I's sure the British press will rip into Chirac, at least i hope they do.

No no, I just made a lighter post in mist of all this seriousness. Please carry on with your discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was teasing you in what I had intended to be a mild and light-hearted manner. Please don't think that was meant to be a serious rebuke.

 

I's sure the British press will rip into Chirac, at least i hope they do.

 

See, there's the thing... I'm looking at the BBC website and I do not see a single, solitary mention of this. I kid you not.

Seriously, I'd think this would be a real gasp-grabber throughout Europe, but... silence.

 

Eh, maybe the USA papers were the last to pick the story up and it's been old news for days over there. I dunno. Still seems peculiar to me.

I'm also surprised about the conspicuous lack of BBC coverage. I would assume the tabloids will have a go after all a corrupt boorish bully of a politician is an easy target.

No no, I just made a lighter post in mist of all this seriousness. Please carry on with your discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was teasing you in what I had intended to be a mild and light-hearted manner. Please don't think that was meant to be a serious rebuke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Bad kirottu, bad, bad kirottu" Kinda tipped me.

 

I wonder if Chirac is pissed. Something in the lines of "What the hell I have to do to get into international news? When Putin said the same thing everyone was talking about it. Mon dieu!"

I would really like to see the guy from The Professional (Leon) face off against Janet Reno. That would be epic.

 

Hearing all this talk about Nuclear retaliation makes me think of Fallout. I'm pretty sure this type of reaction to terrorism would be a great catalyst for a bit of apocalypse. Time to stock up on the ju-ju fruits.

stevethaibin and i have some fundamentally different ideological viewpoints (though we've never had any "hate" debates... just differing views).  so when i offer him a compliment about a reasoned response, it's likely not sarcastic.

I always try to be reasonable. But yes, we do tend to disagree. If only you'd see sense...

@SteveThaiBinh: I thought France prided itself (and look, rightly so) as being a pacifist nation, preferring diplomacy over force if at all possible.

I do see what you mean, but I think 'pacifist' isn't the best word. Just because a government wishes to exhaust all diplomatic means before using force, or doesn't see force as necessary in a particular case, doesn't mean it won't countenance force at all. France has used its military power often enough, in Africa and south-east Asia in particular, and the Vietnamese and Algerians for example would be surprised to hear France described as a pacifist country.

I figured I could get away with it because despite the fact that I obviously love my country, I've made no bones about the fact that I dispise the Bush adminstration.  Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, after all.

oh i know... i'm well aware of your positions. truth be known, i'm not a bush fan myself, though i regularly find myself defending him against similar hypocrisy and outright lies simply because nobody else will (er, not many, at least). i just tend to find the other "side" even more reprehensible... sort of a lesser of two evils thing.

 

taks

Haven't heard of it.

Haven't heard of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was pretty much my point.

in answer to your first question, a definitive no, di, the world would not react the same way to bush as they have done with chirac.

 

even in this thread nobody seems to point out the hypocrisy other than you.  very telling.  had it been bush, all the usual suspects would be in here screaming for his head.  but alas, there is silence.

 

as it turns out, bush ain't the only leader in the world concerned about terrorists.  he's also not the only one that thinks they cannot be bargained with, and the failure of the big three to convince iran to back down is certainly no surprise if you believe the latter statement true.

 

but the rest of the world and their media cohorts are prevented from making note of these global facts as they have to protect their "USA bad" ideology at all costs.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You and I were on a roll for a while, agreeing and so forth.

 

Then you go and swallow the kool-aid from the Fox News mug like this.

My actual formal response to the topic in question is this:

 

First of all, you guys are making it sound like Bush has taken the possibility of utilizing nukes in the GWOT off the table. He's never done so. Do I think the world would flip out if he said something along the lines of this? Likely. Do I think it's hypocritical of the world not to flip out over Chirac doing so? Yes and no. I could be wrong, but I don't believe France has significantly utilized its military since Dien Bien Phu, whereas we've gone to war twice in the last five years. There are also enough French surrendermonkey jokes around to make any threat of the use of force, anywhere in the world, absolutely ludicrous, whereas we have no problem intervening when we see a need - and for the record, I think we should do more of it. In other words, it's a bit like the Dutch threatening to use their navy - they could theoretically do it, but no one believes it'll ever happen. Does that justify ignoring it? Not by a long shot.

 

I said in another thread about the negotiations with Iran that the reason Europe's not going to be able to get much done is because it doesn't have the stick part of the compromise equation, only the carrot. They've got nothing to make Iran seriously listen to them, and you can't negotiate without some sort of clout. This could be France pulling the only real club it has from its bag and having a swing.

The lack of international news coverage about this story is enlightening, IMHO!

 

Chirac: Nuclear Response to Terrorism Is Possible

 

"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..."

 

It's a lengthy article, so I won't post it all here.  First, what do y'all think about it?  Is it a bluff?  Is it a threat? 

 

And most interesting of all, do you think the world stage would be this quiet about such a threat/bluff if it was George W. Bush making it? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

dam hypocrite french

Then you go and swallow the kool-aid from the Fox News mug like this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure what i swallowed from fox... i read other sites, often, as a matter of fact. typical foreign opinion is "US bad, bush cowboy, bad too, US bad again, just for spite." it's silly, actually. and even worse in here.

 

taks

First of all, you guys are making it sound like Bush has taken the possibility of utilizing nukes in the GWOT off the table.  He's never done so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but he's also never said they're a possibility... that's what we're talking about. i don't think anybody is foolish enough to think that a superpower doesn't contain the threat of nuclear force behind it's words... they (uh, we) just have to be tactful enough not to put them in front. the point then, is that when chirac puts such thoughts out on the table, nobody whimpers, but if the US does it, all hell will break loose. you even mildly agree with that assumption.

 

taks

France can say whatever it wants to say. The first country to launch a pre-emptive strike via nuclear weapons will be the one to shoulder the blame, and I don't think it'll be France.

I's sure the British press will rip into Chirac, at least i hope they do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only if its in our interests to. Since its against terrorism, Blair even may support it - although I certainly hope not. I imagine that soon enough, he'll make some speech saying how the EU must stand together and blah blah blah.

 

If he suggests/drags us into another war though, no one will back him. I don't think anyone trusts that lying idiot of a Prime Minister any more. The sooner we're rid of him, the better. I've yet to see Blair grow any balls.

France can say whatever it wants to say.  The first country to launch a pre-emptive strike via nuclear weapons will be the one to shoulder the blame, and I don't think it'll be France.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't think anybody is saying france will do anything... the point is that they said they could.

 

taks

i love it how anybody that has a different opinion or ideology is automatically either lying, stupid, or both.

 

thank gawd i didn't vote for that lying moron kerry... otherwise i'd be blamed of the same thing!

 

taks

at least its not as bad as invading iraq for oil "

 

oh and don't worry about france saying what they want because they always do

i love it how anybody that has a different opinion or ideology is automatically either lying, stupid, or both.

 

thank gawd i didn't vote for that lying moron kerry... otherwise i'd be blamed of the same thing!

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny that one who voted for a ****kicker cowboy for President would call anyone "moron".

 

As for the French, we don't really listen to them, what Chirac said was stupid but c'mon, he's a notoriously arrogant man and noone really believes him. If Bush had said the same thing, it would have been different simply due to the fact that the US launched at least three invasions in the middle east within 15 years.

Edited January 21, 200620 yr by Lucius

As for the French, we don't really listen to them, what Chirac said was stupid but c'mon, he's a notoriously arrogant man and noone really believes him. If Bush had said the same thing, it would have been different simply due to the fact that the US launched at least three invasions in the middle east within 15 years.

Which in fact means you give more credit to Bush's words than Chirac's. It's ironic considering that France is supposed to be one of the European countries spearheading diplomatic efforts. Does that mean that in the end, everyone knows that the whole pacifism discourse is just BS? "

As for the French, we don't really listen to them, what Chirac said was stupid but c'mon, he's a notoriously arrogant man and noone really believes him. If Bush had said the same thing, it would have been different simply due to the fact that the US launched at least three invasions in the middle east within 15 years.

Which in fact means you give more credit to Bush's words than Chirac's. It's ironic considering that France is supposed to be one of the European countries spearheading diplomatic efforts. Does that mean that in the end, everyone knows that the whole pacifism discourse is just BS? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do give more credit to Bush words than Chirac's... Don't you? I mean, do you really take that pompous prick Chirac seriously? I don't.

 

I place more faith in Germany in regards to peace, even though it might sound ironic.

Edited January 21, 200620 yr by Lucius

The lack of international news coverage about this story is enlightening, IMHO!

 

Chirac: Nuclear Response to Terrorism Is Possible

 

"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..."

 

It's a lengthy article, so I won't post it all here.  First, what do y'all think about it?  Is it a bluff?  Is it a threat? 

 

And most interesting of all, do you think the world stage would be this quiet about such a threat/bluff if it was George W. Bush making it? 

He's out of his ****ing mind. If terrorism is to be included in MAD theory none of us have very long to live.

 

I take it what he means is : If a small govermment with no intercontinental missiles choses to target France with a dirty bomb/missile. And there is no doubt where and from whom it originated. France will retaliate in kind.

 

Isen't the distinction that 'movements' do terrorism, Goverments do war.

Edited January 21, 200620 yr by Gorgon

First of all, you guys are making it sound like Bush has taken the possibility of utilizing nukes in the GWOT off the table.  He's never done so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but he's also never said they're a possibility... that's what we're talking about. i don't think anybody is foolish enough to think that a superpower doesn't contain the threat of nuclear force behind it's words... they (uh, we) just have to be tactful enough not to put them in front. the point then, is that when chirac puts such thoughts out on the table, nobody whimpers, but if the US does it, all hell will break loose. you even mildly agree with that assumption.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, come on. Saying, "We're not ruling out their use," is exactly the same as saying they're a possibility.

i love it how anybody that has a different opinion or ideology is automatically either lying, stupid, or both.

 

thank gawd i didn't vote for that lying moron kerry... otherwise i'd be blamed of the same thing!

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By Jove, Taks, I think you've just figured out politics!

 

Don't forget "heartless" when discussing universal child healthcare, "short-sighted" when discussing energy, "greedy" when discussing taxes, "dumber than an Arkansas stripper" when discussing the deficit, "homophobic" when discussing civil rights, and "fanatical" when discussing church and state.

 

Trouble is, they're all true.