user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
They should stick with everyone else. There is power in numbers. Butr this is not the same France from previous wars. They are a bunch of sissys now. Napoleon is turning over in his grave of embarresment.
From the same article that herzie did his cut-and-paste from:
By BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
"With Mr. Chirac's remarks, France joins China and Russia, whose officials have expressed strong reservations about imposing sanctions, making a Security Council decision on punishing Iran unlikely. "We, too, don't like sanctions," Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters at Turtle Bay yesterday."
Apparently, in the minds of neocons, Russia and China aren't part of the "international community."
And why would a Yank neocon expect another nation to "stick" with the international community, since the Bush Administration rarely ever does anything but flip the bird at the international community, except when they are getting what they want? Hypocrisy, perhaps?
And "frightned little girls dressed up like cowboys" is a pretty good definition of "neocon." 
(herzie ballot category: French Bashing)
Voted : They should stick with the international community
I see that cranky (a skid mark in Dick Cheney's underwear) attacks the ballot maker rather than answer the question.
The weakness of the international community will result in disaster. If they refuse to do the slightest thing such as sanctions, Iran will take this as weakness (something Germany did a while back). This will force the issue of the US and UK having to take far more harsh measures to stop the program. France, like China and Russia, probably has economic interests in Iran. Amazing what greed will do.
^ You need to do some research here. China and Russia have said they do want sanctions, and in fact see the value in sanctions, but because they have very strong economic ties with Iran, it puts them in a difficult position. Try dealing in facts.
Your logic is also flawed because if sanctions are not used, what options does that leave? Would sort of be like a toothless attack dog barking at you. You'd think that people would recognize that there are 2 main courses of action. Sanctions or military. Which do you prefer?
And enough with this detractive commenting you make on these ballots. It repulsive.
^ My comment above was to Cranky.
herzog, what happened to the guy who used to put up thoughtful ballots -- even if one disagreed -- rather than petty, spiteful ballots that merely air his own hatreds?
Fiddle
"The weakness of the international community will result in disaster."
So, if nations disagree on a course of action that automatically is weakness? Sounds like somebody really doesn't like democracy very much. Or is it that the international community may not follow your beloved Israel's script on this?
From the same article that herzie did his cut-and-paste from:
"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Israel conveyed a similar message on her first day of Turtle Bay meetings yesterday. The six foreign ministers' insistence on Iran suspending uranium enrichment must be maintained, Ms. Livni told diplomats including President Halonen of Finland, which currently holds the European Union presidency.
"There must be no compromise on that, because the Iranians are merely trying to buy time," Ms. Livni said, according to a spokesman who requested anonymity."
"If they refuse to do the slightest thing such as sanctions, Iran will take this as weakness (something Germany did a while back)."
 The bogus "appeasement argument," vainly trying to compare the Iranian situation with Nazi Germany. Actually, a comparison between the Bush Administration and the Hitler Administration would be more apt, at this point.
"This will force the issue of the US and UK having to take far more harsh measures to stop the program."
The veiled war reference. Those neocons just can't get enough of their John Wayne/G.I. Joe fantasies. Not that any of them will actually join up and fight. All the Bush/Bolton bombast is just manuevering toward an invasion.
"France, like China and Russia, probably has economic interests in Iran."
Oh, and the United States doesn't? Hint: world oil supply.
"Amazing what greed will do."
Yes, it is amazing what the greed of the Bush Administration will do. The U.S. has already invaded on oil-rich nation for bogus reasons, now it it spoiling to invade another. All Hail Halliburton!
BTW, did you swipe that headline from Free Republic, Terror Watch, or the Hayek Institute?
Tsk ... with reading habits like those, no wonder your ballots are so bilious.
Beau:
"You need to do some research here. China and Russia have said they do want sanctions, and in fact see the value in sanctions, but because they have very strong economic ties with Iran, it puts them in a difficult position. Try dealing in facts.
Uh, this is the quote from herzie's article:
"With Mr. Chirac's remarks, France joins China and Russia, whose officials have expressed strong reservations about imposing sanctions, making a Security Council decision on punishing Iran unlikely. "We, too, don't like sanctions," Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters at Turtle Bay yesterday."
And this, from the Asia Times:
"China, Russia welcome Iran into the fold
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which maintained it had no plans for expansion, is now changing course. Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan, which previously had observer status, will become full members. SCO's decision to welcome Iran into its fold constitutes a political statement. Conceivably, SCO would now proceed to adopt a common position on the Iran nuclear issue at its summit meeting June 15.
The SCO, an Intergovernmental organization whose working languages are Chinese and Russian, was founded in Shanghai on June 15, 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO's change of heart appears set to involve the organization in Iran's nuclear battle and other ongoing regional issues with the United States.
The timing of the SCO decision appears to be significant. By the end of April the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report to the United Nations Security Council in New York regarding Iran's compliance with the IAEA resolutions and the Security Council's presidential statement, which stresses the importance of Iran "reestablishing full, sustained suspension of uranium-enrichment activities".
The SCO membership is therefore a lifeline for Iran in political and economic terms. The SCO is not a military bloc but is nonetheless a security organization committed to countering terrorism, religious extremism and separatism. SCO membership would debunk the US propaganda about Iran being part of an "axis of evil".
The SCO secretary general's statement on expansion coincided with several Chinese and Russian commentaries last week voicing disquiet about the US attempts to impose UN sanctions against Iran. Comparison has been drawn with the Iraq War when the US seized on sanctions as a pretext for invading Iraq.
A People's Daily commentary on April 13 read: "The real intention behind the US fueling the Iran issue is to prompt the UN to impose sanctions against Iran, and to pave the way for a regime change in that country. The US's global strategy and its Iran policy emanate out of its decision to use various means, including military means, to change the Iranian regime. This is the US's set target and is at the root of the Iran nuclear issue."
The commentary suggested Washington seeks a regime change in Iran with a view to establishing American hegemony in the Middle East. Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, wrote: "The US's long term goals in Iran are obvious: to engineer the downfall of the current regime; to establish control over Iran's oil and gas; and to use its territory as the shortest route for the transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia and China. This is not to mention Iran's intrinsic military and strategic significance."
* * * * * * * *
Looks to me like that facts are that Russia and China have no interest, or intention, of supporting the U.S. in it's plan for sanctions on Iran.
"Your logic is also flawed because if sanctions are not used, what options does that leave? Would sort of be like a toothless attack dog barking at you. You'd think that people would recognize that there are 2 main courses of action. Sanctions or military. Which do you prefer?"
Actually, there are three courses of action: limited sanctions, unilateral U.S. invasion, and do what we did when Pakistan got nukes: suck it up, and accept the fact that Pakistan got nukes.
What I should make clear to you is that I'm extremely pessimistic on the subject of Iran. I think sanctions are a joke, simply the same kind of ruse the U.S. used in the lead-in to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think that Bolton, or any of the other kooks in the Bush Administration, believe that sanctions will either be imposed or would work if they were.
I don't believe there are any good options relative to Iran: sanctions won't make any difference (the U.S. doesn't trade with Iran now, and NOBODY else is giving up their oil to protect Israel), the U.S. is too deflated to lead an invasion and the world isn't going to rally around Bush and do it for him, and an Iran with nukes will probably lead to nuclear war.
And as far as the ridicule goes: these ballots are made by a prejudiced, disengenuous propagandist, who has no right to complain about being criticized.
^^ Regardless of what they say behind closed doors? And you're okay with the fact that they're only against them out of pure financial gain and really could not care less about Iran, except for their own financial gain?
Do more research.
And as far as the ridicule goes: these ballots are made by a prejudiced, disengenuous propagandist, who has no right to complain about being criticized.
by cranky on Tue Sep 19, 06 9:57am
^^ And you take it to far and have become the joke. Know what I mean? Once is funny, twice is humorous to a degree, but you use your tactic like it was a compulsion. Its tired now. Give it a rest.
Yea, France better watch out or it might alienate itself from the rest of the world...
The French President is the first European leader to state publicly that a freeze by Iran is not a precondition for opening talks. The concession to Iran seems to be linked to events in Lebanon, where there had been concern that French soldiers may be targeted by Iran's proxy militia, Hizbollah, over France's previously hardline stance in the nuclear negotiations.
Iranian diplomats say that there has been "positive co-operation" between Iran, France and Italy, which has also stationed troops in southern Lebanon and whose Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, announced that he would meet the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in New York this week. Diplomats in Paris suggested that M. Chirac's switch of position might be intended to protect the French troops.
But M. Chirac's abrupt announcement is likely to complicate talks in New York involving the foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany, by demonstrating that Iran has succeeded in driving a wedge between them.
The six have been unanimous in insisting that negotiations cannot take place until Iran suspends uranium enrichment in line with a UN demand that called for such a freeze before the end of August. Iran says that a suspension cannot be a precondition for the talks.
news .independent.co. uk/world /politics /article1 619246.ece
Cath, beauregard said it perfectly. Reread the ballot as you've obviously missed the intention here.
What happened to the guy who used to read my ballot and actually respond to the answer posed? Where did this guy who ignores the ballot text, invents his own question, and immediately launches in to attack mode come from?
^He saw through the neocon BS, like so many others have. [smile:rolleyes}
Beau:
"^^Regardless of what they say behind closed doors?"
I haven't seen anything, anywhere, to suggest that China and Russia are saying something different behind closed doors than they are in public. Or at least different enough to cause them to take a course at the UN that is different than the one suggested by their public stance.
Also, if Russia and China really are willing to support sanctions, but only say so privately, then why weren't sanctions already imposed?
Plus, Italy has taken a position similar to France's, so France isn't simply out there on its own.
"And you're okay with the fact that they're only against them out of pure financial gain and really could not care less about Iran, except for their own financial gain?"
And the Bush Administration doesn't make decisions based primarily on financial gain? And just because China's and Russia's interests might be essentially financial, doesn't mean that the U.S. has Iran's interests more to heart.
And what is wrong with nations dealing with each other as economic entities? Isn't that what capitalism, free markets, and globalization is all about? Or is that just true when American corporations (such as oil companies) benefit?
Voted : Other
Hasn't the United States opened the door for unilateral action by invading Iraq? Yes. Our deceptions and unilateral actions leading up to and including the war on Iraq have so weakened our position in the world, that we may not be able to build a coalition to do what is necessary in Iran. We should not be surprised that the world doesn't trust our government because very few of us trust our government. Anyway, France is always looking out for France.
BTW, cath I did the research for you because I was curious, out of your last ten comments on my ballots 1 (if I'm generous) addressed the actual topic. The other 9 were personal attacks.
Do you like this ratio?
|
|
