January 20, 2006

Has Chirac Grown A Pair?

He's certainly talking like a man who's had a testosterone injection. From the Washington Post:

PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. "This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind."

Zut alors! Chirac is actually threatening to nuke rogue terrorist states? Iran's Ahmadinejad must be shaking like a French soldier. Sorry, conditioned response...

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:12 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. Chirac is a "cowboy" now! Step aside George Bush, we have a new world's #1 terrorist! Good on you, Jaques!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 20, 2006 12:51 AM (8e/V4)

2 Ah, so this is why the French are planning uranium mines in Finland. (http://www.hs.fi/talous/artikkeli/Ulkomaiset+kaivosyhti%C3%B6t+etsiv%C3%A4t+uraania+Suomesta/1135218388748 if you have someone to translate)

Posted by: A Finn at January 20, 2006 02:04 AM (cWMi4)

3 Why don't you translate it for us, Finn? Since there is no snow and all this year and you don't have anything better to do.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 05:01 AM (rUyw4)

4 At least Chirac is chivalrous enough to let the states that sponsor terrorism get nuclear weapons of their own first. Otherwise, nuking a poor, defenseless terrorist sponsoring state would just be ungentlemanly. And what's with the statement: "The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction" Whatever happened to good old fashioned nuclear warfare where your first goal was to wipe as much of the other guy off the map as possible, before seeking some sort of resolution - you know, not show any restraint to get your point across that you're not to be trifled with? I guess baby steps are needed. Threatening to use military force is a new concept to the europeans.

Posted by: Graeme at January 20, 2006 06:49 AM (B8M+w)

5 After seing the french press labeling Dubya a terrorist so frequently, 'wonder if he's really threatening the US, and us bumpkins just don't get it.

Posted by: Cheapshot911 at January 20, 2006 08:15 AM (ZhE5D)

6 Be sure to get that all-important endorsment from the UN before nuking one of the members.... I suspect that none of us understand the true current situation of the Iran mess. What does Chirac know that prompted him to make such a statement? (or was it just a bad glass of wine)

Posted by: Fred Fry at January 20, 2006 09:11 AM (JXdhy)

7 I wonder who pissed off the Frenchies...

Posted by: PeaB0dy at January 20, 2006 09:44 AM (PQkyr)

8 This perfectly illustrates why the froggies are the most detestable people to ever live; they claim the right to self-defense, yet would deny it to us. They didn't complain too much when we saved their sorry asses twice in the last century. I hope france does get nuked, they deserve it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 20, 2006 10:54 AM (0yYS2)

9 And what will ChIraq do when his country is attacked by a "rogue" terrorist group in the name of Jihad, and not another country? He is so dense.

Posted by: Ariya at January 20, 2006 12:06 PM (uxW3N)

10 Chiraq has no intention to use a nuclear weapon (in response) for anything short of an attack with same or other WMD (with massive causualties) on French soil from a clearly defined nation/state source - and even then a same response would be questionable and open to debate. He said it only for posturing and bluster. There is something else going on here that everyone misses ... France no longer has the capability to mount overseas sustained conventional combat operations! Nukes are the only trick left in its bag of deterence/war fighting capabilities - and useless unless you 1)remind people you still have a few of them, and 2) remind people that you still think about using them.

Posted by: hondo at January 20, 2006 01:08 PM (3aakz)

11 Who are the French going to attack? I mean besides Jews....

Posted by: Steve Sharon at January 20, 2006 06:03 PM (vwqxT)

12 Good point, Steve!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 07:00 PM (rUyw4)

13 Steve, that's scary, but probably true. I'd say fwance will come in against Israel if they have to nuke Iran.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 10:17 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
22kb generated in CPU 0.0175, elapsed 0.1674 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1582 seconds, 262 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.