President of France: Obama, Naive, Egotistical and Arrogant!

[amicus]

http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/sarkozy-mocks-obama-at-un-security-council-hello-big-media/

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
No American newspapers seem to have featured Sarkozy’s justifiably derisive remarks about Obama’s naivete regarding the realities of nuclear technology.

~~~

Yep, blame it on Fox, Greta Van Susteran in an interview reporting on European reaction to Obama's foreign policy and position on Nuclear Weapons, where I heard the above and went searching.

More to follow, no doubt, maybe even someone here will reach out...stranger things have happened!

Amicus

 

[argh654]

Chicago in '16!

Oh, stop with that nonsense. Of course the US press didn't report that, they are worried about the more important things like Obama's plans to get the Olympics to Chicago...

Peter.

 

[amicus]

Oh, stop with that nonsense. Of course the US press didn't report that, they are worried about the more important things like Obama's plans to get the Olympics to Chicago...

Peter.

~~~

Heh...with all the qualified Cities in the US to host an International event, Chicago with its' crime rate and degenerating neighborhoods, is probably the worst choice ever.

(I appreciate your sarcasm)

thank you...

Amicus

 

[DesertPirate]

For the first time since our Revolution, a Frenchman has said something intelligent?

 

[amicus]

For the first time since our Revolution, a Frenchman has said something intelligent?

~~~

Ain't that the truth! Up with Liberty Fries...ahm, also read that Sarkozy didn't 'cozy' up to the first lady, either...heh...

ami

 

[TE999]

We've reached a new low internationally when a Frenchman has to tell our POTUS to wake up and smell the coffee. This is no time to live in cloud cuckoo land, or visit Denmark for that matter, when the specter of potential nuclear war is looming on the horizon.

Obama's clearly in over his head and none of his minions or the big media will contradict him. Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

 

[amicus]

We all, by our nature, pay heed to 'body language', I so proclaim...and what I saw during an interview with the Israeli Prime Minister recently concerning a nuclear equiped Iran, sent shivers down my spine.

It ain't 'if', but, 'when', and I would offer, 'soon'.

Begininng to feel like a little, 'band of brothers' here, first time in six years. Feels kinda good, if I may say so....

ami

 

[penandpaper]

For the first time since our Revolution, a Frenchman has said something intelligent?

Remember, the only reason we don't like the French is because they're so much like us (or we're like them).

 

[Boxlicker101]

~~~

Ain't that the truth! Up with Liberty Fries...ahm, also read that Sarkozy didn't 'cozy' up to the first lady, either...heh...

ami

If my SO were a hotty like Sarkozy's SO is, I wouldn't want to cozy up to any other woman either.

 

[Huckleman2000]

And the circle-jerk heats up.

 

[DeeZire]

So, when the French make derisive comments about the Bush administration, they're assholes, but when they make derisive comments about the Obama administration, they're heroes? Will you cons every figure out which side of the fence you're on?

 

[ishtat]

The French have lived under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella for 60 years. Whenever they are asked to support the US in any international incident they always have excuses not to step up. BUT they always are keen to give advice.

All French presidents live with the delusion that they are an important power but given that they never step up to the plate?

A French president's opinion on any strategic issue is worth sweet FA.

Just for the record Sarko didnt 'cosy up' to Michelle Obama becaused he is all of 64 inches tall and even with the platform heels he always wears she would have made him look like a runt. He has an absolute obsession about not being photographed with taller people which of course is pretty difficult between the two O's.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Obama is merely America's bout with jungle fever. Once we've sampled his wares we'll know how over-rated the whole experience is. Away from a basketball court or the cotton field, the man is lost at sea.

 

[McKenna]

And the circle-jerk heats up.

Bwahahahahahahahah!

But seriously, "naive, egotistical, and arrogant?" I laugh at a Frenchman calling anyone egotistical and arrogant. Hello pot, meet kettle!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Let me see. From reading the comments, those who don't like Obama, his wife or his policies are either ignorant neo-cons or Racist. Those who do like Obama, his wife and think his policies are fabulous are terribly intellegent.

Obvously one side of the argument didn't read the fine print. The frenchman's remark was aimed at Obama's stupidity in unilaterally disarming the nuclear defense net over europe and now his idea of doing away with the entire American nuclear arsinal. If that's okay with you then the French remark was quite correct.

 

[Austin8]

Let me see. From reading the comments, those who don't like Obama, his wife or his policies are either ignorant neo-cons or Racist. Those who do like Obama, his wife and think his policies are fabulous are terribly intellegent.

Obvously one side of the argument didn't read the fine print. The frenchman's remark was aimed at Obama's stupidity in unilaterally disarming the nuclear defense net over europe and now his idea of doing away with the entire American nuclear arsinal. If that's okay with you then the French remark was quite correct.

I went back and re-read the OP, thanks JJ, yeah it seems Sarkozy is being snarky with O eh, don't worry if Iran gets outta line Im sure O will give them a good talking too, "Change?"

 

[Liar]

But seriously, "naive, egotistical, and arrogant?" I laugh at a Frenchman calling anyone egotistical and arrogant. Hello pot, meet kettle!

Now now, there are some perfectly fine Frogs. Sarko the 5 ft penis envy is an embarrasment to most of them. He's best argument towards dignity is "at least I'm not Berlusconi". He may be right or wrong about Obama, but he's still a whinny, undignified little bitch.

Then of course, maybe I wouldn't care about gravitas either, if I got to bang Carla Bruni on a regular basis.

 

[amicus]

The un-noticed and unmentionable 800 pound gorilla in the bathroom, is that if the US begins to withdraw, both as a nuclear power and a factor in the real politik on the stage of the real world...the balance of power won't shift, it will become fractionalized.

No one wishes to admit or acknowledge that the United States, with military bases and forces in over a hundred countries in the world, is, has been, and should be a stablilizing force throughout the world.

Every free nation in world and those who aspire to a free democracy has become very nervous over the weak foreign policy stature of the new administration. Only the 'Bullies' of the world, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and others, to whom Obama has welcomed with open arms, support a weakened stance by the US.

Without the US, Iran would quickly establish a hegemony throughout the entire middle east. Eastern Europe would once again fall under the shadow of a menacing Russia and Chinese Communism would spread throughout Asia.

All this is easy to see and complicated by the Islamic Jihad against the West that continues to expand throughout Africa and Asia.

The entire world sees eminent chaos as a certainty if the US follows the policy of the new President.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Without the US, Iran would quickly establish a hegemony throughout the entire middle east.

I see what you're saying (note to world: I said I see, not that I agree), but I doubt it would be Iran. They're such an odd bird in the region for them to ever be the centre of anything but, well, Iran. They have the same realpolitik enemy/scarecrow as the rest to the mid east and Islam world. But that's about it.

 

[amicus]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and your, 'doubt', is just fine and dandy.

However...it is weapons and armaments made in Iran and supplied to Palestinian Terrorists, weapons that have killed Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, all made in Iran, that offer substance to counter your, 'doubt', that Iran would become central to terror in the area; they already are.

Having a nuclear capability, aside from the the threat to Israel, would also either intimidate nations like Saudi Arabia and even Turkey, with the intercontinental ballistic missiles, or cause those nations to acquire nuclear weapons also, just in a mutually assured destruction (mad) mode, to equalize the threat.

You should maybe read a little more?

Amicus

 

[SeaCat]

The un-noticed and unmentionable 800 pound gorilla in the bathroom, is that if the US begins to withdraw, both as a nuclear power and a factor in the real politik on the stage of the real world...the balance of power won't shift, it will become fractionalized.

No one wishes to admit or acknowledge that the United States, with military bases and forces in over a hundred countries in the world, is, has been, and should be a stablilizing force throughout the world.

Every free nation in world and those who aspire to a free democracy has become very nervous over the weak foreign policy stature of the new administration. Only the 'Bullies' of the world, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and others, to whom Obama has welcomed with open arms, support a weakened stance by the US.

Without the US, Iran would quickly establish a hegemony throughout the entire middle east. Eastern Europe would once again fall under the shadow of a menacing Russia and Chinese Communism would spread throughout Asia.

All this is easy to see and complicated by the Islamic Jihad against the West that continues to expand throughout Africa and Asia.

The entire world sees eminent chaos as a certainty if the US follows the policy of the new President.

Amicus

Ami,

Interesting to see you mention this. That the United States should in effect be the worlds cops. Especially ironic to me when I read this comment is how so many of the countries we have bases in are turning against us and have been doing so for years.

When I lived in Germany back in the early '80's the groundswell of feeling among the Germans was that they wanted the United States Military out. The only thing they wanted to remain was our money. (I got to hear about this from both my German friends as well as my family.)

The same can be said about the Philipino's, Okinawans, Italians etc.

I have often wondered why we were sending money and troops to places where we aren't wanted.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Wanted and 'needed', do make a difference, SeaCat.

It was the US umbrella of military protection that allowed Europe to rebuild after world war two and not spend a major portion of their GNP for defense.

That holds true in South Korea, the entire SEATO region, including the Philippines.

Being Policeman of the world rather comes with the territory when a major power emerges and in our case, it is not expansionism, as it was the British Empire, or the Japanese, Germans and Russians, but rather a means of, 'keeping the peace', as no rational person or nation wants an all out war again.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and your, 'doubt', is just fine and dandy.

However...it is weapons and armaments made in Iran and supplied to Palestinian Terrorists, weapons that have killed Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, all made in Iran, that offer substance to counter your, 'doubt', that Iran would become central to terror in the area; they already are.

Having a nuclear capability, aside from the the threat to Israel, would also either intimidate nations like Saudi Arabia and even Turkey, with the intercontinental ballistic missiles, or cause those nations to acquire nuclear weapons also, just in a mutually assured destruction (mad) mode, to equalize the threat.

You should maybe read a little more?

Amicus

Iran will arm and sponsor anyone who does nasty things to Israel. No disagreement there.

But maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you said "establish a hegemony".

Iran with Da Bomb might make the rest of their Arab neighbors cower. But will it mean that the others will acknowledge Iran? Turn to Iran for leadership? Let Iran disctate the discourse? Only if they can forget that Iran is Shia and Persian.

Want to talk scary? An imploding Pakistan. Someone better yank their actual nukes from them long before that.

 

[xssve]

Hahhahahhahah. A French guy said that - isn't that like a Frog calling a Fish wet?

 

[amicus]

I confirmed the meaning of 'hegemony' before I used it...and yes Pakistan is a scary situation.

I confess that the different forms of Islam continue to confuse me, as does the continuing divisions within Christianity, especially the Irish situation, although I am aware of the history of that.

One can hope that one day, eventually, the entire world will be free of religious conflict and we can just argue about ideology. Not likely soon.

A thought occurred...that in the nuclear age the world can no longer afford the luxury of militant religious conflicts.

Another reason Obama's foreign policy is described as 'naive', without active intervention, nuclear proliferation, more and more nations acquiring nuclear weapons, the inevitable terrorist acquisition and terrorist attack on a major population center, is just too unthinkable to permit.

The 'league of nations', and the United Nations, seems like such a good idea to facilitate cooperation between nations and it is a shame the concept has failed so miserably.

This returns to a major bone of contention between us, although, if things follow course, you will deny this too, that one cannot negotiate with a terrorist nation or with a nation that does not value individual human life, aka, all socialist based nations.

Your words always seem to reflect a neo-keynesian concept of maintaining a free market basis but permitting government to 'tinker' with the mechanism.

By definition and inevitably, adjusting and manipulating the free market always degenerates into outright command economies.

Amicus