• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

More on this from CNN  http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/17/france.iran.ap/index.html

I hope the above link works

France: Prepare for war over IranStory Highlights
France's FM warns world should ready for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons

Koucher says European leaders considering economic sanctions

Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy
Next Article in World »



   
PARIS, France (AP) -- France's foreign minister warned Sunday that the world should prepare for war if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and said European leaders were considering their own economic sanctions against the Islamic country.


French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called for more effective sanctions on Iran.

Negotiations and two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions have failed to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear power plants as well as material used in atomic weapons.

Iran insists its atomic activities are aimed only at producing energy, but the U.S., its European allies and other world powers suspect Iranian authorities of seeking nuclear weapons.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, speaking on RTL radio, called for "more effective sanctions" against Iran if it continues to resist the demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

"We will not accept that such a bomb is made. We must prepare ourselves for the worst," he said, specifying that could mean a war. He did not elaborate on what kind of preparations that would entail.

"We have decided, while negotiations are under way ... to prepare for eventual sanctions outside the United Nations, which would be European sanctions," he said.

Kouchner was not specific about what penalties Europe might impose, other than to say they could be "economic sanctions regarding financial movements."

"Our German friends proposed this. We discussed it a few days ago," he said.

Sarkozy reportedly floated the possibility of European sanctions against Iran this summer. In a major foreign policy speech last month, he mentioned the possibility of an attack on Iran, which he said would be as "catastrophic" as Tehran getting a nuclear bomb.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Bush administration is committed, for now, to using diplomatic and economic means to counter the potential nuclear threat from Iran.

Don't Miss
Iran 'reaches nuclear target'
"I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using," the Pentagon chief said.

Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister was quoted as saying on state television that enriched uranium fuel is ready to be shipped from Russia to Iran's first nuclear power plant.

The project has been beset by repeated delays due to payment problems on the Iranian side, according to the Russians. Iran, however, maintains it is because Moscow has been caving into Western pressure to halt the project.

Sunday's announcement comes after talks in Moscow between Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko to address delays in completing the $1 billion Bushehr power plant.

Iran currently has the ability to enrich small amounts of uranium for nuclear fuel but still nowhere near enough to power a nuclear plant, much less create a weapon. Russian officials say the Bushehr plant cannot open until six months after the current fuel is delivered. E-mail to a friend

 
geo said:
Heh.... I think I hear sabres rattle.....

It's just that the French have realized that being so cowardly over the two more recent missions, they have no credibility left and they need to stop being such wussies to get taken somewhat seriosuly. I except them to turn around and bash whoever goes into Iran, when the waste material impacts the rotating apparatus.
 
Freddy G said:
It's just that the French have realized that being so cowardly over the two more recent missions,... 

Perhaps you should clarifiy... which French?  Any particular unit in mind?
 
GreyMatter said:
Perhaps you should clarifiy... which French?  Any particular unit in mind?

FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?

  last two missions (OEF and OIF)
 
Infidel-6 said:
FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?

  last two missions (OEF and OIF)

France has 1100 troops in Afghanistan, and 3 Mirage 2000D, 2 C160 transport and 2 C135 (KC135) refueling aircraft.
they took 11 deaths in Afghanistan.

Now, they are not doing as much as Britain, Canada or USA, but they are doing more then a lot of other members of the coalition, who are only members in name, with not one soldier on the ground.

You mean they opposed OIF, and for this they are cowards, according to you. although they went off to OEF and supported it.
 
Infidel-6 said:
FRANCE THE COUNTRY - do you need a map?  last two missions (OEF and OIF) 

Perhaps I should clarify...I am thinking in terms of which French units: Admin/support staff?  Recce squadrons?  Infantry? (etc...)  Or just all of them in general?
 
rz350 said:
France has 1100 troops in Afghanistan, and 3 Mirage 2000D, 2 C160 transport and 2 C135 (KC135) refueling aircraft.
they took 11 deaths in Afghanistan.

Now, they are not doing as much as Britain, Canada or USA, but they are doing more then a lot of other members of the coalition, who are only members in name, with not one soldier on the ground.

You mean they opposed OIF, and for this they are cowards, according to you. although they went off to OEF and supported it.

WRONG

They DID NOT SUPPORT OEF AT ALL, and their troops are sitting in Kabul - I value them a few cents on the Dollar more than the Germans

  Don't mistake ISAF for OEF.

 
Okay, you got me there, I should of remebered the difference, as it is a big difference. But both missions are critical and good causes.
still, they are part of ISAF and are providing troops and jets and transport planes to the mission, which is a good mission.

I get sick off all the France bashing, when there are MANY countries that do a lot less then they do. its just a pet peeve.
 
I am sure the 10% muslim population in France will be impressed.  :crybaby:

France's biggest enemy is within its own borders.

I have worked with French Marines on two occasions. Seemed switched on, but their government is as limp as a gay hand.


Wes
 
Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!

Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?
 
geo said:
Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!

Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=c6f01966-2a83-4bae-8b16-199cedf01dc4
KANDAHAR -Will France help Prime Minister Stephen Harper and give fresh impetus to NATO's mission in southern Afghanistan by sending combat troops to fight alongside the Canadian battle group here?

In a clear signal that a French government is willing for the first time in years to play a part in joint western combat operations, President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered Mirage fighter jets to Kandahar to help protect American, British and Canadian ground forces. The French warplanes are to be operational by the end of the month.

Because so much has been made of how Sarkozy is keen to improve frail relations with Washington, and as other countries that have had fighter jets at the Kandahar airfield -- the Americans, British and Dutch -- also have combat troops here, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine France sending an infantry battalion or even a brigade to join the fight.

With Germany, Spain and Italy having repeatedly refused NATO's request to join combat operations and with the Dutch parliament split over whether its forces should stay next door in Uruzgan province, the French decision to dispatch warplanes to southern Afghanistan should be a boon to Harper, who has been puzzling over what Canada's contribution to NATO's mission in southern Afghanistan should be after the current mandate expires in early 2009.

France signing on would help Harper because it would undermine opposition claims that Canada should join the Germans in refusing a combat role or get out altogether, which is what is being debated in the Netherlands.

As you might expect, Canada's future role in Afghanistan is of consuming interest to its nearly 2,500 troops in the region and senior NATO officers in Kandahar and Kabul. NATO does not want Canada to cut and run, and sees no sense in Canada switching to a largely humanitarian effort, as the New Democrats and some Liberals advocate, because such efforts will never succeed unless the operating environment is much more secure.

Although they are understandably reluctant to say so baldly in public, the overwhelming opinion of the Canadians now in Kandahar and those that have rotated out after serving tours here, is that they are making a difference. They want the current mandate extended although they acknowledge the number of troops will have to be scaled back because there are not enough fresh forces at home to maintain present troop levels beyond 2009.

Jack Layton and Stephane Dion would not want to hear it, but what Canada actually needs is more, not fewer, combat troops in Afghanistan, if only more were to be had.

To be honest, Canada's grandly named battle group in Kandahar is an enhanced infantry battalion.

What has always really been required in Canada's enormous area of responsibility has been three infantry battalions -- effectively a brigade to hold Taliban strongholds to the west of Kandahar, watch over the city and secure the province's porous eastern border with Pakistan, where the enemy rests and re-supplies every winter. As it is, the battle group has to race around a lot trying to keep as much as possible in check. If Harper elects to keep Canada's current mission more or less intact, it will undoubtedly be leaner, losing some of its robust combat capability and some of its logistical tail.

But there are other options worth contemplating, particularly if France, which has several fresh brigades available, commits to sending ground troops to the south. One possibility being actively considered is to continue with the Provincial Reconstruction (PRT) and the infantry company that now guards it, greatly increase the few Canadian soldiers now mentoring the Afghan army and, perhaps, leave Canada's new Leopard tanks -- NATO's only tanks in Afghanistan -- in theatre. Such a force, numbering perhaps 1,300, would give infantry, combat engineering and support elements the break from overseas tours they badly need.

Another option is to just keep the PRT and the infantry that are with it, increase the number of mentors and deploy CF-18 Hornet fighter jets to Kandahar. However, aside from the high cost of operating warplanes so far from home, there would probably be severe political fallout the first time a Canadian air strike killed Afghan civilians.

The ideal solution would be to maintain as many elements of the current mission as possible and hope the French will help out in Kandahar or in one of the equally restive neighbouring provinces.
 
That's the story PO
But to me.... I don't believe it till the planes are in KAF, in the air AND providing adequate ground support.
However, before I am prepared to welcome the French fighters with open arms, lets get our IFF & CAS signals straight - I would hate to start a new relationship with a "whoopsie" incident.
 
      Some more news on this story on Irans response to Frances statements I have provided the link. Thought that might be better than the whole story being copied



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/18/france.iran/index.html
 
PO2FinClk said:
Labelling an entire country based on the actions of a few politicians is very George W.

Call my GW jr.  ;D
 
geo said:
Rumour mill has it that France is offering to position fighters in Kandahar to provide ground support to, amongst others, us!

Go figure!?!  should we be flattered or scared?

Based upon my observations of their, ahem, "performance" during my time in Lahr in the last three years of the eighties and comments by others in another thread indicating that no improvements have been noted since then, don't bet on your first option.
 
Current French political directions under their new President is significantly better than under the previous wanker. I am sure he has a lot of work to do to change "group think" in his government and military, but it is a good start.
 
Wesley  Down Under said:
France's biggest enemy is within its own borders.  I have worked with French Marines on two occasions. Seemed switched on, but their government is as limp as a gay hand. 

That was my point right there.  The French guys I worked with were pretty squared away, but others were pompous fools (and a range in between) with the competence related to what unit they were with.

Of course, they're ALL a bit picky about food and drink standards, but you can live with that...
 
Back
Top