Sarkozy Opens New Front In Israel's Proxy War in the Middle East

[[email protected]]

New France gets tough with Iran

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has again raised the spectre
of a conflict with Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the
worst... and the worst means war".

This is one of the strongest indications yet of the new Atlanticist
accent to French foreign policy under the new President Nicolas
Sarkozy. The hardening of France's position towards Tehran was first
signalled by the new president in a speech to French ambassadors last
month. Then he called for tougher economic sanctions against Tehran
and warned that if these failed to halt Iran's nuclear programme,
there would be, as he put it "a catastrophic choice" between "an
Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".

So what is going on?

In the US, the Bush administration certainly has established war plans
for a conflict with Iran, as it has for so many other contingencies.
There are still hawkish voices within the administration who, despite
all of the chaos in Iraq, still believe that Iran should be the next
target in the Pentagon's sights. Nonetheless, there still remains
considerable leeway for diplomatic action. Much attention is focused
on Moscow, the government with the strongest potential "sanction"
against Tehran - namely its refusal to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's
first power-generating reactor.

Sanctions

In recent weeks though there have been signs that the diplomatic
pressure on Tehran has been weakening, just as the Americans in
particular are pushing for additional UN Security Council sanctions.
[This] is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young
and dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage
of his predecessor Moscow's position seems less certain, and an
agreement in August brokered with the Iranians by the head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei , has angered
not just the Americans but the three European governments - the UK,
France and Germany - who have taken the lead in negotiations with
Tehran.

Mr ElBaradei's intervention, which has led Iran to accept a plan of
action to gradually shed light on its past nuclear activities, is seen
by these governments as too lenient. They say it gives the Iranians
yet more time to make a full disclosure of their nuclear programme
while failing to insist that they halt uranium enrichment as the UN
Security Council has demanded. The French want to see stronger
European Union sanctions whatever the UN might do. And Mr Kouchner is
signalling that France is willing to pay a price by encouraging French
firms to limit their dealings with Tehran. US financial sanctions,
both formal and informal, are seen as beginning to have an impact on
the Iranian economy. However, critics of such moves argue that this
simply panders to the siege mentality of Iranian hard-liners, and
rallies popular support around the government in Tehran.

New attitude

The shift in Paris, though, is significant.
It is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young and
dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage of
his predecessors. Since he took office France has announced that
combat aircraft supporting Nato operations in Afghanistan will now be
based in Kandahar. And there has even been speculation that France
might rejoin the alliance's integrated military command, which it
walked out of in 1966. But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran
which will please Washington the most. It is bound to cause divisions
within the European Union and complicate discussions on Iran within
the governing coalition in Germany. Until now there has been a good
deal of talk about Iran's nuclear programme - and some modest
sanctions. But the Iranians have largely stayed ahead of the game,
pursuing their research activities whatever the wider international
community might say. The French government, for one, is now saying
that this situation cannot continue. The overall message is still
diplomatic: the UN and others need to get much tougher towards Tehran.
If they do not then the subtext is clear: the thinly-veiled military
threat could become the only alternative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm

[[email protected]]

http://www.honestmediatoday.com/never_ending_war_for_israel.jpg

[dapra]

wrote:

> New France gets tough with Iran
>
> French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has again raised the spectre
> of a conflict with Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the
> worst... and the worst means war".
>
> This is one of the strongest indications yet of the new Atlanticist
> accent to French foreign policy under the new President Nicolas
> Sarkozy.
>

I just wander how the US media would justify their attacks on the French
people of accused of 'anti-Semitism'. They elected a son of a Sephardi
Jewish mother. But of course, the US media have never cared about facts,
logical thinking, and NEVER, NEVER admits mistakes or intentional
distortion.

Considering that Sarkozy is a jew, it is still surprising of him to make
statements like; "an Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".

He seems to be made out of the ideology of Likud, not the enlightened
jewish progressives most of the jews are.

>
> The hardening of France's position towards Tehran was first
> signalled by the new president in a speech to French ambassadors last
> month. Then he called for tougher economic sanctions against Tehran
> and warned that if these failed to halt Iran's nuclear programme,
> there would be, as he put it "a catastrophic choice" between "an
> Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".
>
> So what is going on?
>
> In the US, the Bush administration certainly has established war plans
> for a conflict with Iran, as it has for so many other contingencies.
> There are still hawkish voices within the administration who, despite
> all of the chaos in Iraq, still believe that Iran should be the next
> target in the Pentagon's sights. Nonetheless, there still remains
> considerable leeway for diplomatic action. Much attention is focused
> on Moscow, the government with the strongest potential "sanction"
> against Tehran - namely its refusal to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's
> first power-generating reactor.
>
> Sanctions
>
> In recent weeks though there have been signs that the diplomatic
> pressure on Tehran has been weakening, just as the Americans in
> particular are pushing for additional UN Security Council sanctions.
> [This] is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young
> and dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage
> of his predecessor Moscow's position seems less certain, and an
> agreement in August brokered with the Iranians by the head of the
> International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei , has angered
> not just the Americans but the three European governments - the UK,
> France and Germany - who have taken the lead in negotiations with
> Tehran.
>
> Mr ElBaradei's intervention, which has led Iran to accept a plan of
> action to gradually shed light on its past nuclear activities, is seen
> by these governments as too lenient. They say it gives the Iranians
> yet more time to make a full disclosure of their nuclear programme
> while failing to insist that they halt uranium enrichment as the UN
> Security Council has demanded. The French want to see stronger
> European Union sanctions whatever the UN might do. And Mr Kouchner is
> signalling that France is willing to pay a price by encouraging French
> firms to limit their dealings with Tehran. US financial sanctions,
> both formal and informal, are seen as beginning to have an impact on
> the Iranian economy. However, critics of such moves argue that this
> simply panders to the siege mentality of Iranian hard-liners, and
> rallies popular support around the government in Tehran.
>
> New attitude
>
> The shift in Paris, though, is significant.
> It is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young and
> dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage of
> his predecessors. Since he took office France has announced that
> combat aircraft supporting Nato operations in Afghanistan will now be
> based in Kandahar. And there has even been speculation that France
> might rejoin the alliance's integrated military command, which it
> walked out of in 1966. But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran
> which will please Washington the most. It is bound to cause divisions
> within the European Union and complicate discussions on Iran within
> the governing coalition in Germany. Until now there has been a good
> deal of talk about Iran's nuclear programme - and some modest
> sanctions. But the Iranians have largely stayed ahead of the game,
> pursuing their research activities whatever the wider international
> community might say. The French government, for one, is now saying
> that this situation cannot continue. The overall message is still
> diplomatic: the UN and others need to get much tougher towards Tehran.
> If they do not then the subtext is clear: the thinly-veiled military
> threat could become the only alternative.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm
>

[st. Mary' s Fucking Cunt hole]

US president Bush II told
the French president Sarkozy to harden
the tone of French attitude towards Tehran , so
to squeeze Tehran into a defensive position /




On Sep 17, 11:10 pm, wrote:
> New France gets tough with Iran
>
> French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has again raised the spectre
> of a conflict with Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the
> worst... and the worst means war".
>
> This is one of the strongest indications yet of the new Atlanticist
> accent to French foreign policy under the new President Nicolas
> Sarkozy. The hardening of France's position towards Tehran was first
> signalled by the new president in a speech to French ambassadors last
> month. Then he called for tougher economic sanctions against Tehran
> and warned that if these failed to halt Iran's nuclear programme,
> there would be, as he put it "a catastrophic choice" between "an
> Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".
>
> So what is going on?
>
> In the US, the Bush administration certainly has established war plans
> for a conflict with Iran, as it has for so many other contingencies.
> There are still hawkish voices within the administration who, despite
> all of the chaos in Iraq, still believe that Iran should be the next
> target in the Pentagon's sights. Nonetheless, there still remains
> considerable leeway for diplomatic action. Much attention is focused
> on Moscow, the government with the strongest potential "sanction"
> against Tehran - namely its refusal to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's
> first power-generating reactor.
>
> Sanctions
>
> In recent weeks though there have been signs that the diplomatic
> pressure on Tehran has been weakening, just as the Americans in
> particular are pushing for additional UN Security Council sanctions.
> [This] is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young
> and dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage
> of his predecessor Moscow's position seems less certain, and an
> agreement in August brokered with the Iranians by the head of the
> International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei , has angered
> not just the Americans but the three European governments - the UK,
> France and Germany - who have taken the lead in negotiations with
> Tehran.
>
> Mr ElBaradei's intervention, which has led Iran to accept a plan of
> action to gradually shed light on its past nuclear activities, is seen
> by these governments as too lenient. They say it gives the Iranians
> yet more time to make a full disclosure of their nuclear programme
> while failing to insist that they halt uranium enrichment as the UN
> Security Council has demanded. The French want to see stronger
> European Union sanctions whatever the UN might do. And Mr Kouchner is
> signalling that France is willing to pay a price by encouraging French
> firms to limit their dealings with Tehran. US financial sanctions,
> both formal and informal, are seen as beginning to have an impact on
> the Iranian economy. However, critics of such moves argue that this
> simply panders to the siege mentality of Iranian hard-liners, and
> rallies popular support around the government in Tehran.
>
> New attitude
>
> The shift in Paris, though, is significant.
> It is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young and
> dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage of
> his predecessors. Since he took office France has announced that
> combat aircraft supporting Nato operations in Afghanistan will now be
> based in Kandahar. And there has even been speculation that France
> might rejoin the alliance's integrated military command, which it
> walked out of in 1966. But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran
> which will please Washington the most. It is bound to cause divisions
> within the European Union and complicate discussions on Iran within
> the governing coalition in Germany. Until now there has been a good
> deal of talk about Iran's nuclear programme - and some modest
> sanctions. But the Iranians have largely stayed ahead of the game,
> pursuing their research activities whatever the wider international
> community might say. The French government, for one, is now saying
> that this situation cannot continue. The overall message is still
> diplomatic: the UN and others need to get much tougher towards Tehran.
> If they do not then the subtext is clear: the thinly-veiled military
> threat could become the only alternative.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm

[st. Mary' s Fucking Cunt hole]

if Sarkozy 's mother is a Jew . then
president Sarkozy is definitely a Jew .



On Sep 17, 11:57 pm, dapra > wrote:
> wrote:
> > New France gets tough with Iran
>
> > French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has again raised the spectre
> > of a conflict with Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the
> > worst... and the worst means war".
>
> > This is one of the strongest indications yet of the new Atlanticist
> > accent to French foreign policy under the new President Nicolas
> > Sarkozy.
>
> I just wander how the US media would justify their attacks on the French
> people of accused of 'anti-Semitism'. They elected a son of a Sephardi
> Jewish mother. But of course, the US media have never cared about facts,
> logical thinking, and NEVER, NEVER admits mistakes or intentional
> distortion.
>
> Considering that Sarkozy is a jew, it is still surprising of him to make
> statements like; "an Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".
>
> He seems to be made out of the ideology of Likud, not the enlightened
> jewish progressives most of the jews are.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The hardening of France's position towards Tehran was first
> > signalled by the new president in a speech to French ambassadors last
> > month. Then he called for tougher economic sanctions against Tehran
> > and warned that if these failed to halt Iran's nuclear programme,
> > there would be, as he put it "a catastrophic choice" between "an
> > Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".
>
> > So what is going on?
>
> > In the US, the Bush administration certainly has established war plans
> > for a conflict with Iran, as it has for so many other contingencies.
> > There are still hawkish voices within the administration who, despite
> > all of the chaos in Iraq, still believe that Iran should be the next
> > target in the Pentagon's sights. Nonetheless, there still remains
> > considerable leeway for diplomatic action. Much attention is focused
> > on Moscow, the government with the strongest potential "sanction"
> > against Tehran - namely its refusal to supply nuclear fuel for Iran's
> > first power-generating reactor.
>
> > Sanctions
>
> > In recent weeks though there have been signs that the diplomatic
> > pressure on Tehran has been weakening, just as the Americans in
> > particular are pushing for additional UN Security Council sanctions.
> > [This] is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young
> > and dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage
> > of his predecessor Moscow's position seems less certain, and an
> > agreement in August brokered with the Iranians by the head of the
> > International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei , has angered
> > not just the Americans but the three European governments - the UK,
> > France and Germany - who have taken the lead in negotiations with
> > Tehran.
>
> > Mr ElBaradei's intervention, which has led Iran to accept a plan of
> > action to gradually shed light on its past nuclear activities, is seen
> > by these governments as too lenient. They say it gives the Iranians
> > yet more time to make a full disclosure of their nuclear programme
> > while failing to insist that they halt uranium enrichment as the UN
> > Security Council has demanded. The French want to see stronger
> > European Union sanctions whatever the UN might do. And Mr Kouchner is
> > signalling that France is willing to pay a price by encouraging French
> > firms to limit their dealings with Tehran. US financial sanctions,
> > both formal and informal, are seen as beginning to have an impact on
> > the Iranian economy. However, critics of such moves argue that this
> > simply panders to the siege mentality of Iranian hard-liners, and
> > rallies popular support around the government in Tehran.
>
> > New attitude
>
> > The shift in Paris, though, is significant.
> > It is part of a broader change of diplomatic gear under a young and
> > dynamic president who carries little of the anti-American baggage of
> > his predecessors. Since he took office France has announced that
> > combat aircraft supporting Nato operations in Afghanistan will now be
> > based in Kandahar. And there has even been speculation that France
> > might rejoin the alliance's integrated military command, which it
> > walked out of in 1966. But it is the tougher rhetoric aimed at Tehran
> > which will please Washington the most. It is bound to cause divisions
> > within the European Union and complicate discussions on Iran within
> > the governing coalition in Germany. Until now there has been a good
> > deal of talk about Iran's nuclear programme - and some modest
> > sanctions. But the Iranians have largely stayed ahead of the game,
> > pursuing their research activities whatever the wider international
> > community might say. The French government, for one, is now saying
> > that this situation cannot continue. The overall message is still
> > diplomatic: the UN and others need to get much tougher towards Tehran.
> > If they do not then the subtext is clear: the thinly-veiled military
> > threat could become the only alternative.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dapra]

st. Mary' s ****ing **** hole wrote:

> if Sarkozy 's mother is a Jew . then
> president Sarkozy is definitely a Jew .
>

My point was not that he, Sarkozy is a Jew, as he is, but his attitude
of supporting the apartheid sustaining Licud government, and the
imperial aggression of the US. His popularity will be short lived in the
land of Jeanne d'Ark, Robespier and Voltaire. And in the nation who's
hymn is the 'La Marseillaise'.

[God's Creator!]

dapra wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> New France gets tough with Iran
>>
>> French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has again raised the spectre
>> of a conflict with Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the
>> worst... and the worst means war".
>>
>> This is one of the strongest indications yet of the new Atlanticist
>> accent to French foreign policy under the new President Nicolas
>> Sarkozy.
>>
>
> I just wander how the US media would justify their attacks on the
> French people of accused of 'anti-Semitism'. They elected a son of a
> Sephardi Jewish mother. But of course, the US media have never cared
> about facts, logical thinking, and NEVER, NEVER admits mistakes or
> intentional distortion.
>
> Considering that Sarkozy is a jew, it is still surprising of him to
> make statements like; "an Iranian bomb or the bombardment of Iran".
>
> He seems to be made out of the ideology of Likud, not the enlightened
> jewish progressives most of the jews are.
>
>> [........................ snipped ................]
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm
>>



Thus Spake: *G* *O* *D* *S* *C* *R* *E* *A* *T* *O* *R*

The hatred that exists between the ( Judaic/Jews & Islamic/Arabs
) is centuries old.

Both have decided long, long ago, that the only way either one
can _survive_ is;
the other _MUST_ be completely... destroyed. :-(

PROBLEM:
Until WMD's were invented, there was no effective way of either
one doing that,
Neither one cares about the rest of the worlds people, as they are
simply pawns to
assist in their devined destiny of.... *Armageddon*

Enjoy life, if you still can...




God's Creator! 8-)
( Sorry, I don't forgive ****! )

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todays U.S. "Judaism Vs. Islamism Wars" News:
. http://www.antiwar.com .
. http://icasualties.org/oif/ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~