France desperately trying to please the US

oscarBravo

Mick86, if you could keep your contributions on-topic and a little less snide, I'd appreciate it - thanks.

extragon

Mick86, Sarkozy's Jewishness comes from his mother, who is of Greek Sephardic descent. It is reasonable to suppose that his feelings towards Israel are influenced by this. My point was that the French people have had no real say on the issue of French Israeli relations, in the recent election, and that international relations operate in a democratic vacuum.
Look at Blair, re-elected because of his domestic record, despite clear opposition to his foreign policies. In a globalized world this is less appropriate than it used to be. It's as if a nation state was run by county councillors, elected on local issues and free to run the country according to their whims.

Mick86

extragon wrote:

Mick86, Sarkozy's Jewishness comes from his mother, who is of Greek Sephardic descent. It is reasonable to suppose that his feelings towards Israel are influenced by this.

It's more reasonable to suppose that he sees a rapprochement with the US as beneficial to France rather than as an extension of his support for Israel.

extragon wrote:

My point was that the French people have had no real say on the issue of French Israeli relations, in the recent election, and that international relations operate in a democratic vacuum.
Look at Blair, re-elected because of his domestic record, despite clear opposition to his foreign policies..

Voters don't really care about foreign policies. It's domestic policies that decide elections.

extragon wrote:

It's as if a nation state was run by county councillors, elected on local issues and free to run the country according to their whims.

Parish Pump Politics?:D

Dr_Teeth

Manic Moran wrote:

The Carrot Approach seems to be having some success in Korea. Two weeks ago, NK agreed to declare and disable its nuclear facilities. It has been receiving IAEA inspectors for the last couple of months.

Iran is showing little interest in a negotiated settlement, regardless of if the proposals are coming from the EU or Russia.

NTM

Oh come on, perhaps if the U.S. decided to try naked bribery in their negotiations with the Iranians as they've done with the North Koreans they'd see the same progress!

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

Two weeks ago, NK agreed to declare and disable its nuclear facilities.

Or sell them on to Syria by some accounts.:D

Wook

jonny72 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm

You have to admit, its pretty funny to see France rolling up its sleeves and acting tough all of a sudden.. yet again, what do they do? pick on Iran. Its such a bully syndrome, now if these chicken hawks got up and spoke like that to North Korea then I'd be impressed.

almost as funny as claiming neutrality and letting bombers refuel in this country

Mick86

Wook wrote:

almost as funny as claiming neutrality and letting bombers refuel in this country

What kind of bombers?

moe_sizlak

iran know that firing a nuke at israel ( its not possible for them to reach the usa) would be the end of there country as both the israel and its bitch the usa would hit them with everything theyve got
there are likely to be many underlying reasons why the bush admin is so determined to attack iran , before the iraq war , sadamm had plans to start trading oil in euro as opposed to dollars but then the americans invaded , this never even made the news and got burried under the WMD issue
there is again talk that iran may now be looking to trade oil in dollars , this would sink the value of the american dollar even further
also , there is a pipeline being built from iran through pakistan and on to india right now , the u.s is known to be anxious about this as it could provide iran with economic opportunity for the forseable future
the u.s wants to have only 2 super powers in the middle east , them and israel so they cannot allow the likes of iran to become powerfull economically

do an eoghan harris and call me a conspirocy theorist but facts dont lie and they are freely available

Botany Bay

I often wonder whether people actually know anything about the history of those places they seem to have such an out spoken view on?! If i was an Iranian i'd probably consider the logical option of developing and possesing Nuclear weapons too. My neighbour has been invaded by two nations who have frequently and persistently meddled in my affairs, installed puppet fascist dictatorships and generally exploited my country's resources for their own ends. Its a rather rational and logical step to pursue nuclear weapons in this case. Particularly when their is a proxy of this meddling interferer on my doorstep.

Playing devils advocate makes me have a little more empathy with the Iranian position, however much i detest the Islamic theocracy that country has in place. I have little empathy with the morons who willingly lap up the line of "dealing with the Iranian" threat and are like virtual automotoms for the propaganda machine which spun its fear mongering net before the Iraq war and caught many willing fish, who would happily support the WMD, freedom, democary etc line. It really isn't hard being in PR nowadays with the level of believeability and gullibility around. Makes me have little sympathy for those who supported the war in Iraq and now have lost or risk losing their loved ones in the armed forces out there. Of course the same crowd now seem to want to attack Iran. Really hilarious stuff!!

extragon

Mick86 wrote:

Voters don't really care about foreign policies.

I don't think that's true, at least in Europe. It's just that the system doesn't allow the democratic voice to be heard directly. The only way is through the European Parliament, which is why I think it should have more power.
At present foreign policy is determined in private, between national leaders, and presented as a fait accompli. Differences supposedly dividing European nations over the Middle East are more about the psychology of individual leaders than a reflection of public opinion.

Mick86

extragon wrote:

I don't think that's true, at least in Europe.

We had an election a few months ago. How many candidates did you quiz on their party's foreign policies when they called to your door? Be honest now. I'd be prepared to say none.

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote:

iran know that firing a nuke at israel ( its not possible for them to reach the usa) would be the end of there country as both the israel and its bitch the usa would hit them with everything theyve got

True. The thing though is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they neutralise Israel's nukes. They would also seriously threaten US bases and fleets in the region.

moe_sizlak wrote:

sadamm had plans to start trading oil in euro as opposed to dollars but then the americans invaded ...

there is again talk that iran may now be looking to trade oil in dollars , this would sink the value of the american dollar even further

I don't know much about economics so could you explain those two apparently contradictory statements.

moe_sizlak wrote:

the u.s wants to have only 2 super powers in the middle east , them and israel so they cannot allow the likes of iran to become powerfull economically

Israel won't ever be a superpower. It's a regional power. Iran would like to be a regional power, which is why it needs nuclear weapons.

moe_sizlak

Mick86 wrote:

True. The thing though is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, they neutralise Israel's nukes. They would also seriously threaten US bases and fleets in the region.



I don't know much about economics so could you explain those two apparently contradictory statements.



Israel won't ever be a superpower. It's a regional power. Iran would like to be a regional power, which is why it needs nuclear weapons.

i made a typo in my post , iran is looking to start trading oil in euros
all oil is traded in dollars , were this to change it would leave the beleagured u.s dollar even less relevant in global terms , this would have implications for the u.s not just in terms of economics but also in terms of american hegemony , specifically in the mid east
i said israel was a super power in the mid east , they are , and because of america and nothing else , what america does in the mid east is nearly always in some way influenced by israel or more importantly the hugely powerfull israeli lobby in washington , we often hear about the special relationship between the u.s and the uk , the uk is a poor relation of the usa in comparrison to the favour israel has with uncle sam
a few people have commented how its a case for war if iranians are found to be causing the deaths of american soldiers in iraq yet america cause the deaths of russian soldiers in afghanistan 25 yrs ago , you could say the same about many other countries in which the usa has interferred , partriculary in central and south america where they have backed coups , armed death squads etc
you see the rules are different for an empire , when the britts had an empire and massacred indians or zulus or whoever back in the day , the excuse was the civilised people had to keep the backward colonys in check
the only thing that has changed now is the language used is much more slick
instead of churchill or lyodd george talking about the right of the british empire to rise anywhere in the world , we have fox news telling us that the usa is spreding freedom and fighting terror

Mick86

moe_sizlak wrote:

i said israel was a super power in the mid east , they are ,

I would think that a country's influence would have to be global to make it a superpower.

moe_sizlak wrote:

what america does in the mid east is nearly always in some way influenced by israel or more importantly the hugely powerfull israeli lobby in washington

Undoubtedly.

moe_sizlak wrote:

you see the rules are different for an empire

I think that might be because the rich and powerful make the rules.

extragon

Mick86, you're right that people are mostly interested in national, or local issues. It would be a waste of time asking a Dail candidate about anything else. But the big questions affecting them are, in fact, international.
If people had more of a direct say, I think they'd rise to the challenge. Since they don't, you can't blame them for a high degree of apathy.

Sarkozy and his vision for the Middle East probably has as many potential proponents/detractors in Ireland as in France, and it may well affect both countries equally. The different interest groups in Europe, on nearly any issue, are not neatly divided along national lines and the current system totally fails to reflect this.