France desperately trying to please the US

jonny72

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

You have to admit, its pretty funny to see France rolling up its sleeves and acting tough all of a sudden.. yet again, what do they do? pick on Iran. Its such a bully syndrome, now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

Why have you such a hang up on North Korea?

jonny72

Doesn't all this seem vaguely familiar to you? all this propaganda, the media spotlight focused on one place..

All this rubbish happened 5 years ago, and look how that turned out..

North Korea is simply a comparison between a real threat and a contrived one.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

Doesn't all this seem vaguely familiar to you? all this propaganda, the media spotlight focused on one place..

All this rubbish happened 5 years ago, and look how that turned out..

North Korea is simply a comparison between a real threat and a contrived one.

Granted. But that doesn't answer my question.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

North Korea is simply a comparison between a real threat and a contrived one.

Incidentally if the issue was real threats then China, and Russia would join North Korea on America's list while India and Pakistan would be potentials.

The focus on Iran is prevention not disarmament.

Fratton Fred

I did like Stormin Norman's analogy of the French, "Going to war without France is like going hunting without your banjo"

jaarius

This 'get tough on Iran' stance from France is kind of in line with President Sarkozys pro-USA approach to his presidency.

Not long ago he (Sarkozy) and President Bush had a meeting to rebuild relations between the two countries. So this tough talking could be seen coming from a while back. Though the next US president will need to invade Iran as I can't see France doing by themselves.

It all very interesting.

j

Mick86

jaarius wrote:

Though the next US president will need to invade Iran as I can't see France doing by themselves.

Has France ever been defeated by the Iranians? They could invade and get the preliminaries out of the way.

It would be hard to see just how the US might hope to successfully invade Iran. They seem like a tough egg to crack.

Manic Moran

jonny72 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

You have to admit, its pretty funny to see France rolling up its sleeves and acting tough all of a sudden.. yet again, what do they do? pick on Iran. Its such a bully syndrome, now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

North Korea is something of a localised problem. If you're not in the immediate Korean area, and I'm not sure if France even has more than a token force in Korea, there's little issue.

Iran, on the other hand, is a little more of an issue in that it has geographic proximity to places which are of concern to France and is known to actively assist groups which conduct assymetrical attacks.

NTM

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

North Korea is something of a localised problem. If you're not in the immediate Korean area, and I'm not sure if France even has more than a token force in Korea, there's little issue.

Iran, on the other hand, is a little more of an issue in that it has geographic proximity to places which are of concern to France and is known to actively assist groups which conduct assymetrical attacks.

NTM

Either are a little bit of a non issue. Iran isn't going to (has never) attack anyone neither is N Korea unless they are attacked themselves.

Manic Moran

Iran isn't going to (has never) attack anyone

Directly, no. But they are not far from willing to provide material aid to others who do.

NTM

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote:

North Korea is something of a localised problem. If you're not in the immediate Korean area, and I'm not sure if France even has more than a token force in Korea, there's little issue.

Iran, on the other hand, is a little more of an issue in that it has geographic proximity to places which are of concern to France and is known to actively assist groups which conduct assymetrical attacks.

NTM

This is my point, why worry about Iran?? its all politics, resources, theres no real reason.. its just selfish crap, they don't want a country they don't like having power in the middle east. I'm not worried about Pakistan, but realistically if I had to worry about a country it would be Pakistan a long way over Iran.

People are talking about invading Iran.. what the hell..

extragon

I don't think France is desperately trying to please anyone. Sarkozy is acting from conviction. He likes the US, and maybe his Jewish background is a factor.
Of course, none of this was an issue during the election. The problem with international relations: politicians elected on purely national issues are then let loose to do what they like internationally, following their personal convictions.
More power to the European parliament, anyone?

Mick86

sovtek wrote:

...Iran isn't going to (has never) attack anyone neither is N Korea unless they are attacked themselves.

You can't really say that with certainty can you. Iran has provided assistance to Hezballah in it's war with Israel. And the current President of Iran has been known to say that he would like to wipe Israel off the map.

N Korea invaded S Korea in 1950 starting the Korean War by the way.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

...why worry about Iran?? ..

Ahmedinejad's ravings about wiping Israel of fthe map for one thing. It could be bluster but on the other hand he could mean it.

jonny72 wrote:

...they don't want a country they don't like having power in the middle east. ..

Do you really think so? The whole world doesn't like Iran and doesn't want it to have power in the ME. I can hardly credit it.

jonny72 wrote:

...I'm not worried about Pakistan, but realistically if I had to worry about a country it would be Pakistan a long way over Iran...

Well it's a matter of balance. Iran is a country run by religious zealots hoping to get nukes while Pakistan already has nukes and is a prime target for getting taken over by religious zealots. We should worry about both places.

jonny72 wrote:

...People are talking about invading Iran.. what the hell..

Only the conspiracy theorists on boards.ie, so far TG.

Mick86

extragon wrote:

...and maybe his Jewish background is a factor.

Of course, it's all a plot by the Jews.

extragon wrote:

...More power to the European parliament, anyone?

The one that's heavily influenced by the country that tried to exterminate the Jews?

digitally-yours

IAEA Chief Warns Against Striking Iran


Monday September 17, 2007 7:46 PM

By GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The chief U.N. nuclear inspector urged Iran's harshest critics Monday to learn from the Iraq invasion and refrain from ``hype'' about a possible military attack, saying force was an option of last resort.

Mohamed ElBaradei also called on nations critical of his last-ditch effort to entice Iran into revealing past nuclear activities that could be linked to a weapons program to wait until the end of the year - when the deadline for Iran to provide answers runs out.

``By November or December we will be able to know if Iran is acting in good faith or not,'' he said, suggesting that was the time to think of tougher diplomacy if needed - but not military action.

ElBaradei, speaking outside a 144-nation meeting of his International Atomic Energy Agency, invoked the example of Iraq in urging an end to the threats of force against Iran - most recently over the weekend by France.

``I would not talk about any use of force,'' said ElBaradei, noting that only the Security Council can authorize such action. ``There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons.''

He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval - that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such weapons have been found.

``I do not believe at this stage that we are facing a clear and present danger that require we go beyond diplomacy,'' ElBaradei said, adding that his agency had no information ``the Iran program is being weaponized.''

``We need not to hype the issue,'' he told reporters.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.

Negotiations and two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the U.S., its European allies and other world powers suspect the country is seeking nuclear weapons.

Kouchner, speaking on RTL radio, said that if ``such a bomb is made ... we must prepare ourselves for the worst.''

The United States also has refused to rule out the possibility of force against Iran if it continues to enrich. Still, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday the U.S. administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.

On Monday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon sought to downplay Kouchner's comments, saying ``everything must be done to avoid war.''

``France's role is to lead the way to a peaceful solution,'' Fillon said, while at the same time calling for the ``the most severe sanctions possible against the Iranian government if it continues'' with its disputed nuclear program.

Alluding to the U.S. and its Western allies, Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh accused unnamed countries of forcing the international community onto the ``unjustified, illegal, deceptive and misleading path ... by imposing restrictions and sanctions.''

And he again ruled out scrapping Iran's uranium enrichment program, telling delegates Iran would ``never give up its inalienable and legal right in benefiting from peaceful nuclear technology.''

ElBaradei, architect of a recent pact committing Iran to stop blocking his experts and end its secrecy on past suspicious nuclear work, defended the agreement against criticism it could be used by Iran to divert attention from its defiance of the Security Council.

``We are not using a stick, we are not using a carrot, but we are trying to be impartial and objective,'' he said.

And he urged the declared nuclear weapons states - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - to set the example and reduce the incentive to proliferate by initiating ``deep cuts in their nuclear arsenal.'':D









http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6928765,00.html

jonny72

Mick86 wrote:

Ahmedinejad's ravings about wiping Israel of fthe map for one thing. It could be bluster but on the other hand he could mean it.

He has to be the most misquoted guy ever. You can just do the same thing with Bush, misquote one of his speeches by changing a few words and it sounds like he wants to turn half the middle east into glass. Ahmedinejad is a right wing confrontational man, but he's not some completely crazy guy either, he is extremely well educated, speaks several languages (more than I can say about a lot of Western leaders) and isn't exactly as gaulling of Israel as some of his contemporaries are. Oh great now I am defending this guy.

Do you really think so? The whole world doesn't like Iran and doesn't want it to have power in the ME. I can hardly credit it.

Fox News does not speak for the whole world. Theres a difference between media hype and people not even knowing a single thing about a specific country or its culture.

Well it's a matter of balance. Iran is a country run by religious zealots hoping to get nukes while Pakistan already has nukes and is a prime target for getting taken over by religious zealots. We should worry about both places.

Well the propaganda has worked wonders, ever once contemplated that Iran might not be getting nukes? the same people said the same **** about Iraq and they were all wrong.

There is little or no threat from Iran, but I dunno, if we keep up the propaganda, lies, spying, war games, maybe we will push them to something, maybe thats the hope.

This French move is politics.. it has little or nothing to do with "reality".. Sarkowzy wants a better relationship with the States.. it doesn't take a genius to work these things out..

blorg

Mick86 wrote:

Of course, it's all a plot by the Jews.

He didn't suggest anything remotely of the sort, you brought that up.

The one that's heavily influenced by the country that tried to exterminate the Jews?

If you mean Germany, you picked the wrong county. Modern Germany is very guilty about the Nazi period and is surely the strongest supporter of Israel in Europe, described as having a "special relationship" akin to Britain and the US. They subsidise the Israeli military and are currently paying a third of the cost of two new submarines intended to give Israel a second-stike nuclear capability against Iran.

Manic Moran

jonny72 wrote:

Well the propaganda has worked wonders, ever once contemplated that Iran might not be getting nukes? the same people said the same **** about Iraq and they were all wrong.

Doesn't mean they're wrong this time. The US intel community made a bit of a mess on Iraq. Over the longer period, however, they've had a generally better success rate.

You will note that the IAEA chap says nothing about believing that Iran might not be getting nukes either, he's just saying that the military option should be an option of last resort and other disincentives should be tried first. Nothing wrong with that, but absolutely not exclusive of the belief that an Iranian weapons programme might be underway.

NTM

Fratton Fred

This is the point when, during similar discussions over Iraq, France came out and said they would veto any military action against Saddam. That is fine if you mean it, but military force is something that without, the UN is impotent.

France coming out and stating they would veto military action, in my opinion, made the Iraq war inevitable.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote:

He has to be the most misquoted guy ever.

I love that excuse, it cracks me up.

jonny72 wrote:

Ahmedinejad is a right wing confrontational man, but he's not some completely crazy guy either, he is extremely well educated, speaks several languages (more than I can say about a lot of Western leaders) and isn't exactly as gaulling of Israel as some of his contemporaries are. Oh great now I am defending this guy.

You defend him so well.

jonny72 wrote:

the propaganda has worked wonders, ever once contemplated that Iran might not be getting nukes?

Yes I have. Have you contemplated that Iran might just possibly want to develop nukes? Well of course you have but your high regard for Ahmedinejad obviously means that you don't see the possibility as a problem.

jonny72 wrote:

the same people said the same **** about Iraq and they were all wrong.

Actually I think you'll find that far more countries are concerned about Iran than were about Iraq.

jonny72 wrote:

There is little or no threat from Iran,

Great. Why don't you dash off a few e-mails to the UN, EU, US and so on and let them know their fears are groundless.

jonny72 wrote:

This French move is politics.. it has little or nothing to do with "reality".. Sarkowzy wants a better relationship with the States.. it doesn't take a genius to work these things out..

Do you think?

Mick86

blorg wrote:

He didn't suggest anything remotely of the sort, you brought that up.

Actually no, extragon brought up Sarkozy's Jewishness, not me. I just think his theory is bollocks.

blorg wrote:

If you mean Germany, you picked the wrong county. .

No it was definitely Germany.

blorg wrote:

Modern Germany is very guilty about the Nazi period .

So I was right, it was the Germans after all.

blorg wrote:

and is surely the strongest supporter of Israel in Europe, described as having a "special relationship" akin to Britain and the US. They subsidise the Israeli military and are currently ....paying a third of the cost of two new submarines[/url] intended to give Israel a second-stike nuclear capability against Iran.

The bastrads.

Mick86

Fratton Fred wrote:

France coming out and stating they would veto military action, in my opinion, made the Iraq war inevitable.

That's stretching it a bit but what it meant was that the US and partners abandoned the UN route sooner than they might have wanted to.

blorg

@Mick86- he merely brought up that Sarkozy's Jewish ancestry might dispose him positively towards Israel, _you_ brought up the anti-semitic "it's all a plot by the Jews" canard. Personally I think Sarkozy is more interested in rebuilding relations with the United States here and Israel is tangential.

Then you alleged that the EU parliament cannot be trusted with foreign policy towards Iran or Israel because it is "heavily influenced" by Germany, "the country that tried to exterminate the Jews."

My point was merely that this is complete rubbish as Germany is Israel's strongest supporter in Europe, likely their second strongest supporter in the world after the US. It is in Israel's interest to have _more_ German influence in EU foreign policy, not less.

Drexl Spivey

jonny72 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

You have to admit, its pretty funny to see France rolling up its sleeves and acting tough all of a sudden.. yet again, what do they do? pick on Iran. Its such a bully syndrome, now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

1- I don't see what is funny.
2- Iranian leader said he'd wipe Israel from the map if he could, he is a threat.
3- If France or the US or the UK don't take initiatives to protect us who is gonna do it exactly? It is so typical from small countries who have no influence whatsoever to criticise bigger countries who are actors on the world stage.
4- Personnally, I don't want war with Iran, there's enough instability. But there's something I would want even less: Iran getting nukes.
5- About North Korea, who tells you that Fr or the US don't do anything about them? Are you kept in the confidence?

Mick86

blorg wrote:

@Mick86- he merely brought up that Sarkozy's Jewish ancestry might dispose him positively towards Israel,.

His ancestry is Hungarian. His father is a Protestant.

blorg wrote:

_you_ brought up the anti-semitic "it's all a plot by the Jews" canard. ,.

Again it was extragon brought it up. I was being sarcastic when I said it was all a Jewish plot.

blorg wrote:

Then you alleged that the EU parliament cannot be trusted with foreign policy towards Iran or Israel because it is "heavily influenced" by Germany, "the country that tried to exterminate the Jews.",.

Where did I say that EU parliament cannot be trusted with foreign policy towards Iran or Israel ?

It's a matter of historical fact that Nazi Germany tried to exterminate the Jews and undeniable that Germany has a heavy influence in the European Parliament.

blorg wrote:

My point was merely that this is complete rubbish as Germany is Israel's strongest supporter in Europe, likely their second strongest supporter in the world after the US. It is in Israel's interest to have _more_ German influence in EU foreign policy, not less.

Start a topic on the subject then.

Manic Moran

About North Korea, who tells you that Fr or the US don't do anything about them? Are you kept in the confidence?

The Carrot Approach seems to be having some success in Korea. Two weeks ago, NK agreed to declare and disable its nuclear facilities. It has been receiving IAEA inspectors for the last couple of months.

Iran is showing little interest in a negotiated settlement, regardless of if the proposals are coming from the EU or Russia.

NTM

digitally-yours

Now comes the explanation



MOSCOW, Sept. 17 — France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, sought Monday to tone down remarks he made in a radio and television interview the day before that the world had to prepare for possible war against Iran.


Attacked verbally by Iran and quietly criticized within his own government, Mr. Kouchner shifted the focus away from the threat of war and back to a call for hard negotiations as the way to force Iran to abandon key nuclear activities.

“The worst situation would be war,” Mr. Kouchner told journalists en route to Moscow. “And to avoid the worst, the French position is very clear: negotiate, negotiate, negotiate, and work with our European friends on credible sanctions.”

On Sunday, Mr. Kouchner, a Socialist known for his blunt talk, said in an interview broadcast on RTL radio and LCI television: “We will negotiate until the end. And at the same time we must prepare ourselves.”

Asked what he meant in referring to preparation, he replied, “It is necessary to prepare for the worst,” adding, “The worst, it’s war, sir.”

Asked again to explain himself, Mr. Kouchner announced that France was doing military contingency planning for an eventual war, saying, “We are preparing by trying first of all to put together plans that are the unique prerogative of the chiefs of staff, but that — it’s not for tomorrow.”

Lost in the off-the-cuff and freewheeling remarks about war planning was his other, less alarmist message: that France is committed to using diplomacy to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran, that no military action is planned and that he did not believe there would be an American military intervention while President Bush was in office.

But his remarks fueled speculation that France was moving closer to the Bush administration position that all options — including war — are on the table.

On Monday, Prime Minister François Fillon, a former labor and education minister, appeared to support Mr. Kouchner, adding to the sense that France’s stance had hardened.

Asked during a visit to an army base at Angoulême about Mr. Kouchner’s mention of war against Iran, Mr. Fillon replied, “The foreign affairs minister is right because everybody can see that the situation in the Near East is extremely tense and that it’s getting worse.”

Like Mr. Kouchner, he stressed that all steps must be taken to avoid war.

Adding to the confusion, the Foreign Ministry seemed to distance itself somewhat from Mr. Kouchner’s remarks. A deputy spokesman, Denis Simonneau, referred journalists on Monday to a speech President Nicolas Sarkozy made last month in which he also said Iran could be attacked militarily if it did not curb its nuclear program, but that such an outcome would be a disaster. He gave no indication that France would ever participate in military action against Iran or even tacitly support such an approach.

The Foreign Ministry instructed its diplomatic missions around the world to use the same, more cautious, formulation, ministry officials said.

Mr. Kouchner’s reference to war on Sunday infuriated Iran, which accused France of moving closer to Washington.

“The use of such words creates tensions and is contrary to the cultural history and civilization of France,” said Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Muhammad Ali Hosseini, in a statement on Monday.

An editorial in the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Monday said, “The new occupants of the Élysée want to copy the White House.”

In Vienna, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called for calm. “I would not talk about any use of force,” he said.

Stressing that only the Security Council could authorize the use of force, he urged the world to remember the lesson of Iraq before considering military action against Iran. “We need to be cool,” he said.

Certainly, France under President Sarkozy has toughened its policy toward Iran. Mindful that a third round of sanctions in the United Nations Security Council is unlikely for at least several months, France has begun to push an initiative for separate European sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, also took a hard line against Iran’s nuclear program but was much less inclined to use sanctions, because, as he often said, he did not believe they were effective.

France’s foreign intelligence service has a shorter timeline for Iran’s prospects for producing a nuclear weapon than that of American intelligence, according to senior French officials. American intelligence analysts put that date between 2010 and 2015.

In Paris before heading to Moscow for bilateral talks on Iran and other issues, Mr. Kouchner said European countries should prepare their own sanctions outside of the United Nations.

“These would be European sanctions that each country, individually, must put in place with its own banking, commercial and industrial system,” he said. “The English and the Germans are interested in talking about this.”

While some officials inside the French government felt that Mr. Kouchner had done no harm with his mention of war, others said he should have been more disciplined in his choice of words.

“In an ideal world he wouldn’t have answered the questions in the way he did,” said one French official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on diplomatic issues. “His words were not completely thought out and scripted. It doesn’t mean there is a change of policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/europe/18iran.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

blorg

@Mick86- "It's a matter of historical fact that Nazi Germany tried to exterminate the Jews and undeniable that Germany has a heavy influence in the European Parliament." Agreed. Therefore- what?

I am sort of lost here as to what your point is? What connection do you draw between the Holocaust, Germany's influence in the current European Parliament, and the topic at hand?

Mick86

blorg wrote:

I am sort of lost here as to what your point is? What connection do you draw between the Holocaust, Germany's influence in the current European Parliament, and the topic at hand?

Absolutely none. I just thought I'd mention them in passing. You seem very keen though. Well done.

oscarBravo

Mick86, if you could keep your contributions on-topic and a little less snide, I'd appreciate it - thanks.

extragon

Mick86, Sarkozy's Jewishness comes from his mother, who is of Greek Sephardic descent. It is reasonable to suppose that his feelings towards Israel are influenced by this. My point was that the French people have had no real say on the issue of French Israeli relations, in the recent election, and that international relations operate in a democratic vacuum.
Look at Blair, re-elected because of his domestic record, despite clear opposition to his foreign policies. In a globalized world this is less appropriate than it used to be. It's as if a nation state was run by county councillors, elected on local issues and free to run the country according to their whims.

Mick86

extragon wrote:

Mick86, Sarkozy's Jewishness comes from his mother, who is of Greek Sephardic descent. It is reasonable to suppose that his feelings towards Israel are influenced by this.

It's more reasonable to suppose that he sees a rapprochement with the US as beneficial to France rather than as an extension of his support for Israel.

extragon wrote:

My point was that the French people have had no real say on the issue of French Israeli relations, in the recent election, and that international relations operate in a democratic vacuum.
Look at Blair, re-elected because of his domestic record, despite clear opposition to his foreign policies..

Voters don't really care about foreign policies. It's domestic policies that decide elections.

extragon wrote:

It's as if a nation state was run by county councillors, elected on local issues and free to run the country according to their whims.

Parish Pump Politics?:D

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote:

The Carrot Approach seems to be having some success in Korea. Two weeks ago, NK agreed to declare and disable its nuclear facilities. It has been receiving IAEA inspectors for the last couple of months.

Iran is showing little interest in a negotiated settlement, regardless of if the proposals are coming from the EU or Russia.

NTM

Oh come on, perhaps if the U.S. decided to try naked bribery in their negotiations with the Iranians as they've done with the North Koreans they'd see the same progress!

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

Two weeks ago, NK agreed to declare and disable its nuclear facilities.

Or sell them on to Syria by some accounts.:D

Wook

jonny72 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

You have to admit, its pretty funny to see France rolling up its sleeves and acting tough all of a sudden.. yet again, what do they do? pick on Iran. Its such a bully syndrome, now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

almost as funny as claiming neutrality and letting bombers refuel in this country

Mick86

Wook wrote:

almost as funny as claiming neutrality and letting bombers refuel in this country

What kind of bombers?

moe_sizlak

iran know that firing a nuke at israel ( its not possible for them to reach the usa) would be the end of there country as both the israel and its bitch the usa would hit them with everything theyve got
there are likely to be many underlying reasons why the bush admin is so determined to attack iran , before the iraq war , sadamm had plans to start trading oil in euro as opposed to dollars but then the americans invaded , this never even made the news and got burried under the WMD issue
there is again talk that iran may now be looking to trade oil in dollars , this would sink the value of the american dollar even further
also , there is a pipeline being built from iran through pakistan and on to india right now , the u.s is known to be anxious about this as it could provide iran with economic opportunity for the forseable future
the u.s wants to have only 2 super powers in the middle east , them and israel so they cannot allow the likes of iran to become powerfull economically

do an eoghan harris and call me a conspirocy theorist but facts dont lie and they are freely available

Botany Bay

I often wonder whether people actually know anything about the history of those places they seem to have such an out spoken view on?! If i was an Iranian i'd probably consider the logical option of developing and possesing Nuclear weapons too. My neighbour has been invaded by two nations who have frequently and persistently meddled in my affairs, installed puppet fascist dictatorships and generally exploited my country's resources for their own ends. Its a rather rational and logical step to pursue nuclear weapons in this case. Particularly when their is a proxy of this meddling interferer on my doorstep.

Playing devils advocate makes me have a little more empathy with the Iranian position, however much i detest the Islamic theocracy that country has in place. I have little empathy with the morons who willingly lap up the line of "dealing with the Iranian" threat and are like virtual automotoms for the propaganda machine which spun its fear mongering net before the Iraq war and caught many willing fish, who would happily support the WMD, freedom, democary etc line. It really isn't hard being in PR nowadays with the level of believeability and gullibility around. Makes me have little sympathy for those who supported the war in Iraq and now have lost or risk losing their loved ones in the armed forces out there. Of course the same crowd now seem to want to attack Iran. Really hilarious stuff!!

extragon

Mick86 wrote:

Voters don't really care about foreign policies.

I don't think that's true, at least in Europe. It's just that the system doesn't allow the democratic voice to be heard directly. The only way is through the European Parliament, which is why I think it should have more power.
At present foreign policy is determined in private, between national leaders, and presented as a fait accompli. Differences supposedly dividing European nations over the Middle East are more about the psychology of individual leaders than a reflection of public opinion.

Mick86

extragon wrote:

I don't think that's true, at least in Europe.

We had an election a few months ago. How many candidates did you quiz on their party's foreign policies when they called to your door? Be honest now. I'd be prepared to say none.

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote:

iran know that firing a nuke at israel ( its not possible for them to reach the usa) would be the end of there country as both the israel and its bitch the usa would hit them with everything theyve got

True. The thing though is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they neutralise Israel's nukes. They would also seriously threaten US bases and fleets in the region.

moe_sizlak wrote:

sadamm had plans to start trading oil in euro as opposed to dollars but then the americans invaded ...

there is again talk that iran may now be looking to trade oil in dollars , this would sink the value of the american dollar even further

I don't know much about economics so could you explain those two apparently contradictory statements.

moe_sizlak wrote:

the u.s wants to have only 2 super powers in the middle east , them and israel so they cannot allow the likes of iran to become powerfull economically

Israel won't ever be a superpower. It's a regional power. Iran would like to be a regional power, which is why it needs nuclear weapons.

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote:

True. The thing though is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they neutralise Israel's nukes. They would also seriously threaten US bases and fleets in the region.



I don't know much about economics so could you explain those two apparently contradictory statements.



Israel won't ever be a superpower. It's a regional power. Iran would like to be a regional power, which is why it needs nuclear weapons.

i made a typo in my post , iran is looking to start trading oil in euros
all oil is traded in dollars , were this to change it would leave the beleagured u.s dollar even less relevant in global terms , this would have implications for the u.s not just in terms of economics but also in terms of american hegemony , specifically in the mid east
i said israel was a super power in the mid east , they are , and because of america and nothing else , what america does in the mid east is nearly always in some way influenced by israel or more importantly the hugely powerfull israeli lobby in washington , we often hear about the special relationship between the u.s and the uk , the uk is a poor relation of the usa in comparrison to the favour israel has with uncle sam
a few people have commented how its a case for war if iranians are found to be causing the deaths of american soldiers in iraq yet america cause the deaths of russian soldiers in afghanistan 25 yrs ago , you could say the same about many other countries in which the usa has interferred , partriculary in central and south america where they have backed coups , armed death squads etc
you see the rules are different for an empire , when the britts had an empire and massacred indians or zulus or whoever back in the day , the excuse was the civilised people had to keep the backward colonys in check
the only thing that has changed now is the language used is much more slick
instead of churchill or lyodd george talking about the right of the british empire to rise anywhere in the world , we have fox news telling us that the usa is spreding freedom and fighting terror

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote:

i said israel was a super power in the mid east , they are ,

I would think that a country's influence would have to be global to make it a superpower.

moe_sizlak wrote:

what america does in the mid east is nearly always in some way influenced by israel or more importantly the hugely powerfull israeli lobby in washington

Undoubtedly.

moe_sizlak wrote:

you see the rules are different for an empire

I think that might be because the rich and powerful make the rules.

extragon

Mick86, you're right that people are mostly interested in national, or local issues. It would be a waste of time asking a Dail candidate about anything else. But the big questions affecting them are, in fact, international.
If people had more of a direct say, I think they'd rise to the challenge. Since they don't, you can't blame them for a high degree of apathy.

Sarkozy and his vision for the Middle East probably has as many potential proponents/detractors in Ireland as in France, and it may well affect both countries equally. The different interest groups in Europe, on nearly any issue, are not neatly divided along national lines and the current system totally fails to reflect this.