What's wrong with Chirac saying that Teheran would be bombed in case of a nuke attack of Israel?

Question

what's wrong with saying this, this is not like actually bombing Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so?

don't know why everyone in usa is shocked by chirac just saying common sense. saying this is nothing. the usa did worst in ww2 so what? feels like hypocrisy.

dunno about emmerdale what's that?

"behind the usa as usual"? is this what you said? you mean like in the battle of Yorktown when France saved the USA's *** from the British right? learn your history.

what i think is Chirac didn't mean that france would bomb Teheran but that the USA would do it like they did on civilian targets during WW2.

btw there is no glory in using nuclear missile from a remote place against a third world country. anyway france is the third nuclear power (with the only armed nuclear carrier in the world) first is russia, second is usa. i mean france doesn't need the usa to launch a such missile, and uk can do it as well. i think that chirac was refering to the usa because it is the closest ally to israel.

everybody knows iran has no chance against the western countries. iran is not a problem. this is basically what chirac tried to say. i see nothing shocking here.

bumbleboi you're such a delicate modern machoman i'm sure you have a depigmented anus too.

of course borden. iran is a piece of cake. chirac acted in an undipolmatic way because he trusted the journalists claming his speaking will not be recorded.

clive i'm sure that chirac would agree with the usa bombing teheran. this wasn't meant as an attack of the hypothetical US action. seems like there is a kind of antiamerican paranoia among the US elits. chirac supported the usa in afghanistan and france is the oldest ally of the usa, joining them during the american revolution. history tends to be forgotten.

Anna i will not go into the Israel/Palestina dilemna.
here is the yahoo uk news if you missed it: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/01022007/325/chirac-retracts-iran-bomb-threat-comment.html

i remember who was the agressor during WW2, it was just a reminder to say that there is huge difference between to say something and to do it for real.

got your point old man. as i remind it chirac did not mentionned precisely a nuclear riposte on Teheran, instead he said "Teheran would be immediately erased". erasing a city in a second can be done with conventional bombers as you said. nuclear riposte came in mind as the ultimate weapon capable of ersing a city with a single hit.

maybe as you said the oak. you'll probably find a strong support among the french themselves. chirac is not a middleman but a tired aged man. but, bombing Paris will result in a riposte in all american metropolis and the end for both countries. French nuclear ballistic nuke missile submarines are travelling all around, and the french nuclear bomber bases are not located in Paris but in the southern and western france...

well spoken MadMax. actually i think france has economic interests not only in iran but all over the world, just like the US and the other western countries i guess. it's all about business with you. you're probably right after all.

Answer 1

From what I understand with Chirac's statement is that, it wouldn't be so bad if Iran can have 1 or 2 nuclear weapons. The U.S. currently possess many thousands and Israel have hundreds of nuclear weapons, so it would be stupid if Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel or the U.S., as the retaliation that would result will erase Iran off the map.

Chirac seems to be threading a fine line between the U.S. and Iran. Because France had a lot of business investments in Iran, he is reluctant to support further economic sanctions on Iran. If France does support further sanctions against Iran, Iran might break its relations with France, and this will jeopardize all of France's economic interests in Iran. If Chirac won't support further economic sanctions on Iran, it will strain the relations between France and the U.S., to which France has also existing trade agreements.

Answer 2

Tehran would be bombed if they attack anyone a WMD, but not with Nukes. So will any other country that launches an attack against the US or it's allies. What we are trying to prevent is world contamination. The consequence of any country using Nukes is high levels of radiation in our atmosphere that will change life as we know it. America will preemptively strike strategic nuclear threats with conventional ordnance as danger becomes imminent. That's because unless the nuke is properly detonated and causes fusion as designed, it is considered a "dirty bomb" that only contaminates the local area. The US not only has the technology to take out launched missiles, but also specific worldwide targets anywhere and any time those targets become a serious threat.

Answer 3

Chirac is absolutely RIGHT! If Iran uses a nuclear bomb on Israel, it openly declares that it has rebelled, and as a rebel it should be crushed before it commits more such atrocious crimes (could you tell me what Israel did to Iran to deserve to be bombed except for the fact that they are Jews?). Can you imagine if Russia decides to throw a nuclear bomb on China because they have differences, or North Korea throws a nuclear bomb on South Korea, what would the world become?

Answer 4

I think Chirac is right; let Iran have nuclear energy but if they launch a nuke, against anybody, then the rest of the world to just nuke Iran to oblivion.
Same with N.Korea!

Answer 5

Didn't see/hear the news yet but get shades of WMD in Iraq from comment. Just the West hopping on the U.S. bandwagon as usual I guess in probable response to the heavy Jewish lobby in Senate and predominance in Western media - just check the figures before you shout any names!


Funny how Israel can drop bombs on Baghdad in past and get away scot-free, and now having refused to divulge info on their nuclear weapons in past they, the threat in reality, are protected by influence.

Sorry to all the people I liked when I lived and worked in Israel but over the years I've wised -up and feel ashamed to have been part of your development when you treat the Palestinians so abysmally. For people whose families endured the terrors you did (and as you constantly remind us) I would have expected a response to Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, not to mention an empathy with the Palestinians. The current Middle East crisis is only an extension of all this.

Back to the Q - I'm sure there was talk of bombing Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki too prior to the unspeakable events.

Answer 6

It is the same as Hiroshima. Presidents do not use such undiplomatic language. But what Chirac meant and what he was saying is something that president bush and his warmonger pal do not understand. And it is that Iran may make one or two crude bombs but they know that launching an attack on Israel would be stupid and suicidal for the simple reason that the worlds nuclear powers could prevent it and retaliate heavily. In other words whether Iran has or not nuclear weapons it is not a number one problem.

Answer 7

nuke Iran now! Will send out a clear message to all arab states not to conduct terrorism by proxy, and at the same time halt extremist Islam attacks in Europe ..in their trax!
BTW Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki required to be bombed to end the war.These people had to die so that better people might live!

Answer 8

If Iran bombed Israel with either Nuclear or conventional weapons, they would most definitely be bombed by us and the Israelis. There is absolutely no justification for the bombing or Israel, but their would be justification for widespread bombing of Iran if they chose to attack Israel.

Answer 9

Because France wouldn't be doing the bombing of course. They would be hiding behind the USA's apron as usual.

Answer 10

Perhaps he has some bad snails? Anyway they only have to get a few french soldiers to woft their armpit scent over Tehran to subdue the buggers for a bit!