Chirac Losing It

[Hap]

Originally posted by Habu
Do you think that it mattered that Iraq was in no way responsible for 9-11 when the US invaded it?

It matters greatly.


hap

[Habu]

When the US had the biggest terrorist attack ever launched on its soil two radical middle east countries fell within a very short period of time. One deserved it and one did not. Makes no difference. And if the leaders of Pakistan did not suddenly become very cooperative allies of the US in the war against terrorism (at least publicly) then there is a very good chance that they would have some very difficult ultimatums to deal with.

You poke a beehive with a stick and the bees come out and sting everything.

Why do you think that no country no matter how sympathetic is giving any terrorist group aid and support to carry out an attack on the US these days?

They know that it is not enough to punish the terrorists, governments must fall. That is how it works.

Do you not think that the leaders of Syria and Iran did not see the tape of Saddam dropping though the trap door and know that it could very well be them one day? Sure the Iraqi courts and people convicted him and carried out the sentence. But who do you think delivered him to them and flew him in a helicopter to his date with destiny?

[Toad]

A couple of points. First, during the Cold War there was a VERY limited number of "the usual suspects". If the US got nuked, there was an infinitesimally small chance that it was Britain or France that did it and the USSR was pretty much the only other power with the capability to deliver such a weapon.

Right now, in theory, there's fissile material from the US, USSR, GB, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably N. Korea and Israel with Iran apparently on the verge. It's known that some of these states (Pakistan) have supplied technology and some may have possibly sold fissile material to other states.

I think the idea that either Israel or the US would start slinging nukes in 5 minutes is completely unbelievable. For a response of this kind, there will have to be a target that has been proven "guilty" with little doubt.

Second, the idea that Congress was persuaded to give Bush authority to invade Iraq base on Iraqi involvement in 9/11 is ludicrous. The case made in the UN and in our Congress was that Iraq had defied UN resolutions and was in possession of WMD's. THAT is how the war was "sold", not on the basis of Iraqi involvement in 9/111.

Are there parts of the citizenry that believe Iraq played a role in 9/11? Sure. But they didn't make the decision to go to war, Congress did.

Are you saying Congress believed Iraq had a role in 9/11?

[Habu]

Imagine Israel launches a retaliatory attack 5 minutes later.

What is the downside? An avowed enemy that has been funding Hamas (and is Hamas) is gone. No one will retaliate against you or the US will strike them. A strong message is sent out to all nuclear powers that you will be held accountable.

Who is going to prove Iran was innocent? How long will it take to prove it? And if you prove it who will believe it? Israels population will want blood for blood and if they don't get it Israel will ceise to exist. There would be a civil war and revolt in the armed forces.

And despite what reasons were used to justify the invasion of Iraq the only reason the US did it was 9-11. There was a need to eliminate dangerous foes from the world as letting them live and let live had only lead to a series of increasing deadly attack against US interests.

They had the perfect opportunity to bring one enemy down as an example to the world and they seized it.

The only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is to stop the spread of nuclear technology to rouge states. A concept that seems alien to France.

[Toad]

Using your logic then, what is the downside to Israel nuking Iran right now? Why wait?

I submit that the reasons for waiting now are the same reasons that would require certainty before retaliation if they (or we) were struck.

[Habu]

Israel I am sure has a no first strike policy as does the US Russia and every other responsible nuclear power.

Israel does not acknowledge it has weapons and thus the Arab middle eastern countries are not in a battle of pride to develop them and be on a par with Israel. They do not show them off, they do not threaten to use them.

They are there for one reason only. Retaliation.

Using them first is not an option.

Once hit though, the rules change.

[Toad]

The rules change to "nuke 'em all"?

I don't think so.

I think the potential world-wide repercussions would prevent that.

[vorticon]

now why would the muslims want to make "their" land completly uninhabitable for the next 100 years?

when theres perfectly good chemical weapons that are a whole lot easier to come by, and dont damage historical buildings, or hang around for decades.

[Toad]

I think they care about Jerusalem but I'm not so sure they give a hoot about Tel Aviv.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Toad
Andi if it later turns out that Syria had purchased the materials and they were responsible, how would you explain that to Iran?

First, no need to explain to dead people.

Second, when has Israel ever felt the need to explain its actions?

My guess would be that Israel would proceed to nuke Damascus and any other Syrian population centers. As for Iran ... serves them right for selling the stuff to Syria, don't you think?

[Toad]

1. I doubt all Iranians would be killed in any attack by any nation. Unless someone used overlapping detonations. This would leave some very angry folks looking for payback.

2. Israel usually does explain its actions. The rest of the world decries their actions no matter if there's just cause or not, but they usually explain why they're acting. The recent foray against Hez in Lebanon is an example.

3. You assume Iran would be the seller to Syria. Why not Russia? Syria is was a strong USSR client state. Why not NK? Kim is way short of cash/food/energy; I'm sure one could strike a deal. Why not Pakistan? They already exported nuke technology.

In a way, I view this as watching the run up to "Peace in our time" starring Neville Chamberlain. I never understood how that worked but I think I'm seeing it come round again.

[Udie]

I think that if anybody nuked Isreal it would be a very bad day to live in Syria, Iran, Jordan and Egypt.   I'd think that they would nuke all of their enemies.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Toad
Or else you just saw what Chirac really thinks; Iran with a nuke really isn't a big problem. I wouldn't jump to "senility" just yet. Maybe that is his true position and thus the true position of the French government.



Maybe it was just a peek behind the curtain.

As far as his contention that they can't launch on Israel, I think he misses the change in tactics. I seriously doubt any country planning such a move would launch from their homeland. That'd be like painting a bullseye on your own forehead. Rather, the weapon would be supplied to a shadow group with suicide troops (maybe Hezbolla which is said to be under heavy Iranian influence) so that there would be at least some doubt about the true source of the weapon/strike.

In this world it would take only a shred of doubt to protect Iran from any retribution.

I think that if they are counting on that they may be miscalculating egregiously. Hurt someone bad enough and they will strike out against those they most distrust without regard for certainty. We are more than capable of obliterating those suspected of inflicting serious injury upon us or our favored allies.

[Toad]

But we won't without proof; disagree if you like but that's IMO.

[Bodhi]

I think that the day a nuke is exploded in Israel, rational thought will go out the window, and a mass retaliation against their enemies will happen.