Et tu, FRANCE ?

United States
October 30, 2007 9:17am CST
"IAEA findings on Iran dismissed." That the USA would be dismissing findings of the international agency that regulates nuclear energy should not surprise anyone. But France? Apparently, the winds of political change that blew during the last major election in France might not merely be a random gust of wind. Could it be steady strong wind? Hopefully, it does not become a storm. Here's a link to the story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7068478.stm Here's a quote. "France and the US have dismissed a finding by the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog Mohammed ElBaradei that there is no evidence of Iran building a bomb." Can France and the USA possibly have any honest reason to dismiss the findings of the IEAE? What do you say?
3 people like this
6 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
30 Oct 07
Absolutely. The fact that Iran is wanting the facilities to enrich uranium rather than import it at a much cheaper cost is sufficient grounds to raise serious questions about Iran's intentions. If nuclear power generation is what they want, as they claim, then why would they need enrichment facilities? These are legitimate questions and cause for concern, and given Iran's stated antipathy towards Israel and others including the US, there is no room for error here. The fact that France has joined the US in this decision does mean a lot, because France hasn't agreed much with the US in the past. As for Mohammed ElBaradei, he seems to be in bed with Iran , and his findings are meaningless.
2 people like this
• United States
30 Oct 07
Yes, I was wondering if the many riots and assorted lawlessness experienced in France during the last year had anything to do with their rightward shift in politics, to include agreeing more with the USA. If this is so, the curious thing would be why that would be associated with Iran? Seems like an odd connection. Still, it may be the case that the riots caused a complete attitude adjustment in the French government. Maybe they now have a better idea of who their friends are. Time will tell.
2 people like this
• United States
30 Oct 07
"As for Mohammed ElBaradei, he seems to be in bed with Iran, and his findings are meaningless." Well, if he is Muslim, I would agree that he is unlikely to be objective in regards to Iran. Muslims are strict about being honest with each other, but when there is a war or battle, the doctrine of "War is deceit" takes over. One Muslim could never be expected to say or do anything to give advantage to an infidel over a fellow Muslim. Telling a lie to protect a fellow Muslim or to gain advantage over the infidels is to be expected. This is a matter of loyality. How this guy got to be head of the IAEA is an interesting question. We might look up more about Mohammed ElBaradei. Right now, I know almost nothing about him. Can anyone out there fill us in?
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Oct 07
Hello Destiny007, "... there is no room for error here." Excellent point, with which I couldn't agree more! Sloppy oversight of adherence to treaties is the exact reason why the world must now be on elevated alert to the possibility of former USSR suitcase bombs, and warheads being purchasable within the Arms Black Market. With zero wiggle-room, oversight becomes crucial. It's like the old saying "measure twice, cut once".
@MrNiceGuy (4144)
• United States
2 Nov 07
Well the IEAE has already found traces of Plutonium and HEU in Iran at Natanz, so.... They can't build a bomb if they don't have nuclear material yet, which is the stage theyre in right now. Here's the real question, do you think they want to or will try to build a bomb? I think thats indubitable.
2 people like this
• United States
2 Nov 07
Indubitable? I admit I had to look that up. At first I thought you must have misspelled a word, but then I thought, "Nah, that what I'd do! Not MrNiceGuy. Better get out the dictionary.". I agree with you. Without a doubt it is what they are up to. It is indubitable.
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
2 Nov 07
Hello redyellowblackdog! Oui, C’est la France, malheureusement! (yes, this is the France, unfortunately)! But this unfortunate word is my own, not that of French, in general, with regards to Iran. The people that I have talked to express concerns about Iran getting Nuclear weapons but they are equally concerned that Monsieur Nicolas Sarkozy may start to kowtow American Establishment in Mr. Blair fashion which they don’t like or want to see just as British disliked about PM Blair. That’s the reason of public and inside condemnation of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s and especially Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner’ remarks about war with Iran. Kouchner later said that he won’t talk about war and that was not his purpose. Similarly Foreign office gave explanation of Presidents remarks that president was only saying that present conditions will lead to war. It didn’t mean, in any way, that France will advocate, participate or even support military action against Iran. Even then, Sarkozy’s approval rating has plummeted from over 60 in start to 55. More sharply has risen his disapproval rating. Sarkozy was elected on Economic and Social reforms program and the last the French would like to see is their leader kowtowing President Bush, which they overwhelmingly disapprove. It is also unfortunate that while urging other nations to respect worlds’ institutions, the world powers are themselves disrespecting them. I am surprised by the short memories of people and especially some Americans (at least it seems so), I am surprised that just a few years back this administration lied and misled about Iraq and that everything Mr ElBaradei and Mr Hans Blix reported came out to be true and most of what Mr. Bush-Blair said came out to be a fraud, misleading and intentional tampering and that, they manipulated. I have written in one of your other discussions about the obvious lies and misleading statements of Bush Administration to create a public fury. I don’t know if I should be surprised now, I don’t know if I should be surprised ever. “The US said Iran's efforts to enrich uranium rather than import it more cheaply, indicated that it really wanted nuclear weapons.” This is a misleading statement. In defence industry, there is something called “matter/object of strategic importance” for which other countries are not relied on, or trusted whether or not it’s cheap. US have a huge list of such engineering materials which can be imported very cheaply from Europe, China or Japan, yet, Pentagon insists to manufactor/fabricate/engineer them in homeland. It is well known policy in defence and strategic matters. Moreover, price costs more when there is small scale production, with adequate production, the price drops. Depending on foreign sources for enriched Uranium will prone Iranian program to danger of being exploited, making it totally dependable on foreign source. Iranians had already stop enriching Uranium earlier this decade but none of the promises made with Iran were fulfilled, not to mention the cancelation of last shipment of arms from America to Iran in late 70s which was already paid. American congress also stopped shipment of 40 F-16s to Pakistan which were also already paid for. So, Given the past experiences and general understanding in defence industry, no outer source can be trusted in the matters of strategic importance. “White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Iran was "enriching and reprocessing uranium, and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon". “ This is as uneducated, and similar, a statement as the statements about Iraq in 2002 of then National Security Advisor (now secretary of state) Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dickk Cheney and other administration’ officials about the Aluminum tubes that “The tubes were only really suited for nuclear weapons programs". While the CIA and Energy Department had already declared that they couldn’t be used in Nuclear Centrifuges and that was NOT the only purpose of Aluminum tubes. Same is the case here that Dana Perino doesn’t know that Nuclear Bomb isn’t the ONLY outcome of Uranium enrichment. A later statement had tried to clear it though. "If... ElBaradei is right then there is no reason that Iran stops ElBaradei and the IAEA [the UN nuclear watchdog] from carrying out inspections," This is again out of context and a misleading statement. He surely know, but is hiding, that Iran did allow ElBaradei and IAEA to conduct spot/undeclared inspections until the case was referred to UNSC, and Iran had announced it earlier, publicly, that If the case is moved they will stop cooperating the agency in “voluntary” subscription to additional protocol of NPT to allow for spot/undeclared inspections. Iran was not bound to do that, still it did and only stopped after the case was referred to UNSC. Iran also had announced it time and again, afterwards, that they will resume cooperating in this regard, if the case is referred back to IAEA. They are also not telling the public that when the intelligence reports of Iranian trigger device were sent to IAEA, and IAEA contacted Iran for inspection, Iran agreed to get it verified and IAEA did not find any evidence of testing of any such trigger device but that of normal testing procedure. They are also not telling that CIA had reported last year, after a covert operation of monitoring radioactive activity, that there is no evidence of Nuclear weapons Program activity and that no report could be verified. It appears that the world is being fooled again, that peoples’ prejudices make them knowingly gullible and vulnerable to liars and make them listen to proven guilty people. I have said it before and I’ll repeat that I hope that China doesn’t come out as a lying-bully when it becomes a super power and I also hope that if China pushes the same on America in future, I’ll have Americans’ support to oppose Chinese Administration, but I hope that the world doesn’t come to that. And, I hope that the world, in general, and Americans, in particular, realize the grave errors of present times so they won’t have to be regretful in future. Peace be to all!
2 people like this
• United States
2 Nov 07
It is especially valuable for us to have your opinion on this matter given that you live if France. Thank you for the insight into internal French politics. "I hope that China doesn’t come out as a lying-bully when it becomes a super power." I first listened to Radio Peking in 1967. Even then they were a lying-bully. They have not changed. I'm not kidding when I tell you the whole world needs to beware of China. It will be very bad as China gets more power. Which they will, I have no doubt.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Oct 07
Hello Redyellowblackdog, I believe the winds of change are growing into gale force. And, not only in France. The Netherlands and the Danes are exploring radical changes to their immigration policies. The anarchy in Paris a couple of years ago, coupled with the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, are making Europeans reconsider their formerly open/accepting policies. And, it's not just Europe. Here's a link to an Australian report about immigration-linked problems in the land 'Down Under'. The simple reality is that if citizens of Middle Eastern nations felt like they had a reasonable opportunity to earn a living, and live in peace in their homelands, they wouldn't be emigrating in such large numbers. As for whether any nation can have an honest reason to dismiss the findings of the IAEA, I believe it's quite reasonable to do just that. The U.N. had demonstrated an 'Ostrich' policy on a vast number of pertinent issues. Ranging from: 'The Oil for Food' scandal, to the assignment of nations with dismal human rights records to the Human Rights Council, to the finding of Iraqi chemical WMD inside the UN building this past August. With that kind of track record, I'd say it was irresponsible to not question their findings. If questioning the findings of the UN-IAEA allows for greater assurances that Middle-Eastern leaders aren't sabotaging their own economic growth for the acquisition of large-scale military expansion, then perhaps fewer Middle Eastern citizens will be compelled to migrate elsewhere. At least for me, the link seems pretty clear. As I see it, there's a pretty simple way to confirm whether or not Iran is seeking nuclear technology for energy production or military reasons. Offer them access to the amazing leaps in solar technology that have been occurring in the US, of late. For example: Super heating of water, by means of concentrated solar collectors is enabling solar production of steam-powered generators. These large-scale generators are capable of producing enormous amounts of energy, which can be adapted for residential or industrial use. If the goal is to be able to produce enough energy to meet the demands of their people, and industry, then generators offer a long-term, relatively inexpensive, reliable option. So, I say it's time 'to call' their hand.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Oct 07
Oops! Silly me, I forgot to include the link. http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=2207
• United States
31 Oct 07
"Taqiyya is the doctrine whereby any lies, deceit, or other forms of treachery may be justified in the cause of defeating the infidel. It is “a cloak for the believer” that provides a religious dispensation for such things as “friendship with unbelievers” and other subterfuges “in defending oneself from one’s enemies”. I suggest that, when one reads the soothing words of our own Islamic “moderates”, the doctrine of taqqiya should never be far from our minds." The above quote is from LadyLuna's link. It is an excellent article detailing some of the recent history of the problems within host countries from Muslim immigration. The article also points out how if Muslims could run a country well, there would not be so many people seeking to leave Muslim countries! I provided the quote about taqiyya because so many westeners do not understand how this concept is applied regularily and often by Muslims. Everyone should become familar with "taqiyya".
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Oct 07
Hello Redyellowblackdog, I'm so glad that you took the time to read the article/speech. It may be long, but it is very well penned, and extraordinarily enlightening.
@ck0098 (89)
• China
31 Oct 07
I think USA wants to invade Iran. The nuclear problem is just a pretext. The Iraq war is such a example.
• United States
31 Oct 07
Since everything to do with warfare concerns deceit, that the USA wants to invade Iran for some reason other than its nuclear program, can not be ruled out. You make a valid point.
1 person likes this
• United States
31 Oct 07
Good thinking, ck0098! I guess some people just do not (or cannot) learn!
@Netsbridge (3242)
• United States
31 Oct 07
So, what is new? Did the US not also dismiss reports by and from the UN regarding Iraq, preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq? I think that this is mainly a tactic to inhibit anyone besides our bullies from having effective military capabilities in preparedness against possible conflicts from our bullies/pirates/plunderers! The same strategy was used in the days of open piracy: When other nations started to gain and improve on their naval capabilities, all of a sudden, piracy became out-lawed in writings! Our world bullies just do not want anyone to be prepared for self-defense against their agendas of world plundering, imperialism and the one world order!
1 person likes this
• United States
31 Oct 07
It is interesting that France has joined the USA in doubting the IAEA. All thinking people should think about that. The long story short is the UN is not creditable concerning anything. Why should anyone believe them? Your objection I assume is refering to the fact that no clear cut example of WMD was found in Iraq after the invasion? Do you really think WMD's in Iraq was the only reason for the invasion? Have you forgotten that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement ending Gulf War I? Have you forgotten how many Muslims Saddam had killed? Do you not know Saddam mislead other nations as to his WMD capability so as to appear stronger than he was? How do you know that WMD's were not removed from Iraq to Syria as has been reported in many places? It would seem you forget that Saddam invaded a Muslim country, Kuwait, killings thousands and killed thousands more of his own people, all Muslims. Given Saddam's known history, his proven use of chemical weapons in the past, his proven biological weapons programs of the past, and the fact that he really use to have a nuclear weapons programs would lead any reasonable person to conclude given Saddam's posturing he again had WMD's. If he did not, so what? Think of how many Muslims Saddam had killed! Now, he is gone and when the fighting stops, Iraq can order the USA out of the country. If the insurgents were smart they would stop the fighting, co-operate with the legal Iraq government, then use world opinion to force the USA out of their country. Here's some free advice to the fighters in Iraq. Stop the killing! The USA can not withstand world opinion to remain in a peaceful country. You can not force the USA to leave with bullets or IED's, but you can with peace and politics. Stop the killing. Then everyone wins.
2 people like this