Chirac Unfazed by Nuclear Iran, Then Backtracks
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and KATRIN BENNHOLD
France's president said that if Iran had one or two nuclear
weapons, it would not pose a big danger. A day later, he
retracted many of his remarks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02
This is how he back-tracked:
Mr. Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he believed he had been talking about Iran off the record.
“I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” he said.
That is not exactly a statement that he was wrong, but that he shouldn't have said what he said. This is why people in America don't like France. Don't get me wrong, our president says and does stupid horrible things. But if there is one thing that the world (at least the west) should be unified about, it is that Iran with nukes is very very bad. This is not complicated.
I can't help but think that part of the reason Chirac can have such a nonchalant attitude is that if Iran ever did do anything, it would be the US that has to respond. When Iran launches a nuke at Israel, do you think it is going to be France that initiates the counter strike? Obviously Israel is pretty capable of retaliating on their own, but these kinds of things inevitably fall at the feet of America. I don't remember North Korea holding out for bi-lateral talks with France.All of this responsibility is due to the way we have positioned ourselves in the world, and is fine with me. It's just frustrating when the people who are supposed to be our allies are so blind to realities of world hegemony.
No comments:
Post a Comment