NationStates Jolt Archive

France's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, has said that, when it comes to Iran, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."


A warning from French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that the world has to prepare for a possible war with Iran over its nuclear programme triggered alarm in the Middle East and elsewhere Monday.

Iran's official media launched a scathing response to the remarks, made in a broadcast interview Sunday evening, and Paris of pandering to the United States.

"The new occupants of the Elysee (presidential palace) want to copy the White House," the state-owned IRNA news agency said in an editorial.

[...]

Kouchner, a former international charity chief and Socialist health minister, said that the world should negotiate with Iran "right to the end" over its nuclear programme.

But, Kouchner warned, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

He added that the current stand-off was "the greatest crisis" of present times.

[...]

Kouchner said that if the UN is unable to agree on a new round of sanctions, then the European Union should prepare its own.

[...]

And he said that leading French companies such as Total and Gaz de France have been urged not to sign new contracts with Iran.

Tehran, which denies seeking to build an atomic weapon, was contemptuous of France's stance.

"The occupants of the Elysee have become the executors of the will of the White House and have adopted a tone that is even harder, even more inflammatory and more illogical than that of Washington," IRNA said.

But Israel welcomed Kouchner's comments, with foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev saying that sent a "clear message to Tehran."


(source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070916-kouchner-france-iran-worst-case-war-nuclear-us-ahmadinejad.html), with video)

Kouchner, once famed as the "French doctor" who was photographed carrying bags of rice onto the Somali coast in the 90s, has become an increasingly controversial figure in France, especially when he was the main (and almost only) French politician supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He's been accused of making "shock statements" and of deliberately trying to be different or controversial just for the sake of appearing on TV.

Still, he's now part of the government again -a long standing ambition of his, which he achieved only by switching from the left to the right- which means that his statements theoretically carry weight. Leading us to the question: What the hell is he thinking??

Sarkozy's government has been keen to cosy up to the US, trying to perform a tricky juggling act between pandering openly to Washington's foreign policies and trying not to appear too blatant about it. Sarkozy is on the dangerous ground. He may have become one of Bush's new best friends, but French public opinion isn't going to take kindly to the prospect of France following Bush into a war on Iran.

Kouchner, once famed as the "French doctor" who was photographed carrying bags of rice onto the Somali coast in the 90s, has become an increasingly controversial figure in France, especially when he was the main (and almost only) French politician supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He's been accused of making "shock statements" and of deliberately trying to be different or controversial just for the sake of appearing on TV.


Yeah. Kouchner stinks.

Sarkozy's government has been keen to cosy up to the US, trying to perform a tricky juggling act between pandering openly to Washington's foreign policies and trying not to appear too blatant about it. Sarkozy is on the dangerous ground. He may have become one of Bush's new best friends, but French public opinion isn't going to take kindly to the prospect of France following Bush into a war on Iran.

Well, Germany, Italy and Spain aren't going to like this move of Jerkozy too much, either.

Damn, ve'll haff to infade Frankreich ageyn.

Well, if right-wing nutjobs have any policies in common, it's always the will to invade oil-rich states.

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

I can't help but to laugh when I read that.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

I can't help but to laugh when I read that.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.
Hell, we (the UK) lecture Iran on building nuclear weapons while at the same time extending our nuclear weapons programme.

Never underestimate the French apatite for imperialistic interventionism, they didn't even seek Parliamentary approval for the attack in Sierra Leone.

Never underestimate the French apatite for imperialistic interventionism, they didn't even seek Parliamentary for the attack in Sierra Leone.

Nor UN Permission.

All this talk about war with Iran is really depressing me.

Mark my words, in a year or so they'd wish they had voted for Royale.

Fixed, unfortunately.

Are you suggesting France would use nuclear weapons against Iran....? Or the hypocrisy of the situation?

All this talk from a world fucking leader armed with nukes about war with Iran is really depressing me.
Fixed, unfortunately.

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

You left out North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.

It is rather depressing to see the rise of the 'Tosser' element in France, particularily as Blair is gone and we near the end of the Bush debacle.....

Never underestimate the French apatite for imperialistic interventionism, they didn't even seek Parliamentary approval for the attack in Sierra Leone.

Sierra Leone? When did we attack Sierra Leone? I like to think I keep aware of what's going on, but I'm drawing a blank here. :confused:

By the way, I can assure you there is no general public "apatite" for such things.

Yes. All other considerations aside, it's not even logical for the French government to be pandering to Bush while he's on his way out.

Meh, internal french politics: let's be nice with the US, frenchmen voted for that foreing policy after all. Now Jerkozy's got to give his electors something to say "hey, he's doing what he said after all" - expecially since his honeymoon is already over.

haha! TYM WRP!
http://www.time-warp.it/immagini/twarp.jpg

You left out North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.

It is rather depressing to see the rise of the 'Tosser' element in France, particularily as Blair is gone and we near the end of the Bush debacle.....

Yes. All other considerations aside, it's not even logical for the French government to be pandering to Bush while he's on his way out.

Its rather sad that as a cynical bastard, I can still be dissappointed. One can only hope that the words are not met by actual intent. Otherwise we will be dependent on the Russians and Chinese to prevent some US backed insanity....which is madness in itself.....

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

I can't help but to laugh when I read that.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

None of the countries listed have said they intend to wipe a nation off the face of the earth...Iran has..and on more than one occasion...

...nice try but you fail...horribly...

expecially since his honeymoon is already over.

He had a honeymoon? I thought it ended during his infamous Malta trip. "Ça commence Malte" and all that.

Anyway, Kouchner is a douchebag, and I've said so for years.

Hell, we (the UK) lecture Iran on building nuclear weapons while at the same time extending our nuclear weapons programme.

Ah yes, hypocrisy is the life blood of politicians isn't it?

You left out North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.

Yes with good reason. I was picking those who carry clout on the UN Security Council, as well as those who are happy to be hypocrites in the matter.

I also didn't cite India or Pakistan because those two nations were permitted to possess nuclear arms, so I counted them out because they had been un pursuit and I have yet to read of those two nations speaking out against Tehran's right to possess nuclear arms.

Israel well... granted they do have a point about security being in the ME and all but still, there is no real proof that Israel has them. It's been mum on it so I didn't want to bring it up.

And North Korea... it's in its own world and wasn't it working on disarming? Or at least shutting down nuclear plants? (Someone know more about this?)

None of the countries listed have said they intend to wipe a nation off the face of the earth...Iran has..and on more than one occasion...

...nice try but you fail...horribly...

Oh, like the US wouldn't have dropped MORE nuclear weapons on Japan? I say it did have the intent to destroy Japan using nuclear weapons.

Even if you claim it didn't, you cannot deny the fact that the US is the ONLY nation in history to have used not just one but two atomic bombs against another nation.

I don't fail because the matter is simple, the US used two A-bombs against Japan and no other nation has done the same, in war or otherwise.

Further, even if a nation says it intends to... it means nothing because talk is cheap unless you put your money where your mouth is and too much is at stake if Tehran did use a nuclear bomb against Israel. They would suffer far more than Israel would.

Kouchner is the original neocon, that is someone who used to be on the liberal left but has taken to see democracy as the be all and end all. So now he wants to free the world from dictatorships and is willing to sacrifice a bunch of things for that goal. Just without the most of the shady connections and religious connotations that have taken over the neocon movement in America.

A little bit like the original American neocons, who I believe mostly started off in the Trotskyist camp and then just switched what they wanted to introduce after the world revolution.

I don't know, on one hand I can sympathise with him, because I prefer democracies to brutal dictatorships too. And sometimes I wonder whether it is right to let Mugabe, the Burmese Junta or Kim Jong-Il do these things to their people/victims.

On the other hand, war is probably simply not practical. It's gonna cause more problems and grief than it would solve.

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

I can't help but to laugh when I read that.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

You know theres a massive flaw there and you know it. France and Iran are entirely different countries, one of the differences being that France doesn't want to wipe a nation of the map. France is a secular democracy and is not going to use the nuclear weapons it has without provocation. Iran has not proven itself to be the same.

I'm no fan of the right wing, but it irks me when obviously intelligent people blindfold themselves to how attrocious some States really are.

Let me test how much freedom we have for open discussion.

If Kouchner were KHALIQ, and proposed sanctions, and a possible military operation against Israel, how would people interpret the situation? The reason I say this is, Kouchner is actually Jewish. It also just so happens that Sarkozy is Jewish. (as is his wife) France's new openly confrontational stance towards Iran coincides with their taking office. Sarkozy is, by the way, openly good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu, who is Chairman of the Likud Party in Israel.

If we're going to discuss this matter, I think we should have all the information present.

This has been around for a few days now, but Spiegel just finished an English article on it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506124,00.html
THANKS BUT NO THANKS
Sarko's Nuke Offer Bombs with Berlin

Ever since Nicolas Sarkozy became French president, he has been bewildering the German government with one controversial idea after another. The latest shocker? The new man in Paris has offered German Chancellor Angela Merkel French nuclear weapons.

This has been around for a few days now, but Spiegel just finished an English article on it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506124,00.html
Do they think Merkel would actually say yes?

On a side note, I find the 'liberal' BBC's Have Your Say armchair generals most entertaining (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=7401&edition=1&ttl=20070917231349&#paginator). At least they still have a sense of humour in Newbury...

Kouchner is the original neocon, that is someone who used to be on the liberal left but has taken to see democracy as the be all and end all. So now he wants to free the world from dictatorships and is willing to sacrifice a bunch of things for that goal. Just without the most of the shady connections and religious connotations that have taken over the neocon movement in America.

A little bit like the original American neocons, who I believe mostly started off in the Trotskyist camp and then just switched what they wanted to introduce after the world revolution.


That's not a bad analysis.

The simple-mindedness it takes to want to go around forcing democracy on everyone (even if it means killing them in the process) seriously annoys me. Any country's deviation from the Western democratic norm is immediately frowned upon. It reminds me of the USA criticising Samoa about a year ago because the only Opposition party with any elected MPs split itself through infighting, and was no longer recognised, leading to there being only one party (the Human Rights Protection Party) left in Parliament (with no official, structured Opposition). The fact that it all happened through democratic elections and internal party quarrels didn't stop the US from saying that a Parliament with only one party is baaad, and a source for concern. :rolleyes:

Kouchner is actually Jewish. It also just so happens that Sarkozy is Jewish. (as is his wife) France's new openly confrontational stance towards Iran coincides with their taking office.

And what would that have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

As I recall, Sarkozy comes from a Protestant family. I have no idea what his own religious views are, nor do I know what Kouchner's are. And I really don't care. Why? Because in France a politician's religious views are a non-issue. Few people know what religion (if any) our leaders practice. That's due to France's laïcité.

Your comment reveals your fundamental lack of understanding of French politics and society. Religion is utterly and completely dissociated from the State and from politics. (A few years back one ultra-conservative MP -a rarity in France, and a figure of scorn or amusement- produced a Bible in Parliament to back up her opposition to homosexuals being granted the right to civil unions (sort of). She was widely criticised for using a religious argument in the secular Parliament.)

Suggesting that Sarkozy is a key figure in some Jewish plot against Iran is... well, quite a long way beyond ridiculous. :rolleyes:

This has been around for a few days now, but Spiegel just finished an English article on it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506124,00.html

That's actually quite baffling. Surely any well-educated person would know that the Germans would say no to nukes? Not to mention that giving nukes to Germany would be a violation of the NPT.

That's actually quite baffling. Surely any well-educated person would know that the Germans would say no to nukes? Not to mention that giving nukes to Germany would be a violation of the NPT.
To quote Kyrozerkia, "hypocrisy is the life blood of politicians isn't it?"

On a side note, I find the 'liberal' BBC's Have Your Say armchair generals most entertaining (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=7401&edition=1&ttl=20070917231349&#paginator). At least they still have a sense of humour in Newbury...

*groans*

"Have Your Say" is, like the NS General forum, depressing in its general level of stupidity. It's even more depressing when you think that these people actually have the right to vote.

I remember when I was in uni and a history lecturer commented in passing that it seriously pissed him off to think his dumb neighbour's vote counted as much as his own. I sympathise with that feeling whenever I read "Have Your Say", letters to the editor, or a fair number of NSG posts (not yours, of course!).

Let me test how much freedom we have for open discussion.

If Kouchner were KHALIQ, and proposed sanctions, and a possible military operation against Israel, how would people interpret the situation? The reason I say this is, Kouchner is actually Jewish. It also just so happens that Sarkozy is Jewish. (as is his wife) France's new openly confrontational stance towards Iran coincides with their taking office. Sarkozy is, by the way, openly good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu, who is Chairman of the Likud Party in Israel.

If we're going to discuss this matter, I think we should have all the information present.

Thats right, its all a big Jewish conspiracy against the Iranians. (sarcasm)

The fact that it all happened through democratic elections and internal party quarrels didn't stop the US from saying that a Parliament with only one party is baaad, and a source for concern. :rolleyes:
Well, isn't it? The whole idea of democratic elections is that you have multiple options to pick from. If you don't, for whatever reason, I would call that a source for concern.

I'm not blaming the Samoan government, but a parliament without an opposition isn't exactly an ideal state of affairs.

You know theres a massive flaw there and you know it. France and Iran are entirely different countries, one of the differences being that France doesn't want to wipe a nation of the map. France is a secular democracy and is not going to use the nuclear weapons it has without provocation. Iran has not proven itself to be the same.

I'm no fan of the right wing, but it irks me when obviously intelligent people blindfold themselves to how attrocious some States really are.

a) Ahmadinejad never said that, he was mistranslated.

b) In any case, Ahmadinejad doesn't have the real power.

c) When was the last time Iran has attacked a nation without provocation? You've been watching too much 300 my friend.

d) France on the other hand, along with many other European nations and the U.S. have been known to attack nations without provocation.

e) The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, any country that hasn't used them gets the benefit of doubt.

f) Any country that has the intelligence to make a nuclear weapon would not risk it's total annihilation by using one without provocation.

Let me test how much freedom we have for open discussion.

Let me guess, when we all laugh at your "OMG teh j00z" theory, you'll accuse us of suppressing free speech or somesuch.

You certainly have the right to propose such things, but don't be shocked if we don't take it all that seriously.

He said that if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon, it would be a "real danger for the whole world."

I can't help but to laugh when I read that.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

Iran's ties to terrorism, Iran's very very rogue nature.

Well, isn't it? The whole idea of democratic elections is that you have multiple options to pick from. If you don't, for whatever reason, I would call that a source for concern.

I'm not blaming the Samoan government, but a parliament without an opposition isn't exactly an ideal state of affairs.

They'll have multiple choices to pick from again next time round. More to the point, they elected such a Parliament in the first place. Democracy in action.

The problem occurs when you object to democracy undermining itself, democratically.

a) Ahmadinejad never said that, he was mistranslated.


*nods* Apparently (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html), what he said was "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Hardly a friendly comment, but there is arguably a nuance between wanting the collapse of a "regime" and wanting to "wipe a country off the map". Having said that, Ahmadinejad's views on the legitimacy of the Israeli nation are well-known.

Iran's ties to terrorism, Iran's very very rogue nature.

The U.S. has sponsered terrorists groups, so with that logic, shouldn't the U.S. invade itself now?

Ah yes, hypocrisy is the life blood of politicians isn't it?



Yes with good reason. I was picking those who carry clout on the UN Security Council, as well as those who are happy to be hypocrites in the matter.

I also didn't cite India or Pakistan because those two nations were permitted to possess nuclear arms, so I counted them out because they had been un pursuit and I have yet to read of those two nations speaking out against Tehran's right to possess nuclear arms.

Israel well... granted they do have a point about security being in the ME and all but still, there is no real proof that Israel has them. It's been mum on it so I didn't want to bring it up.

And North Korea... it's in its own world and wasn't it working on disarming? Or at least shutting down nuclear plants? (Someone know more about this?)



Oh, like the US wouldn't have dropped MORE nuclear weapons on Japan? I say it did have the intent to destroy Japan using nuclear weapons.

Even if you claim it didn't, you cannot deny the fact that the US is the ONLY nation in history to have used not just one but two atomic bombs against another nation.

I don't fail because the matter is simple, the US used two A-bombs against Japan and no other nation has done the same, in war or otherwise.

Further, even if a nation says it intends to... it means nothing because talk is cheap unless you put your money where your mouth is and too much is at stake if Tehran did use a nuclear bomb against Israel. They would suffer far more than Israel would.

Using the US bombing of Japan....so many things I could say about that part of your argument but I'm too busy laughing about it instead..

The US bombing of Japan occured when we did not know all the after effects etc etc of using nuclear weapons...the plan was to bomb an alley way up along Japan and then send our own troops into the radioactive fall out...reason for this...our original plan was to invade Japan but with every Japanese man woman and child about to take up arms against ususing this new super weapon to clear a path for our troops was to save lives...when really we woulda been condemning our own troops to suffer from radiation posioning etc etc...

and if we had actually invaded Japan and used conventional weapons the death toll on both sides would have been much higher...considering we would have had to bomb every city...town etc etc as our troops pushed forward...we also helped the Japanese rebuild and payed them for using the A-bomb...So really in a way our use of the A-bomb did reach our intended goal of saving Japanese and American lives

NK..doesn't need nukes either...and wouldn't have much of a choice about it if the rest of the world quit giving them aid entirely...but we don't so the lil bastard gets to stay in power and use aid funds for his rabble military instead of feeding his starving people...

Pakistan..worry more about that one having nukes than India because at least India has a stable government..I believe they're both in a cold war like bit and each side has nukes for a MAD policy to bee in effect..

Israel has them...they pretty much have to considering every nation around them hates them...but Israel doesn't constantly threaten to blow Iran off the face of the earth...

Lastly none of the nations with nukes with the exception of NK and maybe some officials in Pakistan support radicialism the way Iran does...nor do they call for the killing of other nations citizens the way Iran's government does...

And I can pretty much garuntee that if Iran continues on its quest to get the bomb it will face a preemptive strike or strikes from someone....

The U.S. has sponsered terrorists groups, so with that logic, shouldn't the U.S. invade itself now?

As an anecdote, a friend of mine recently saw a scene from Rambo 3 (which I've never watched myself), where Rambo apparently says (within the context of the Soviet occupation, of course): "That man's a Taliban. A freedom fighter."

The irony is just delicious. :D

Iran's ties to terrorism, Iran's very very rogue nature.
See also Western Europe, the US and Israel.

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same? being that France doesn't want to wipe a nation of the map. apparently you think Ahmedjihad has made the following statement: "I want to wipe Israel of the map"..
is that the case?
.
(insert you favorite country here) is not going to use the nuclear weapons it has without provocation. Prove it, show me your crystal ball.
.
France is a secular democracy so.. if a country does not prove to be the same (like US).. should we bomb it?
.
Iran has not proven itself to be the same.
...


well, If you really want to bomb every country who is not a secular democracy.. then you better get ready for nuclear winter. because China is not a democracy.

Good to know that the French and Germans (and apparently the EU) are waking the fuck up.

Don't blame this one on Bush.

Thats right, its all a big Jewish conspiracy against the Iranians. (sarcasm)

It is what it is, is it not?

Care to explain to me the founding principles, and founding members, of 'Neoconservatism'? (who were also Trotskyites..)

Why shy away from what is? It never helps to lie to yourself.

Let me guess, when we all laugh at your "OMG teh j00z" theory, you'll accuse us of suppressing free speech or somesuch.

You certainly have the right to propose such things, but don't be shocked if we don't take it all that seriously.

Instead of acting like an idiot, perhaps you should listen to someone who's not only more intelligent than you, but knows more than you.

Can you list me the names of those people who designed the invasion of Iraq? Can you provide this forum with information as to the origins of 'Neoconservatism'?

We all benefit from better understanding.

France's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, has said that, when it comes to Iran, "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war."



(source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070916-kouchner-france-iran-worst-case-war-nuclear-us-ahmadinejad.html), with video)

Kouchner, once famed as the "French doctor" who was photographed carrying bags of rice onto the Somali coast in the 90s, has become an increasingly controversial figure in France, especially when he was the main (and almost only) French politician supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He's been accused of making "shock statements" and of deliberately trying to be different or controversial just for the sake of appearing on TV.

Still, he's now part of the government again -a long standing ambition of his, which he achieved only by switching from the left to the right- which means that his statements theoretically carry weight. Leading us to the question: What the hell is he thinking??

Sarkozy's government has been keen to cosy up to the US, trying to perform a tricky juggling act between pandering openly to Washington's foreign policies and trying not to appear too blatant about it. Sarkozy is on the dangerous ground. He may have become one of Bush's new best friends, but French public opinion isn't going to take kindly to the prospect of France following Bush into a war on Iran.

Great. The whole world follows.

It is what it is, is it not?

Care to explain to me the founding principles, and founding members, of 'Neoconservatism'? (who were also Trotskyites..)

Why shy away from what is? It never helps to lie to yourself.

Exactly right, people like to say 'teh ebil jews', 'antisemite' and all the rest, but they fail to answer to most important question, that all these neoconservative groups are pro-Israel and part of the 'Friends of Israel' group which applauds every violent action of the illegal Zionist occupation. Why is it that the media on the topic of Israel say 'settlements' and not colonies, they mince their words and are so careful about what they say, so as to not 'upset' the Zionists.

This has been around for a few days now, but Spiegel just finished an English article on it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506124,00.html

There are US nukes under NATO command based in Europe already including in Germany. So the Germans in a way already have nukes.

Its nice that other countries finally realize that nukes in the hands of muslim extremists could be... *gasp... a bad thing? You may all complain about Bush and his choices, but what would you have down had you had the same information as he? Possible WMDs, sponoring terrorists to attack US soil... would you just sit and pretend everythign is dandy?

Its nice that other countries finally realize that nukes in the hands of muslim extremists could be... *gasp... a bad thing? You may all complain about Bush and his choices, but what would you have down had you had the same information as he? Possible WMDs, sponoring terrorists to attack US soil... would you just sit and pretend everythign is dandy?
You know what, given the history of US imperialism, if that happen I honestly wouldn't care, in fact I'd shout out loud 'I told you so' a dozen or so times, and then laugh.

The U.S. has sponsered terrorists groups, so with that logic, shouldn't the U.S. invade itself now?

There was that little skirmish between Delaware and New Jersey (I think it was) a while back. New Jersey mobilized a bunch of National Guardsmen and Delaware ended up parking a battleship in a river somewhere.

Its nice that other countries finally realize that nukes in the hands of muslim extremists could be... *gasp... a bad thing? You may all complain about Bush and his choices, but what would you have down had you had the same information as he? Possible WMDs, sponoring terrorists to attack US soil... would you just sit and pretend everythign is dandy?

Actually, using common sense I wouldn't have gone into Iraq and made it the shit hole it is today. Also using common sense, I wouldn't invade a nation for such a shitty reason. Iran may have an Islamic Republic, but that doesn't automatically translate to them being ready to use nukes. They realize that if they use nukes they will be destroyed in return, so they wouldn't make such a dumb move. Do you really, honestly think that a nation that can build a nuclear weapon would use one like that (with the exception of the U.S. of course, we know they can)?

Also, Iran didn't sponsor an attack on U.S. soil. Al Qaeda did, and they are enemies with the Iranian state.

You know what, given the history of US imperialism, if that happen I honestly wouldn't care, in fact I'd shout out loud 'I told you so' a dozen or so times, and then laugh.

Anyone who laughs at many deaths at the hands of terrorists makes you a *Can't say because he does not want to be banned*

Sierra Leone? When did we attack Sierra Leone? I like to think I keep aware of what's going on, but I'm drawing a blank here. :confused:

By the way, I can assure you there is no general public "apatite" for such things.

Don't worry, Ari, I think he had you French confused with us evil Rosbifs (notwithstanding your dual nationality ;-) ) - and the UK intervention in Sierra Leone against the RUF, which had full UN backing, was Blair's one great humanitarian military intervention success story.

Perhaps the poster you were responding to was thinking of France's intervention in Cote D'Ivoire, which was only retrospectively approved by the UN. And I regret to note that France's record of intervention in Africa - whatever the public appetite for that intervention - hasn't been an unalloyed success in the last 20 years. The French troops in Rwanda were arguably complicit in turning a blind eye to the genocide, and I was personally very nearly arrested (at gunpoint) when I accidentally stumbled upon a secret French military base in La Republique Centrafricaine in 1989 (but I digress....)

Not that I'm saying Britain has a brilliant recent record of military interventions, just that France's record in Africa isn't one of unalloyed success.


But moving back on topic to address Schopfergeist's recent posts...

I accept that there are circumstances where a political figure's family background may influence their approach to Middle Eastern politics, most notably US Senator Joe Lieberman, whose ardent support for the war in Iraq against the instincts of his own political party can, I think, best be understood through the unavoidable observation that he's both Jewish and a staunch supporter of Israel. Of course we can talk about that.

But otherwise I think you're talking out of your arse, hiding your own anti-Semitic conspiracy theories behind a thinly disguised plea for 'better understanding'.

You ask about the names of the people who designed the invasion of Iraq and were the founders of Neoconservatism. Here's the list of signatories to the original statement of principle of the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) (linked):

Elliott Abrams; Gary Bauer; William J. Bennett; Jeb Bush; Dick Cheney; Eliot A. Cohen; Midge Decter; Paula Dobriansky; Steve Forbes; Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama; Frank Gaffney; Fred C. Ikle; Donald Kagan; Zalmay Khalilzad; I. Lewis Libby; Norman Podhoretz; Dan Quayle; Peter W. Rodman; Stephen P. Rosen; Henry S. Rowen; Donald Rumsfeld; Vin Weber; George Weigel; Paul Wolfowitz.

Now here's the list, from the same website, of the same group's signatories of the 1998 letter to President Clinton on Iraq (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

Elliott Abrams; Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett; Jeffrey Bergner; John Bolton; Paula Dobriansky; Francis Fukuyama; Robert Kagan; Zalmay Khalilzad; William Kristol; Richard Perle; Peter W. Rodman; Donald Rumsfeld; William Schneider, Jr.; Vin Weber; Paul Wolfowitz; R. James Woolsey; Robert B. Zoellick


Are some of these people Jewish? Undeniably. Are some of them potentially influenced in their politics by their cultural background? Possibly, I suppose. Are they all Jewish? Absolutely not. Of the ones I can quickly find backgrounds for in the second list, Armitage and Bennett are Catholic; Bolton is Lutheran; Dobriansky is of Polish extraction (which I concede doesn't preclude her also being Jewish); Fukuyama is of Japanese descent, and his father was a Congregationalist minister; Zalmay Khalilzad is an Afghan-born Muslim; Rumsfeld is an idiot, but also happens to be a Presbyterian of German descent; Zoellick appears to be of non-Jewish German descent.

Which only goes to prove to me that both the war in Iraq (to which we might add amongst the planners the conspicuously non-Jewish Condoleeza Rice) and Neo-conservatism had support among people of highly divergent ethnic and religious backgrounds for many of whom the question of their ethno-religious background also happened to be highly irrelevant. To imply that the undeniable fact that some of the signatories to the Project for the New American Century letters had Jewish surnames therefore means that the PNAC is a Jewish conspiracy is ludicrous.

As to Sarkozy, his mother was of Ottoman Sephardic descent through her father, who was born in Ottoman Thessalonica. But Sarkozy's maternal grandfather - never apparently a particularly observent Jew - married a French Catholic (Adèle Bouvier) and converted to Catholicism. Nicolas Sarkozy was raised by his mother's family (after his father left Nicolas' mother in 1959) in an entirely Catholic household.

So Sarkozy is, yes, of one quarter Jewish descent, but is also of one half Hungarian descent, yet curiously we never - to my knowledge - hear hints that the current French president's policies towards Hungarian issues are coloured by his Hungarian descent.

Finally, Kouchner's mother is a Christian.


Incidentally, prominent US investigative journalist and harsh critic of the Bush administration Seymour Hersh is the son of Yiddish-speaking Jews, which would indicate that Jewish support for action against Iran & Iraq is less than monolithic.

Mark my words, in a year or so they'd wish they had voted for Royale.

I wish they had voted for Royale NOW, let alone a year from now.

Instead of acting like an idiot, perhaps you should listen to someone who's not only more intelligent than you, but knows more than you.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. However, you may want to check the forum's policies on flaming. I personally don't care, but you'll eventually run across some of our more sensitive posters and although I disagree I don't want to see you banned because you're at least mildly interesting.

Can you list me the names of those people who designed the invasion of Iraq? Can you provide this forum with information as to the origins of 'Neoconservatism'?

We all benefit from better understanding.

I would have, but I was beaten to it. Although I will reiterate, the presence of a few Jews does not a global conspiracy make.

Exactly right, people like to say 'teh ebil jews', 'antisemite' and all the rest, but they fail to answer to most important question, that all these neoconservative groups are pro-Israel and part of the 'Friends of Israel' group which applauds every violent action of the illegal Zionist occupation. Why is it that the media on the topic of Israel say 'settlements' and not colonies, they mince their words and are so careful about what they say, so as to not 'upset' the Zionists.

If you're talking about me, you've got me pegged wrong. I care about Israel as much as most of my countrymen care about Mozambique. If Israel broke off and slid into the ocean overnight I'd say "Oh, that sucks" and then continue not giving a shit, much as I did with the tsunamis a few years back. I just don't understand the fascination, positive and negative, that people have with Jews.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. However, you may want to check the forum's policies on flaming. I personally don't care, but you'll eventually run across some of our more sensitive posters and although I disagree I don't want to see you banned because you're at least mildly interesting.



I would have, but I was beaten to it. Although I will reiterate, the presence of a few Jews does not a global conspiracy make.



If you're talking about me, you've got me pegged wrong. I care about Israel as much as most of my countrymen care about Mozambique. If Israel broke off and slid into the ocean overnight I'd say "Oh, that sucks" and then continue not giving a shit, much as I did with the tsunamis a few years back. I just don't understand the fascination, positive and negative, that people have with Jews.

I don't either...they're just people like the rest of us...just following a different belief system...maybe someone here can answer that for both of us...I know I know...I'm being VERY optimistic...


...and again bringing up the fact the US used an Atom Bomb on Japan....is completely pointless and irrelevant to talking about Iran getting nuclear weapons

Anyone who laughs at many deaths at the hands of terrorists makes you a *Can't say because he does not want to be banned*

You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter.

yes...blowing up a bomb in a market place that only kills some people shopping for their groceries...or flying a plane into a building where people are working...what freedom exactly is that flying for again?..Oh Yea NONE thats right I almost forgot...

*now waits for your pathetic attempts to justify any actions like the ones above...or point out some twisted religious text...or some other propaganda bullshit you're feeble mind fell into*

*Too lazy to read through 4 pages*

*Also too scared of stumbling over AP's inane bullshit*

Thus, a quick question. Did anyone here point out that Iran-with-a-bomb-and-missiles-capable-of-reaching-the-southern-tip-of-Italy is considerably more of a threat to the West's interest than iraq was? That Iran is fairly open about working on its ('Peaceful') nuclear potential, whose development is fairly well known, as opposed to the Iraq case, where 'Evidence' had to be fabricated (And was promptly laughed at)? There's a reason for public opinion in, lets say, Germany being slightly in favour of an invasion of Iran (Whereas there was basically none whatsoever for the Iraq invasion): Iran is actually a believable threat.

This just about might have an effect on the French opinion on the matter, as opposed to the ever-so-common claims that Sarkozy is just 'Sucking Up' to the US by the general left, which are exactly as respectable as the claims of the French being 'Cowards' made by the right in '03 and onwards - which is to say, they just expose the people who utter them as the complete retards they are.

Since, you know, Sarkozy might just have the best interest of his country in mind (And lets face it - it's France. They have a history of caring about little else. More so than most others), just like Chirac might've. You might disagree with what he perceives as his countries' best interest, but just going on and on and on about him fellating Bush...

That's just sad, really.

*groans*

"Have Your Say" is, like the NS General forum, depressing in its general level of stupidity. It's even more depressing when you think that these people actually have the right to vote.
My favourite was on Kosovo a few weeks ago. I simply don't have the imagination and stupidity necessary to oppose Kosovan independence because it would cause the immigrants in London to secede from the UK.

I remember when I was in uni and a history lecturer commented in passing that it seriously pissed him off to think his dumb neighbour's vote counted as much as his own. I sympathise with that feeling whenever I read "Have Your Say", letters to the editor, or a fair number of NSG posts
Dress it up in pompous frills, and you could almost be The Blessed Chris! (Although that's not to say I don't disagree...)

(not yours, of course!).
Thanks.:D

You say terrorist, I say freedom fighter.

So you revel in the fact that innnocent men, women, and children die at the hands of cowards? *shakes head at the inhumanity*

So you revel in the fact that innnocent men, women, and children die at the hands of cowards?

Don't drag the IDF into this, for fucks sake....

but he also said that this has to be avoided through negotiations, without it it could be war. I hate it when they use both "negotiations" and "war" in the same sentence.

but he also said that this has to be avoided through negotiations, without it it could be war. I hate it when they use both "negotiations" and "war" in the same sentence.

In other words, "all options are on the table". I hate it when people jump the gun to condemn people without actually reading.

So you revel in the fact that innnocent men, women, and children die at the hands of cowards? *shakes head at the inhumanity*
You may live in a fantasy world where your perfect 'morality' exists but I do not, you have to do whatever is necessary to achieve your goal, and when you don't have the numerical or technological lead your enemy does, you have to use asymmetrical tactics. You may not like it, but it's reality.

You may live in a fantasy world where your perfect 'morality' exists but I do not, you have to do whatever is necessary to achieve your goal, and when you don't have the numerical or technological lead your enemy does, you have to use asymmetrical tactics. You may not like it, but it's reality.

Asymmetrical tactics are one thing. Attacking innocences is totally another. Attacking innocent civilians intentionally is terrorism.

Asymmetrical tactics are one thing. Attacking innocences is totally another. Attacking innocent civilians intentionally is terrorism.

Yes, I suppose it is.....
The Israeli government has declared the Gaza Strip a "hostile entity" in response to the continued rocket attacks by Palestinian militants there.
The decision could lead to Israel cutting off vital water, fuel or electricity supplies to the territory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7002576.stm

Yes, I suppose it is.....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7002576.stm

The sanctions will be implemented after Israeli authorities have examined the legal and humanitarian consequences, the spokesperson added.

Interesting article.

Ever heard the phrase "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"? I think that there's nothing wrong with taking worst case scenarios, and planning for them, as is the development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. Just so long as no one is advocating open war any time soon.

You may live in a fantasy world where your perfect 'morality' exists but I do not, you have to do whatever is necessary to achieve your goal, and when you don't have the numerical or technological lead your enemy does, you have to use asymmetrical tactics. You may not like it, but it's reality.

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

Yet he clearly doesn't have a monopoly of fantasy world truthiness.

Ever heard the phrase "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst"? I think that there's nothing wrong with taking worst case scenarios, and planning for them, as is the development of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. Just so long as no one is advocating open war any time soon.
That's what I take offense too, the false perception pushed by the politicians and compliant media that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as a matter of fact, not as a matter of speculation as it is. Their is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the IAEA has admitted this, they have no undeclared facilities and have cooperated with the IAEA agencies. It is the US 'Bolton' group which is pushing this war crap for propagandistic reasons, and the media have allowed it. Until I see incontrovertible evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development, I am sceptical, right now it's just more of that 'mobile biological plants on rails' and 'Uranium from Niger' warmongering crap were heard a few years ago.

That's what I take offense too, the false perception pushed by the politicians and compliant media that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as a matter of fact, not as a matter of speculation as it is. Their is no evidence Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the IAEA has admitted this, they have no undeclared facilities and have cooperated with the IAEA agencies. It is the US 'Bolton' group which is pushing this war crap for propagandistic reasons, and the media have allowed it. Until I see incontrovertible evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development, I am sceptical, right now it's just more of that 'mobile biological plants on rails' and 'Uranium from Niger' warmongering crap were heard a few years ago.

And you talk about me being on fantasy island.

"The U.S. has sponsered terrorists groups, so with that logic, shouldn't the U.S. invade itself now?"

Good question!

We did that already. It was really, really tough, something like 2-3% of the population died, and by any rational comparison, the invasion of Iraq has been an absolute cakewalk. But, it's what we did half a century AFTER invading ourselves that really matters. It's a fact of human nature, new socio-political paradigms need time to mature.

So, now we have universal suffrage, and freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and uncensored unrestricted internet access and dark chocolate and 2000 channels on cable TV and all the good stuff. Iran has a nutcase, with an "Islamic" government in which the Supreme Leader is chosen in a process suspiciously similar to the election of a new Pope.

And one thing the West has learned- military powers and theocracy make for bad mojo when mixed. Oh what the hell, ANY powers and theocracy don't mix. No Nukes for Ayatollahs.

And although we have supported terrorist groups, like the French Resistance in the second world war, well, nobody's perfect, and we kind of owed them for sponsoring our own revolution.

Remember, folks, power corrupts, so don't stick your fingers into the electrical outlet.

And you talk about me being on fantasy island.

I see no evidence, I see no substance, I see more sound byte.

I see no evidence, I see no substance, I see more sound byte.

All I see is people talking about a worse case scenerio. Something worth talking about in diplomacy actually.

All I see is people talking about a worse case scenerio. Something worth talking about in diplomacy actually.

Still waiting for that nuclear weapons evidence....

Why is Tehran a danger to the world if it possessed an atomic weapon yet the US, the only known nation to have not only used one but two atomic weapons against a segment of the human population not categorised the same?

The US only used a nuclear weapon after being provoked into war by Japan. Japan leaders even admitted this much when the stated "We have woke the sleeping dragon" after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Also the purpose of using atomic bombs at that time was to minimize the losses on both sides. An actual invasion of the Japanese mainland was estimated to cost somewhere in the tens of millions of lives on both sides, hence another option was necessary or the war would never be ended.

That doesn't make what the US did right, but it does demonstrate the need to control nuclear proliferation, especially from countries that are primarily focused on their own interests over those of their global neighbors. Iran is just such a nation that will use nuclear weapons a leverage to achieves its means. The US and none of the other countries you have mentioned have ever, to my knowledge, used their nuclear weapons to force another country to give them special treatments.

This is what makes Iran so dangerous. the country is opening working on producing weapons that have a capability to attack Isreal, and the US. It Iran were tobuild a nuclear weapon it would not take them much effort to place such a warhead on a missile and launch it at Isreal or another democracy just to get its way. Also what could possibly prevent Iran from handing a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other terrorist organization that shares an enemy with Iran?

Nothing. just something else that makes nuclear weapons in the hands of Tehran a danger to every other developed nation, and to the world at large.



What about the nations in possession of atomic weapons?

USA
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China


If I remember correctly these nations have all agreed not to use their nuclear weapons, and some have even agreed to decrease their arsenals. The US and Russia have the largest arsenals and are constantly in the process of diminishing their arms.

France ought to think twice about calling the pot black. The same goes for the US and its allies.

Note, that in the article it does not say that Kouchner says we need to attack Iran. No he says "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war." This should be an understandable and accepted response. I have to agree, but I'll put it in different terms.

Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.........the worst is war.

In other words, work hard toward a diplomatic solution, then when it is obvious this is going to fail begins the steps for way.

This is something the US should have been more willing to do with Iraq, but that is a topic for another discussion.

Still waiting for that nuclear weapons evidence....

The fact that they moved things underground is a very good start. Also the fact that they did not allow inspectors in until recently is another good example. The fact that they turned down a Russian deal that was perfect for peaceful nuclear power is a third.

And what proof do you have that it is for peaceful purposes?

The fact that they moved things underground is a very good start. Also the fact that they did not allow inspectors in until recently is another good example. The fact that they turned down a Russian deal that was perfect for peaceful nuclear power is a third.

And what proof do you have that it is for peaceful purposes?
That's all extremely circumstantial, certainly nothing is proven, at least not enough to warrant the sanctions and warmongering we see. Also maybe they made it underground because they were afraid it was going to be bombed, crazy?

I genuinely have no idea why all these years you Americans are falling for the same propaganda and warmongering that started the Iraq War, I'll never understand how incredibly partial America has become to plain old hysteria and trumped-up nationalism. You cannot learn.

*yawns*

Where is the proof that it is for peaceful purposes?
Where is the proof that it isn't?

Burden on accusation to be proven I am afraid.

That's all extremely circumstantial, certainly nothing is proven, at least not enough to warrant the sanctions and warmongering we see. Also maybe they made it underground because they were afraid it was going to be bombed, crazy?

I genuinely have no idea why all these years you Americans are falling for the same propaganda and warmongering that started the Iraq War, I'll never understand how incredibly partial America has become to plain old hysteria and trumped-up nationalism. You cannot learn.

*yawns*

Where is the proof that it is for peaceful purposes?

I see no evidence, I see no substance, I see more sound byte.

From what I have read, Iran has been bring equipment to its only nulcear power plant that can only serve the purpose of enriching spent uranium.

There is only one purpose for enriching uranium and that is for the purpose of building a weapon.

Hence the concern from many world leaders.

Where is the proof that it isn't?

Burden on accusation to be proven I am afraid.

I showed you my evidence now where is your evidence? For proper debate, both sides much show their evidence. Now where is yours?

From what I have read, Iran has been bring equipment to its only nulcear power plant that can only serve the purpose of enriching spent uranium.

There is only one purpose for enriching uranium and that is for the purpose of building a weapon.

Hence the concern from many world leaders.

There's your problem right there, the media cannot be trusted these days for Iran information, or indeed much else. Until I see some kind of official impartial IAEA/UN/EU or whatever report that conclusively proves they are developing nuclear weapons, I will remain skeptical and wait for the accusation to be proven by those who made it. Remember that is was Colin Powell who sat in front of the UN General Assembly and flat out spewed lie after lie to start a war, and not for months and indeed years after the resulting war was the truth shown, and even then it has been desperately obfuscated by the powers that be. So for that we have reason to be skeptical of US claims given this administrations track record etc.

I showed you my evidence now where is your evidence? For proper debate, both sides much show their evidence. Now where is yours?

I didn't see any evidence, just random speculated with no impartial sources. And I don't make the accusation, you do, not me, you don't go to court to prove you didn't commit murder, the state takes you to court and must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the burden is on the accusation to be proved.

I didn't see any evidence, just random speculated with no impartial sources. And I don't make the accusation, you do, not me, you don't go to court to prove you didn't commit murder, the state takes you to court and must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the burden is on the accusation to be proved.

And what is an impartial source?

And what is an impartial source?

Well, maybe like a UN/EU/IAEA report or the like, I know even they aren't infallible, but when your talking about a situation this serious, involving sanctions and possible war, that a little bit more than speculation and partisan conjecture is needed, which unfortunately is all we have seen thus far.

Well, maybe like a UN/EU/IAEA report or the like, I know even they aren't infallible, but when your talking about a situation this serious, involving sanctions and possible war, that a little bit more than speculation and partisan conjecture is needed, which unfortunately is all we have seen thus far.

You mean the same UN that passed a Resolution on sanctions against Iran because of their nuclear program?

You mean the same UN that passed a Resolution on sanctions against Iran because of their nuclear program?

UN Security Council I am afraid is not an impartial body, it's a collection of the interests of it's members, which I guess is part of the problem in finding impartial data for this, and not just the propaganda of the states that have interest in seeing Iran isolated.

Also, this is nothing new for the Iranian people, as far as they are concerned this is the war with Iraq all over again, the whole world practically against them, supplying Iraq with nerve gas, shells and tanks to kill Iranians, while the UN sat back for so many years while it went. No wonder the Iranians feel isolated and that the whole world hates them, for them it's same old. And people wonder why the regimes Shia oppositional resistance ideology is so popular, for all intents and purposes it may as well have been vindicated.

There's your problem right there, the media cannot be trusted these days for Iran information, or indeed much else.

While I agree completely on this, I do remember back in early 2005 a report by the Associated Press shortly after the IAEA was expelled. In the report, on the the IAEA team members being expelled stated that he saw a truck hauling equipment into an area of the site they were not permitted to enter that contained equipment that could only be used for uranium enrichment.

Until I see some kind of official impartial IAEA/UN/EU or whatever report that conclusively proves they are developing nuclear weapons, I will remain skeptical and wait for the accusation to be proven by those who made it.

While, I know there has been nothing official, I do remember members of the team that were inspecting the site raising their suspicions and concerns back in 2005. This is what caused Tehran to kick them out in the first place. Personally, their concerns are enough for me. I don't need the conclusive proof, because by then it could be too late.

Remember that [it] was Colin Powell who sat in front of the UN General Assembly and flat out spewed lie after lie to start a war, and not for months and indeed years after the resulting war was the truth shown, and even then it has been desperately obfuscated by the powers that be. So for that we have reason to be skeptical of US claims given this administrations track record etc.

Again, Kouchner has not said anything about attacking now. He said we should prepare for the worst, there is nothing wrong with making preparations for the worst. Its kind of like "expect the best, but plan for the worst."

UN Security Council I am afraid is not an impartial body, it's a collection of the interests of it's members, which I guess is part of the problem in finding impartial data for this, and not just the propaganda of the states that have interest in seeing Iran isolated.

Look at who proposed the first resolution:

China
France
Germany
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States

I can tell you that two of those nations have a higher stake in this than most. Besides, you just said that the UN is impartial. You just got schooled.

Also, this is nothing new for the Iranian people, as far as they are concerned this is the war with Iraq all over again, the whole world practically against them, supplying Iraq with nerve gas, shells and tanks to kill Iranians, while the UN sat back for so many years while it went. No wonder the Iranians feel isolated and that the whole world hates them, for them it's same old.

You mean the leaders feel isolated. The youth want freedom.

Look at who proposed the first resolution:

China
France
Germany
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States

All those states have some degree of partisan interest in isolating Iran.

I can tell you that two of those nations have a higher stake in this than most. Besides, you just said that the UN is impartial. You just got schooled.
No, I said that I would like a UN/EU/IAEA report, the reports aren't written by the foreign affairs depts of the Security Council, they are written by impartial departments, you should really listen to what I say.


You mean the leaders feel isolated. The youth want freedom.
Then I could say the same for the US, the leaders feel isolated, they want to divert attention abroad.

All those states have some degree of partisan interest in isolating Iran.

Your proof of that?

Your proof of that?

Well it's that or they're stupid for believing Iran is after nuclear weapons without adequate proof.

Well it's that or they're stupid for believing Iran is after nuclear weapons without adequate proof.

Or the fact that in international poliltics, you do what you can to defend your own people while trying to verify if Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program. With the IAEA not in there, it makes things that much harder.

Or the fact that in international poliltics, you do what you can to defend your own people while trying to verify if Iran is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program. With the IAEA not in there, it makes things that much harder.

Well it's this kinda thing which turns nations against you, if Iran wasn't originally trying to get nukes, they're probably thinking now they probably should.

Well it's this kinda thing which turns nations against you, if Iran wasn't originally trying to get nukes, they're probably thinking now they probably should.

And your reasoning behing that is?

And your reasoning behing that is?
Well the threats of invasion and war for starters....

No one is threatening invasion nor war.

:rolleyes:

Well the threats of invasion and war for starters....

No one is threatening invasion nor war.

Well, maybe like a UN/EU/IAEA report or the like, I know even they aren't infallible, but when your talking about a situation this serious, involving sanctions and possible war, that a little bit more than speculation and partisan conjecture is needed, which unfortunately is all we have seen thus far.

Here is an article where the IAEA Chief, one of your impartial sources, says that Iran is slowing ther uranium enrichment.

IAEA chief says Iran slowing work on uranium enrichment (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2750476.ece)

Or another where the IAEA has told Iran to halt enrichment

IAEA Tells Iran To Halt Uranium Enrichment (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/06/57A42101-B5B3-4E62-9ACB-AE7940BE7760.html)

:rolleyes:

So who threatened war?

So who threatened war?

Obviously, no one has specifically stated that we must attack Iran, although the US has said it is an option. Now, at least some within the French government seem to agree.

Here is the point of all this, Iran is enriching uranium, and simply having the technology and equipment to enrich uranium is a risk, because if you can enrich it a little, you can highly enrich it, which will provide you with weapons grade uranium.

At that point there is no need for the rest of the world to hope Iran will be responsible with it, especially given Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezzbollah, and Hamas.

*reads OP*

Oh Christ.

Sarkozy will probably end up being France's G.W. Bush. France, please learn from us! Don't do it!

*reads post*

Oh Christ

Learn to read because if you bothered to, you would see that negotiations is still the word of the day.

*reads OP*

Oh Christ.

Sarkozy will probably end up being France's G.W. Bush. France, please learn from us! Don't do it!

Obviously, no one has specifically stated that we must attack Iran, although the US has said it is an option. Now, at least some within the French government seem to agree.

Here is the point of all this, Iran is enriching uranium, and simply having the technology and equipment to enrich uranium is a risk, because if you can enrich it a little, you can highly enrich it, which will provide you with weapons grade uranium.

At that point there is no need for the rest of the world to hope Iran will be responsible with it, especially given Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Hezzbollah, and Hamas.

a) Iran doesn't support Hamas

b) Prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

c) Why would Iran use nuclear weapons without provocation? Doing so would essentially ensure the annihilation of their country.

a) Iran doesn't support Hamas

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060220/3/2g4qr.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070709/2007070911.html

Busted

b) Prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

Strike 2

c) Why would Iran use nuclear weapons without provocation? Doing so would essentially ensure the annihilation of their country.

Since when has that stopped a mad man?

Since when has that stopped a mad man?

Do you honestly think the movers and shakers in the Iranian government are all so insane as to commit national suicide like that?

a) Iran doesn't support Hamas

No. Of course not. :rolleyes:

b) Prove that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Ooooh boy.

c) Why would Iran use nuclear weapons without provocation? Doing so would essentially ensure the annihilation of their country.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, well, almost wholeheartedly here.

I still question whether Iran and Iraq would have thrown nukes at each other during the Iran-Iraq war.

Do you honestly think the movers and shakers in the Iranian government are all so insane as to commit national suicide like that?

When dealing with religious nuts, one never knows.

Do you honestly think the movers and shakers in the Iranian government are all so insane as to commit national suicide like that?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Yep.

Do you honestly think the movers and shakers in the Iranian government are all so insane as to commit national suicide like that?

Don't argue with him, he's immune to logic, it's a neocon skill.

Do you honestly think the movers and shakers in the Iranian government are all so insane as to commit national suicide like that?

Logic is a tool that fools cannot use.

Hezbollah has not attacked unprovoked (at the very least not in the past 20 or so years), and has defended Lebanon from aggression, something which Lebanon's government was unable to do.
You know, walking into Israel to kidnap IDF soldiers and firing missiles into Israel is what I would call an attack.

And I have no idea what the provocation might have been, unless you mean Israel's response to an unprovoked kidnapping on the part of Hamas.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060220/3/2g4qr.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/070709/2007070911.html

Busted



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

Strike 2



Since when has that stopped a mad man?

a) It doesn't say anything about giving them money.

b) Hezbollah has not attacked unprovoked (at the very least not in the past 20 or so years), and has defended Lebanon from aggression, something which Lebanon's government was unable to do. And if you compare them to their foes, you will see that they are certainly less of a "terrorist group".

a) It doesn't say anything about giving them money.

So one has to give money in order for it to be consider support?

b) Hezbollah has not attacked unprovoked (at the very least not in the past 20 or so years), and has defended Lebanon from aggression,

I call bullshit on both counts. 1) hezbollah crossed an international boundary, kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets into Israel. That is an unprovoked attacked. 2) Defended Lebanon from aggression? Sorry but they were formed to kick out the Israelies. Guess what? The Israelis left Lebanon and by UN Resolution, should have been disbanded when they did so. Defending from attack? Son, they attack Israel constently ever since they pulled out of Lebanon.

something which Lebanon's government was unable to do. And if you compare them to their foes, you will see that they are certainly less of a "terrorist group".

Hezbollah's military wing is indeed a terrorist organization.

You know, walking into Israel to kidnap IDF soldiers and firing missiles into Israel is what I would call an attack.

And I have no idea what the provocation might have been, unless you mean Israel's response to an unprovoked kidnapping on the part of Hamas.

You obviously know very little then, it was in order to do a trade for Hezbollah prisoners. Hezbollah's war was heroic and showed the whole Arab world that you can stand up to the Zionist war machine and prevail.

I call bullshit on both counts. 1) hezbollah crossed an international boundary, kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets into Israel. That is an unprovoked attacked. 2) Defended Lebanon from aggression? Sorry but they were formed to kick out the Israelies. Guess what? The Israelis left Lebanon and by UN Resolution, should have been disbanded when they did so. Defending from attack? Son, they attack Israel constently ever since they pulled out of Lebanon.



Hezbollah's military wing is indeed a terrorist organization.
Countries that believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization:
US
Israel
Canada
UK
Canada
Netherlands

Sorry that's not the whole world, nor is it even close to a consensus.

You obviously know very little then, it was in order to do a trade for Hezbollah prisoners. Hezbollah's war was heroic and showed the whole Arab world that you can stand up to the Zionist war machine and prevail.

Hezbollah got slammed. And by attacking Israel, they brought all of Lebanon into conflict. As to Prevailing, they did not necessarily prevail. They were weakened. As to the IDF, they went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties. And yes they did. Did the IDF make mistakes? Yes they did and their own report exposed it. The next conflict (And I hope there isn't one) will be vastly different.

Countries that believe Hezbollah is a terrorist organization:
US
Israel
Canada
UK
Canada
Netherlands

Sorry that's not the whole world, nor is it even close to a consensus.

So one needs the whole world in order for something to be a terrorist organization?

So one has to give money in order for it to be consider support?



I call bullshit on both counts. 1) hezbollah crossed an international boundary, kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets into Israel. That is an unprovoked attacked. 2) Defended Lebanon from aggression? Sorry but they were formed to kick out the Israelies. Guess what? The Israelis left Lebanon and by UN Resolution, should have been disbanded when they did so. Defending from attack? Son, they attack Israel constently ever since they pulled out of Lebanon.



Hezbollah's military wing is indeed a terrorist organization.

a) Well let's say that you say "Hey, I wanna help the people of Darfur!", and so you come up with all this stuff that will help people out. But in the end, you just sit on your ass all day, so sure you support the people of Darfur, but you aren't doing anything to help them.

b) According to other sources the the soldiers were not in Israel. And they started firing rockets after Israel invaded them. As well, if you look at the casualties inflicted upon Israel by Lebanon, and the casualties inflicted upon Lebanon by Israel, then you'll see that the percentage of civilians killed is much lower for Hezbollah.

a) Well let's say that you say "Hey, I wanna help the people of Darfur!", and so you come up with all this stuff that will help people out. But in the end, you just sit on your ass all day, so sure you support the people of Darfur, but you aren't doing anything to help them.

That has nothing to do with A)

b) According to other sources the the soldiers were not in Israel. And they started firing rockets after Israel invaded them. As well, if you look at the casualties inflicted upon Israel by Lebanon, and the casualties inflicted upon Lebanon by Israel, then you'll see that the percentage of civilians killed is much lower for Hezbollah.

You also have to take into account that Hezbollah was firing from civilian population centers and in civilian buildings. Under International Law, by using such places as firing platforms makes said places legal for bombardment. Also, alot of numbers were inflated as well. As to the IDF being in Lebanon, that is in dispute unless there is clear cut evidence that they were indeed in Lebanon and I have not yet seen it.

Hezbollah got slammed. And by attacking Israel, they brought all of Lebanon into conflict. As to Prevailing, they did not necessarily prevail. They were weakened. As to the IDF, they went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties. And yes they did. Did the IDF make mistakes? Yes they did and their own report exposed it. The next conflict (And I hope there isn't one) will be vastly different.

They had inferior weapons, inferior training, inferior intelligence, less money, and they still kicked Israel out. If that's not a fucking win, what the hell is?

They had inferior weapons, inferior training, inferior intelligence, less money, and they still kicked Israel out. If that's not a fucking win, what the hell is?

They did? Defined kicked out.

So one needs the whole world in order for something to be a terrorist organization?

Well 6 nations is only a fraction of how many there are, perhaps you need a geography lesson?

Hezbollah got slammed. And by attacking Israel, they brought all of Lebanon into conflict. As to Prevailing, they did not necessarily prevail. They were weakened. As to the IDF, they went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties. And yes they did. Did the IDF make mistakes? Yes they did and their own report exposed it. The next conflict (And I hope there isn't one) will be vastly different.
Hezbollah is stronger than ever, the war strengthened their recruitment base and support higher than ever before, even the Christian communities support them nearly as much as the Shia ones. Hezbollah can rearm (and is doing so) from across the Syrian border. Hezbollah managed to take out 40 Mervaka tanks and many soldiers, Israel accomplished no strategic gains or anything. I think it would be just great if Israel occupied Lebanon, then we will see another repeat of their asymmetrical ownage of the 1982-2000 war. Israel in the past could destroy any Arab army in a few days in the air, and subsequent without air support their ground forces would be routed. Hezbollah held firm on the Litani line for over a month, they are proof that the Arabs through their tactics can challenge the Zionist war machine.

Hezbollah can rearm (and is doing so) from across the Syrian border.

Which is against UN Resolutions but I bet you do not care about that.

Hezbollah managed to take out 40 Mervaka tanks and many soldiers, Israel accomplished no strategic gains or anything. I think it would be just great if Israel occupied Lebanon, then we will see another repeat of their asymmetrical ownage of the 1982-2000 war.

I actually doubt it. One thing Israel is good at is learning from mistakes. Oh and only 5 Mervaka's were destroyed.

Israel in the past could destroy any Arab army in a few days in the air, and subsequent without air support their ground forces would be routed.

Routed eh? Tell that to the Arab armies that tried to take them out in 1948. Oh wait. You can't because they were defeated by the Israeli Army when the Arabs outnumbered them. *gasp*

Hezbollah held firm on the Litani line for over a month, they are proof that the Arabs through their tactics can challenge the Zionist war machine.

Israel did not try to go for the Litani until later and when they did decide to go for the litani, they were there in a lot less than a month.

Also Hezbollah never directly targetted civilians,

If you believe that then I'm the king of Great Britain.

Also Hezbollah never directly targetted civilians, the Katusha rockets if you know anything about them are old and their only use these days are for diversionary feint attacks, as in their opening raid in the war, they have absolutely no accuracy apart from point it in a direction and fire, so while it's unfortunate Israel civilians (a very small amount) died because of them, the Israeli deliberate targeting of civilians caused many many more Lebanese civilian casualties. I am sure if Hezbollah has better rockets that could accurately target Israeli military facilities etc, that they would, after all they did manage to hit an Israel naval vessel.

You don't seem like you'd give a shit if the resolution was against Israel.

care to back that up with some evidence?

But honestly, just about everyone defies the UN when it's in their best interest.

First accurate thing you said all day.

As for the "routing", I'm thinking he was referring to Israel routing the Arab armies that had no air support, not the other way around, which really would make no sense.

Um yea...The arab armies had air support in 1948. The Arab armies still lost.

Which is against UN Resolutions but I bet you do not care about that.



I actually doubt it. One thing Israel is good at is learning from mistakes.



Routed eh? Tell that to the Arab armies that tried to take them out in 1948. Oh wait. You can't because they were defeated by the Israeli Army when the Arabs outnumbered them. *gasp*



Israel did not try to go for the Litani until later and when they did decide to go for the litani, they were there in a lot less than a month.

You don't seem like you'd give a shit if the resolution was against Israel. But honestly, just about everyone defies the UN when it's in their best interest.

As for the "routing", I'm thinking he was referring to Israel routing the Arab armies that had no air support, not the other way around, which really would make no sense.

so while it's unfortunate Israel civilians (a very small amount) died because of them,

Unfortunate? From you? That's saying a lot as it is you who keeps saying that they deserve to die.

the Israeli deliberate targeting of civilians caused many many more Lebanese civilian casualties.

Again. I will call bullshit on targeting civilians deliberately.

I am sure if Hezbollah has better rockets that could accurately target Israeli military facilities etc, that they would, after all they did manage to hit an Israel naval vessel.

HAHA! I see you know jack shit about Hezbollah.

Which is against UN Resolutions but I bet you do not care about that.
That resolution is bunk and you know it, even the Lebanese govt said they will not enforce it. Large elements of the Lebanese military want to keep Hezbollah (albeit to control it a bit more) as an irregular force, they recognize it's purposes.


I actually doubt it. One thing Israel is good at is learning from mistakes. Oh and only 5 Mervaka's were destroyed.

No, 40 were scrapped due to damage after the war, most in the Wadi Saluki engagement along the Litani line, believe me I researched this.


Routed eh? Tell that to the Arab armies that tried to take them out in 1948. Oh wait. You can't because they were defeated by the Israeli Army when the Arabs outnumbered them. *gasp*

No I meant the Arab armies were routed in the wars after their air support was lost, Yom Kippur eventually turned in Israel's favor (but then peace was declared), despite early Arab gains (in the Sinai particularly).

Israel did not try to go for the Litani until later and when they did decide to go for the litani, they were there in a lot less than a month.
No, that was the overall objective, to cut the Litani line so the rockets were out of range, it just was a strategic failure that they reached it and the next day they withdrew due to peace.

Corneliu 2 honestly, why don't you get a Katyusha for your birthday or something and see how accurate it is.

That resolution is bunk and you know it, even the Lebanese govt said they will not enforce it. Large elements of the Lebanese military want to keep Hezbollah (albeit to control it a bit more) as an irregular force, they recognize it's purposes.

And people wonder why I do not trust the UN when member states (yes including Israel) violate UN Resolutions.

No, 40 were scrapped due to damage after the war, most in the Wadi Saluki engagement along the Litani line, believe me I researched this.

The same line that collapsed on Hezbollah in 3 days. OOps.

No I meant the Arab armies were routed in the wars after their air support was lost, Yom Kippur eventually turned in Israel's favor (but then peace was declared), despite early Arab gains (in the Sinai particularly).

Wars are not won in a day you know.

No, that was the overall objective, to cut the Litani line so the rockets were out of range, it just was a strategic failure that they reached it and the next day they withdrew due to peace.

the Litani Offensive was launched on August 11 and lasted until the 14th. Guess what? Israel accomplished that objective. Also, Hezbollah was launching rockets with longer ranges too. OOPS!

Corneliu 2 honestly, why don't you get a Katyusha for your birthday or something and see how accurate it is.

Why don't you do a little research and realize that Hezbollah was also launching better rockets with longer ranges into Israel.

care to back that up with some evidence?



First accurate thing you said all day.



Um yea...The arab armies had air support in 1948. The Arab armies still lost.

a) So you would reproach Israel for the numerous UN resolutions it has defied?

b) I feel that everything I've said has been accurate, but at least we agree on one thing.

c) I was trying to explain to you what AP had said, argue it with him.

a) So you would reproach Israel for the numerous UN resolutions it has defied?

Yes and I have.

b) I feel that everything I've said has been accurate, but at least we agree on one thing.

Finally.

c) I was trying to explain to you what AP had said, argue it with him.

I have on numerous occassions when it comes to Israel. Frankly, he's a bore to argue with because he never listens to facts when they are presented.

Yes and I have.



Finally.



I have on numerous occassions when it comes to Israel. Frankly, he's a bore to argue with because he never listens to facts when they are presented.

a) I applaud you.



b) He's not the only one...