Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks

jfuh · 02-01-07, 02:48 AM

Quote:

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac said this week that if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, it would not pose a big danger, and that if Iran were to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.
The remarks, made in an interview on Monday with The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune and Le Nouvel Observateur, a weekly magazine, were vastly different from stated French policy and what Mr. Chirac has often said.
On Tuesday, Mr. Chirac summoned the same journalists back to Élysée Palace to retract many of his remarks.
Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.
“I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” he said.
The tape-recorded, on-the-record interview was conducted under an agreement that it would not be published until Thursday, when Le Nouvel Observateur appears on newsstands.

Source
Seemingly France is again uncertain whether or not a Nuclear Iran would pose a threat. For the love of god, it's not that difficult. If Iran had a nuke or two, it's not going to be pleasant for anyone. Yes, even one or two is going to be quite dangerous Chirac.

Volker · 02-01-07, 02:51 AM

Your article talks about "big danger", your poll talks about "a thread".

Do you see the difference?

Maximus Zeebra · 02-01-07, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Source
Seemingly France is again uncertain whether or not a Nuclear Iran would pose a threat. For the love of god, it's not that difficult. If Iran had a nuke or two, it's not going to be pleasant for anyone. Yes, even one or two is going to be quite dangerous Chirac.

Yes, but the thing is if you remember a few months back, that Chirac also said that if any country sponsor terrorism against or attacks France, they would be nuked. And I have no doubt that France will nuke all of Iran if they step wrong.

RightinNYC · 02-01-07, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Your article talks about "big danger", your poll talks about "a thread".

Do you see the difference?

It seems plain from this post that you feel that Iran is one, but not the other. Care to explain the reasoning behind that?

RightinNYC · 02-01-07, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Yes, but the thing is if you remember a few months back, that Chirac also said that if any country sponsor terrorism against or attacks France, they would be nuked. And I have no doubt that France will nuke all of Iran if they step wrong.

Do you actually think Iran will launch a missile at France? No.

Iran, if it gets nukes, will immediately move to sell the technology on the black market in the hope that it will find its way to Israel.

If it does, France won't do ****.

Maximus Zeebra · 02-01-07, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

Do you actually think Iran will launch a missile at France? No.

Iran, if it gets nukes, will immediately move to sell the technology on the black market in the hope that it will find its way to Israel.

If it does, France won't do ****.

Iran selling nukes on the black market would be the same as them assisting terrorists. Thus France from their statement could bomb Iran.

Volker · 02-01-07, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

It seems plain from this post that you feel that Iran is one, but not the other. Care to explain the reasoning behind that?

Yes, I think, there is a difference. A nuclear weapon is a threat, this seems to be actually the main purpose of a nuclear weapon.

A big danger would be, if there is a higher risk, that this weapon will actually be used or given to someone who wants to use it.

RightinNYC · 02-01-07, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Iran selling nukes on the black market would be the same as them assisting terrorists. Thus France from their statement could bomb Iran.

You're right, and I'm sure Iran will be careful to keep the receipts so that when we ask them how the terrorists got the nukes, they can show us proof of purchase.

And again, you're making the ridiculous assumption that France would actually do such a thing.

RightinNYC · 02-01-07, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Yes, I think, there is a difference. A nuclear weapon is a threat, this seems to be actually the main purpose of a nuclear weapon.

A big danger would be, if there is a higher risk, that this weapon will actually be used or given to someone who wants to use it.

So you don't think that Iran having nuclear weapons is in and of itself a big danger?

Maximus Zeebra · 02-01-07, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightatNYU

You're right, and I'm sure Iran will be careful to keep the receipts so that when we ask them how the terrorists got the nukes, they can show us proof of purchase.

And again, you're making the ridiculous assumption that France would actually do such a thing.

They said they would and I actually dont doubt them.. Why fight wars all the time except for economic benefit when you can just say "if you do something wrong, you have no country anymore"