France announced plans to sell nuclear reactors to Libya as well as 10 billion euros of trade deals, as President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomed Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi for a five-day visit…
Later at the Elysee Palace, the two countries announced the nuclear cooperation accord and some 3.2 billion euros (4.7 billion dollars) of contracts for European planemaker Airbus — for 21 aircraft purchased by Libyan Airlines and Afriqiyah Airways.
Paris and Tripoli agreed to work together to develop the “peaceful use of nuclear energy”, including “the supply of one or more nuclear reactors for the desalinisation of sea water” and uranium exploration and exploitation…
It is the second nuclear cooperation deal between France and an Arab country, following an accord struck by Sarkozy in Algiers last week. A similar agreement is in the pipeline with Morocco…
Libya also signed a memorandum promising to negotiate exclusively with France for all future military purchases, though details were not released.
Let’s see: we have bi-lateral diplomacy between an Arab state and a Western nation headed by a conservative. This results in business deals in both directions – including the peaceful use of nuclear power.
Sounds logical to me. Now, this is the kind of diplomatic leadership we can… Oh, that’s right. The U.S. wasn’t involved.
#19 Well said. Muslim Indonesians have Christmas day off as it is a national holiday and have no problem with Christmas, Santa, decorations and the like.
When I worked there I was told by many Muslim Indonesians that Christmas was a great time of the year (also near their Idel-fitri Festival) so what is wrong with giving and getting presents, Santa and singing songs? They did not see any of this as a threat to Islam; Jesus was a great teacher and should be respected.
This is a lesson for many.
Cheers
First of all, it was more than taking down Iraq–it also took us taking a ship bound for Libya that had a few nuclear-related no-no’s on it in order for Libya to do an about-face. Even so, the ‘conversion’ is sketchy. Or it would be except Al-Qaida has aligned against him.
(Btw, Omar didn’t completely change his stripes after the tent-missile either. He just stopped being so blatantly ‘Chavez’ about things.)
Most Americans would gladly not worry about Iran *except* for the fact that the Iranians are state-sponsorers of terrorists. Did you people forget about Hezbollah and Hamas? Did you people forget about how Iran is sheltering members of Al-Qaida? Does anyone remember the concern about suicide bombers going off in the US should we challenge them, based on the fact that they already have sleeper cells here since before 9/11?
How much more difficult if we’re put in a position to take them on if they have full nuclear capability.
It isn’t an enviable position to be in. Iran exerts influence in Iraq and Lebanon, to the point that Saudi Arabia and others are seriously considering nukes of their own. And Iran can already threaten the world economy without the use of nukes. They’ve developed plans to asymmetrically attack US ships in the Red Sea through use of boat ‘swarms’, not to mention the usual (mines, etc.).
So…if Iran was a regular nation-state we probably wouldn’t care. Except it sponsors terror AND his leader thinks he’s the Islamic messiah to usher in a new age where there is no Israel—you may not care about that last little detail, but either way Iran is not a ‘quaint’ little country.
When their government moderates or is overthrown perhaps it will be a moot point. In the meantime Europe will do what it will in North Africa while telling itself that diplomacy is the only way with Iran. Years of talk have done nothing to stop them, and the situation will only get worse.
#22 Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am sure that you have been to Iran and spoke to many Iranians. No?
I haven’t been to Iran but I have spoke to many Iranian business people at trade shows and our Turkish clients do a business with Iran and I hear the same thing. “Don’t confuse the (idiot) president with the people.” Seems Iran has the same problem that the US has.
The US attacked Iraq under false pretenses, WMD, correct? But hell Saddam was a bad guy anyway so the end justified the means right? Would it not have been better to get closer to Iran before sending in the troops to Iraq? Ask any cop responding to a domestic disturbance call from the beaten wife they must be careful as she could turn on the cops if they are rough on the husband. See the point? I guess not.
Getting closer with Iran does a lot more in the middle east then not. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” Better to have Iran inside pissing out than outside pissing in.
Cheers