I never thought I'd see this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.france/index.html

Quote :

"PARIS, France (CNN) -- Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said in France's most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran did not "want to have the bomb." Douste-Blazy's bold statement on Thursday appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities. "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. "The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us." Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to build nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. "Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran," Douste-Blazy said. While U.S. rhetoric towards Iran has been quite firm, European leaders have been more cautious. France, Britain and Germany have led European negotiations that have failed to persuade Iran to suspend parts of its nuclear program. "People are clearly feeling somewhat frustrated that the Iranians have been given lots of opportunities they don't seem to want to take advantage of," said Richard Whitman of the Chatham House think tank in London. He noted that the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was unusually stern in reporting Iran to the Security Council earlier this month. He said the French comments reflect "a sense of exasperation with the Iranian government. All of the doors that were open in terms of negotiations ... are gradually being closed by the Iranians." The French Foreign Ministry insisted that Douste-Blazy's comments were in line with the European position on Iran. "France shares the concerns of its European partners and the international community," spokeswoman Agnes Romatet-Espagne said. "The sensitive nuclear activities conducted now by Iran in terms of conversion and enrichment raise doubt about their peaceful and civilian nature." In response to Douste-Blazy's comments, Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said: "We want civilian nuclear energy, we don't want to have the bomb." Speaking from Tehran on France-Inter radio, he said: "Concerning nuclear arms, we are a responsible country. ... We want to be in this camp" of countries that have nuclear energy technology, but no nuclear weapons, such as Brazil and Japan, he said. In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United States would "walk a fine line" in seeking punitive international sanctions against Iran's Islamic government over its disputed nuclear program. The next big test comes later this month, at talks in Moscow on moving Iran's enrichment program to Russia, which would allay fears that Iran might misuse the technology to make nuclear arms. Tensions over Iran are likely to diminish if Tehran agrees to the Russian proposal -- and to balloon if it does not.PARIS, France (CNN) -- Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for a clandestine weapons program, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy has said in France's most direct attack on Tehran in the escalating international dispute. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator immediately dismissed the charge, insisting that Iran did not "want to have the bomb." Douste-Blazy's bold statement on Thursday appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities. "No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television. "The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us." Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear energy program to build nuclear weapons, and the U.N. Security Council is to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week. "Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran," Douste-Blazy said. While U.S. rhetoric towards Iran has been quite firm, European leaders have been more cautious. France, Britain and Germany have led European negotiations that have failed to persuade Iran to suspend parts of its nuclear program. "People are clearly feeling somewhat frustrated that the Iranians have been given lots of opportunities they don't seem to want to take advantage of," said Richard Whitman of the Chatham House think tank in London. He noted that the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was unusually stern in reporting Iran to the Security Council earlier this month. He said the French comments reflect "a sense of exasperation with the Iranian government. All of the doors that were open in terms of negotiations ... are gradually being closed by the Iranians." The French Foreign Ministry insisted that Douste-Blazy's comments were in line with the European position on Iran. "France shares the concerns of its European partners and the international community," spokeswoman Agnes Romatet-Espagne said. "The sensitive nuclear activities conducted now by Iran in terms of conversion and enrichment raise doubt about their peaceful and civilian nature." In response to Douste-Blazy's comments, Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said: "We want civilian nuclear energy, we don't want to have the bomb." Speaking from Tehran on France-Inter radio, he said: "Concerning nuclear arms, we are a responsible country. ... We want to be in this camp" of countries that have nuclear energy technology, but no nuclear weapons, such as Brazil and Japan, he said. In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the United States would "walk a fine line" in seeking punitive international sanctions against Iran's Islamic government over its disputed nuclear program. The next big test comes later this month, at talks in Moscow on moving Iran's enrichment program to Russia, which would allay fears that Iran might misuse the technology to make nuclear arms. Tensions over Iran are likely to diminish if Tehran agrees to the Russian proposal -- and to balloon if it does not."

BTW, I searched for this, I hope it wasn't already posted.

[Edited on February 16, 2006 at 11:18 PM. Reason : search]

2/16/2006 11:17:19 PM

gg, France. looks like theyre not all pussies after all.

2/16/2006 11:21:46 PM

I don't know what prompted them to grow a pair.

2/16/2006 11:22:32 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what prompted them to grow a pair."

They have the ability to distinguish a real threat from a percieved threat?

2/16/2006 11:59:05 PM

yeah they do that right before they surrender

2/17/2006 8:18:32 AM

" I hope it wasn't already posted."

It wasnt to my knowledge til you posted it twice in the same quotation box. I say good for France. They are using strong language, will they also used armed forces if it comes to that?

2/17/2006 9:07:48 AM

the french have as much to fear about a nuclear armed muslim state as anyone

2/17/2006 10:35:10 AM

i mean

other than the pakis

but, they don't count

2/17/2006 10:35:39 AM

So does this qualify as the opening of the final seal of the apocalypse?

2/17/2006 10:38:04 AM

what, you mean the fact that france took a stance that seemed strong willed?

a cursory look at history will show that france has almost always taken a fiercely independent and strong willed stance on the issues that they think are in the best intrest of their nation

they are not a push over nation

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2006 10:45:00 AM

You know who SHOULD be worried about Iran's nukes.....Denmark.

2/17/2006 12:09:14 PM

i know what you're saying

but really

there's only two countries that REALLY need to worry about them

and only one of those countries is within throwing distance

2/17/2006 1:36:01 PM

for now

2/17/2006 1:37:49 PM

"for now"

yeah

for real

2/17/2006 1:39:00 PM

Could also have something to do with the massive internal problems France is having with its immigrant muslim population. The natives there are starting to resent them in a big way.

2/17/2006 1:47:22 PM

ya think?

2/17/2006 1:48:06 PM

The french felt the need to act tought after we made them look silly in another Pink Panther film.

2/17/2006 4:03:46 PM

Quote :

"It wasnt to my knowledge til you posted it twice in the same quotation box."

I apologize for that... My finger slipped and I am sry.

2/17/2006 9:32:31 PM

GG on france for being captain obvious. It's 60 year old technology. people are going to get it eventually.

2/17/2006 9:50:00 PM

Dude, they didn't surrender... give them a little more encouragement.

2/18/2006 12:00:06 AM

oooohhhhh

because France didn't back us on a flawed war, they must be spineless.

i get it.

2/18/2006 4:27:51 AM

I bet we'll find out that France in some way financed Iran's beginning of their nuclear power aspirations. That's why France wants to use military force. They want to destroy all the evidence that would put them--once again--on the wrong side of the equation.

But having said that, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

2/18/2006 6:43:54 AM

^^ france has been spineless since world war 1, dipshit

2/18/2006 3:39:29 PM

France has been spineless since Napoleon... I think they are 0-6 on wars since then, but I'll have to double check that. It's in Jon Stewart's book.

2/18/2006 4:45:54 PM

^^ spineless, or ill-equipped?

they were up against GERMANY

the more factual scenario is that their military eats ass.

and yes, I'm well aware of its war record.

dipshit.

Furthermore, my argument was in the modern context of justifiable action. Fair trolling, though, sir.

[Edited on February 18, 2006 at 6:47 PM. Reason : jackoff]

2/18/2006 6:46:50 PM

I agree that your point was certainly valild Pvt Joker... and we can argue the Frenchmen's taste for blood has diminished another time.

2/18/2006 11:04:06 PM

^^, ^^^^ put em away boys.

The french learned their lesson when we took away their nation's claim to fame, the french freedom fries.

2/19/2006 12:37:53 AM

That's what I can't believe. I know France has tremendous economic ties to Iran.

2/19/2006 5:11:37 AM

^eh, not so much.

France imports a decent amount of oil from Iran, and they export some farming equipment and cars, but it's nothing like the economic ties that Russia and China have to Iran.

2/19/2006 12:10:19 PM

Do they have contracts to construct oil drills for them?

2/19/2006 12:17:40 PM

^hmm I stand corrected. I thought there was more to it.

2/19/2006 1:14:37 PM

Quote :

"France has been spineless since Napoleon... I think they are 0-6 on wars since then, but I'll have to double check that. It's in Jon Stewart's book."

theres some bogus list floating around out in internetland that has all their supposed "losses", but in reality:

-they won the Crimean War (defeated Russia)
-they lost the Franco-Prussian War (Prussia was the American military of its time, we still study Prussian military ideas to this day)
-they won a bunch of little wars of colonization (although they were made to look foolish in places, so was Britain)
-they were stalemated in WWI untill the US entered and tipped the scales from Germany back to the Entente.
-they were ultimately the victors in WWII (even though they were conquered for a spell there)
-they lost in Indochina (hey, sounds like someone else I know)

thats all i can remember off the top of my head.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 1:18:43 PM

OMG THEY SUCK AT WAR LOLZ.

What's funnier than France-haters' lack of historical understanding, is the fact that they judge nations by their success at war. Art? Philosophy? Music? Science? Food? No-- all that matters is that they were occupied during WWII, just like every other country on the European mainland.

2/19/2006 1:56:57 PM

It wasn't that they were occupied, it was that they gave up before even putting up much of a fight. They pussied out and signed an armistice before they were defeated, which allowed Germany to take over most of Europe. Then they twiddled their thumbs in the little puppet government in Vichey while Britain and the US fought the forces of evil.

Compare their policies of appeasement and surrender with the firm leadership of Churchill and FDR. The themes often carry over today in world politics.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 2:22 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2006 2:19:52 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't that they were occupied, it was that they gave up before even putting up much of a fight. They pussied out and signed an armistice before they were defeated"

They were defeated.

Quote :

"lack of historical understanding"

2/19/2006 2:26:32 PM

^^youre forgetting that DeGaulle kept the real Govt. of France going in the South, then abroad during the occupation. He also helped lead the return to France, and led them back afterward.

His actions were much more lasting than the Vichy govt.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 2:27:03 PM

^I have plenty of respect for DeGaulle. He's one guy who never surrendered to the evil forces of nazism, unlike the French government.

Quote :

"They were defeated."

bullshit. The armies were still fighting when the government signed the armistice. They French cabinet was defeatist in nature and didn't have the stones to confront an agressor.

2/19/2006 2:39:12 PM

defeated = 100% of military destroyed? They were routed, and their main means of defense had been completely bypassed. They had -zero- chance.

Quote :

"Compare their policies of appeasement and surrender with the firm leadership of Churchill and FDR."

I wonder if that has anything to do with geography? Hmm.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 2:40:25 PM

Quote :

"defeated = 100% of military destroyed?"

Of course not. They could have continued the fight in southern France and French North Africa. That is what half of the cabinet wanted to do, but the other half won out and conceded defeat before putting up much of a fight.

Are you going to try to defend the pathetic military effort of France in WWII? By the terms of their Armistice, they provided a launching pad and for the German army to attack Britain. Fuck, man, they set up a fascist state and collaborated with the nazi's in Vichey after signing the armistice.

Quote :

"lack of historical understanding"

You're a history major, you should know better.

Quote :

"I wonder if that has anything to do with geography? Hmm."

OK then, compare the defeatist attitude of Weygand with the resist and fight on attitude of De Gaulle and Reynaud. Or the appeasement policies of Chamberlain versus the stand your ground attitude of Churchill. better?

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2006 2:48:49 PM

Prawn Star said:

Quote :

"The armies were still fighting when the government signed the armistice. They French cabinet was defeatist in nature and didn't have the stones to confront an agressor."

placing blame on the govt., not the military,

followed by:

Quote :

"Are you going to try to defend the pathetic military effort of France in WWII? "

placing blame on the military.

oops, you contradicted yourself.

The French govt. gave in, but thanks to help from the French military and Free State (under DeGaulle, operating from the French colonies in Africa), they were able to come back with allied help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2006 3:01:49 PM

Quote :

"You're a history major, you should know better."

I actually do know better (than you)

Quote :

"Are you going to try to defend the pathetic military effort of France in WWII?"

First off, that's not what I was arguing, and I'm fairly certain you know that.

Even still... what do you want me to defend? That they depended on static defenses? Sure, that was dumb. But that they lost to the German army? So did Britain. Fortunately for them they lived on an island and were able to retreat.

We were arguing over whether France's surrender was warranted. It was. <-- period

Quote :

"By the terms of their Armistice, they provided a launching pad and for the German army to attack Britain. Fuck, man, they set up a fascist state and collaborated with the nazi's in Vichey after signing the armistice."

Well, maybe they should have fought the Nazis some more, lost even more battles, then gone back to the negotiating table. I'm sure Hitler would've started to feel bad for them and would've given them some better terms. He's a nice guy like that.

2/19/2006 3:08:22 PM

^^Its not a contradiction when you realize that military leaders constitute a significant portion of the cabinet.

Try again.

and I already gave De Gaulle his props.

Quote :

"Well, maybe they should have fought the Nazis some more, lost even more battles, then gone back to the negotiating table."

If they had fought the Nazis some more instead of collaborating with them, the war would probably have ended sooner and millions of lives may have been saved. They could have continued to fight as a nation from North Africa, as Reynaud and De Gaulle advocated.



[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 3:15 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2006 3:10:30 PM

Quote :

"They could have continued to fight as a nation from North Africa, as Reynaud and De Gaulle advocated."

Ah, and do what exactly with France?

2/19/2006 3:26:56 PM

Ummm, try to liberate it maybe?

2/19/2006 3:36:37 PM

So in your ideal situation, they would have forfeited France as well?

2/19/2006 3:47:24 PM

They would have had to concede parts of France, there is no doubt about that. And ultimately the Germans would have defeated them. But they could have continued to fight instead of surrendering so quickly, and they could have waged a naval battle instead of leaving their ships for use by the Germans against the British.

They definitely could have surrendered honorably after a decent fight instead of nominating that fascist Petain to concede defeat and work with the enemy. Under his rule, they implemented Nazi policies of anti-semitism and deported more than 75,000 Jews to german concentration camps. They also fought in North Africa against the Free France movement that was working with allied forces. Fucking traitors.



[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2006 4:04:48 PM

No. No and No.

Shut the fuck up before you spread anymore bullshit please.

2/19/2006 4:11:33 PM

Oh, great it's SandSanta coming to the rescue with his vitriol and angry criticism of anything that he disagrees with.

ps

Quote :

"As soon as it had been established, Pétain's government took measures against his real or supposed opponents, like "Francs Maçons" (the Freemasons). It also created racist laws of Hitlerian inspiration against Jews even more quickly than Hitler did after his ascent to power in Germany. These racist laws were more severe than the 1938 Italian Fascist ones, and they were made even stricter in July 1941. Furthermore, foreign Jews staying in France would be handed over to Germany. The Vichy government helped in the deportation of 75,000 Jews to German concentration camps. Of that total only 2,500 survived the war.[1] For example, French police officers rounded-up 8,160 Jews and imprisoned them in the Winter Velodrome, in unhygienic conditions, on 16 July 1942, from which they were led to concentration camps. "

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : 2]

2/19/2006 4:15:15 PM

^aside from that un-attributed passage right there, it seems to me that you have a very loose grasp of these events.

youre taking things you say, spinning them back to you after being called out on them, and beating your chest all the while.

2/19/2006 4:36:07 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

link for the passage I cited.

As a sidenote, Petain was sentenced to death for treason after the liberation of France.

De Gaulle pardoned him to life in prison.

2/19/2006 6:30:37 PM