From today’s edition of Canada’s National Post (Picture from Newseum):

French President Nicolas Sarkozy to the U.N. Security Council, “President Obama dreams of a world without weapons… but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.”

Perhaps before we disarm we need to be sure those who intend to do us harm are doing the same.  Don’t you think?

UK Telegraph has the rest of his comments:

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his American counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an "historic" step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no specific targets or fresh mandates.

"We live in a real world not a virtual world," the Frenchman told the 15-member council. "And the real world expects us to take decisions.

"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

"I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

"If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons," he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade "naïve".

Maura Flynn points out that no U.S. Newspaper features President Sarkozy’s remarks.  Interesting.

HT: Memeorandum

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. It is one thing to have these ideals as a community organizer or as an average Joe in America. But once you take the oath of office and are the president of the United States you can’t live in a la-la dream land of ideals. You have to deal with reality because that office comes with great responsibility in dealing with a real world that has in its make up real threats. I think he knows this but he would much rather play politics and sound like such a great trail blazer down a road he knows he cannot realistically take. But it sure does sound so peachy keen in the mean time to people who want to hear things like that.

  2. Who would’ve thought a French President would be talking tougher than an American President.

    Go figure… Just another example of today’s upside down world.

  3. Obama’s words simply manifest what is fundamentally wrong with leftist thinking, whether it’s the political left or the theological left: The fallacy that people are essentially good.

    When one comes to understand that people are actually quite capable of evil and that it’s embedded in our fallen nature, one can be much more realistic in thinking and practical in action.

    You’d think that the combined witness of History, the daily news and Scripture would convince people, but we still choose to have these fantasies of utopia.

  4. Odd juxtaposition and presentation of information…

    First, France (Sarkozy) also approved the UN Security Council resolution for containing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The vote was 15-0. Clearly the US and France are aligned with reducing and containing such weapons.

    Second, recent US efforts seem to have helped bring Russia on board with Iranian sanctions. Previously, Russia and China had effectively blocked efforts to leverage Iran. As we’ve learned previously, unilateral sanctions and actions are both costly and inefficient (ineffective, even). Personally, I would love France or another country to take the vocal lead for once. That way it’s less likely to be *perceived* as another “example of US hegemony or imperialism”.

    “Perhaps before we disarm we need to be sure those who intend to do us harm are doing the same. Don’t you think?”

    That’s a bit of a stretch, I think.

    1. @Argon, I have never said I’m against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I have just said that I believe Obama is naive in his approach.

      Second – read the rhetoric from Russia and China… basically they’ve gone from “hell no” to “no I don’t think so.” Only Russia has said they would consider, consider sanctions. If France wants to take a lead on this, fine.

      That doesn’t mean Obama needs to be weak however.

      I don’t think it’s a bit of a stretch to wonder if we should be rid of all of our nuclear weapons when Iran has them. I also wouldn’t expect Israel to get rid of theirs in this climate. I don’t ever want to see them deployed, but they do provide an effective deterrent.

      If Iran gives up nuclear weapon ambitions and all nations rogue and otherwise gets rid of theirs. I’ll be the first to go out and sing Kumbya.

      1. We’ve come across this topic before over the US response to a N. Korean boat carrying a likely shipment of arms. I’m not sure Obama is being ‘weak’. “Outright belligerence” and “beating a hasty retreat” are not the only responses available, and rejecting one of these paths does not imply embracing its opposite. That’s a dichotomy I don’t accept.

        What is the strategy? Well, it’s hard to tell when everyone is playing poker. An alternate viewpoint is provided here:

        And what are the realistic and productive options currently at hand? Ideas? In any case, I’m glad to see France is in agreement with the need to contain nuclear technology. After all, this is the same country that had a history of tanking sanctions against middle east countries.

        “I don’t think it’s a bit of a stretch to wonder if we should be rid of all of our nuclear weapons when Iran has them.”

        I suppose one can wonder about it in an alternate universe sort of way, but it “ain’t gonna happen” in this reality.

        I recall another dreamer, circa 1985-1987, who with Mikhail Gorbachev proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic arms.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Steve King: Partial Repeal Only Empowers ObamaCare

Washington, DC- Congressman King released the following statement today after the House…

A Pro-Life Ad? Not Exactly

Priorities USA released an ad that has the appearance of being a pro-life ad, but in reality it is released by a group that supports Hillary Clinton.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem at CPAC: Don’t Just Complain, Do Something

I figured everybody and their brother was blogging about the big name…

Rich Man, Poor Man

I live nowhere near the zip code of the “wealthy.”  I do…