By Francois Murphy
PARIS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear program, but he did not believe any such action was imminent.
Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting atom bombs, and said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.
"We must prepare for the worst," Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."
Asked about the preparations, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities.
"We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative (but) that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.
2007-09-16
10:48:35
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
tongasur.
My "comander in Chief" is called the Governor Genral and is a black woman from Hati -
I do not think Canada's head of state (In the Queen's absence )is going to be making us go to war with anyone any time soon
Yeah for Her Excelency !
2007-09-16
11:36:16 ·
update #1
with your commander in chief (usa)
war with everyone is inevitable
sorry about the incorrect assumption
2007-09-16 10:56:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
If Israel attacked Iran it may well be an act of conflict by way of Israel against Iran. i'm unsure if the united statesa.s treaty's with israel come into play except yet another united states of america assaults Israel first. it fairly is attainable that an attack by way of Israel on Iran will carry into play treaty's that Iran would have with Russia for defence. it must be complicated. the only ones that win in a conflict are the hands manufactures.
2016-10-20 01:17:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Look at the present situation. We have invaded two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you notice anything? They are on either side of Iran. We also have a DEVELOPED nuclear power in the region, Israel. That Ahmadinejhad has one big mouth on him, but if he knows any better, he won't do anything.
Now, that doesn't put us in any better of a position. We have sever financial problems, and we import quite a few foreign items.from foreign nations, and get a vast amount of financial support from China, and Saudi Arabia both of them seeming to be shady characters. If we were to go to war with Iran, China could pull our financial support severly crippling our economy. Saudi Arabia could pull their supply of oil making them skyrocket to probably hundreds of dollars per barrel. To be in the middle of the war and having our supplies withdrawn could spell defeat for us. Our armed forces would be basically stranded unless Israel comes to our aid. If Israel comes to our aid, then they would send Lebanon, Egypt and Syria to fight. There would be no magical shipment of supplies this time. Isreal would be trying to fend off the invaders. After this takes place, Israel may or may not use it's nuclear weapons. If so, the retaliation of Ketusha(sp?) rockets would be even more destructive than they were before in the '05 Middle East conflict.
2007-09-16 11:34:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Damasta AM inductee 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Dubya and Cheney want to confront Iran, and an air strike is possible, but it's not inevitable. The Prexy may strike without warning, but the usual tactic is to prepare the people with several rounds of increasingly provacative speeches before using a "false flag" operation to claim Iran attacked US interests or property. [A false flag operation is one where the aggressor attacks its own country, or claims that such an attack occurred to lay blame on the country to be attacked: [examples: North Vietnam's "attack" on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, The sinking of the USS Maine in Cuba, Poland's "attacks" on Nazi Germany]; not to be confused with rumors like there are 3 US Navy Carrier Battle Groups presently off Iran's coastline.
BTW, the person above me is wrong about the Dems - they will probably stay the course in Iraq, and consider doing what Dubya only threatens to do, regardless of what the Dem's progressives want...
2007-09-16 11:17:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by sheik_sebir 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't think the people of either nation really want a war, but with Ahmadinejad spewing hate-filled proclamations all the time, and Cheney sometimes promoting the expansion of the war, both nations have some who seem to want to push us closer to war.
Ahmadinejad has totally destroyed the economy there, and Bush, with the cooperation of the Democrats have done a pretty good job of doing the same here. All this sabre-rattling is a useful distraction from the lousy governments we're both getting, but perhaps the people in both countries will stay awake through it all and just boot the losers out.
The people of both nations seem to be decent and peaceful.
2007-09-16 11:44:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by skip742 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
We'd better not go to war with Iran -- in general, the Iranian people love Americans (not our government, they love our citizens), they think that we honestly try to do what's right most of the time. This is coming from a friend of my family who happens to know quite a few people from Iran. They say that while the Iranian people love American citizens, they would still feel it was necessary to fight against us if we tried to invade. I feel like it would be a worse mistake even than going to Iraq.
I think we should try to step off of the world stage for a little while, because we've really been overdoing it under Bush. Rather than leading the world by force, we should try to lead the world by example.
2007-09-16 11:27:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Based on the current situation, U.S. will not try to engage in another war in the middle east and Bush is leaving office in 2008 I don't believe he will start anything.
If a new president comes to power (Laura or Obama or some republican) They will not do foolish actions to make the us citizens angry for any reason, whether it be losing soldiers or economic problems.
2007-09-16 11:02:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by From FarAway 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
The reason Iran want a nuke is to avoid the possibility of a country invading their country for the natural resources. It makes a lot of sense to a noecon to continuously threaten to invade their country to make them stop developing nukes. The same people who thought Iraq was going to be a piece of cake and ironically a great example of why Iran wants a nuke.
2007-09-16 12:37:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jose R 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Neither. No war is not inevitable. They are all aiming for Peace. So stop pointing your guns at the United States or Israel.
2007-09-16 13:27:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Norskeyenta 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A couple of years ago the France said a nuclear Iran was a threat to everyone.
Iran hands out weapons to terrorists like an American hands out candy on Halloween.
2007-09-16 10:56:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by a bush family member 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
If the Democrats have their way, we'll skidaddle ASAP out of Iraq like a scared dog with its tail between its legs. Al-Qaeda and Iran will smell blood knowing that US cannot and will not do anything. Slowly but surely the entire Middle East will be under some radical control, controlling much of the oil. Israel will be left to survive on its own. It will be attacked for sure and US will give nothing but lip support. Germany, France, England and Russia will do absolutely nothing. In desperation, Israel will have to attack first using all its force including nuclear weapons. US will complain at the United Nation but nothing else. If the radicals succeed and bring Israel down, we are next. Much like Chamberlain with Hitler, we"ll send in Kuchinich to appease Osama.
2007-09-16 11:09:31
·
answer #11
·
answered by Don S 5
·
0⤊
5⤋