France does not rule out nuclear response anymore

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by polarnomad


So when in negotiations with Iran and attempting to justify non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, this appendage wagging comment isn't going to come back and bite the French?

you mean it will keep the french from convincing the iranians we live in a world where nukes are unrelated to security, and we can all sing kumbaya together? Pardon, but we're way past that now. Iran will go for nukes unless theyre convinced others are serious about stopping them. A statement that adds to the sense that France and its allies are not to be messed with helps.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Bit liberal with your use of the word genius.

Er...

that's what makes the insult work?

Oh I give up.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you mean it will keep the french from convincing the iranians we live in a world where nukes are unrelated to security, and we can all sing kumbaya together? Pardon, but we're way past that now. Iran will go for nukes unless theyre convinced others are serious about stopping them. A statement that adds to the sense that France and its allies are not to be messed with helps.

No, I'm saying it will make any sort of compromise difficult. That statement may add to your sense that France is not to be messed with, but it just sounds like chest-beating to me, and won't help a thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by polarnomad


No, I'm saying it will make any sort of compromise difficult. That statement may add to your sense that France is not to be messed with, but it just sounds like chest-beating to me, and won't help a thing.

I dont see how it will make a reasonable compromise more difficult.

[polarnomad]

Well, theoretically the Iranians could use this comment to further point out the hypocrisy of the UN Security Council and justify continuing research.

[BeBMan]

I think LOTM is right.

Wasn't the US making a similar (although not specifically about a nuclear strike - IIRC) statement shortly before the Gulf war 91? I saw it then as kind of "warning" to Saddam not to use anything weird (chemical weapons etc.) against either coalition troops or Israel. Now with the current situation around Iran (and with Sep 11 in mind) Chirac could have felt the need for giving a similar warning. It is not nice, but giving the other side an idea how things could develop is better than leaving them in doubt about your own determination IMO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by polarnomad
Well, theoretically the Iranians could use this comment to further point out the hypocrisy of the UN Security Council and justify continuing research.

That and $1.10 will get you on the bus.

The NPT wasnt in effect when France got the bomb. So no hypocrisy. And everyone knows in spades why Iran is a special case. They arent trying to get a bomb because they think the west is hypocritical, and theyre saying the west is hypocritical isnt going to change the mind of anyone who matters.

Besides, they claim their research is only for nuclear ENERGY, ergo what strategy France employs for its nuclear weapons is IRRELEVANT to anything they are going to say in public. The "its hypocritical to deny IRan the bomb" remarks are not made by Iran, but by Irans apologists. Whose rants are worthless, IMO.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

That and $1.10 will get you on the bus.

Here, I fail to see the point, nor do I understand the humor.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The NPT wasnt in effect when France got the bomb. So no hypocrisy. And everyone knows in spades why Iran is a special case. They arent trying to get a bomb because they think the west is hypocritical, and theyre saying the west is hypocritical isnt going to change the mind of anyone who matters.

Besides, they claim their research is only for nuclear ENERGY, ergo what strategy France employs for its nuclear weapons is IRRELEVANT to anything they are going to say in public. The "its hypocritical to deny IRan the bomb" remarks are not made by Iran, but by Irans apologists. Whose rants are worthless, IMO.

When the NPT was in effect has little relevence to the point I was trying to make. Waving France's priviledged ownership of nuclear weapons around in everyone's faces does not make a very good example, IMO.

You don't agree with me. Fine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by polarnomad


Here, I fail to see the point, nor do I understand the humor.

old joke - that and a nickel will get you on the subway - back when the subway fare was a nickel - in others, that is of no practical relevance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by polarnomad


Here, I fail to see the point, nor do I understand the humor.



When the NPT was in effect has little relevence to the point I was trying to make. Waving France's priviledged ownership of nuclear weapons around in everyone's faces does not make a very good example, IMO.

You don't agree with me. Fine.

France hasnt denied the holocaust lately, there are no UN member states France wants to wipe out, France doesnt provide material support to terrorists, etc, etc. I would suggest that if Iran wants to follow France's example they could start with some of those.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by polarnomad
Well, theoretically the Iranians could use this comment to further point out the hypocrisy of the UN Security Council and justify continuing research.

What hypocrisy? Self-defense is enshrined in the UN Charter. If a terrorist state attacks with, say, nerve gas (a WMD, btw), why isn't a nuclear response off the table or hypocritic?

[Sava]

I don't understand why France is bothering to do this. The terrorist group most likely to attack is Al Qaeda, right? And they aren't state-sponsored. So who is France going to retaliate against?

If anything, France is just leaving themselves open to being attacked and then being manipulated into retaliating against a Muslim state.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to this though. I think it's just tough talk from Chirac. I don't think there has been any major policy change here.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What hypocrisy? Self-defense is enshrined in the UN Charter. If a terrorist state attacks with, say, nerve gas (a WMD, btw), why isn't a nuclear response off the table or hypocritic?

Let me clarify my intention by correcting my initial post. It should have read:

Well, theoretically the Iranians could use this comment to further point out the hypocrisy, in their view, of the permanent members of the UN Security Council and justify continuing research.

I AM NOT taking the role of the apologist for Iran.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


France hasnt denied the holocaust lately, there are no UN member states France wants to wipe out, France doesnt provide material support to terrorists, etc, etc. I would suggest that if Iran wants to follow France's example they could start with some of those.

One kid on the block being a moron doesn't justify all kids on the block being morons.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't understand why France is bothering to do this. The terrorist group most likely to attack is Al Qaeda, right? And they aren't state-sponsored. So who is France going to retaliate against?

If anything, France is just leaving themselves open to being attacked and then being manipulated into retaliating against a Muslim state.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to this though. I think it's just tough talk from Chirac. I don't think there has been any major policy change here.

I agree.

Chirac making such blazen statements in such sensitive times isn't going to help anyone.