its part, the EU remains committed to a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute based on the principle of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. It urges all parties in the region to do their utmost to bring that vision to fulfilment."

http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107293561746&a=KArticle&aid=1129043426235&date=2005-10-27
Interesting...

eu2005.gov.uk: "Iran: Statement by the Presidency on behalf of EU leaders meeting at Hampton Court, 27 October 2005"

So what do they mean "by the presidency on behalf of EU leaders..."

What I really want to see is...what the Country Leaders have to say themselves...

no "on behalf's" need to apply...on my thread.

Interesting...

eu2005.gov.uk: "Iran: Statement by the Presidency on behalf of EU leaders meeting at Hampton Court, 27 October 2005"

So what do they mean "by the presidency on behalf of EU leaders..."

What I really want to see is...what the Country Leaders have to say themselves...

no "on behalf's" need to apply on my thread.
Er...it will be a statement agreed and supported by all EU leaders. Easier to make one statement representing their views when, after all, they are all having a friendly chat in London, than to post 20-odd separate ones all saying the same thing.

Easier to make one statement representing their views when, after all, they are all having a friendly chat in London....looks like Blair and Chirac Though this was important enough to make a statement.

They spared 5 minutes...to talk to the press about Iran...

Interesting...

eu2005.gov.uk: "Iran: Statement by the Presidency on behalf of EU leaders meeting at Hampton Court, 27 October 2005"

So what do they mean "by the presidency on behalf of EU leaders..."

The presidency of the EU rotates between the different member states every six months. This half year it has been the UK's turn. It is customary for the EU countries to let the Presidency speak for them when a statement is made jointly by the EU members.

looks like Blair and Chirac Though this was important enough to make a statement.
That's because the UK is the EU President, and Chirac likes to get his word in no matter what.

That's because the UK is the EU President, and Chirac likes to get his word in no matter what.LOL... :D

looks like Blair and Chirac Though this was important enough to make a statement.
Listen here: Every one of the leaders made an individual comment - that includes the bosses of Slovenia and Greece.

They also prepared a joint statement, given that they were currently attending a summit on the EU Budget etc in England.

I couldn't find the statement of the German Chancellor, because for some reason the Kanzleramt website is down (:rolleyes:), but I found this. The EU is a political body with its own foreign policy guidelines. Its statement thus has relevance.

Aljazeera talks about the Arab response:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8A1704B2-F0F1-4170-B03B-B8B260C8CAE4.htm
Egyptian Foreign Ministry and cabinet officials said Cairo would have nothing to say on the address.

Egyptian government officials played down the importance of the speech, saying it was intended for a conservative Iranian audience which remained faithful to the thinking behind the 1979 revolution.
...
Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher also declined comment, apparently to avoid further aggravating relations with Iran, which the kingdom has accused of interfering in Iraq to strengthen Shia influence in the Middle East.
...
Mustafa Alani, an analyst from the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai, said Arab states will see Ahmadinejad's speech as showing up the Iranian government to be "illogical, irrational".

"The Arab countries have benefited," Alani said. "They will never issue a statement, but they are happy that he proved the Iranians, on the regional level, are not rational."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B882E879-1F7C-4CC0-B94E-2EF6310AAD9A.htm
And Spain says:
In Madrid the Spanish Foreign Ministry said " ... Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has expressed his rejection in the most emphatic terms and has decided to urgently call in the Iranian ambassador to ask him for an explanation".

Listen here: Every one of the leaders made an individual comment - that includes the bosses of Slovenia and Greece.then maybe you can post the link...
I couldn't find the statement of the German Chancellor, because for some reason the Kanzleramt website is down (:rolleyes:), Then again maybe not...
.
.
In any event I am sure they had something to say...I just want to hear it...I am not asking too much...

I mean what is the use of having multi billion dollars invested on the Internet infrastructure...if you cant find the German Chancellor comments... ;)

Aljazeera talks about the Arab response:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8A1704B2-F0F1-4170-B03B-B8B260C8CAE4.htm


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B882E879-1F7C-4CC0-B94E-2EF6310AAD9A.htm
And Spain says:I mean what is the point of investing in multi-million dollars Western NEWS Corps...when we already have good old Al-Jazeera.

:D :D :p :D

I mean what is the use of having multi billion dollars invested on the Internet infrastructure...if you cant find the German Chancellor comments... ;)
This is just plain freaky...
Here's what the German media says (apparently the Chancellor doesn't matter :p )
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382133,00.html

This is just plain freaky...
Here's what the German media says (apparently the Chancellor doesn't matter :p )I know...I didnt even search...cos I knew.

BTW your Aljazeera article does not say what the Presidents say...just other "In-Behalf" people.

Eventually the media will get around to publishing their actual comments...and is not going to be as bad as they(media) makes it appear...not even close.

I do not expect much angry outrage ... besides Bush and Sharon.

I do not expect much angry outrage ... besides Bush and Sharon.

Bush has already condemned it and Israel told Iran to go screw themselves basically. :D

Bush has already condemned it and Israel told Iran to go screw themselves basically. :D
Well you wouldn't have expected Israel to react differently, would you?
Should they have said: "Oh, you're right, we don't think we should be here either" and then under go a Spontaneuous Mass Existence Failure?

Bush has already condemned it and Israel told Iran to go screw themselves basically. :D
And rightly so, may I add. You don't go around and do diplomatic faux-pas² without some sort of reaction.

I still think the whole thing was a domestic politics stunt, and doesn't actually have any consequences as far as Iranian foreign policy is concerned.

And rightly so, may I add. You don't go around and do diplomatic faux-pas² without some sort of reaction.

I still think the whole thing was a domestic politics stunt, and doesn't actually have any consequences as far as Iranian foreign policy is concerned.
Other then to place them at odds with the entire western world. Not to mention giving America one more reason to invade and creating a diplomatic vacuum whereby the European nations cannot condemn such an invasion without holding a distinct aroma of flip-flop.

...whereby the European nations cannot condemn such an invasion without holding a distinct aroma of flip-flop.
All options are open.
The EU-3 have worked on this since Day One, and offered sensible deals. The Iranians didn't want them, and think they can instead drive the price up a bit more. But that'll work only to a point.
The attempt to get them before the Security Council was a warning shot (seems like the rest of the world wasn't pulling this time, ie China and Russia).

If Iran decides to ignore all the good advice the Europeans are giving them (and independently - that was proven with Iraq once and for all), you can be pretty certain that the EU will hold up its end of the deal.

The US held itself back with the war rhetoric and the threats while the EU did its thing, but if it fails, the EU will back the US all the way on this (or most of it anyways, there may still be some ideological details).
Don't expect Germany to send troops, but France will, the UK will and many others. And no one will block it. I just hope that they do it through the UN (ie get Russia and China to accept), rather than kill it for good by ignoring it.

i don't believe anyone including the us really has the stomach for an invasion of iran... it would be much worse than the invasion of iraq. iran has three times the population and a much more internally popular government, it would absolutely solidity the rest of the worlds opinion that these are new crusades, even more so than an invasion of syria which i also strongly doubt will take place.

Don't expect Germany to send troops, but France will, the UK will and many others. And no one will block it. I just hope that they do it through the UN (ie get Russia and China to accept), rather than kill it for good by ignoring it.If France or UK attack Iran without UN mandate it would be an Illegal War. And I dont see them doing that.

Like I said... the road to Teheran goes tru Beijing.

If France or UK attack Iran without UN mandate it would be an Illegal War. And I dont see them doing that.

Like I said... the road to Teheran goes tru Beijing.

Actually, it won't be an illegal war. Under Article 1 of the UN Charter: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...

Iran has threatened the peace so legally, under Article 1 nations can legally go in without a UN Mandate.

Actually, it won't be an illegal war. Under Article 1 of the UN Charter: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...

Iran has threatened the peace so legally, under Article 1 nations can legally go in without a UN Mandate.I dont think so

I dont think so

That is UN Article 1. Are you going to deny that it is what it is? I can make a case for Iran right now just based on that article alone.