Trust Libya with nuclear power, says Sarkozy

#1
Trust Libya with nuclear power, says Sarkozy
Telegraph
LinkLink
President Nicolas Sarkozy urged the West to trust Arab countries with nuclear technology yesterday as he signed a deal that could see France supplying Libya with a new reactor.

During a meeting with Col Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Mr Sarkozy agreed to help the country with a nuclear-powered project to desalinate seawater. France has Europe's largest civil nuclear power industry and a vital commercial interest in exporting reactors and technology.

Any Libyan reactor could be supplied by Areva, France's leading nuclear energy company. Until he invited international inspectors into Libya in 2003, Col Gaddafi had a covert nuclear weapons programme.

But Mr Sarkozy denied that the new deal came with any risks attached. "Nuclear power is the energy of the future," he said. "If we don't give the energy of the future to the countries of the southern Mediterranean, how will they develop themselves? And if they don't develop, how will we fight terrorism and fanaticism?"

The president added that if the West considered that Arab countries were "not sensible enough to use civilian nuclear power", this would risk a "war of civilizations".
 
#2
Another superb piece of French Rapprochement.

Am I alone in thinking that these comedians blunder round the international diplomatic stage dropping the odd hand grenade then retreat behing their traditional French Detachment when it all goes pear shaped?

Ooh - and lets not forget criticise from the sidelines when its their fcuk ups that are being cleared up. :x

Heed.
 
#3
Of course all Arab and other eastern governments are led by trigger happy idiots who will invade other countries, not like the UK (Blair) and the US (Bush). The politicians are always bleating about pulling b3rd world countries into the 21st century and eradicating poverty . I've always wondered what gives us the right to have nuclear power and weapons but no-one else. It's interesting to read that Libya's nuclear programme was covert, I don't think our's or the American's was particularly open for viewing.
 
#4
Because:
a) we in the west worked hard to develop nuclear power (thats the royal we as clearly neither I or any member of my family had any part to play as they are thick as mud) while they were riding around on camels. Copyright rules should apply. Freeloading of western innovation and hard work shouldnt be allowed. If I had my way they shouldnt have TV's or coffee machines either.
b) they are kids and cant be trusted not to try to do bad things for bad reasons because of faith in the sky pixie.
c) because as usual the french are shamelessly trying to sell their grandmother again.

Would it be really really wrong to suggest the they develop suicide bio-power stations? Does it say anywhere in the koran that you might get 72 virgins for martyring yourself to produce electricity? A quick leap of faith into the furnace. Ok, no you are right. Bad idea. I am a bad person. Aren't I...?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
The French have got it sorted. As far as they're concerned, the only targets of Islamic bombs is other muslims or UK/USA.

Why NOT make money out the ME, when the bite-back isn't going to be in your back yard.

Mind you, the French have a penchant for, er, what's the word, oh yes, collaboration!
 
#6
Heedthebaw said:
Ooh - and lets not forget criticise from the sidelines when its their fcuk ups that are being cleared up.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should be criticising the French for demanding that we clear up their messes? Maybe I'm missing something, I can't remember the last French foreign policy fcukup that we had to clear up for them. I can think of two of ours that they're helping us out with.

Remind me again, what colour is the kettle?

Personally I don't have a problem with this, except insofar as it'll increase the amount of nuclear waste in the world. Still, if it pushes us to find a solution, that'll be a good thing. Got to be better than letting the developing world continue to burn fossil fuels.
 
#7
Certainly a bit of typical French opportunism.

Second only to the last notable politician to visit the good Colonel Gadhafi - equally dodgy Tony Blair. Anyone in the glass house want a couple of stones?
 
#8
Sounds like a good plan - Nuclear energy really is one of the only realistic ways forward for all countries. The only issue is with how to dispose of waste, which scientists are (as usual!) working towards a solution.

jockass said:
a) we in the west worked hard to develop nuclear power (thats the royal we as clearly neither I or any member of my family had any part to play as they are thick as mud) while they were riding around on camels. Copyright rules should apply. Freeloading of western innovation and hard work shouldnt be allowed. If I had my way they shouldnt have TV's or coffee machines either.
b) they are kids and cant be trusted not to try to do bad things for bad reasons because of faith in the sky pixie.
c) because as usual the french are shamelessly trying to sell their grandmother again.
Are you at all serious about any of your points? I mean, really?

A) Balls. This attitude is ridiculous! "We develop it, only we can have it." This would mean that lots of technology we enjoy in the UK would be removed, you realise? Coffee-Makers = American, TV = Scottish, technically.
B) Balls. The US (responsible for much technological innovation) is full of christians and god-botherers, but they're trusted (loose term) with much technology and firepower.
C) Balls. You're simply anti-French.

Come up with a real argument or just admit that your real issue is with the French populace.
 
#9
smartascarrots said:
Heedthebaw said:
Ooh - and lets not forget criticise from the sidelines when its their fcuk ups that are being cleared up.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should be criticising the French for demanding that we clear up their messes? Maybe I'm missing something, I can't remember the last French foreign policy fcukup that we had to clear up for them. I can think of two of ours that they're helping us out with.

Remind me again, what colour is the kettle?

Personally I don't have a problem with this, except insofar as it'll increase the amount of nuclear waste in the world. Still, if it pushes us to find a solution, that'll be a good thing. Got to be better than letting the developing world continue to burn fossil fuels.
My bold. Erm No. I'm Not. What I am saying is that the French will quite happily make foreign policy fcuk ups and then wash their hands of it when it all gets a bit difficult.

ie French Indo China, Algeria etc.

Yes we have fcuked up in Iraq. Yet we are still there. Whatever your views on our reasons for still being there the lads and lasses there are genuinely trying to make a difference. And paying the price.

So I am sorry if I did not make myself too clear there. I hope this clarifies matters.

And the French are all cnuts. :D
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#10
Random_Task said:
Trust Libya with nuclear power, says Sarkozy
Telegraph
LinkLink
President Nicolas Sarkozy urged the West to trust Arab countries with nuclear technology yesterday as he signed a deal that could see France supplying Libya with a new reactor.

During a meeting with Col Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Mr Sarkozy agreed to help the country with a nuclear-powered project to desalinate seawater. France has Europe's largest civil nuclear power industry and a vital commercial interest in exporting reactors and technology.

Any Libyan reactor could be supplied by Areva, France's leading nuclear energy company. Until he invited international inspectors into Libya in 2003, Col Gaddafi had a covert nuclear weapons programme.

But Mr Sarkozy denied that the new deal came with any risks attached. "Nuclear power is the energy of the future," he said. "If we don't give the energy of the future to the countries of the southern Mediterranean, how will they develop themselves? And if they don't develop, how will we fight terrorism and fanaticism?"

The president added that if the West considered that Arab countries were "not sensible enough to use civilian nuclear power", this would risk a "war of civilizations".
When I first read this a couple of days ago my first reaction was one of unease, but then when you consider it in a neutral context it stacks up.

Libya - surprisingly still with Col. G in the driving seat - have gone from being Western enemy no. 1, to being accepted to the point where they are getting nuc power. Where a US policy of bombing in the '80's resulted in further catastrophe, diplomacy has brought us to this point.
If you think how this is viewed from other countries on the dodgey list, it has to be a good advert for behaving yourself and integrating into the international community.
Libya will being selling surplus juice to bordering states while Iranians read about it by candlelight......
 
#11
Are you seriously asking whether i'm serious about any of those points?

W) Ok, you got me on the coffee makers. Sorry
A) I don't trust Bush's finger hovering on the big red button either
H) Actually no, some of my dearest and closest friends are French

I take it though that you had no issue with the point about power stations then?
 
#12
French have the right idea - Indochina? A civil war where the French weren't wanted? Well, good on them for having the sense to say, "Ah, we must withdraw!"

I don't know, but I don't think the French said, "America, come save Indochina for us!"
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#13
Heedthebaw said:
smartascarrots said:
Heedthebaw said:
Ooh - and lets not forget criticise from the sidelines when its their fcuk ups that are being cleared up.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should be criticising the French for demanding that we clear up their messes? Maybe I'm missing something, I can't remember the last French foreign policy fcukup that we had to clear up for them. I can think of two of ours that they're helping us out with.

Remind me again, what colour is the kettle?

Personally I don't have a problem with this, except insofar as it'll increase the amount of nuclear waste in the world. Still, if it pushes us to find a solution, that'll be a good thing. Got to be better than letting the developing world continue to burn fossil fuels.
My bold. Erm No. I'm Not. What I am saying is that the French will quite happily make foreign policy fcuk ups and then wash their hands of it when it all gets a bit difficult.

ie French Indo China, Algeria etc.

Yes we have fcuked up in Iraq. Yet we are still there. Whatever your views on our reasons for still being there the lads and lasses there are genuinely trying to make a difference. And paying the price.

So I am sorry if I did not make myself too clear there. I hope this clarifies matters.

And the French are all cnuts. :D
I think leaving Indo-China was an excellent idea, especially when you consider the fukc up that followed.....

Rainbow Warrior on the other hand was a best in class international bollok dropping event :oops: :oops: :oops:
 
#14
All I'm saying is that the French have a long and proud history of fecking off when the going gets tough.

And should it all go pear shaped in Libya (God / Allah forbid), they will be the first to say that it wasn't their fault should they supply their nuclear reactors (which is what they are angling after anyway).

I would remind you that Africa is slowly getting more radicalised as far as Islamism is concerned. I wonder how long (basically) secular societies like Morocco, Libya and Egypt can hold back the tide?
 
#15
jockass, quite right. I have no issue with countries having access to Nuclear Power. Give me a good reason why countries shouldn't have Nuclear Power? Other than your "It's western technology, other countries shouldn't have it, we're better than them" rubbish.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#16
Heedthebaw said:
All I'm saying is that the French have a long and proud history of fecking off when the going gets tough.

And should it all go pear shaped in Libya (God / Allah forbid), they will be the first to say that it wasn't their fault should they supply their nuclear reactors (which is what they are angling after anyway).

I would remind you that Africa is slowly getting more radicalised as far as Islamism is concerned. I wonder how long (basically) secular societies like Morocco, Libya and Egypt can hold back the tide?
I think you should do some more historical reading, perhaps without pre-judgement.

Bombing radicals does not seem to be working too well does it? Perhaps an approach that marginalises the groups and limites their political acceptance in favour of a improved living standard is a better idea?
 
#17
Alsacien, maybe we could start by providing practical aid to the governments of countries so they can have access to energy, which then leads to better lives for the people in said countries...

Wait, I think the French might actually be trying this...

People appear to be jumping on the "I hate France" bandwagon, without actually thinking about what is being proposed.
 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#18
The_Goon said:
Alsacien, maybe we could start by providing practical aid to the governments of countries so they can have access to energy, which then leads to better lives for the people in said countries...

Wait, I think the French might actually be trying this...

People appear to be jumping on the "I hate France" bandwagon, without actually thinking about what is being proposed.
..and rather than quietly dig a couple of new wells and hand out a truckload of Spear and Jackson gardening hardware - why not do something so big and noticeable that not only the entire country, but the entire region can see the benefits......
 
#19
The_Goon said:
Sounds like a good plan - Nuclear energy really is one of the only realistic ways forward for all countries. The only issue is with how to dispose of waste, which scientists are (as usual!) working towards a solution.
Come up with a real argument or just admit that your real issue is with the French populace.
Ok, so you want a real arguement? Bearing in mind that my post-military occupation is in the energy industry I will field that one.
Nuclear energy is really one of the only realistic ways forward? No it isnt. Uranium is a scarce resource and the price is already sky high due to inflated demand from china. For established nuclear powers then building new plants to replace the ageing ones built in the 70's going offline in the near future in UK/FR/DE is a realistic proposition. Building in Libya and devloping the infrastructure and knowledge base to establish new plant is less of a no-brainer. However seeing as France is currently producing approx 80% of its electricity from nukes (way way more than any other nation) then obviously they do have some expertise in this area and believe they have something to sell. However I personally believe that they are pushing a product not appropriate for the customer. On security grounds alone I would object, but also as I dont think it is the right answer to solve their needs.
Renewable sources are key to the future of energy. Hydro is out for them, as is wind, however solar is not such a no brainer. Many countries have a big problem with solar due to changing seasons, and space required. I.e. it would take an area the size of most of conneticut covered with solar panels to power a city the size of New York. Plus winter would be a problem. However Libya's power demand is less than NY and its sunny most of the year, and space is not an issue due to a damn big desert.
I think the correct mix for Libya would be heavy solar useage with a backup of a few flexible gas (or maybe oil) plants that are easy to ramp up and down to meet peak demand. This is another fuel they have plenty of. Nukes generally run 24-7 and dont ramp up and down so are unsuitable for this.
Anyway, there is your sensible answer to bring it back on subject. Why are you rattling on about Indo-china and anti-frenchness anyway?

Edited for spelling and grammar and stuff
 
#20
Heedthebaw said:
All I'm saying is that the French have a long and proud history of fecking off when the going gets tough.
Not in Indo-China or Algeria they didn't. Certainly the history books I read had these down as long-drawn out affairs that cost much (French) blood and (French) treasure. When Colonies are determined on independence, there's not much their colonial masters can do about it, as the last fifty-odd years should have taught us British.

The French do politics differently from us, domestically and internationally. That makes them automatically different, not automatically wrong. In this case, I think they've got it right and you've not put forward an argument otherwise.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top