It seems the US isn't the only one bent on aggression against Iran

[Deja Q]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/chirac-threatens-nuclear-response/2006/01/20/1137734151510.html

Chirac threatens nuclear response

January 21, 2006

FRENCH President Jacques Chirac says he would consider a nuclear response to a large, state-backed terrorist strike against France.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Mr Chirac said on Thursday in a speech at a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. He named no countries. "This response could be a conventional one," he said. "It could also be of a different kind."


Let's hope that words are sufficient to get Iran to step down from its stance.

[illflem]

1. Nuclear deterrence worked for forty years of cold war

Why not now?

[Deja Q]

2. You tell me. I've never been good at rhetorical questions.

:)


Maybe Iran (or any terrorist organization) just hasn't gotten it through its collective skull that by using nukes, they too would be nuked. That's the premise of the cold war - and to date no nukes have been used.

Chirac's stance is the coldest and most stern to date. If that doesn't get Iran to grow up, nothing will.

And Iran IS a threat; this isn't Iraq. I'm sorry there are those who think it is not, even with Iran's own comments (the one about Israel winning "first prize for blatant statements" category...) They have got to be dealt with and if you know of any better way than being bold with words upfront, I don't know what is. We know they're not likely to listen.

[400Years]

4. You said "to date no nukes have been used"

:rofl: Is that so? :rofl:

sorry hypno, I couldn't resist.

[BillZBubb]

5. Iran is no more a threat to us than Iraq was.

Why do people here on DU buy into the right wing propaganda on this? To extrapolate a danger based on the absurd comments by an elected (and out of office in several years) politician about Israel is foolish. That's believing the PNAC bullshit.

Our last senile president made comments about blowing up the USSR, but he didn't do it. Iran's current president is a flake, but he doesn't have the means to act out. He'll be gone soon enough. Threatening Iran isn't going to be very fruitful.

Iran doesn't have nukes. Iran won't have nukes for at least 4 years, if then. Israel has nukes. If Iran were to threaten them, they've got an effective deterrent.

[tatertop]

7. Iran has oil and they are soon to have an Oil Bourse

An Oil Bourse trading in petro euros, not petro dollars.
The potential consequences are staggering.

[Earth_First]

11. Were waging nuclear war in Iraq and Afghanistan RIGHT NOW!

Depleted Uranium is nuclear war no matter how you slice it.

And please don't engage in semantics or offer me words that it is not "conventional" nuclear warfare.

Please don't appease the Department of Defense by not recognizing this.

[stillcool]

3. Why do you assume he's talking about Iran?...

or better yet, who would France consider itself to be a target of? Among those countries that actually have nukes.

[tatertop]

6. Our invasion of Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons!

Read this (yes, the WHOLE thing): http://www.321gold.com/editorials/petrov/petrov011706.html

[raysr]

8. Maybe Russia and China will

stand with Iran, that would stop the powers that be.

[Village Idiot]

9. I highly doubt it.

Iran is in a unique position these days. They know that they will NEVER be sanctioned, as Russia and China bot have vetoes.

They know that if the USA attacks them directly, the USa will suffer condemnation in the rest of the world and most certainly lose control of Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Islamic Republics and Arab states will boot them out, as well.

If Israel attacks them, prepare for WWIII, as the rest of the Arab world may immediately ally to wage war against Israel (and quite possibly the USA as patron of a proxy war).

It's geopolitical "hot potatoe." Only Iran, Russia and China seem to have the power to end any of this...but do they have the will?

[fujiyama]

10. France has a messy history

with nuclear proliferation and weapons. It's unlikely they will pressure Iran too much, and even if they do they come off as huge hypocrites. Arguably, France actually is more responsible for Israel having nukes than the US. Also, France signed the NPT relatively recently in 1992. They and the rest of Europe were relatively unconcerned with proliferation during the Cold War and their corporations had very loose export controls. I would recommend reading the article "Wrath of Khan" in the Atlantic Monthly. It's about AQ Khan and nuclear activities.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The Europeans and French don't like his saber-rattling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060120/ap_on_re_eu/france_nuclear

Nothing like inventing an enemy and waving the flag to keep the populace in line.