Article

2006-01-19 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-01-19 07:59|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I got to give to Chirac this is I think the first time I have heard him say anything that I think our pres should be saying but donât have the stomach to say.

I think Chirac seeâs the writing on the wall Phase 4=Iran and the Iranianâs have along time seen their ability to war with the west in a conventional war hopeless, from that they long ago realized terrorism was their weapon to match the west. This will be interesting we of course will be target number one but Europe has a huge problem all the way up to large scale revolt. France literally could see Baghdad in Parris.

Posted by C-Low 2006-01-19 08:33|| 2006-01-19 08:33|| Front Page Top

#2 If Iran uses a nuke, it would be against Isreal. That way, all the Muzzies would join them, and Iran would assume control over the ME. They might also toss one at our forces in Iraq, wrongly thinking that large scale body counts will cause the US to withdraw.

Posted by wxjames 2006-01-19 08:59|| 2006-01-19 08:59|| Front Page Top

#3 This is absolutely something that I think our President *shouldn't* say. It is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of terrible weakness.

We are already in brinksmanship situation, and everybody involved knows it. The Iranians who created the situation not only *meant* to create a nuclear standoff, they are either crazy enough to think they can "get away with it", or worse, that the 12th Mahdi is going to save their sorry asses.

Now is *not* the time for imflammatory speeches of any kind--look what that has done for Iran's President--costing him all sorts of advantages and support internationally, with nothing to show for it. All just so he could bluff and bluster like a big man. He traded all sorts of valuable goodwill and support for 30 seconds of applause. Idiot.

All the while, the White House has been six to nine months in extremely quiet, but intense prepartations: figuring out every possible strategy to cool down the situation and get Iran acting responsibly; to calculating every possible war contingency imagineable. Without a single damn press release. No bragging, the most minimal threatening.

War is diplomacy through other means, but war also means that your diplomacy has failed. Some times this is inevitable, if your enemy is determined to fight; but often it just means you diplomatically didn't try hard enough--or that your hawks wanted war just as much as did your enemy.

Look at our strategy. We win if we can get *any* of the following to happen:

1) Iran behaves itself, allows IAEA inspectors and stops trying to make nukes. Nuclear energy is fine--a point the Iranians pretend is in contention.
2) The leadership in Iran proves so unbalanced that it is overthrown in a coup, and whoever replaces it is more moderate or willing to deal.
3) Iran itself becomes so unstable that its leaders must focus on keeping their country together instead of menacing the rest of the world.
4) If they do attack, they do it at a time, place, and with a means chosen by us, and before they are ready. Conversely, when our defenses are fully prepared and we can counter their every move. That through their diplomatic blunders, or through our diplomatic finesse, they lose support throughout the world, we gain allies to fight against them, and even those opposed to war decide to be neutral instead of standing against us.

And *none* of these would be helped in any way if our President shot his mouth off like Chirac.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-01-19 09:29|| 2006-01-19 09:29|| Front Page Top

#4 French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.

Sounds like a throwaway line to me. A terrorist attack against Phrance is not likely to be something directly launched by a "state".

..Mr Chirac said leaders of states who would "use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and adapted response from us".

Okay then, if an Al Qaeda operative managed to conduct a successful terrorist operation in, say, Paris, that claimed a large number of lives or resulted in significant destruction, which "state" would Phrance's response be directed at?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-19 09:30|| 2006-01-19 09:30|| Front Page Top

#5 French President Jacques Chirac has said France would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state which launched a terrorist attack against it.

Not to worry, Jacques. Any terrorist attack against France will come from its own "citizens." Nice show of spine, though!

Posted by BH 2006-01-19 09:32|| 2006-01-19 09:32|| Front Page Top

#6 But, but, but you can't hug your child with nuclear arms!

Posted by Whinemp Unogum4891 2006-01-19 09:39|| 2006-01-19 09:39|| Front Page Top

#7 We will nuke them in the banlieues, we will nuke them in Marseilles, we will nuke them in Nice.

Posted by Winston Chirac 2006-01-19 09:54|| 2006-01-19 09:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Chirac knows that Phrance is on the verge of becoming totally irrelevant. He thinks that by flaunting his nukes that maybe someone will pay attention to him. They may have some viable weapons around but I question what delivery systems they could be used on. I donât think that Phrance has the global reach to carry this threat beyond the puddle right next to them. Ok Jacque, take off the fake cajones and go back to your room.

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2006-01-19 10:24|| 2006-01-19 10:24|| Front Page Top

#9 France has 4 boomers with with 16 MIRVed missiles each, as well as IRBMs that can reach Iran.

Posted by ed 2006-01-19 10:47|| 2006-01-19 10:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Cyber Sarge

First: It is cojones not cajones.

Second: From memory the missiles in France's boomers have a range of 2,500 miles and independent reentry warheads. Read the details in the Jane's.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-01-19 10:49|| 2006-01-19 10:49|| Front Page Top

#11 I'd kinda like to see a successful test launch of one of La Belle France's vaunted nuclear deterrent missiles before I start shaking in my boots, please.

Talk is cheap, Jack. Whiskey costs money.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-01-19 10:51|| 2006-01-19 10:51|| Front Page Top

#12 Okay then, if an Al Qaeda operative managed to conduct a successful terrorist operation in, say, Paris, that claimed a large number of lives or resulted in significant destruction, which "state" would Phrance's response be directed at?

"[A]ny state which launched a terrorist attack against [France].' Which may take days to find out, weeks to verify, and months to really make sure. But Phrawnce can be brutal when it comes to applying violence outside their borders.

Posted by Pappy 2006-01-19 11:00|| 2006-01-19 11:00|| Front Page Top

#13 This simply does not take into account the standard scenario of a state slipping a nuke to terrorists in a deniable manner, which is what we're saying Saddam would have done if he had a nuke, and what we're saying Iran will do if they get a nuke. Chirac is postulating a scenario in which no sane dictator, and most insane ones, would let themselves be caught. What a weasel.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-19 11:02|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-19 11:02|| Front Page Top

#14 A previous RB post had terrorists threatening oil supplies in addition to Iran already having nuclear capable missiles from neighboring states and piecemeal Khan technology sharing, and now a new Binny tape surfaces with a conditional truce attached....Chirac sounds like he's responding to nuclear blackmail. Didn't think he had it in him.

Posted by Danielle 2006-01-19 11:09|| 2006-01-19 11:09|| Front Page Top

#15 I doubt if it'd take weeks or months. We'd pinned 9-11 on Binny within 24 hours of the attack.

Posted by Fred 2006-01-19 11:32|| 2006-01-19 11:32|| Front Page Top

#16 First: It is cojones not cajones.

Maybe ol' Jacques really does have fake boxes....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-19 12:12|| 2006-01-19 12:12|| Front Page Top

#17 I agree with Anonymoose. Its a sign of weakness on Frances part. Its like kids on a playground. Everyone knows who the big kid on the block is - so he doesn't need to anyone. Its the average to pip-squeak kids that need to shout and wave thier arms trying to scare the other kids to leave them alone.

Also - what in the hell prompted this statement now????

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2006-01-19 12:12|| 2006-01-19 12:12|| Front Page Top

#18 Actually, that business of white flags ("white cross on a white field") as a French battle ensign isn't that far from the historical truth.

In the 18th century French battalions carried two flags into battle, the regimental flag "d'ordonnance", issued by the King, with all sorts of designs on them, and the colonels flag, intended to represent the presence of the colonel. The colonels flags were typically white with a white cross, or often just plain white. Really.

Posted by buwaya 2006-01-19 12:28|| 2006-01-19 12:28|| Front Page Top

#19 My bad, I forgot they still had boomers. I was thinking of air assets. BTW do they have their boomers deployed or are they sitting in port getting overhauled?

Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge 2006-01-19 12:35|| 2006-01-19 12:35|| Front Page Top

#20 The gold cross on white (which from a distance looked all white) flag was also the Crusaders emblem at Jerusalem.

Posted by ed 2006-01-19 12:36|| 2006-01-19 12:36|| Front Page Top

#21 Nightly car count musta gone up or somethin.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-19 13:16|| 2006-01-19 13:16|| Front Page Top

#22 But Phrawnce can be brutal when it comes to applying violence outside their borders.

They probably could be, but what's the chance of that happening?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-19 13:20|| 2006-01-19 13:20|| Front Page Top

#23 If the Muzzies knew Chirac was for real this might be a good idea. The problem is that he let France's own Muslims burn Paris and did nothing. So what are the odds of him suddenly growing balls and carrying through?

On the other hand if the Islamics knew we would nuke the Kaabaic Mecca if attacked on US soil, ya think the camel herders might think twice about going after us again?

Posted by IceRigger 2006-01-19 13:40|| 2006-01-19 13:40|| Front Page Top

#24 In the Crusaders' time, making fabric truly white took a major effort, and often enough wasn't possible at all. That's why white is the colour of purity throughout "Christendom" and the Ummah, and why the Madonna is shown dressed in white, pale blue and silver. In those days, white was when you cared enough for the very best.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-19 13:53|| 2006-01-19 13:53|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm not sure what the response would be to a mass casualty conventional weapons attack. It wouldn't be technically difficult to assemble the makings of the WWII blockbuster, position several of them around a major city, and boom them all at once. The results might approach those of a small nuclear weapon, and would robably cause more casualties than a large scale gas attack.

...I have heard a story that very early on the morning of 9/12, the President asked for an estimate of the amount of energy released in the airliner crashes and the WTC collapse - that is, did it equal that of a tactical nuclear weapon. He got two different answers, so that decision was put aside for the time being.
The thing to keep in mind here is that it was THAT close. If there's a next time, it may not matter - the birds will fly.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-19 14:57|| 2006-01-19 14:57|| Front Page Top

#26 My best guess is that Phrance is making with the saber rattling as part of it's acceptance into the coalition. When the flag goes up, we need fighters, but until then, we need blusterers, and Jacks might make Iran dig itself. We ease in behind Jacks as if standing united. Looks good, might work. In any event, Jacks gets to look tough and he becomes a team player for a pleasant change.

Posted by wxjames 2006-01-19 15:08|| 2006-01-19 15:08|| Front Page Top

#27 I did that calculation once. If I did it correctly, 1 million tons falling an average of 600 feet comes out to the energy of about 100 tons of TNT.

Posted by ed 2006-01-19 15:17|| 2006-01-19 15:17|| Front Page Top

#28 Their are only 2 nations this is directed at. One is nuclear already and one is pre nuclear.

Their appears to be no doubt in Jacques' mind that the most dangerous one is really close to having them. Much closer than what is out for public consumption. That nation is going to use them when they get them. It's not going to be nuclear blackmail or used a deterent when this nation gets weapons. Chirac's epiphany that the leaders of this certain regime are crazy as shit house rats is what intersting.

The reason that Bush hasn't ever said anything like this is he doesn't have to. This is a long standing policy of the United States of America. Messages like this get delivered on a personal level. Saddam got one more than once I am sure.

When Kimi went missing in China I questioned myself at the time. Was he having a meeting with members of the MM regime?

Posted by Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom 2006-01-19 15:59|| 2006-01-19 15:59|| Front Page Top

#29 My guess is that once EU3 gave up on negotiations, Iranians have demanded that Jacques return their bribe money.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-01-19 18:36|| 2006-01-19 18:36|| Front Page Top

#30 I think Chirac's comments show just how hot this situation has become. No more talk of nuance, he's cranking the shotgun, hoping the sound of it will make the bad guy think twice before climbing in the window.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-19 21:03|| 2006-01-19 21:03|| Front Page Top

23:37 DMFD
23:15 RD
23:12 .com
23:12 Inspector Clueso
23:07 Rafael
22:46 Zhang Fei
22:18 CaziFarkus
22:11 trailing wife
22:01 trailing wife
21:49 trailing wife
21:38 trailing wife
21:34 Bomb-a-rama
21:32 trailing wife
21:25 Ol Dirty American
21:20 Alaska Paul
21:18 Alaska Paul
21:18 SR-71
21:16 Alaska Paul
21:16 Angie Schultz
21:15 Lone Ranger
21:11 2b
21:03 2b
20:55 49 Pan
20:47 Bobby