Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

[Az]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?ref=world

And if so, is it also true for the rest of the EU?


Discuss.

[Kuciwalker]

“I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous.

“But what is very dangerous is proliferation. This means that if Iran continues in the direction it has taken and totally masters nuclear-generated electricity, the danger does not lie in the bomb it will have, and which will be of no use to it.”

Mr. Chirac said it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country.

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?” Mr. Chirac asked. “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

It was unclear whether Mr. Chirac’s initial remarks reflected what he truly believes. If so, it suggests a growing divide with American policy, which places the highest priority on stopping Iran from gaining the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

Bull****! Of course this is what he really believes - his PR people haven't yet gotten a chance to respin it.

[Berzerker]

he's right, MAD works

[Az]

Bull****! Of course this is what he really believes - his PR people haven't yet gotten a chance to respin it.

yup. It's not like he said something incoherent - he said something very very clear. I am kind of shocked at the NYT trying to play it down. You cannot spin it any other way.

[Drake Tungsten]

He's right about proliferation being a bigger threat to result from Iran going nuclear than the actual threat of Iran launching an overt nuclear strike on someone.

[Harovan]

I frankly don't see what the fuss is about. It's MAD, as in "mutual assured destruction". You go nuclear on anyone else, you'll be destroyed likewise. I'm all for attacking politicians, I outright despise the bigger part of them (which includes Chirac), but not for stating the obvious facts.

[Barnabas]

I dont see anything wrong in what he said.... ???....

Doesnt even sound like a slip for me

[Patroklos]

So is France now offering Isreal a nuclear garauntee?

Or are they just assuming America will take care of it for them again

[TCO]

So if you really beleive that things are better off with Iran having a bomb, then we should give them one?

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Or are they just assuming America will take care of it for them again

I dont understand, both France and Israel are nuclear powers and could nuke Teheran themselves

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So is France now offering Isreal a nuclear garauntee?

Or are they just assuming America will take care of it for them again

Did he say that France will raze Tehran? I don't think so. When I say "The whole North Korea will glow if they launch one nuclear missile on L.A." I don't mean either that I will nuke them personally, just that this will be the probable reaction.

Even though I think that whole "200m" thing is a fair bit exaggerated, it doesn't change the fact that there will be a retaliation. Whether that is delivered by the USA, France or even Israel itself is secondary.

[Patroklos]

When I say

Your not the leader of a country who could make it happen.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Your not the leader of a country who could make it happen.

You can either

- implicitly question that they're able (as in your 1st post), or
- acknowlegde that they can (as in your second)

[Proteus_MST]

So what Slip does Chirac wear, then?

Silk? Lace? Or a Tanga?

[Spec]

Leopard G-String.

Spec.