Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks

[jfuh]

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The tape-recorded, on-the-record interview was conducted under an agreement that it would not be published until Thursday, when Le Nouvel Observateur appears on newsstands.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]

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

Do you see the difference?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

 

[Volker]

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

No, I don't think, it would be a big danger in itself. If I count correctly, we have nine countries now with nuclear weapons and with Iran there would be ten countries. It doesn't change much.

 

[Volker]

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"

The French president did some sabre rattling in patriotic enthusiasm in front of a submarine, don't make too much of it.

 

[jfuh]

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

Do you see the difference?

Actually my poll asks about a threat. If you review the forum guidelines there's nothing that says I must make a poll identical to the article. The question itself is hypothetical as is the case, currently, that Iran would have a nuke or two or three. Do you see the difference?

 

[jfuh]

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.

Iran sponsors Hezbollah, where're the French Nukes?

 

[Gardener]

Good ol Chirac. That point about not knowing he was on the record was priceless.

It only counts if you are caught.

 

[jfuh]

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"

What wars? What economic benefits? You fight wars so as to defend yourself or conquer. As for "if you do something wrong, you have no country anymore"; now you're not making any sense at all.

 

[jfuh]

No, I don't think, it would be a big danger in itself. If I count correctly, we have nine countries now with nuclear weapons and with Iran there would be ten countries. It doesn't change much.

So you trust that Iran would keep their nukes safe guarded and not sell the technology or even materials as N.K. had to the highest bidder? You think that Iran will not threaten Israel?

 

[Volker]

Actually my poll asks about a threat. If you review the forum guidelines there's nothing that says I must make a poll identical to the article. The question itself is hypothetical as is the case, currently, that Iran would have a nuke or two or three. Do you see the difference?

I don't think you were in conflict with a guideline or so, it's just your article and your poll do not really match in my opinion, but it's your poll.

 

[Volker]

So you trust that Iran would keep their nukes safe guarded and not sell the technology or even materials as N.K. had to the highest bidder?

Well, Iran seems to better with keeping secrets than the US for instance.

You think that Iran will not threaten Israel?

What do you mean by threaten? Is it like "you guys better think twice before attacking us", then this is one of the major reasons why countries have weapons in the first place.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

What wars? What economic benefits? You fight wars so as to defend yourself or conquer. As for "if you do something wrong, you have no country anymore"; now you're not making any sense at all.

Defend yourself against Iraq? Lol, they wouldn't have done the US any damage.
But I guess the US was really after Saddam and they feared he single handedly would conquer the US.

 

[RightinNYC]

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"

There is absolutely zero chance that if Iran gets nukes and attacks Israel, that France will nuke Iran.

Zero. None whatsoever. If you can find a single scholar who disagrees, I'll be very very very surprised.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, Iran seems to better with keeping secrets than the US for instance.

What do you mean by threaten? Is it like "you guys better think twice before attacking us", then this is one of the major reasons why countries have weapons in the first place.

"You guys better think twice before attacking us" = "Threat"
"Israel needs to be destroyed." =/= "Threat"

 

[jfuh]

Defend yourself against Iraq? Lol, they wouldn't have done the US any damage.

Very well, where's the economic benefit coming from? Funny, I don't see oil prices plummeting do you?

But I guess the US was really after Saddam and they feared he single handedly would conquer the US.

Hardly - Bush and his nutheads wanted to turn the attention away from not being able to capture OBL so they started a war which they though would be able to end soon and give them a huge boost so as to have a platform to run on in 2004 - it worked.
Nevertheless, where's the economic benefit? And seriously, what does that have to do with the topic? You're former France would Nuke Iran was more related. Speaking of which, where're the French Nukes? Iran supports Hezbollah.

 

[jfuh]

Well, Iran seems to better with keeping secrets than the US for instance.

So? What does that have to do with keeping it's nukes secure and not selling to the highest bidder?

What do you mean by threaten? Is it like "you guys better think twice before attacking us", then this is one of the major reasons why countries have weapons in the first place.

Israel has had the ability to level Iran for some time now, but never used such force. You think the same would've been if the situation were reversed? No, the Iranian regime would've nukes Israel long ago.

 

[Volker]

"You guys better think twice before attacking us" = "Threat"
"Israel needs to be destroyed." =/= "Threat"

No, you got me wrong here, I do not say this weapon would be not a threat, I actually say, a threat is kinda inherent and one of the main purposes of having such a weapon.