Rice Says Paris Agrees on Pressing the Iranians

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The New York Times

Rice Says Paris Agrees on Pressing the Iranians

By THOM SHANKER
Published: September 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — The United States and France agree on increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday as the Bush administration played host to a meeting of major world powers to discuss another round of United Nations sanctions.

“I think it’s first important to note that we have set out a diplomatic path that includes negotiation as the preferred means by which to resolve this issue,” Ms. Rice said at a joint news conference with her French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner.

On Sunday, Mr. Kouchner kicked up a small diplomatic storm when he raised the possibility of war with Iran. He subsequently moderated his statements and dropped references to war. Ms. Rice noted that a diplomatic league of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany had offered “a very, very good package of initiatives that Iran could take up if it wished to stop its enrichment and reprocessing activity.”

But she said, “We will seek further resolutions in the U.N. Security Council should Iran not take up the negotiating track.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/world/middleeast/22sanctions.html

[rpannier]

1. bush has his new poodle...

and this time it's a french poodle.

[Lucinda]

38. :) My first though was the same n/t

[grilled onions]

2. Times Sure Change

Was it all that long ago that the words "french fries" protesting in the streets? But it's different if they AGREE with Chimpolini.

[Buns_of_Fire]

3. But has she checked with Britney yet? (n/t)

[regnaD kciN]

4. Paris says...

"I'll press the Iranians...between my thighs!"

:evilgrin:

[dipsydoodle]

5. WTF has Paris Hilton go to do with all this ?

Unless they going Uptown Top Rankin' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrVw-WmgTho&mode=related&search=

[rodeodance]

6. that is not a good headline

[CoffeeCat]

7. What a crock...

During Bush's runup to the Iraq war, this country couldn't demonize France enough.

Remember all of that American outrage, calling for French Fries to be re-named "Freedom Fries".
Limbaugh and the rest of the hate-radio gang couldn't insult France and the French people
enough. It was non-stop.

Now, France is our buddy. They're playing along with the pre-Iran war marketing blitz. So, this
administration decides to tout that France is in line with us---instead of releasing the hate-radio
dobermans on them.

God, this is such a farce. It's just a stupid game and this administration is a joke.

How did France become so lily-livered? Why are they being such lemmings and helping this administration
murder more innocent people who have done nothing to the US or France?

Germany has flat-out refused to play along. We haven't heard much from GB. I'm wondering how they
managed to strongarm France into this. I bet the French people are pissed.

[NGC_6822]

14. France or the French Government

You speak about France and the French government as if they were the same animal. France is a beautiful country with mountains,tree-lined roads, and cute villages that is the same as it was five years ago. France is France. The French government, elected by the people has changed, and its policies have changed. Ditto for Germany. Countries stay the same--governments change.

[unhappycamper]

8. Two words:

[Supersedeas]

41. no mushrooms clouds or PDB's in that gap

[f the letter]

9. i don't care how many countries agree with it as individual countries

That whole U N thing exists for a reason. What is France thinking siding with the Bush administration on Iran issues anyway? They're at least geographically closer to (currently) less war-mongering countries than we are. As u s economic power wanes you have to wonder what sort of backlash will occur to appeaser countries.

[NGC_6822]

15. The UN?

If you are so naive as to believe the UN is the protectorate of people, then I suggest you go talk to the people of Rwanda and the people of Darfur. You are right about one thing: "The UN exists for a reason." The big reason for several countries that enjoy holding veto privilege on the Security Council is to guarantee their access to as much oil in the world as they can get their hands on. And I'm not just talking about the US.

[f the letter]

33. Fair

It would be hard to make an argument that the UN _is_ a protector but it seems to be the only international law (however stacked and selectively flouted) we've got. Wish we had something with teeth, and something that didn't involve giving some of the least sane nations veto power...

[NGC_6822]

34. Total agreement

I couldn't agree with you more. You are absolutely correct. If you want a real eye-opener about the UN, read "Shake Hands with the Devil" written by the Canadian General Dalaire that commanded the UN troops in Rwanda. It's an extremely well written book, but totally heart breaking. When you finish, I guarantee that you will understand that the UN can never be any kind of effective police force in the world. They are already failing daily in Darfur despite pledges of "Never again."

[whistle]

10. Wow, Condi sure is working overtime

:sarcasm:

[L0oniX]

11. Does anyone really believe her anymore except Faux watcher mor@ns?

[alfredo]

12. If the french poodle makes any warlike moves the French people will

take to the streets and shut the country. down.


They will show America how a truly free people act.

[dipsydoodle]

13. I think you're right there

actually. The French are very good at mobilizing against policies with which they don't agree. Comes of having strong labor unions apart from anything else.

[alfredo]

16. We need to learn how to be free from the French labor movement.

[Doctor_J]

19. Yes, that would be good instruction for the 200 million Americans

who are incensed with * but afraid to do anything.

[SpikeTss]

25. That's right!

Sarkozy and his wife act more and more like Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette.
And we all know how they ended ... Especially the deals with the Libyan terrorists
makes this French president look like a tool, which he is!

[HuffleClaw]

17. two whole countries!

i'm so impressed.

[lovuian]

18. this is right out of Nostradamus

france's prez is putting a Bullseye on France incredible

[NGC_6822]

20. Don't underestimate the Europeans

It appears to me that posters on this thread underestimate the concern that Europeans have for the Iranian problem. They are all standing shoulder to shoulder against Iran's determination to continue uranium enrichment.

Even Jacques Chirac said, "France will not be threatened by terrorism. If necessary, France would use nuclear weapons." Everyone knew he was talking about Iran.

Angela Merkel in Germany has made it clear where she stands on the issue, but the most convincing was from none other than Gerhard Schroeder, the last chancellor of Germany. He, also considered Iran a major threat. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

[Pastiche423]

21. Why do you have your profile turned off?

Who are you afraid of?

[NGC_6822]

24. Answer

I am an American, but I live in a part of the world that doesn't offer the same degree of safety that you apparently enjoy on the Continent. I assume, though, that presentation of facts (see my last post below) carries a higher value on this site than simple innuendo and invective. Or, am I wrong?

[Pastiche423]

30. If you think we have safety here

you have not been paying attention.

[cali]

26. Why shouldn't he/she

I've never bothered with my profile. There's nothing there. So what?

[Exultant Democracy]

22. I feel bad for the French, they saw what happened to us and went ahead and elected their own Bush

anyway. At least the French know how to riot, maybe that will keep their Bush in line.

[NGC_6822]

23. I feel sorry for the Iranian people.

1. Many of the candidates in the last election were disqualified by the ruling hierarchy of the ayatollahs from appearing on the peoples' ballots.

2. The Iranian National Guard of 100,000 or more operates wholly outside of the official national military and has its own army, navy, and air force. It is answerable only to the ayatollahs, and not at all to the people.

3. President Amadinejad rose through the ranks of the Iranian National Guard, and he has so alienated and worried the rest of the world, that the Security Council of the UN (in a rare mood) has imposed two consecutive decrees of sanctions against the country. The people suffer as a result.

4. Iran continues to enrich uranium and build (for example) an expensive heavy water production site that is not required for a power plant but can be used in the development of a nuclear weapon. This policy will ultimately bring negative world opinion (and quite possibly action) down on the heads of the unfortunate Iranian people.

It's a sad situation.

[eridani]

27. I don't give a flying fuck if the Iranians get nukes

Why shouldn't they? They are completely surrounded by the nuclear powers of Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. They are daily threatened by the world's largest nuclear bully with total destruction of their entire physical plant and industrial base. No Persian government since the Sassanids have waged aggressive warfare. What would they do with a nuke other than use it as a deterrent? An aggressive attack on Israel or anything within reach of its rockets would get them obliterated. At least General Abizaid is talking sense on the subject, but nobody seems to be listening.

[NGC_6822]

29. Nukes for a deterrent

"What would they do with a nuke other than use it as a deterrent?"

I completely agree with this question (statement) that you raised. The problem I have, though is that it assumes the wrong scenario. In my opinion, the Iranians want a nuclear capability not to make an overt attack (the consequences would be grave for them as you rightly described), but as an insurance policy against attack from outside while they carry on conventional, covert operations around the rest of the Middle East--as they are currently doing in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Afghanistan, and Israel now. I believe they will ratchet up and expand these kinds of activities into other neighbors when they feel their deterrent capability is strong enough to discourage counter attacks from outside.

Of course, we could imagine that you are right, and they are just a bunch of good guys that want to defend themselves. But then, they could do that with a normal military under the control of the civilian government, and they wouldn't need the ayatollahs' private army of 100,000 to 150,000. How many of us want to sign-up for your risk? Not me.

Incidentally, most people find it hard to understand why Iran kept their nuclear development program a secret for 18 years if it was only for peaceful purposes. It is strange, particularly since during that period, the UN was falling all over itself to help countries develop nuclear technology for power generation.

[eridani]

35. There are countries that DON'T have covert operations all over the ME?

You know, on account of all that oil?

Afghanistan? What unmitigated horseshit. You mean to say they have forgotten all about the Taliban kidnapping several Iranian diplomats, chopping their heads off and using them as soccer balls? Amazing. I'm sure it was just a mistake on their part to ally with the US in favor of the Northern Alliance as well in 2001.

Lebanon has just had a lot of infrastructure flattened by Israel, which has finally succeeded in unifying the formerly antagonistic Christians, Druze and Sunni with the Shi'ites behind Hezbollah, the only force which even attempted self defense. Hezbollah is 100%+ a creation of Israel, which didn't exist until four years after the 1982 invasion. They have not shown the slightest inclination to operate outside Lebanon. Oh, and of their 41 suicide bombers whose history could be traced, three are Christian--one of whom was a female of the professional class.

Iraq? What in fucking hell are you smoking? Iraq now has the most pro-Iranian government it has ever had in its short existence. Iran wants to overthrow this government because why? The pro-Iranian SCIRI Badr brigades are an offical arm of the Iraqi government. Iran would want to help the rival (and far more nationalistic) Madhi army because why?

Iran has vastly more claim to being a bunch of guys that want to defend themselves than we do, unless you can come up with some justification for what having 700+ military bases all over the world has to do with "defense". More power to anyone who can successfully defend themselves against our neocon elite.

And you forgot Syria, which has been kind enough to torture people for us at the CIA's behest. If we don't start being nicer to them, they might refuse to do it anymore. They already cut off their information feeds to us about Al Qaeda (which they had heavily infiltrated) when we started the saber-rattling. Just goes to show that stopping Al Qaeda is a useless endeavor that doesn't aid the project of kicking the rest of the world in the teeth and taking their resources in any significant way.

[NGC_6822]

36. Question about Iran's nuclear program.

As I read your posts, I am struck by your repetition that (paraphrase), "Iran has a right to self defense." Does this mean that you agree that the nuclear program in Iran also includes development of a nuclear weapon capability, and is not just for power generation as Amadinejad implies? In short, do you believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program or not? It is just a simple question, hopefully with a simple answer.

[eridani]

37. The answer is I don't know

IAEI sez not, but IMO they'd have to be absolutely insane not to. If you don't like fundie Shi'ite mullahs, recall that the reason we have to put up with them is that Britain and the US overthrew a SECULAR democratic Iranian government in the 50s and installed a shah that was as brutal as Saddam, which inspired serious blowback. That and the Iraq oil grab ought to tell you all you need to know about what US elite foreign policy in the ME (over which actual citizens have exactly zero control) is all about. I don't like the things the rest of the world does to defend themselves against us. The best thing we could do to stop them would be to quit fucking with them. Avoiding the outing of CIA weapons researchers who used to keep tabs on Pakistan's Dr. Khan and his nuclear supermarket would also help.

[NGC_6822]

39. Anticipated answer

I was virtually certain that you would give me that answer, but unfortunately it doesn't get us anywhere. No one knows the answer except the Iranians at this point, and that is just the problem. I know a lot of mistakes have been made in the past, but we are living in the present and must deal with the present. Consequently, the crucial question above all others is:

"How can the world be assured that Iran is not (and will not) enrich uranium to weapons grade quality?"

Or, would you prefer to go on record on this web site with a statement something like:

"I don't care if Iran makes weapons grade uranium or not, and no one should ask them; the US should simply pull out of the ME unilaterally right now."

Would that statement accurately reflect your position? (Please correct if necessary.)

[eridani]

43. I'd rephrase that last one

"It would be better if Iran did not contribute to proliferation by becoming another nuclear power, and we should pursue this goal by negotiation. The US should simply abolish its project of dominating the rest of the world by military force, which is a major impetus for proliferation."

And, as General Abizaid has said, we could actually live with a nuclear Iran. I'm far more worried about Pakistan's Dr. Khan and his nuclear supermarket, not to mention the badly deteriorating command and control systems of the Russian nuclear force. Why can't we concentrate on dealing with real threats instead of using imaginary threats as an excuse for conquest?

[NGC_6822]

44. Can we deal with a failure of negotiation?

Negotiation is the new religion of the modern world, and with good reason given the tragic history of the old world. However, negotiation requires good faith from both sides. Regarding Iran, in about 2004 the Europeans said in effect, “We are not a bunch of cowboys like the Americans; we will negotiate in a civilized manner with Iran.”

These negotiations went on for four years with a net result of ZERO. Iran didn’t give an inch of ground. Since then, the UN has unanimously applied two rounds of economic sanctions. The result has been another big ZERO.

So here we are, and you seem to be saying that we should just let it happen, and General Abizaid says, “We could actually live with a nuclear Iran.” Easy for you to say if you are a Shiite and easy for a General to say if he commands his forces from a Florida HQ, but I don’t think the Sunnies in the region are going to have a warm, fuzzy feeling about it, to say nothing of the Christians and Jews.

If the UN, the US and the Western world in general backs off from Iran and just “lets it happen,” the rest of the Middle East is going to go into shock. They will be left open to the threat of Iran conducting conventional terrorist and surrogate destabilizing operations in the region under a protective nuclear umbrella. If no outside force can guarantee security in the ME in its present condition, then there is nothing left except for each regional country to fight for its own survival. The Sunnies are not going to let Iran take over the ME, period. Egypt has nuclear power plants; they can use the plutonium by-product from these plants to make weapons. Turkey has talked of the same. Libya will restart. You can easily go all around the ME and find the same kind of anticipated preparations.

Now tell me, how long do you think such a five or seven way “nuclear balance of power” would last in the ME before some hothead pulls the trigger?

[eridani]

45. Are you forgetting that the Sunnis have the bomb in Pakistan already?

Iran doesn't have the ability to "take over" the ME. That area happens to be where the country is located, and it's absolutely asinine to expect that thay won't try to influence their neighbors, who will in turn try to influence them right back. The only way a nuclear Iran would affect the balance of power is to protect itself from attack. Name a country that Iran has attacked in the last 1500 years or so.

The terrorism in the ME is presently being conducted by the US and Israel, and consists of wholesale destruction of infrastructure and mass murder on a scale that a few whackjobs with explosive belts can't hope to counter. Their tit for tat terrorism is equivalent to kids in the back seat of a car who have no control whatsoever over where their parents choose to drive it, and have only the option of making the trip as miserable as possible if the trip is to Auntie Em's in Kansas instead of Disneyland.

Hezbollah is a homegrown self protection organization which has not demonstrated any desire or ability to acquire territory outside of Lebanon. There is no evidence that Iran is getting any real control over the locals despite their financial assistance.

[NGC_6822]

46. What threat to Iran?

You continue to make allusions that Iran needs to defend itself. Can you clarify that for me? The US, has done two enormous favors for Iran by eliminating two of its worst enemies. As you have said, Iran allied itself with the US and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to throw out the Taliban and run the Sunni, Osama bin Laden into the mountains. Then the US destroyed the Saddam regime that had made two devastating wars against Iran and replaced it with, a pro-Iranian government. These are your words: "Iraq now has the most pro-Iranian government it has ever had in its short existence."

And actually there is a third reason Iran should be happy. After the overthrow of Saddam, the US and UK managed to talk Libya into giving up their weapons program. At the same moment, Libya exposed Dr. Khan in Pakistan that you say you are so worried about. As a result, Elbaradei(sp.), head of the UN IAEA was totally in shock when he learned about the world black market trade in nuclear technology equipment, and he proceeded to shut it down. So that took away still another threat to Iran.

So, in fact, Iran should be immensely grateful to the US. So what is Iran afraid of? If Iran simply gives the international community good verifiable procedures to guarantee that uranium is not being enriched to weapons grade purity, they are home free with lots of economic benefits to boot, plenty of help from the UN to build their power plants, and open trade with Russia, China, the West, whoever. WOW! What a deal! So what is the problem? It's a mystery isn't it?

[eridani]

47. The US imperial thug faction is preparing for a war to obliterate Iran's infrastructure

I'd call that something to be afraid of. Iran is about as much of a threat as Saddam was in 2003, which is to say none at all. The mass murderers who determine US policy did not tolerate a non-aggressive, secular and democratic government in Iran in 1954--why do you think they will ever change? It is Iran's existence as an independent country not directly under the American military boot which is offensive to this crowd. No matter what Iran allows in the line of inspections, they'll find some way to up the ante. I don't know why you don't get that.

[NGC_6822]

48. A list of mistakes by the US

So, if I can interpret your angry response to my last post, I suppose you believe that Iran would be better off today if:
1) The Taliban was still in control of Afghanistan with Osama bin Laden as their guest.
2) Dr. Khan was still running his global black market nuclear technology business.
3) Libya was still concealing its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs,
4) Iraq had never been attacked and Saddam would be sitting on the door step of Iran today with a fully developed and deliverable nuclear weapon.

The US was, of course, fully involved in all these events, and I guess you don't see any value whatsoever in any of them. Is that true?

If you can answer "Yes" to all four above, then I will readily agree with you that the US should stay home and let the Middle East continue alone on all the clandestine arms races and we'll see where they end up.

[eridani]

50. In order

1) The Taliban was a creation of the United States, which collected fundies from all over the world (even at mosques in the US!) to fight against the Soviets. We made Al Qaeda a global group. We would have been better off to have not fucked with them at that point, as all subsequent related problems would not have happened. Resistance to the Soviets would have stayed strictly local, and far less likely to be dominated by fundies. In mid-70s Kabul, female college students wore miniskirts. It wasn't all that long ago.

2) We did not need military action or underhanded wetwork to deal with Dr. Khan. Recognized international agencies did just fine, no thanks to Halliburton and Cheney who dealt with the asshole to their financial betterment. When I say stay out, I mean unilateralism, not working with other countries against situations which harm the whole world by way of international organizations.

3)http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/index.html So you are crediting US thuggery with what international agencies have accomplished yet again? I'm sure that being willing to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993 (unlike so many other international initiatives we have blown off) was of more help than killing Qadaffi's daughter.

4) We did not need to actually carry out war in 1991 in order to dismantle Saddam's weapons program. The effective programs that Scott Ritter headed up could have been imposed as a condition of avoiding war, with no requirements whatsoever on our part for the mass murder we have subsequently engaged in.

In addition, had we not fucked over Iran in 1954, it would probably be a secular democracy now, albeit one with local oil companies in charge rather than US/British ones. Other countries who are far more dependent on outside energy sources than we are seem to be perfectly content to get them from the plain old market economy. Or as a Japanese diplomat put it when the US was armtwisting Japan to pony up bucks for the 1991 war, "We feel that whoever owns the oil will quickly discover that they have no choice but to sell it."

[NGC_6822]

55. My last post---you have the last word

My sorry, I try to ask a straight forward question based on your stated or implied opinions, but instead of a straight forward answer, I only get deflections back to some earlier history, or an odd manipulation of the facts.

The original subject of this thread pointed toward a military threat by the US and France against Iran if Iran did not stop its uranium enrichment program. To discuss this contention under the current situation, we don't need all the history and your (and my) interpretations of that history. That kind of discussion would certainly require a book of sizable volume.

So, I restate my first question from post 36:
"Do you believe (I'm not asking if you know) that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program or not?"
Most people are able to give a yes or no to this question.

Secondly, would Iran really be justified in worrying about it's security, given that all of its most dangerous surrounding enemies have been remove?

Incidentally, a few comments about your post 50:

You said, "...to deal with Dr. Khan. Recognized international agencies did just fine..." ElBaradei, chief nuclear inspector for the UN was completing appalled when he learned about the black market that kahn was running. He hadn't a clue previously, and declared that Kahn's business must be destroyed immediately. He expressed the same disbelief when he originally saw how advanced Iran was in their enrichment program; and he was equally flabbergasted when he was invited into to Libya to oversee the closure of all its weapons of mass destruction programs that was revealed by the US and UK. So that makes three times that the UN top agency for inspections had their socks knocked off by surprises. I will also add the when Hans Blix was head of the nuclear inspections for the UN way back in the late '80s, he declared that Iraq was totally free of any nuclear program. It wasn't until the invasion in 1991 that we learned the opposite. So much for the credibility of UN competence.

Finally, your item 4 in post 50 is incomprehensible to me. In 1991, no one really knew anything about Saddam's nuclear program as I have just mentioned. That war was about Kuwait and was supported (in a rare moment) by a huge portion of the UN. So, I can't make any sense out of your paragraph.

I haven't time to comment on many of the other statements you have made, although I would dearly love too. You have a lengthy knowledge of events in the Middle East, I must admit. But your interpretation of those events are highly questionable in my opinion. I believe that you are so consumed with deep anti-American prejudices that you have lost your objectivity. This is not meant as a personal attack, it is simply to suggest that you should try to weigh a more balanced view of the world. Nothing is all black and white as the saying goes. (Oh, and more polite language would be appreciated.)

I will be going on travel in a few days for an extended time, so I probably cannot carry on this stimulating (it's a fair word) conversation. I hope, however, that you will answer the above questions honestly, for the benefit of other readers.

Many Thanks, and Good Luck

[eridani]

56. OK --we'll meet again on other threads

RE "anti-American". I happen to be anti-imperial bullying, and I do not conflate America the country and its citizens with our elite cast of sociopathic profit seekers. I can't figure out why any actual non-elite American would think that it is in his/her interest to use military force to make the world safe for dollar a day labor and resource ripoffs from other countries. That so many do is likely an effect of the corporate rightwing noise machine. That's why we can't easily abolish that portion of our military machine used for world domination and use those resources to invent the post-oil economy before we move into serious human die-off.

Iran's most dangerous enemy, the US military, has most certainly not been removed.

[SpikeTss]

28. I feel sorry for the Iraqi people

Because they have been viciously attacked by the world's most brutal superpower and are suffering under a war
of aggression against them during which already more than one million Iraqi citizens have been murdered.
Now this superpower threatens to murder even more people, only this time in Iran. A country, which in recent
history, has NOT attacked any of its neighbors, even though they had to endure a war with Iraq, which had
been supported by the US with weapons, money and logistic (Rumsfeld was involved in this, btw).

So, what other possibility has the Iranian regime other then seeking shelter under the umbrella of a nuclear shield?

Iran continues to enrich uranium and build (for example) an expensive heavy water production site that is not required for a power plant but can be used in the development of a nuclear weapon. This policy will ultimately bring negative world opinion (and quite possibly action) down on the heads of the unfortunate Iranian people.

[frankf]

54. You feel sorry because

"3. President Amadinejad rose through the ranks of the Iranian National Guard" ?

Isn't rising from a average joe to a leader usually a good thing, i.e he wasn't (for example!) the rich son of a previous president?

[JustAnotherGen]

31. I look at it

A little differently. Bear with me here.

France is doing what every Sovereign country should do - that is act in it's own interests.

Where are they going to get oil from if we are allowed to bomb the hell out of Iran? They ARE much closer to the Middle East than us. And they have a large Muslim 'minority' that feels it's been mistreated/discriminated against. That same population that rioted on the Left Bank in Paris a few years ago.

And let's not forget - the Code Pink ladies and Kouchner. He looked APPALLED that they were being pulled out for screaming "Don't bomb Iran!" Typical french chauvinistic french male (and if you've ever loved one - you know what I mean :rofl: ) He said something like - Wait! Stoopide! Come back! I agree! Listen to what I have to say. Typical French Man - was APPALLED that women were being dragged out that way. You could see it in his eyes - he was shocked.


I think Bush/Cheney/Rice are being outsmarted here. In the same breath that Sarkozy agreed that Iran having a nuclear bomb is a threat - he stated he needed to see a timeline for us (the US) to get out of Iraq. Check mate.

Maybe - just a theory I've heard from people who live in France . . . maybe he's just trying to hold the line until he gets a reasonable and intelligent person in the White House to deal with. In the meantime - I think Sarkozy/Kouchner are saying "You will go to the UN America. You will not do what you did again unchecked. You will use diplomacy." I think they've figured out that Bush/Cheney/Rice wouldn't know diplomacy if it came up and bit them on the butt - so they are taking over the negotiations and putting those three in their place.

Sorry - I don't buy that Sarkozy/Kouchner are evil vile Bushwackers. Oh, they'll pat Bush & Co on the head and send them on their way like good little boys and girls . . . but they KNOW they are better than those three.

[NGC_6822]

32. Good cop, bad cop

For me, the latest French routine was an exercise in the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Kouchner was playing the bad cop by mentioning a possible military action, and Sarkozy played the good cop by backing off from the threat. I'm not criticizing; actually I'm happy the French are applying their diplomatic skills--something they are usually very good at.

In fact, the carrot and stick routine are being applied constantly by all Western, and in deed UN, diplomats to break through the Iranian intransigence. I wish them success, but the effort has gone on for four years, and not a shred of progress has been made. The Iranians will be more than happy to talk all day about anything you want to talk about. But, they will never stop the enrichment.

As for Sarkozy wanting to know the American schedule for withdrawal from Iraq: Everybody wants to know the schedule, because that is the key for a serious military threat to Iran. Right now Amadinejad feels confident, because the Americans are tied down in Iraq. As soon as that situation winds down, he will be more nervous and the Europeans will have more confidence in the "bad cop" part of their strategy.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter who will be president next time; it's going to be messy. Most all the candidates know this.

[Javaman]

40. okay okay, so does that mean we are back to "French" Fries?

so in condi, I have never ever had an original idea ever, rices brain, diplomacy is anyone that agrees with the US. SOS = same old shit.

[bikebloke]

42. woof woof

Sarko picked up his marching orders during his vacances américaines.

[Megahurtz]

49. Give It Up And Get Real.

:eyes: I wouldn't give up my Nuclear Program as long as they have theirs. I would tell them to Fuck Off.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Tell them what GERMANY said, Condi!

Berlin Says US and France Guilty of Hypocrisy

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier opposes French calls for European Union sanctions against Iran. He will back up his case with German Foreign Ministry data showing that leading French and American companies are conducting large amounts of business with Iran.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,507443,00.html

[Scurrilous]

52. Security Council Likely to Delay Sanctions Against Iran

<snip>

"The U.N. Security Council probably will delay a move to impose new sanctions against Iran until December, when U.N. weapons inspectors conclude a review of Iran's past nuclear activity, France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said Thursday.

Kouchner, speaking at a breakfast with international reporters, said that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear in Moscow talks last week that he will not consider Security Council sanctions during the next three months.

"I spent hours with Sergei Lavrov trying to convince him," Kouchner said. "He said 'let them (UN inspectors) do their job, the inquiry on outstanding problems." Lavrov said it would be "impossible" to impose sanctions before that process is concluded, Kouchner said.

Kouchner's remark comes one day before U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to discuss a diplomatic reaction to Iran's refusal to halt its uranium-enrichment work with the council's four other permanent members--Britain, China, France and Russia--as well as Germany. The United States and its European allies favor the imposition of additional trade, travel and diplomatic sanctions on Iran."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092701071.html

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

53. Who gives a flying fuck about WHAT Paris thinks?

Just askin'.

:shrug: