>This is from a column by George F. Will of the Washington post, printed in this morning's edition of the Louisville Courier-Journal:
>
>On "This Week," Villepin was asked: Given that Saddam Hussein has said that his mistake was invading Kuwait before he acquired nuclear weapons, do you now believe that Israel was right to bomb the reactor outside Baghdad and that France was wrong to help build it? French diplomacy has sunk to this Villepin gaseousness:
>
>"I think you cannot remake history. You can take lessons, you can imagine different scenarios. I don't think it's possible, today, definite answers. I think that the idea of preemptive strike might be a possibility. Have it as a doctrine, as a theory. I don't think it is really useful. Sometimes by using force preemptively we might create more violence and we have to be always thinking to what are the consequences."
>
>1. Can someone please tell me what he is talking about?

The article mentions gaseousness (from the meanings mentioned in www.dictionary.com, "Lacking substance or concreteness; tenuous or indefinite" seems the most appropriate translation in this case). I have the impression that the person interviewed doesn't want to make a clear commitment. About the only thing of value is to "think about the consequences" - of course, this is always a good idea. The remainder of the reply, he seems to be "talking around in circles", so to speak, probably to avoid giving a clear reply.

>2. Does Saddams wishing he had a nuclear weapon before invading Kuwait not scare everyone?

It scares me if ANY country has nuclear weapons. There is no guarantee that the leaders of any country in the World will always take responsible choices in this respect. And the mere fact of having them is - whether you plan to use them or not - is perceived as a threat by others.