It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Chirac urges no sanctions on Iran

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:57 AM

French President Jacques Chirac has said referring Iran to the UN Security Council is not the best way to resolve a crisis over its nuclear programme.


Yet again the slimey French President is choosing to back down, i wonder how many cash filled brown envelopes were passed over to bring on this statement from him

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 06:58 AM
Oh well, back to freedom fries.

Seems like the French cant come to any conclusions about this issue, no need to demonize chirac. Staying neutral for the sake of its people is a good move in a time like this..

If youll excuse me i have to get back to practicing my 'Freedom Horn'

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:23 AM

Yet again the slimey French President is choosing to back down, i wonder how many cash filled brown envelopes were passed over to bring on this statement from him

Just goes to show eh, He turns cheek when it suits him.

LOL @ back to freedom fries. Love it

We will see how this goes, is the US/UK going to fall out with France once again.

France will kiss anyone backside if there is something in it for them.

My repsonce to Chirac, instead of Up Yours Delors, Up Yours Chirac

[edit on 19-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:40 AM
Well so far, it appears he was right about Iraq.

Sadly, looks like he's right this time too...

As far as cash filled brown envelopes, give it a break

Maybe he's smart enough to figure out that this while crisis with Iran is being trumped up by the US as an excuse for war - just like we did three years ago with Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you, etc...

Good for Chirac we didn't even manage to fool him the first time.

[edit on 9/19/06 by xmotex]

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:32 PM
We'd be lucky to have that man in power over here.

Enough said!

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:15 PM
The French are profiting from Iran's nuclear program, I am sure. No need to spoil a good thing eh? Just as the French weren't profiting from the Oil for Food program either, right?

Honestly, will the French ever grow a backbone and do what is necessary for global security? Hitler anyone? Treaty of Versailles? Come on!

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:25 PM
In his defense, Chirac did seem to imply that his meeting with Bush indicated that Iran should comply with the wishes of the others (US) and do so quickly.

On a side note, it has been reported here (NYC) on local radio that Chirac took a taxi from his hotel to the UN and, upon arrival, the cab driver held his hand out, presumably to collect payment, and Chirac surrendered to the driver. The driver, the only american from Staten Island driving a cab these days, said "I think I'll call it Tonyland" and then said he was retiring to his kingdom.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:36 PM
Because is all about oil I imagine that many countries are getting tire of the power hold of the US in the middle east and the spread of their agendas.

After all is other countries that wants a piece of the pie oil.

And as for money well, isn't that how our administration get allies that can call friends in the middle east.

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:50 PM
In many ways, thecurrent U.N. confab which is being held in New York reminds me ofthe 1938 Munich conference. The iranians have come to this meeting with an agressive attitude and a very slick presentation. As some of you have already stated, the Europiean powers have no real incentive to back U.S. initiatives at this time. If anything, they may feel like the time is right to jam a diplomatic thumb in our eye.

Now, more than ever, I think it's important for every American voter to do some homework and make up their mind as to where they stand on this issue. the Iranian problem could result in war within the next three years. Those of you under the age of 21 who are reading this post will most likely be the ones to fight that war. No matter what your opinion is, you need to put it on paper and send it to Congress before the November elections. Those of you who can vote in November should do so.

We can do our leders a great service by making it clear where we stand. If they know what the majority opinion really is, they will have to factor it in as they seek re-election. If they fail to accept majority will, they will do so from the unemployment lines. As I write this, they are not getting that message. If you doubt me, have a look at your evening news in whatever form you get it. Take a look at what Mr. Bush said to the U.N. today. Then, watch the news tomorrow to see the Iranians make their response.

by the time this war rolls around, I will be over the legal service age...unless they raise it. I'd be lying if I said that didn't affect my thinking. It may take dire circumstances to cause the Congress to start a drft, but it could happened. If we have to fight, we may end up fighting alone. The French are no the only ones who would step back from this if they had the chance.

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:10 AM
I do get very tired of the comparisons to 1930's Germany (not pointing at you here Justin).
It seems like anytime someone wants a war, it's 1938 all over again replete with shouts of "Appeasement! Chamberlain!" etc...

We heard the same thing three years ago in the buildup to the Iraq War.

The analogy doesn't hold true - Iran shows no signs of becoming an expansionist military power. Saddam's Iraq might have liked to be, but simply lacked the power to do so.

It's amazing how the arguments and tactics used by the "attack Iran now!" crowd are precisely the ones we heard leading up to Iraq - and look how well that one worked out.

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:53 AM
The problem is that the Bush admin is boy who cried wolf to many times.
Am I expected to believe that Irans nuclear program is an equal or greater threate then Iraqs WMDs that have/havnt been found ?
As for Chirac oposing sancttions he is just looking out for the interests of France it no differnt then the USA waiting untill 1941 till enter WW2.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:23 PM
As a practical matter, the poliitcal blunders made by the Western powers in the mid 30's bear some resemblance to the mistakes being made today. It's true that Iran is not ramping up its armies with the stated goal of conquest, but, they are engaged in a definite nuclear program that will result in atomic weapons which they are likely to use. To that extent, Iran is a militant threat that needs to be taken seriously.

Speaking purely for myself, I was not making the comparison tothe 1930's back during the build-up to this war. If you look, you can find my work on other sites to back that up. At that time, I wasn't convinced that the comparison applied, and I said so. Right now, today, is a different matter.

As I write this, the President of Venezuela has compared George Bush to the Devil. That's not what I'd call "non-militant." I'll grant you that there is a lot of anti-American sentiment out there, but, even that can result in war if taken to extremes. It's worth noting that French and German politicians routinely took those kinds of cheap shots at each other throughout the 1930's. Just one more comparison that applies.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:05 AM

Then to make matters worse, today Gamal Mubarak, the son of Egypt's president, and probably his father's eventual successor, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy. Since Egypt is one of our strong allies in the Middle East and a recipient of $2 billion a year in economic assistance, it is indeed unfortunate that they chose this moment to embarrass the Bush administration by raising nuclear aspirations of their own. What we're seeing, unfortunately, is fallout from the Iranian stalemate. If Iran moves ahead with its nuclear program, many other countries will do the same. Unless Iran can be stopped, the world will become a much more dangerous place.

Chirac did not stop there. He went on to state that he was not in favor of economic sanctions against Iran. In Mr. Chirac's words, “I have never seen that sanctions were very effective.” With this last comment, he took away the most powerful stick that the Bush administration had


I wonder how the media and the US government will deal with Egypts "Nuclear engery " program perhaps both the media and the US government will ignore any measures that Egypt takes towards a Nuclear program.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:33 PM
As pointed out by Expert11, we are seeing a lot of dirty laundry just now. He's quite right about the Egypt thing. I'd like to take a moment to share a few sources on this, since I have them book marked.

Here's the problem in a nutshell
The problem

Here's an extrapolation of the issue:

Here's a timeline:

Actions taken by France, Venezuela, and others are to some degree invited by the lack of current U.S. influence. Even so, it's worth noting that Egypt...are of our own making.

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:56 AM
the sanctions started, the ships have sailed, (our war ships) where are they going, hmmm the gulf. iran will be there, with what, a sub. to do what, destruct some rigs, cause havoc, stirr and fuel a fire. iran wants us gone and will buy nations to do nothing. they iran is wageing this one against the u.s.a., oil is the means, i hope we get some help out there, we helped out alot of peoples this oil thing will lead to something big.

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:47 PM
I'm with you Littlebird. Trouble is, we're seeing a very high-level game being played by some very sharp people. The stakes are tremendous. I hate to see th leaders of my country being out-foxed. That's why I push so much for the citizens of America to write, phone, and e-mail their elected officials before the November vote. If we tell 'em what we think, and then go and vote as our opinions dictate, we can honestly say that we've given the kids in D.C. all the help that we can.

top topics


log in