"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Monday, September 18, 2006

CHIRAC SUPPORTS AHMADINEJAD

BBC:
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.

"I don't believe in a solution without dialogue," Mr Chirac told Europe-1 radio, urging countries to remove the threat of sanctions against Iran. ... he said. "I think that Iran is a great nation and that we can find solutions through dialogue."

The US is leading calls for sanctions to be imposed on Iran if it refuses to suspend uranium enrichment.
I think that Chirac is deliberately sucking up to the mullahs in anticipation of his indictment on the day his term as president expires (and with it his immunity from criminal charges of corruption): he nneds to esacpe to a nation which won't send him back to the EU for trial: he will probably take up residence in Iran.Either that or it's just another example of French perfidy. Or both. In fact, France has long used it's veto on the UNSC to triangulate and win deals with nations which the USDA has tried to isolate. SIMPLY PUT: they're greedy corrupt scum.

LET'S BE REAL: Chirac is opposed to force and he's opposed to sanctions. So what, exactly does that leave, except harshly worded letters & speeches!? Pol's like Chirac aren't worth a drop of spit. WHY?! Because the effective result of Chirac's position is the empowerment of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran and their nuclear dreams.

3 comments:

peter said...

If you really think that Chirac is sucking up to the Iranians so that he can retire there in peace, YOU MUST BE CLINICALLY INSANE

Reliapundit said...

peter - you are an ass! that paragraph is followed by one which opens: "LET'S BE REAL" - meaning SERIOUSLY, as in some of that prior stuff was tongue-in-cheek.

instead of attacking me, why don't you answer the basic question: WHY HAS CHIRAC TAKEN SANCTIONS OFF THE TABLE? - he has effectively done so for France has a veto.

This ONLY helps the nuke-crazed mullahs.

If war and snctionbs are off the table, and if iran has already rejected a bowl of goodies, then will keep them from getting nukes?

answer or stay away.

BTW: i predict you answer that you think it's AOK for iran to get nukes.

peter said...

Your prediction turns out to be wrong once more.

You said yourself that Iran was a proud nation with a rich history etc, and you dont get the desired response by making unnecessary threats. Its all a matter of diplomatic skills. If you tell them you wont negotiate anything until such and such has occurred, they will ignore you. If on the other hand you put forward a proposal providing some recompense for giving up uranium enrichment, they might consider it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aeKxJ5inzdn8&refer=uk

will have to get back to you later with full reply