Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

France Denies Iran's Request for Nuke Talks
Fox News ^ | Wednesday, January 18, 2006 | AP

Posted on 01/18/2006 5:38:35 AM PST by stm

TEHRAN, Iran — France rejected Iran's request for more talks on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, saying Wednesday that Tehran first must suspend its atomic activities

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: coward; twofaced; yellow
The "paper pussycat" (in lieu of tiger) speaks again. This country doesn't have the teeth of a 95 years old person.
1 posted on 01/18/2006 5:38:38 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stm; All
From Yahoo News:

TEHRAN, Iran - France rejected Iran's request for more talks on Iran's nuclear program, saying Wednesday that Tehran first must suspend its atomic activities. Iran asked for a ministerial-level meeting, but its decision to resume some activities "means that it is not possible for us to meet under satisfactory conditions to pursue these discussions," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau said in Paris.

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns supported the idea that Iran should suspend its program and return to talks.

"There is a consensus that Iran should turn back, return to negotiations and suspend its nuclear program," Burns told reporters in Bombay, India, during a South Asia tour. "But that's not the path Iran is on now."

The Bush administration sent Burns to London to coordinate a strategy with Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia on dealing with Iran. Burns conceded differences remained after Tuesday's meeting.

"We reached a consensus on some points ... others need to be worked on," he said.

Burns repeated U.S. demands that the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency refer Iran to the Security Council — where it could face sanctions — for resuming research on centrifuges used in uranium enrichment. Russia and China oppose sending Iran to the Security Council.

Earlier Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister told state radio the nation's chances of being referred to the U.N. Security Council were slim. Manouchehr Mottaki did not give a reason for his view, but emphasized that Iran wanted to restart negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.

The European states, with U.S. backing, were calling for a Feb. 2 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency to discuss taking action against Iran following Tehran's decision earlier this month to resume small-scale enrichment of uranium — a process that can produce material for atomic reactors or bombs.

A draft resolution for the meeting, read in part to The Associated Press in Vienna, Austria, says Britain is proposing that the 35-nation IAEA refer Iran to the Security Council, but it stops short of calling for punitive measures.

Instead, the draft urges the 15-nation council to press Tehran "to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency" in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities.

Russia and China are wary of Security Council involvement, and other members of the IAEA board, such as Egypt, also are cautious.

"In view of the overall situation, we regard the possibility of the hauling of Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council to be weak," Mottaki told Iranian radio.

"During the past 10 days we have tried to relay our message to all relevant parties, including the Europeans, about readiness of Iran to negotiate on the production of nuclear fuel."

Mottaki said he hoped European countries would avoid taking steps that could only worsen the current situation — an apparent reference to the talk of sanctions in the United States and Europe.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to secretly build nuclear weapons — a charge Iran denies. Britain, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Iran to import nuclear fuel, but Iran has rejected this.

Meanwhile, a delegation of Israeli security experts was in Moscow on Wednesday to meet with Russia's Security Council and Foreign Ministry in hopes of winning Russian backing for Security Council referral.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated Tuesday that Moscow believes it is too early to talk about sanctions.

2 posted on 01/18/2006 5:43:09 AM PST by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers, Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

The French are merely holding out for the really lucrative oil contracts Iran has.


3 posted on 01/18/2006 5:49:43 AM PST by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

Here's my solution to the Iran nuke problem. The U.S. should do "nothing." Stop trying to "lead the world" on this. Of course by "do nothing," I mean do the following:

1. Announce that we may reposition our nuclear warheads toward Iranian targets.
2. Forge a defense pact with Israel (if there isn't one already) stating that we will consider any attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S.
3. Follow through if necessary.

The advantage of this plan is that it forces Iran to spend billions on weapons at the expense of its people. And it would have no negative impact on pro-democratic forces in Iran.

Flame away.


4 posted on 01/18/2006 5:52:09 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
STM..I agree...with our anti missile technology..and Israel has a better one....let alone I know our Nuclear detection is getting better...we can just sit back and let em try...but we need to let them know the consequences...Iran will let a nuke slip out to a terrorist and they will try to bomb Israel...we must let them know we will hold them responsible for any nuke...and then we should let them know which cities we have picked..just to make em sweat a little more...
5 posted on 01/18/2006 5:56:38 AM PST by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stm
Most of the UN and EU pacifist pussy footing over Irag has sent a message loud and clear to Iran that they can pretty much get away with anything.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
6 posted on 01/18/2006 5:57:02 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Learn from the past, don't live in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Youngman442002

Agree. And, the thing is, I have this feeling that it's more likely that a rogue nuke would hit Europe before it hit the US. I suspect that might change Europe's attitude somewhat.


7 posted on 01/18/2006 6:00:37 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zook

I agree with you, let someone else "take the lead."

Other countries (Israel and European ones) are in far more danger of Iranian nukes than we are.

I have no problem with a retaliatory strike, if they strike Israel or a European target.


8 posted on 01/18/2006 6:03:20 AM PST by Sometimes A River (The problem with Neo-Cons is that they are for unlimited Third World Immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicated Tuesday that Moscow believes it is too early to talk about sanctions.

uh, it would be better to wait until they had a nuclear weapon to bargain with?
9 posted on 01/18/2006 6:10:04 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

the thought for the day is as follows. i believe sometime around 98 or 99, the chinese foreign minister said to clintons sec of state the following, in my own words but you can look it up. the thing you americans must think is if you are willing to trade los angeles for shanghai, because we are. this was in reference to nukes. obviously iran shall have her nukes and we must now comtemplate the fact that we have to be willing to trade new york for tehran. its going to be a fact of life.


10 posted on 01/18/2006 6:14:21 AM PST by son of caesar (son of caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stm


For what it does on its knees most of the time...it doesnt need them, right?


11 posted on 01/18/2006 6:15:40 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: son of caesar

My point was that there are other who have more to lose, who are in a greater danger.

Why should they rely on us to destroy their threats?

Other countries are more than capable of dealing with them, and they are in greater danger than we are.


12 posted on 01/18/2006 6:17:50 AM PST by Sometimes A River (The problem with Neo-Cons is that they are for unlimited Third World Immigration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
uh, it would be better to wait until they had a nuclear weapon to bargain with?

Reminds me of the arguments prior to 2003: "You want to wait for a 'smoking gun' or a 'smoking hole'?"...

13 posted on 01/18/2006 6:19:50 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Freedom isn't free, but the men and women of the military will pay most of your share)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

well, yes and no. for example, if tehran decides to nuke france, do i really care? NO. but then, i realize the worlds economy would grind to a halt, literally. that means i have to care. as far as others having much more to lose than us, you are correct, since we benefit from world dominion as we set the playing rules. but make no mistake, muslims understand quite well that their real target is the continental usa. europe is merely a sideshow. they know full well the israel will be protected more than new york city by americas christians, no matter what liberal jews tell you.


14 posted on 01/18/2006 6:23:21 AM PST by son of caesar (son of caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: son of caesar
ACTS....trade Los Angeles for Shanghai....oh oh..we better get Mexico involved in this...as for NY....looks like the Democrats are going to lose quite a few voters...
15 posted on 01/18/2006 6:32:40 AM PST by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stm

Ohhhhh... France is suddenly a bunch of 'bad boys', bunch of cowboys here folks.

I don't expect it to last long, but I'm surprised to see it at all. I guess the RIOTS and Ceriac's plummeting popularity after it for being such a weak wimp (and the 'toughguy' whats-his-name rising) have had some effect.


16 posted on 01/18/2006 6:35:04 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Shi'ite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook

The problem with your plan is that while Iran is openly threatening Israel, that is not the ONLY threat.

Iran could just as well, develop nuclear capability and then give it to one of the terrorist groups, who would smuggle into another country, maybe the US (borders not yet secure).

Then if say Detroit was blown up, you could not easily trace it to Iran.


17 posted on 01/18/2006 6:35:34 AM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

And they assume Iran won't give one to the Chechens. Amazing.


18 posted on 01/18/2006 6:36:34 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
I agree with you, let someone else "take the lead."

Other countries (Israel and European ones) are in far more danger of Iranian nukes than we are.

I have no problem with a retaliatory strike, if they strike Israel or a European target.

I agree. Talk of war is premature and really shows a lack of deep thinking. Iran has convinced many, many Muslims that they have a *right* to nuclear energy and those same Muslims (in whatever country) already resent America. Look at some of the Pakistanis reaction to the bombing of the suspected terrorist *dinner*.

How foolish we would be to rush in and antagonize millions upon millions of militants and even moderates and turn this into a world war against a religion rather than a war on terrorism. And then there's China and Russia. Don't think they would just sit by while we bombed Iran.

If Iran nukes Israel or Europe - we can retaliate at that time. In the meantime - let Europe grow up a little and let them realize that we are not their savior. They are going to have to address this and develop an international consensus of some kind.

19 posted on 01/18/2006 6:59:20 AM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zook

I concur wholeheartedly with this. The chink in the containment argument is the terrorist getting a nuke from the Iranians. However, given core power distribution information and fuel loading, the US could probably type-cast the Iranian nuke and then deliver a comparable response. That would probably take time and we might lose our will.

I am for a comparable approach with NK. Tell them to go ahead and build their nukes, let them know that our boomers are keeping an eye on them (assuming SK and Japan are uninterested in actually staging weapons on their territory), and wait for their country to implode.

Wealth compounds, and the Middle East and socialist backwaters fall further behind the first world at a faster and faster clip. The people enslaved in these despotisms need to take the matter in hand.


20 posted on 01/18/2006 7:08:56 AM PST by steveyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
If Iran nukes Israel or Europe - we can retaliate at that time.

Let Iran shoot a nuke first? Holy cow...
21 posted on 01/18/2006 8:07:52 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Let Iran shoot a nuke first? Holy cow...

Huh? We do not control the world. And it is not our place to think or act like we do. We are one country - the freest and most powerful, true, but nonetheless - we are a country not the world's imperial majesty. If Europe wants to get hit with a nuke before they wake up - that is their choice. Hopefully they will get real before such a catastrophy happens - but they may not. And that is their choice - not ours.

22 posted on 01/18/2006 8:13:05 AM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Huh? let an islamic regime have free license to shoot a nuke? And you would let them do it first?

You ought to rethink those implications. Further I guarantee you that Israel will not sit idly by and be nuked. You'll see a war that will have several nukes lobbed. WMD does not allow isolationism. If that stuff gets in the jet stream it might not be safe in a lot of places. Chernobyl spread over a large area.

This issue will have to be addressed. It's bad but it cannot be ignored. There aren't many options that aren't messy. Except to wait until they sail one on a ship into Manhattan. And that could well happen.


23 posted on 01/18/2006 8:31:18 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
How foolish we would be to rush in and antagonize millions upon millions of militants and even moderates and turn this into a world war against a religion rather than a war on terrorism.

It already is. They go hand in hand in this case.

24 posted on 01/18/2006 8:34:03 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
If Iran nukes Israel or Europe - we can retaliate at that time.

Oh brother! Right they are going to sit on their duffs long enough for that to happen.

It is France and Germany who are getting the ball rolling this time, does not sound like they are to thrilled with a fanatical lets bring about the end time muslim with his hands on a nuke sitting in their neck of the woods.

25 posted on 01/18/2006 8:44:22 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lady Heron
Islam may be your enemy - but it is not mine - nor is it the enemy of America. Fanatical Islam - militant Islam - is the problem and those who follow it. Just like extremist of all sorts are problematic.

It would be sheer stupidity to start a world war against Islam.

26 posted on 01/18/2006 8:57:22 AM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lady Heron
It is France and Germany who are getting the ball rolling this time, does not sound like they are to thrilled with a fanatical lets bring about the end time muslim with his hands on a nuke sitting in their neck of the woods.

Good. They are within reach of Iran's missiles. It is in their best interest to get real about Iran.

27 posted on 01/18/2006 8:59:21 AM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
You ought to rethink those implications. Further I guarantee you that Israel will not sit idly by and be nuked.

Israel announced just today that they will not pre-emptively strike Iran.

You'll see a war that will have several nukes lobbed. WMD does not allow isolationism. If that stuff gets in the jet stream it might not be safe in a lot of places.

I don't know what we'll see and neither do you. But this is Europe's problem and it is up to them to decide what they want to do. If Iran strikes Paris or Madrid - we will retaliate.

Chernobyl spread over a large area.

You ought to check your facts. Read Michael Chriton and about the dud that was Cernobyl.

28 posted on 01/18/2006 9:03:42 AM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zook

>>2. Forge a defense pact with Israel (if there isn't one >>already) stating that we will consider any attack on >>Israel as an attack on the U.S.

Last time I checked, the U.S. Military exists to protect the United States, and Israel isn't part of the United States. If they want such protection, they need to apply for statehood and be willing to pay Federal taxes.


29 posted on 01/18/2006 9:18:48 AM PST by LEPEN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Not from what I saw, oh in the past few months or so. But I can't quote the source because I didn't commit it to saving. IIRC, one of the first indications of radioactivity was the milk from cows quite some distance away during routine testing. Seems like Sweden but I don't remember if that's correct. And an alarm at a nuclear power plant went off some distance away.

The effects were not as immediate or dire as the Chernobyl area of course. But one can look at Semipalitinsk (sp) or Cheylabinsk-40 and see some of the results in the post-WWII accidents or in the former, regular releases from nearby development facilities. Dwarfs and odd cancers.


30 posted on 01/18/2006 11:02:50 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
You'll see a war that will have several nukes lobbed. WMD does not allow isolationism. If that stuff gets in the jet stream it might not be safe in a lot of places.

I'm speaking of Israel there. I have not heard their statement on not pre-empting but it goes against what they have said since the 1990's. I know, I read it back then. I find it hard to believe they'll sit idly by.
31 posted on 01/18/2006 11:05:10 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: zook
Flame away.

No flames here. In fact, I would add an item -- that any nuclear attack or mass-casualty radioactive (dirty) bomb attack against the US will be considered an attack by Iran, requiring a full retaliatory nuclear stike against Iranian leadership and military assets.

32 posted on 01/18/2006 11:08:18 AM PST by IonInsights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

"On 28 April 1986, technicians at Sweden's Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant outside Stockholm detected extremely high radiation levels -- four to five times normal emissions. But it wasn't coming from Swedish reactors. Similar readings were received in Finland, Norway and Denmark. Eventually, specialists concluded that dangerous radiation was being carried by prevailing winds coming from the USSR. Initially the Soviets emphatically denied having any problems, but finally they had to admit that an accident had occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station north of Kiev."

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id304.htm

(reportedly more than 1,000 distance)


33 posted on 01/18/2006 11:14:17 AM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LEPEN

"Last time I checked, the U.S. Military exists to protect the United States, and Israel isn't part of the United States. If they want such protection, they need to apply for statehood and be willing to pay Federal taxes."

We did the same thing with Europe during the Cold War. A Soviet attack on one of our allies was an attack on the US. America ought to do all it can to protect its democratic friends, especially Israel.


34 posted on 01/18/2006 1:50:52 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IonInsights

As you and others point out, that was the missing ingredient from my formulation!


35 posted on 01/18/2006 1:51:52 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson