Comments on: Naughty Jacques

By: joe

joe — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:25:53 +0000

How about a 2 for 1.

Set off a small nuclear device some where in france, leaving a clear trail back to Iran.

Then let the french act.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:08:01 +0000

“The Greens’ defense expert.” Yes, it has that charming oxymoronic purity that I saw recently on a restaurant menu – “Vegan Delight”.

By: Kevin Peters

Kevin Peters — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:55:03 +0000

Roger:

Empty talk. The Mullahs act. The West talks about acting.

By: Daniel in Brookline

Daniel in Brookline — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:01:47 +0000

I think waterdragon52 has the right idea. Threatening to nuke a state that sponsored a terrorist attack is, basically, an empty threat. It’s always possible to say that we don’t really know where an attack came from; terrorists cultivate that ‘deniability’, giving France an escape clause any time she needs one. Chirac’s a smart cookie.

Some of his colleagues, on the other hand, are not:

“We have to convince these countries that their situation isn’t going to get any better if they possess nuclear weapons,” Schockenhoff told Reuters in Berlin. “I don’t think Chirac’s approach is really the best way to lead this debate and to increase pressure on Iran.”

The naivete in this statement would be funny, except that I suspect he actually means it. You want to persuade rogue regimes and terrorist sponsors not to develop nuclear weapons? Over herbal tea, perhaps? With a few hundred million Euros under the table for seasoning?

Personally, I think that threatening Iran with nuclear attack is an excellent way to “increase pressure on Iran”. It’s unfortunate that Chirac didn’t really mean it, and won’t really do it.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

By: OJ

OJ — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:52:49 +0000

The rhetoric coming out of Paris has little to do with international nuclear policy. IN the face of drastic budget deficits and calls for reduced spending on the military (nukes take up 10% of French military spending) Chirac has needed a way to justify his nuclear deterrent for a while…

What better way to do this than to suggest a wmd strike by terrorists on French soil. Clearly, if terrorists were to acquire a wmd capability, France would likely be far down on the list of preferred targets.

By: ShoreMark

ShoreMark — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:36:24 +0000

“Or is it praying mantises?”

I see Neo-NeoCon, that you can express volumes in a few words after all

By: Terrye

Terrye — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:03:24 +0000

I wish I could remember who said this, but a few years ago I heard someone say that if Paris Illinois was attacked the French would demand that the US immediately go to the UN for recourse…whereas if Paris France was attacked some city in the Muslim world would be a smoldering heap before the dust settled in Paris.

Maybe there is truth to that.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:46:11 +0000

A glitch in the preview system for me, too, by the way, and I don’t use Macintosh.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:45:07 +0000

Actually, the greens’s defense policy features the heavy use of ladybugs.

Or is it praying mantises?

By: Jamie Irons

Jamie Irons — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:05:47 +0000

Roger,

There appears to be a glitch in the preview function of your new commenting software, at least for a user who (like me) employs the Macintosh version of Firefox.

Jamie Irons