French president and wife divorce

[Felix the Cat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7050770.stm

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife of 11 years, Cecilia, have divorced "by mutual consent", according to a statement from the Elysee Palace.

The presidency's statement clarified an earlier announcement that they were to separate.

"What is intended by the word separation is divorce," it said.

The couple's lawyer said they had seen a judge to formalise the split and "there was no problem, they resolved everything amicably".

Speculation that they were to split had been mounting for months, with the media remarking on Cecilia Sarkozy's absence from her husband's side.

Cecilia Sarkozy has had a successful career as a model and parliamentary aide and has said that she never wanted to be a traditional first lady.

Both were already divorcees when they married each other in 1996, with two children each from their previous marriages.

They have a 10-year-old son together, Louis.

Cecilia Sarkozy was once one of her husband's closest political advisers.

They have had a turbulent relationship and were separated for several months in 2005, when Cecilia went to live in New York with an advertising executive.

Though reconciled afterwards, the couple did not appear in public as often as was expected as Mr Sarkozy's presidential campaign gathered steam.

She did not vote in the second round of the presidential election and did not accompany him on a recent trip to Bulgaria - despite the fact that in July she had unexpectedly negotiated the release of Bulgarian medics imprisoned in Libya.

This summer she failed to accompany her husband to a picnic lunch hosted by US President George W Bush and last weekend she was again absent from her husband's side at France's Rugby World Cup match against England.

"I don't see myself as a first lady. It bores me. I'm not politically correct," she said two years ago.

The divorce announcement came on a testing day for Mr Sarkozy, 52, as France was paralysed by a one-day public transport strike.

His rival in the presidential election, Socialist leader Segolene Royal, has also separated from her partner Francois Hollande, the father of her four children. Their break-up came soon after her election defeat in May.

[Felix the Cat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/world/europe/29sarkozy.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Oct 28 (Agence France-Presse) — President Nicolas Sarkozy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/nicolas_sarkozy/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of France (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/france/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) walked out of an interview broadcast Sunday night on “60 Minutes,” clearly upset about a question posed by the correspondent Lesley Stahl about his marriage.

Mr. Sarkozy, 52, was shown standing up muttering in French about the question, regarding the state of relations with his wife, Cécilia. Then he pulled off the microphone and walked away.

The interview was conducted a few weeks ago, when speculation was rife in the French news media that Mr. Sarkozy and his wife, a 49-year-old former model, were splitting up.

On Oct. 18, Mr. Sarkozy’s office announced that he and his wife had divorced.

Mr. Sarkozy, who took office in May, is known to be particularly sensitive about personal questions.

He was also shown in the segment, titled “Sarko L’Americain,” saying, “What an idiot,” apparently in reference to his own press secretary.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Like his predecessor Mitterand would say: 'Et alors?'

[Count Eustace II]

Sarko is quite a short-tempered nutjob. The French would do right by also divorcing him as well.

[Kodos]

The woman seem's like a real cunt...

[Niccolo and Donkey]

The woman seem's like a real cunt...

Possibly...but she can't be half the shitbag that Sarko is.

[Kodos]

Sarko is quite a short-tempered nutjob. The French would do right by also divorcing him as well.

What don't you like about him?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

What don't you like about him?

His kow-towing to the USA
His threats towards Iran
His flip-flop on Turkey and the EU
His theft of Le Pen's platform
His appointment of that socialist shitbag Kouchner as FM
etc, etc.

[Kodos]

Possibly...but she can't be half the shitbag that Sarko is.

Liberals and Canadian shitbags agree.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Liberals and Canadian shitbags agree.

Hey, I outlined my reasons.

Outline your reasons for liking him.

[Kodos]

His kow-towing to the USA

Meaning he doesn't like the EU, the last ideologically socialistic state that isn't some little POS basketcase like North Korea.

His threats towards Iran

Europe should worry about Iranian nukes more then us, though I personally don't think Iran will ever get a nuclear weapon as long as they are depending on the Russians.

His flip-flop on Turkey and the EU

I thought he was always against it?

His theft of Le Pen's platform

Be loyal to the platform and not the man.

His appointment of that socialist shitbag Kouchner as FM
etc, etc.

Isn't that one of those positions you appoint people you need to get rid of...

[Kodos]

Hey, I outlined my reasons.

Outline your reasons for liking him.

He stole Le Pen's platform, but unlike Le Pen he won.

He doesn't like muslims (and doesn't make obnoxious support of crazy people just because the US doesn't like them a point of his foreign policy) or the commie french unions (one of the good things that Hitler did was sending all the trade union leaders to concentration camps early on).

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Meaning he doesn't like the EU, the last ideologically socialistic state that isn't some little POS basketcase like North Korea.

LOL...talk about hyperbole.


Europe should worry about Iranian nukes more then us, though I personally don't think Iran will ever get a nuclear weapon as long as they are depending on the Russians.

Why should Europe worry about Iran? It's the Americans who've bombed Europe..not Iran. Europe should worry about the USA.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

He stole Le Pen's platform, but unlike Le Pen he won.

And he's already flip-flopped on the positions he stole from Le Pen.

[Kodos]

LOL...talk about hyperbole.




Why should Europe worry about Iran? It's the Americans who've bombed Europe..not Iran. Europe should worry about the USA.

Europe will be in range of Iran a lot quicker then we will.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Europe will be in range of Iran a lot quicker then we will.

Iran has no reason to attack Europe. The USA has attacked Europe several times.

[Kodos]

Iran has no reason to attack Europe.

Nobody ever really has too good of a reason to start a nuclear war, particulary if there is no reason to expect that your 1st strike will not destroy all retaliatory capability. But they are muslims... Can't entirely count that reason will prevail. You ever get a chief mullah in Iran that becomes convinced hes the 13th Imam then your fucked.

Pakistan is probably a greater threat, since there seem to be more crazy Sunnis nowadays then crazy Shias (thanks to the Saudis).

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Nobody ever really has too good of a reason to start a nuclear war

Then Europe has nothing to worry about from Iran.

,particulary if there is no reason to expect that your 1st strike will not destroy all retaliatory capability. But they are muslims... Can't entirely count that reason will prevail.

Realism tells us that all states are rational actors, including Iran. I question the sanity of Americans before I do that of Persians.

History bears this out as a good methodology.

You ever get a chief mullah in Iran that becomes convinced hes the 13th Imam then your fucked.

Your President is convinced that he talks to God.

Pakistan is probably a greater threat, since there seem to be more crazy Sunnis nowadays then crazy Shias (thanks to the Saudis).

Yes, the Pakis are a greater threat than Iran. I put the Pakis just under the USA on the threat scale.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Are you drunk nic? His theft of Le Pen's ideas??? If the ideas are sound then why not be inspired by them??? Pathetic personality cult that takes offense at that.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Are you drunk nic?

No. Are you?

His theft of Le Pen's ideas???

Yes, he stole Le Pen's platform.

If the ideas are sound then why not be inspired by them???

Because anyone with half a brain would know that he'd go back on his words, which he already has.

He's already stated that he'll relax his position on a Turkish entry into the EU.

Secondly, Le Pen put France first and foremost. Sarko has already moved towards Israel, and has moved towards war with Iran. In whose interest are these moves? Certainly not the French.

Had he implemented or begun implementing Le Pen's platform, I'd be cheering him on.

But instead he's already reversed himself on one major plank and hasn't begun implementing anything.

He stole Le Pen's platform not to implement it, but to get elected.

[Jimbo Gomez]

He's only been in power for three months and he's already toughened up immigration laws to levels previously unseen in France.

as to Iran: I agree with weikel, that country poses a biggzer threat to Europe than to the USA, his opposition to their nuke program is logical

as to Turkey: wait and see

[Niccolo and Donkey]

He's only been in power for three months and he's already toughened up immigration laws to levels previously unseen in France.

Pinpricks.

as to Iran: I agree with weikel, that country poses a biggzer threat to Europe than to the USA, his opposition to their nuke program is logical

lol...what "threat"? Why would Iran attack Europe?

[Jimbo Gomez]

If they ever have nukes they'll have the potential to do so. He doesn't want to risk that, and I agree with that position.

The immigration law: if you call toughening up immigration law pinpricks, I wonder what measure he could take would impress you. Methinks you just dislike him cause he gets along with the Americans.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

If they ever have nukes they'll have the potential to do so. He doesn't want to risk that, and I agree with that position.

Anyone with nukes has the potential to do so. So far, only the USA has used nukes. Iran hasn't attacked Europe in almost 2,000 years. The Americans have bombed Europe several times this past century alone.

The immigration law: if you call toughening up immigration law pinpricks, I wonder what measure he could take would impress you. Methinks you just dislike him cause he gets along with the Americans.

That's only one reason. I listed the other ones.

[Warka]

Anyone with nukes has the potential to do so. So far, only the USA has used nukes. Iran hasn't attacked Europe in almost 2,000 years. The Americans have bombed Europe several times this past century alone.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[Kodos]

He's only been in power for three months and he's already toughened up immigration laws to levels previously unseen in France.

as to Iran: I agree with weikel, that country poses a biggzer threat to Europe than to the USA, his opposition to their nuke program is logical

as to Turkey: wait and see

I don't think Iran is getting nukes anytime soon, as I think the Russian's just want to max out their billable hours. Moscow would be in range almost immediately.

But as an academic point I don't think its sane to believe that Iran having nukes is desirable, if Iran gets nukes then Saudi Arabia is going to want nukes. That would be VERY VERY VERY bad.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The Americans have helped France, Sarko's country, in a war twice during the last century...

The use of nukes was in another era, against slant eyed Japs.

Iran: better to keep them unable to attack us for a couple more millenia then

also: the Persian Empire went to war with the Byzantines several times before it fell to islam in the first millenium, so your statement is historically inaccurate.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

The Americans have helped France, Sarko's country, in a war twice during the last century...

The use of nukes was in another era, against slant eyed Japs.

Iran: better to keep them unable to attack us for a couple more millenia then

also: the Persian Empire went to war with the Byzantines several times before it fell to islam in the first millenium, so your statement is historically inaccurate.

I trust Iran more than I do the USA or Britain.

Any day.

Iran is not a threat to Europe, even if nuked. Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, and Israel has nukes. None of these are threats to Europe either.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I trust Iran more than I do the USA or Britain.

Any day.

Iran is not a threat to Europe, even if nuked. Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, and Israel has nukes. None of these are threats to Europe either.


Yeah well I don't.

I consider the pakis a threat too by the way. We should give money to India to wage war against them and disarm them.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yeah well I don't.

Can you give me a valid reason as to why Iran would attack Europe?

[Jimbo Gomez]

Can you give me a valid reason as to why Iran would attack Europe?


Should we ever start kicking out the moslem scum, I don't want any of their countries to be powerful enough to threaten us with nukes in retaliation.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Should we ever start kicking out the moslem scum, I don't want any of their countries to be powerful enough to threaten us with nukes in retaliation.

Stan:

That's a Hail Mary of a longshot.

Iranians/Persians aren't Sunni Arab Muslims, nor are they Somalis, nor are they Pakis. They don't have a history of terrorism and their Islam is incredibly light, even if their regime is Islamist.

[Felix the Cat]

Yes, the Saudis are the problem here not the Iranians

Though as a result of this Iranian business the Saudis (and other Arabs) will want nukes of their own

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Yes, the Saudis are the problem here not the Iranians

Though as a result of this Iranian business the Saudis (and other Arabs) will want nukes of their own

Good post on both counts.

The whole Mujahideen/Islamist thing began as a Brzezinski CIA project in coordination with MI6, the Saudis, and the Pak ISI. When the Soviets were turfed out of Afghanistan, these nuts were then dispatched to the Balkans, Caucasus, and Africa to stir up trouble there. Naturally, some groups grew out of control, and blowback occurred like what happened on 9/11. But the bulk of these guys are still all tied together and they're all focused on remoing regimes not willing to succumb to American puppetry.

So when the likes of weikel freak out about "crazy ragheads", he should also be extending that to their allies, the American, Brit, Saudi, and Paki governments.

[Kodos]

Good post on both counts.

I also said that before but you wanted to play asshole.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I also said that before but you wanted to play asshole.

No, stupid. If you had any sense of decency, you'd be saying: "Geez...our country fucked up big time by invading another country for bullshit reasons and without justification. We really shouldn't start another war in the region again without justification".

But you want to destroy another country and kill another 100,000 plus people for no good reason whatsoever.

And to top it off, you won't even fight!

[harjit]

Yeah well I don't.

I consider the pakis a threat too by the way. We should give money to India to wage war against them and disarm them.
I trust Iran more than I do the USA or Britain.

Any day.

Iran is not a threat to Europe, even if nuked. Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, and Israel has nukes. None of these are threats to Europe either.
Pakistan is obsessed only with India. I don't think they care a whit about harming Europe or America (not that they'd last long if they tried).

It's a shame that country has gone so far off the rails. Amazing that it was actually founded by a (very decent, by all accounts) man who looks like this.

http://chromatism.net/current/images/jinnah.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2622/jinnah.jpg

Jinnah as a young man.
http://www.g1g.com/jinnah/images/quaid1.jpg

[Jimbo Gomez]

I know they're not sunnis, don't patronize me, it's unbecoming.

Perhaps they won't care, perhaps they will, when we kick the sunnis out. Point is: why take the risk?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

I know they're not sunnis, don't patronize me, it's unbecoming.

Stan, don't be so sensitive. I'm not patronizing you.

Perhaps they won't care, perhaps they will, when we kick the sunnis out. Point is: why take the risk?

What risk? There is no risk. Your scenario is implausible.

Secondly, it's none of our business what Iran does in Iran. You're laying the groundwork for interventionism in Europe.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Of course it's my business what happens there if it affects me. If my neighbour burns dangerous toxins in his own garden, it's my business too, the fumes may affect me.

I don't want to see nukes in the hands of moslems, period. I don't care what intervention is needed to stop them from doing that, you can't apply the standards that work on civilized people on the religion of peace.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Of course it's my business what happens there if it affects me.

But it doesn't affect you.

If my neighbour burns dangerous toxins in his own garden, it's my business too, the fumes may affect me.

Iran doesn't neighbour Belgium.

I don't want to see nukes in the hands of moslems, period. I don't care what intervention is needed to stop them from doing that, you can't apply the standards that work on civilized people on the religion of peace.

That's interesting, considering that Iranians are more civilized than most people, including Americans.

What you're doing here Stan is approving the Trotskyite interventionist model whereby foreign states should be subservient to the will of great powers.

And that's a bad precedent to set.

Iran poses zero threat to Europe and to Belgium especially.

[Jimbo Gomez]

You already said that before, about the 'no threat', and I replied to it already. Don't repeat yourself.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

You already said that before, about the 'no threat', and I replied to it already. Don't repeat yourself.

I'm just pointing out your support for George Bush's pre-emptive doctrine.

It's the same as the American position that Iraq would use WMDs to give to terrorists to attack the USA.

For instance, I could say: we should pre-emptively bomb Vlaams because they might ethnically cleanse Walloons one day.

[Jimbo Gomez]

As I said: different standards for civilized people and moslems. ;)

[Niccolo and Donkey]

As I said: different standards for civilized people and moslems. ;)

That's purely subjective :)

[Jimbo Gomez]

That's purely subjective :)


History proves that you can't treat these people like rational adults, who am I to argue with history?

[Niccolo and Donkey]

History proves that you can't treat these people like rational adults, who am I to argue with history?

The Americans? I agree.

[Jimbo Gomez]

The Americans? I agree.


doesn't merit a reply

[Niccolo and Donkey]

doesn't merit a reply

Well, when i look at history, it's the Americans who have done more to promote Islam in Europe than the Iranians.

It's the Americans who backed the Taliban as they headed to war with Iran (which was narrowly averted in '98).

It's the Americans and their Saudi friends who created the Mujahideen network.

It's the Americans who invaded Iraq on false pretences.

etc. etc.

So when I look at history, I realize that it's the Americans who are the greater threat to Europe and Catholicism than Iran, and who are the bigger enablers of Islam in Europe than Iran.

[Jimbo Gomez]

European multiculturalists, big industrials who need cheap labour, Saudi Arabia and freemasons, in that order, are the main parties responsible for the islamisation of Europe.

America fucked up in Afghanistan, but that's not here.

As to former Yugoslavia: big mistake there, but thank God it doesn't really affect the rest of the continent. I can understand the Serbian anti-americanism though.

[Count Eustace II]

What don't you like about him?

Everything Niccolo said.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Why should Europe worry about Iran? It's the Americans who've bombed Europe..not Iran. Europe should worry about the USA.

Europe's largest problem is Muslims, and Iran is a Muslim country, and if it gets nuclear bombs it could potentially threaten Europe in the future, especially if it begins repatriation of its migrants who will undoubtedly attempt to spark a massive civil war.

[Niccolo and Donkey]

Europe's largest problem is Muslims

Incorrect. Europe's largest problem is liberalism.

,and Iran is a Muslim country, and if it gets nuclear bombs it could potentially threaten Europe in the future, especially if it begins repatriation of its migrants who will undoubtedly attempt to spark a massive civil war.

There aren't too many Iranians in Europe (most are actually well-integrated refugees from the pre-Mullah era) and the Iranians are Shi'a while the vast majority of Muslims in Europe are Sunni.

A greater threat would be terrorism from Moroccans, Tunisians, Egyptians, with Saudi financing.

Secondly, a nuked Iran would still have to be able to send the nukes over....no delivery system available...and Europe would be able to intercept them quite easily if they attempted.

Plus, they'd be assuring their own destruction with a massively disproportional response.

Iranians aren't nuts....they're just as rational as everyone else.

[Felix the Cat]

No need to bomb Europe: the Arabs (ie. Saudis) will just cut off the oil supply

We got a first taste of this with the Danish affair (which began, back in 2002, as a quarrel over immigration policy). That sort of thing is going to get much more common in future.

The Bosnian/Kosovo business is also tied up with this: the Saudis took a LOT of flak from their fellow Muslims in the 1990s for the "genocide" of Muslims that was supposedly going on in Yugoslavia.

The Saudis reacted by putting pressure on the Western nations to intervene, with well-known consequences