Insane - Chirac Supports Iran Having Nuclear Weapons

[BlackRain]

Chirac pushes EU to drop hard line on Iran-diplomats
13 Apr 2005 12:36:47 GMT

Factoid: France Is Iran's Largest Trading Partner. No Nukes for Oil !

Source: *******

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA, April 13 (*******) - French President Jacques Chirac has been pushing the EU to drop its refusal to consider letting Iran enrich uranium, despite U.S. and European fears Iran could use enrichment technology for weapons, EU diplomats say.

Sharing U.S. suspicions that Iran may have atom bomb ambitions, the European Union's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have demanded Iran give up its nuclear fuel programme in exchange for economic and political benefits.

Iran says it has no interest in the bomb and wants nuclear power plants to meet booming demand for electricity. Tehran has frozen its enrichment programme, but refuses to permanently give up what it sees as a sovereign right to produce low-enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear power programme.

The Iran-EU talks had been deadlocked over the issue of "objective guarantees" that Iran's atomic programme will not be used to make weapons, with the Europeans insisting that the only acceptable guarantee was a permanent cessation of enrichment.

But the talks took a new turn last month when negotiators from the EU's "big three" (EU3) and the office of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana agreed in Paris to consider an Iranian proposal that it keep a small-scale enrichment programme that would be closely monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.


Other EU3 diplomats confirmed Chirac had urged his negotiators to consider Iran's proposal it be allowed to have an enrichment plant with 3,000 centrifuges -- which could produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb per year.

Several diplomats said this shift -- which came just after Washington bolstered the EU position by offering its own incentives if Tehran scrapped enrichment -- was mainly the result of pressure by Chirac, who pushed the French Foreign Ministry to drop its refusal to consider Iran's plan.


Article - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13679471.htm

[Lokos]

BlackRain:

If you're agreeing with this article, I'm agreeing with you. Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

This whole business of nukes is a crock of ****. I mean if Russia, France, UK, China, and the US all took steps to disarm their entire arsenal's then countries like Iran, N Korea ect would not probably not pursue them.

Also, do you really think a country which has sanctions against it, faces possibly military action from a nation it knows it cant defeat really going to disarm?

Really the only way to stop these nations from obtaining nukes is for the west to give some kind of gaurentee that it wont resort to military action is the only way these countries will stop pursuing nukes. These regimes as bad as they are. They want to stay in power. They know they do not have the military strength to stand up to the United States so they make weapons that wipe out the threat of military action.

Simple answer is. Remove the threat of invasion unless they do comply and you would be suprised what could be achieved. South Africa and Libya have shown that this can be achieved. And one of these countries is a dictatorship (despite what Qhadaffi says about Libya being free).

[TheBlackPrince]

This whole business of nukes is a crock of ****. I mean if Russia, France, UK, China, and the US all took steps to disarm their entire arsenal's then countries like Iran, N Korea ect would not probably not pursue them.

Actually those steps were taken but alot of them reversed. Russia and US made steps to reduce nuclear arsenals, bush administration overturned those treatys when they went into office and now actively expand our stockpile.

I don't blame iran for trying to make nuclear weapons, if thats what they're even trying to do, it will guarantee their independence as a rogue nation in the eyes of the western world. It's risky and needs to be stopped because in the hands of a terrorist a nuclear weapon could cost alot of lives. Definatley no secular saddam in control of this country, they are just as religiously crazy as the talley-ban were.

[BlackRain]

bush administration overturned those treatys when they went into office and now actively expand our stockpile.

Really? Perhaps you can point out some facts to back up your lie?

The US nuclear inventory has never expanded under Bush. The US has not developed a new nuclear warhead since 1988 and has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992.


Initial deactivation of the 50-missile MX/Peacekeeper ICBM force began on October 2, 2002 (AFTER BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE), when W87 warheads were removed from a missile in the S-07 Launch Facility at F. E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB) in Wyoming. One missile will be withdrawn approximately every three weeks. All will be deactivated over three years at a cost of $600 million. According to the air force, the missiles will remain on alert until they are deactivated.

Less nuclear tipped ICBM's in our inventory since Bush was elected.


As of mid-2003, there were 16 operational Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), two fewer than a year ago. Eventually the number will be reduced to 14. The 16 SSBNs carry 384 SLBMs with as many as 2,880 warheads--about half the operational warheads in the strategic arsenal.


Less SSBN platforms available since Bush was elected.


Here is an inventory of the USA's nuclear stockpile in 2002:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab12.asp

The Treaty of Moscow signed on May 24, 2002 by President Bush limits the number of ICMB's to 500 down from over 2000 ICBM's when he took office.

Provide proof that this stockpile has increased. I know you can't, liar.

[fdt]

Also, do you really think a country which has sanctions against it, faces possibly military action from a nation it knows it cant defeat really going to disarm?


http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050311/luojie.gif

World's gone crazy...

[joe mama]

This whole business of nukes is a crock of ****. I mean if Russia, France, UK, China, and the US all took steps to disarm their entire arsenal's then countries like Iran, N Korea ect would not probably not pursue them.

LOL, "probably". That's perfect. Let's get rid of the main deterrent that might keep another country from using nukes because if we do they'll "probably" not pursue them.

[AROUETLJ]

The best way out of this mess would be to distribute nukes to every nation, say, in proportion to their population size. The Vatican City would then have half a warhead, and China would have a few million, and we'd all sleep easier in our beds.

I mean, if you can't beat them, join them.

[Lokos]

A lot of people cry about 'double standards' when it comes to nukes. I'm comfortable with the Nuclear Club enforcing double standards if it means no further proliferation.

What I am *not* comfortable with is a theocratic regime with a penchant for martyrdom having access to nuclear weapons.

Lokos

[Clearday-TRForce]

for me Russians are great danger in nuke issue...





http://www.ziyas.com/images/turkish/turkgenel.jpg

[Lokos]

Have the Russians ever used a nuclear weapon on anyone? No? So why would you think they're the danger? Because they've been kicking your ass for the last two centuries? Sorry, wait, I should be more PC.

'Because they've been in frequent conflict with Turkey over the last two centuries?'

Better, yes?

Lokos