Chirac: we will use nuclear bombs

[Bernie Gunther]

My understanding is that many of the key technicians are also employees of US corporations, which raises further questions about our 'independent nuclear deterrent'

 

[Pilgrim]

My understanding is that many of the key technicians are also employees of US corporations, which raises further questions about our 'independent nuclear deterrent'

Exactly.

Our nuclear deterrent is, in practical terms, NOT independent.

It suits successive governments to say that it is, as it enables the UK to keep up the fiction that we are still a major power. In reality, we are no more than a medium power at best. Nukes are a way of keeping us at the 'top table' internationally speaking.

Not that a lickspittle like Blair might be wiling to do George's bidding, in the unlikely event that the US wanted to make a first strike without taking any flak for it...

 

[magneze]

Jesus, so Bush has his finger on the British nukes. If that's not a reason to get rid of them, I don't know what is.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

trouble is Bush does say the same, quite regularly actually.

as for the envy, no way

the anger yes

He has said the same thing, and I thought that was one of the reasons you hated him.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I thought the prevailing wisdom around here was that the way to end terrorism was to understand and alleviate the root causes, not to blow the terrorists and their families back to the stone age.

But here's chirac, voicing favour for the neanderthal approach.

How very american of him, eh?

 

[TAE]

Perhaps Chirac was talking to Bush.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

I think the French feel threatened by American supra christianity and ever encroaching muslim fundamentalism and would prefer a social model of government. They would pay dearly for this and nuking has to be a possibility. The crazy image the French have abroad has been cultivated and goes hand in hand with their clever diplomacy.

 

[mauvais]

Is the full text of what he said available anywhere? I don't quite get it. Alright, he was at a nuclear base, and he spoke about terrorism and non conventional retaliation... so err, is that the best we have for assuming he's going to nuke the terrorists?

It seems to me like he was trying to justify the maintenance of the nuclear arsenal - much like Blair, only we don't seem to care - to a domestic audience. Unless he said something else I haven't read, he didn't say anything specific about using them. It seems like either a very clever or very stupid bit of politicking; bluster without the actual bluster.

Unconventional retaliation could mean anything; maybe he'll put the terrorists in a great big pie, who knows...

 

[oi2002]

The Rude Pundit comment on DC's response:

At yesterday's State Department briefing, when spokesperson Sean McCormack was asked about the speech, he responded straight from Scott McClellan's script: "[D]ecisions and actions that involve use of force and the military are the greatest decisions any leader can take in defense of a country and defense of a people. But those decisions are for that country to make and those leaders to make." McCormack said he hadn't seen or heard about the speech, so it would have been easy to say, "Dunno." But then he wouldn't have been offering an ass slap to the administration's policies.

I read that as JC go, hubba, hubba, hubba.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With the Femur of a Dead Sudanese Child, is also worth a look.

 

[camouflage]

Thank God idiots like you are to dumb to vote.

Can you imagine if Bush said something similar? Threads never ending, aramageddon in the near future, everyone trying to paint the historical similarities of George Bush and Adolf Hitler

Chirac says it and no one around here pays attention, jokes are made.

All America all the time.

Pure envy and anger.

Then there is the report by Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer, in the August 2005 issue of the American Conservative which reveals that Vice President Dick Cheney has instructed Pentagon to prepare itself for a massive air assault against some 450 sites in Iran if a second 9/11 event takes place in the US. Alarmingly, the plans for the air assault is reported to include the use of tactical nuclear strikes against the fortified Iranian nuclear plants which are deep underground. This scenario would decisively break a 60 year taboo in the West on using nuclear bombs.

Giraldi's report, unchallenged by the Bush administration, should be taken very seriously by the anti-war and peace movement all around the world in particular in the light of the latest videotape by Bin Laden who has pledged a new attack against the US.

link

No doubt when the US nukes Iran, Britains leadership will have it's nose right up there in that yankee-crack, and all the same cunts that were so keen to go into Iraq because of Saddams imminent full scale bio-nuclear invasion of Everywhere Else will come out again, jerking themselves off furiously at the prospect of once again standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our good friends across the pond as we bugger the Islamic Republic up with generous portions of UnavoidableCollateralDamage in pursuit of Freedom&Democracy again.

Smashing their democracy in the 50's wasn't enough, now we must nuke. Looking forward to the next terrorist attack on American soil eh, kind of like a starting gun really. Interesting nobody cares about the terrorist attacks taking place in Iran recently, backed by the usual 'curiously indistinct agencies' whose activities aren't really worth reporting on.