It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

France says it must prepare for possible war with Iran

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The French foreign minister claims they're prepared or are preparing for war with Iran but do you think the people of the nation would really subscribe to another questionable war after denying action in Iraq?




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Al Qaeda of Europe says he is Zionist.


And that makes it true then?

I never knew propaganda from a terrorist organisation is now considered fact



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DeadFlagBlues
 


Look at the backlash they suffered for refusing to go to war in Iraq.
The US punishes any nation that refuses to tow their line.

Hell, I remember watching (on fox mind you) a "news" story on the "Dangers of Buying Canadian Built Cars" right after we had refused to go into Iraq. That's just one example... there was the madcow BS (American cow shipped to Canada, shipped back to the US before inspection, tested positive for mad cow, then our beef industry was blamed despite MUCH higher regulations), the crack down on Canadian pharmaceuticals, the impossibility of getting across the border, the warning not to travel to Canada because of "lax" security, it went on and on.

All utter BS.
And all after we'd refused to go into Iraq.

Things only got better when Harper took office, and that's because he's a line towing neo-con in Canuck clothing.

Point is, you refuse the US and you will suffer for it.
France really can't afford to take economic abuse right now, so I suspect they are preparing for war because they don't have much choice.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
There we go step two of the premice of a war with Iran.

Considering this is Kouchner who declared this, i'd be inclined to think this is not bluff.Still words anyway, the ball is in Iran's camp.

But honestly, what did Iran do to try to solve this somewhat thorny problem regarding (possible) nuclear weapons development .Nothing yes, say it louder.
They could use uranium enrichment for eletricity purpose, for weapons... the truth is we don't know!It's totally opaque

Plus like some people stated we warned them since months now they can fool themselves but not the whole world eternally.

I guess time is nearly up!

I give this case 5 months at best to be peacefully solved then... i'd not like to imagine what happen.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Yah, I think they call it leverage. PM Harper's getting fat it comes with laziness and doing things the easy way or taking the path of least resistance. Not sure what the polls are showing but I feel Harper won't make to the next election, and won't have victory if he, by some chance, did.
This is not the time for submissive decisions, the artic needs his utmost attention and firm actions, not rhetoric. The Iranian matter is growing and its time Canada took defence issues seriously by spending much more moola on it's defence budget.

Twenty five war jet's six ships and five new transport aircraft doesn't cut it. We're heading into or may already be in a new world which is more aggressive, less trustworthy with pots of oil boiling all over the place.

Canada needs to better protect its borders and to do so requires major growth, fast growth, in all defensive areas including personnell, I feel.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Well I for one am not surprised at all that France is starting to come around on the issue of Iran. Iran already has or is very close to having missiles that could carry nuclear weapons all the way to Paris. If they would get such weapons, the risk to France and French culture would no longer be theoretical.

[edit on 9/17/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well I for one am not surprised at all that France is starting to come around on the issue of Iran. Iran already has or is very close to having missiles that could carry nuclear weapons all the way to Paris. If they would get such weapons, the risk to France and French cultural would no longer be theoretical.


That's irrational thinking.
By that measure we are also a potential enemy of France and so are all their neighbours and anyone else with missiles that could reach them.
There's just the little issue of "why"? Why would Iran launch missiles against France? Having the means to do so does not prove intent. Likewise, France has the means to launch missiles against plenty of others so maybe France should be attacked to prevent them from attacking someone else



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by themaster1
But honestly, what did Iran do to try to solve this somewhat thorny problem regarding (possible) nuclear weapons development[?]

Actually, they did quite a lot.

If you go over the factual record, Iran went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to ensure there was international trust in it's program. They agreed to inspections and requirements that were not applied to any other member of the NPT. They voluntarily suspended their enrichment program, even though it is NOT a requirement under the NPT. Germany, France, the UK, and Russia were all partners in building their program.

Iran has been an outspoken advocate of complete nuclear disarmament in the middle east since 1979!

It's all right here in this article that I so kindly compiled for you all, complete with factual documents, background, and the real reasons for Iran being demonised in the western media: Understanding the Iran dis-Info Campaign



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by themaster1
But honestly, what did Iran do to try to solve this somewhat thorny problem regarding (possible) nuclear weapons development[?]

Actually, they did quite a lot.

If you go over the factual record, Iran went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to ensure there was international trust in it's program. They agreed to inspections and requirements that were not applied to any other member of the NPT. They voluntarily suspended their enrichment program, even though it is NOT a requirement under the NPT. Germany, France, the UK, and Russia were all partners in building their program.

Iran has been an outspoken advocate of complete nuclear disarmament in the middle east since 1979!

It's all right here in this article that I so kindly compiled for you all, complete with factual documents, background, and the real reasons for Iran being demonised in the western media: Understanding the Iran dis-Info Campaign


Exactly. People think this is a danger to the world simply because its a middle eastern country, but why not ask yourself how dangerous USA is to world peace instead? They are the real threat at the moment and everybody who watches what is happening should know that.

Anyone remember how the USA was certain of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Come on guys, dont fall for the same trick twice.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


I believe we would be in a completely different type of world if not for the USA. I'm sure France would be too. Though 'freedom' is becoming more of a catch word than reality, at least the 'free world' isn't under a Nazi dictatorship who's capability to remove races may have been used to remove Countries deemed resistant to their twisted world rule.

There's only three letters need be written and thanked for saving this ball from oppression, Thanks you, USA.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


I believe we would be in a completely different type of world if not for the USA. I'm sure France would be too. Though 'freedom' is becoming more of a catch word than reality, at least the 'free world' isn't under a Nazi dictatorship who's capability to remove races may have been used to remove Countries deemed resistant to their twisted world rule.

There's only three letters need be written and thanked for saving this ball from oppression, Thanks you, USA.

Dallas


I see you have not researched the extreme similarities between your current government and the nazi's when it comes to population control and propaganda by using fear and alienation.

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you are saying.


[edit on 17-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Dallas
 


I can't say I share your sentiment.

I have nothing but respect for the noble intentions of the Founding Father's of the US, but the country it has become is far from their vision. They did not enter the war for some benign feeling of good will towards humanity, they did it because there was a hell of a lot of money to make by gearing up their military industrial complex.

Since then, the US has become not the global police, but rather the global mafia. They chose when and were to use force and it's always in their interests. They have plundered the world over the decades causing strife and instability for the betterment of their profits. This is a matter of record, there to be seen by anyone who chooses to look. Even my own family has been directly impacted by their underhanded dealings (the illegal softwood tariff put one of my brothers out of work and because if their hollowing out of our countries infrastructure, my own industry has suffered). I have two buddies in Afghanistan right now risking their lives cleaning up the mess they made when they supported the Taliban (through the Musahideen), then left the people screwed and without support.

I have a lot of reasons to hate the Americans... but I don't.

Americans are victims here to.
They have no more control over what has been happening than I do. It's not their fault that a corrupt, immoral, and uncaring corporate elite has usurped the noble intentions of their country. It's not their fault that they've been exposed to brainwashing mass-media and have been trained to be unthinking by a lackluster education system.

It's not the American people at fault.
It's US.
All of us.
All of us who accept the status quo and a culture that has been replaced by the capitalist system that calibrates nothing but base greed. It's the fault of anyone who has ever traded their moral judgment for the almighty dollar. It's the fault of everyone who has never spoken out and said "hey, that's wrong!". It's the fault of you and it's the fault of me.

Now, since we know who's fault it is, what do we do to change it?

[/rant]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
America did not win World War II single handedly. They'd play a big role in the naval & aerial battles against the Germans and Japanese. But the Russian's probably sacrificed and did more to defeat the Germans on the eastern front than anyone else. German forces suffered 93% of their casualties on the Soviet front and this shows the Soviet contribution was decisive.

But every single US, UK, Canadian or other Allied soldier who died "made a big, important and necessary contribution to the victory, which was a shared victory". It was a team effort and that's why today we aren't all speaking German.


Estimates for the total casualties of the war vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, including about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Many civilians died as a result of disease, starvation, massacres, genocide. Of the total deaths in World War II, approximately 85% were on the Allied side (mostly Soviet and Chinese) and 15% on the Axis side. One estimate is that 12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps, 1.5 million by bombs, 7 million in Europe from other causes, and 7.5 million in China from other causes. Figures on the amount of total casualties varies to a wide extent because the majority of deaths were not documented.

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 17-9-2007 by kindred]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   



WWII would never have happened if the USA had not been dragged into WWI by the allies who came crying and begging as usual... Churchill and Roosevelt were by no means friends Lord Churchill came over to see his friend Franklin hat and cigar in hand.... Lend Lease and a tremendous sacrifcie by Americans and America once again saved the 'old country' from total defeat in WWII.... And to think all Church had to give up was his foreign Empire..... and that they did veryvery grudgeingly indeed...



Guadaloupejoe you haven't a clue what you're ranting on about. You're an embarrassment.

The British did not come crying and begging in WW1.

USA intercepted signals from Germany to Mexico trying to incite Mexico to attack USA on the side of Germany before America was even involved. Then following the break down of diplomatic relations between USA and Germany a U-boat sank the Lusitania.

You have never ever read or understood history have you ?

As for Lend Lease USA did not suffer by Lend Lease. USA was ripping off huge profits before Pearl harbour.

USA was supplying trucks and armoured cars to Germany at the Ford Opel plant and people like Henry Ford and Nelson Rockerfeller were financing the Nazi party right up until Pearl Harbour.

At the same time USA was profiting from aircraft sales to Great Britain. If you want to know who came howling and begging, study what really happened after Pearl Harbour.

The toilet paper I wipe in my crack is worth more than your half witted opinions.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Useless Sarkozy..

damning the non-aligned posture France has been cultivating for the last decade..

and then you have Angela Merkel.. be not surprised if Germany comes up with a similar declaration in the near future.

Whatever happened to the righteous days of Chirac and Schroeder.

The irony is that the new US govt(hopefully democratic) after elections 08 may be more docile than these two new trigger-happy Euros!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
and then you have Angela Merkel.. be not surprised if Germany comes up with a similar declaration in the near future.


Germany has already reportedly said that they prefer military action against Iran over further sanctions.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
I was thinking... Why wouldn't Bush, Germany, France, Israel, and whomever else suggest that Iran join the US led nuclear energy initiative instead of threatening war?


You raise a good point, perhaps it's not so much the threat of aquiring a bomb thats the problem, but an Iranian industrial-scale fuel enrichment facility that refuses to be part of a US-led energy cartel.

At present we have the oil-cartel, OPEC, who determine inflated export-prices and control the vast majority of total oil exports globally, as well as the advanced research, extraction technology and knowledge facilities

A uranium-cartel will seek to do just the same, and cite 'rogue nuclear armed state' (as unlike oil, uranium can be used both as a domestic fuel and as a weapon) to those nations who refuse to do business with the cartel and pay the vastly inflated prices for specialised knowledge/machine parts/technology



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   


Lord Churchill


He wasn't a member of the House of Lords, so that statement is wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


If I remember correctly, Congress acted on increasing duty tariffs on SW Lumber imported from Cda. Based on complaints from their constituents in US lumber business.

I don't agree there was a hell of a lot of money make 'gearing up their military industrial complex'. There was a hell of a lot of money Spent.
The USA had no intention of entering the War, until the Nazi's moved into Poland and England was clearly in trouble defending against the invasion by Germany of France.

The mess in Afghanistan, as you put it, was not created by the USA. It was created by the atrocities of Taliban against there own woman and Taliban support for Binny's staying there after 9/11.
I feel the USA and NATO Members went their to destroy a legitimate enemy.
You say you have friends fighting there, I have family fighting in Afghanistan. it was a NATO agreement commitment after 9/11, the USA was attacked and Canada got involved, as it should under NATO.

France is becoming more vocal about the Iran threat and actions contemplated, and I feel that supports the USA and Israeli position Iran will not be allowed to cascade nuclear energy into weapons. Countries in proximity to France and the USA no doubt agree.

You know, I think the world owes a lot to the USA. Communism would be rampant if not for the many world actions taken to preserve and influence democracy since WWII. And without land-grabs.

There's a bad dude running the show right now (under his masters?), after he's gone, either through the next election or impeachment, I feel the USA can again get back the world respect and trust the US people are exclusive to at present.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I don't want to drag this completely off topic, but I do feel the need to reply:

Originally posted by Dallas
If I remember correctly, Congress acted on increasing duty tariffs on SW Lumber imported from Cda. Based on complaints from their constituents in US lumber business.

The tariff was ruled illegal by the NAFT board that the US set up, yet they still refused to rescind it. The eventually capitulated and agreed to return the money to Canada, but have yet to do so.


I don't agree there was a hell of a lot of money make 'gearing up their military industrial complex'. There was a hell of a lot of money Spent.
The USA had no intention of entering the War, until the Nazi's moved into Poland and England was clearly in trouble defending against the invasion by Germany of France.

The fact that war revitalized the US economy is not a mater of debate. It's a fact.


The mess in Afghanistan, as you put it, was not created by the USA. It was created by the atrocities of Taliban against there own woman and Taliban support for Binny's staying there after 9/11.

The Taliban is the governing arm of the same orgnization to which the Mushahadeen are the military arm. The US government supported the Mushahadeen (whom Osama was trained to lead) in their bid to overthrow Soviet rule. Then the US left the people of Afganistan to the murderous rule of the Taliban. This again is a matter of record and not a point of debate.


I feel the USA and NATO Members went their to destroy a legitimate enemy.
You say you have friends fighting there, I have family fighting in Afghanistan. it was a NATO agreement commitment after 9/11, the USA was attacked and Canada got involved, as it should under NATO.

I support operations there, but not because of 9/11. Rather because the people of Afghanistan had an unjust and tyrannical regime thrust upon them through the support of the US.


France is becoming more vocal about the Iran threat and actions contemplated, and I feel that supports the USA and Israeli position Iran will not be allowed to cascade nuclear energy into weapons. Countries in proximity to France and the USA no doubt agree.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program nor have they been an aggressor in modern history.
Israel has nuclear weapons and is guilty of many crimes against humanity including illegal occupation, torture, and attempted genocide.
What action has been taken against Israel, a US ally?


You know, I think the world owes a lot to the USA. Communism would be rampant if not for the many world actions taken to preserve and influence democracy since WWII. And without land-grabs.

Who's to say we wouldn't be better off under Communism? Instead, we have a capitalist system where greed is the only measure of value.
Democracy is a shame. It's apparent choice to make you docile while the money masters run roughshod over the rights of formerly free people.
No land grabs?
Isn't the US occupying Iraq right now?



There's a bad dude running the show right now (under his masters?), after he's gone, either through the next election or impeachment, I feel the USA can again get back the world respect and trust the US people are exclusive to at present.

Bush isn't running the show. He's a puppet serving his corporate masters. Clinton dared to rebuke his masters and was ejected under the most laughable impeachment ever. He committed NO crime other than to attempt to keep his private life private while those who wanted him out exposed his weakness. Infidelity isn't criminal, but attempting to serve the people is the highest crime in the eyes of those who really run the show. He got off easy. The last guy to buck the system while in office got shot for it.

Things will NOT change when Bush is gone. They might appear to. They'll change the window dressing, but to policies will remain consistent as they have for the last 60 years.

Honduras
Panama
Nicaragua
Libya
Venezuela
Afghanistan (the first time)
Iraq

These are just a few of the countries that I can remember off the top of my head that the US has run illegal operations in over the last few decades.

I will decline to thank the US for their contribution to the modern world.
Rather I will give my sympathies and support to a subjugated people.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join