France Unwraps the Nuclear Threat

[taks]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and i said it utlimately means the same thing... just not out in the open, which is all it takes to make my point: if bush put it out in the open he'd be chastised, which even you agreed to.

 

we have no reason to use them and the world knows it. there is no threat we can't currently contain without nukes... should iran and NK come up with a nuke, then you might see the US putting their words on the table. till then...

 

taks

[taks]

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.

funny, but i never use any of those words. i also don't EVER call people idiots or any of the above just because their opinion is different.

 

seems the liberal movement would rather assign name tags and insults than work out the issues.

 

Trouble is, they're all true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

such are the methods of liberals, eh?

 

taks

Edited January 21, 2006 by taks

[Commissar]

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.

funny, but i never use any of those words. i also don't EVER call people idiots or any of the above just because their opinion is different.

 

seems the liberal movement would rather assign name tags and insults than work out the issues.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Got me there. You guys are doing bang-up jobs on universal child healthcare, energy alternatives, tax relief for those who need it, deficit reduction, the promotion of the idea that certain rights aren't limited to certain groups, and keeping religion out of politics.

[Commissar]

and i said it utlimately means the same thing... just not out in the open, which is all it takes to make my point: if bush put it out in the open he'd be chastised, which even you agreed to.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is chastized for every announcement he makes, though. If nothing else, we can always fall back on remarking how he didn't manage to get through the speech without verbal folly despite his writing staff's deliberate use of small words. Or, as Dennis Miller put it, "Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, he said they had nucular weapons."

 

You can't just can't use the US as a yardstick. Too extraordinary a case. That said, something's not at all right about this not drawing any sort of commentary; if any nuke nation made any statement about their nukes, you'd think it'd get noticed. I'm surprised as hell that I first heard about this here, which makes me think something's up.

[Jack the Ripper]

Actually, I remember it being all over the blogs, Fox, CNN. I would agree that it was touched only briefly by the main stream media, but I think that's because a lot of the people of the world, excluding pacifists, agree with Chirac's sentiment. If a major attack occurs, sponsored and carried out by a foreign government, killing thousands of civilians, or if there is significant evidence that it will happen in the imminent future, pre-emption would most certainly be necessary. To most people, no matter their politics or nationality, that is a given.

 

During the Cold War, in fact, it was widely known that eastern and western Europe were holding guns to eachothers heads, just as the United States and the Soviet Union were doing so to eachother. Thus his comment was not surprising, and not controversial. If anything, it was nostalgic.

 

Now what made the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies controversial was the press coverage. Despite the fact that the reasons for the Iraq war mirror the reasons given for Chirac's warning, which I suspect was aimed at Iran, the press told us that the Iraq war was waged so that the United States could control Iraq's oil fields and oppress and indoctrinate innocent Muslims. Meanwhile, if Chirac threatens to nuke Iran, there's really no way that the press can spin the threat in ways that villify him as a corporate puppet or blood thirsty crusader.

 

Now, according to the press and his countrymen, Chirac is simply a patriot.

[~Di]

Actually, I remember it being all over the blogs, Fox, CNN.  I would agree that it was touched only briefly by the main stream media, but I think that's because a lot of the people of the world, excluding pacifists, agree with Chirac's sentiment.  If a major attack occurs, sponsored and carried out by a foreign government, killing thousands of civilians, or if there is significant evidence that it will happen in the imminent future, pre-emption would most certainly be necessary.  To most people, no matter their politics or nationality, that is a given.

 

Gotta disagree with you there. America suffered a major terrorist attack that killed thousands of people. Did the world unify and say, "nuke the s.o.b.s?" No, the world did not. In fact the world wrung collective hands, horrified at the possibility that the bloodthirsty USA might just be mad enough to commit such an atrocity. Meanwhile, the world gave limp sympathies from one side of its mouth while the other side repeatedly whispered that we had asked for it.

 

Now, according to the press and his countrymen, Chirac is simply a patriot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. That is what I found so blatant about the entire thing. I suspected that there would be little outrage if I posted it here, and I was correct. In fact, some folks even tried to take the focus off of Chirac's words and ... what a shock... yank Bush into the discussion. Others who would have gleefully dripped rabid drool into the conversation if this had been an American threat were quite conspicuous by their absence. If one person looks into this tiny slice of mirror and recognizes their own double standard and bigotry, then I can die a happy woman! I doubt that will happen, but hope springs eternal and all that cliched rot.

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[Lucius]

Gotta disagree with you there.  America suffered a major terrorist attack that killed thousands of people.  Did the world unify and say, "nuke the s.o.b.s?"  No, the world did not.  In fact the world wrung collective hands, horrified at the possibility that the bloodthirsty USA might just be mad enough to commit such an atrocity.  Meanwhile, the world gave limp sympathies from one side of its mouth while the other side repeatedly whispered that we had asked for it.

Oh give me a break, just because you've wasted whatever good will and sympathy there was by invading Iraq doesn't mean 'the world' (or 'Europe' as probably meant) wasn't there for you.

I remember being back in high school, and we were ****ing rooting for the US and its allies to bomb the **** out of Afghanistan and every friggin' muslim fundamentalist in the world, spending as much time as we could following the events on CNN in school.

No, I can't remember anyone I know saying you "asked for it" after 9/11, but since then you've pretty much hyped up the 9/11 attack to the point where Iraq suddenly was involved and 'the world' went "WTF does that have to do with anything?"

So no, in my opinion you didn't "ask for it", but you most certainly have asked for a lot of the anti-American bull**** that followed.

 

And get over Chirac for one bloody moment, of course there's some double standards at play here, it's not like France have actually invaded anything recently save perhaps for your Wine cellar. Ask yourself this, who would you be more afraid off?

[Chupacabra]

No, I can't remember anyone I know saying you "asked for it" after 9/11, but since then you've pretty much hyped up the 9/11 attack to the point where Iraq suddenly was involved and 'the world' went "WTF does that have to do with anything?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, not once did Bush or Fox News say Iraq was involved in 9/11. One of the cases they argued was that Saddam's regime had supported and financed terrorism, which was true.

[~Di]

Hit a nerve, did we? LOLOL. Must have, since you haven't even bothered to deny the double standard, but have justified it instead.

 

No, I don't think I'll get over Chirac's comments and the fact that most of the world turned a deaf ear to them any more than you plan to get over the fact that the USA invaded Iraq... an invasion, by the way, that I dispise even more than you do, if possible.

 

Bigotry is blinding, young sir, no matter how noble you feel the basis for it may be.

 

 

Edit: BTW, when you say "it's not like France has actually invaded something recently" you may want to discuss that with the citizens of the Ivory Coast, ok?

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[WinterSun]

...No, I can't remember anyone I know saying you "asked for it" after 9/11...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's probably because Denmark doesn't get attacked by terrorist groups funded by US citizens. I remember sh!t-loads of people saying that.

[Lucius]

Once the WMD's failed to show up, didn't Bush and co. cry about Saddam supporting Al Queda and thus 9/11?

[Lucius]

Hit a nerve, did we?  LOLOL.  Must have, since you haven't even bothered to deny the double standard, but have justified it instead.

More like fed up with your self-pity. You wasted your sympathy by invading Iraq, so don't start crying now.

 

No, I don't think I'll get over Chirac's comments and the fact that most of the world turned a deaf ear to them any more than you plan to get over the fact that the USA invaded Iraq... an invasion, by the way, that I dispise even more than you do, if possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Judging by how you post, old lady, I seriously doubt it.

[~Di]

Once the WMD's failed to show up, didn't Bush and co. cry about Saddam supporting Al Queda and thus 9/11?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. He just changed tactics and went back to the "supports terrorism" mantra, because Saddam had been proven to pay off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Bush never said Saddam either supported Al Qaeda (bin Laden and Saddam hated each other) or had squat to do with 9/11. You are not the first European to make that allegation, however, so one wonders about the media coverage over there.

 

Anyway, Bush can now say that Iraq harbors Al Qaeda with impugnity, since we kindly opened the borders and let them flood in. *sigh*

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[Chupacabra]

Once the WMD's failed to show up, didn't Bush and co. cry about Saddam supporting Al Queda and thus 9/11?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. Although there were links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, there was no collaboration between the two on 9/11, which Mr. Bush never claimed anyway.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Chupacabra

[Lucius]

Ok, so no such claim was ever made. That doesn't improve things much, though.

[BattleCookiee]

Gotta disagree with you there.  America suffered a major terrorist attack that killed thousands of people.  Did the world unify and say, "nuke the s.o.b.s?"  No, the world did not.  In fact the world wrung collective hands, horrified at the possibility that the bloodthirsty USA might just be mad enough to commit such an atrocity.  Meanwhile, the world gave limp sympathies from one side of its mouth while the other side repeatedly whispered that we had asked for it.

 

Double moral for us? How about you and the US-government. After 9/11 you guys got full support of the European people and governments to invade Afghanistan, since it housed the people that attacked your country.

 

But for some reason that support and government has been "lost" over time? Uh huh, maybe the revenge was already largely completed when there was an stupid "side-walk" allowing many Al-Quada to escape?

 

Don't confuse your oh-so-tiny (for good reasons) support for the War in Iraq with the major (for good reasons) support in Afghanistan.

 

And for the Americans who say "Bush didn't say so" why don't you look at your OWN media instead of going "European media" sucks right away. If so many report it in various countries over the continent, well, there has to be some truth in it, doesn't it. Or do dozens of country had a major scam written for the US to feed to their people for... eh, nothing?

 

And sofar I never heard people here say you deserved 9/11. Europe isn't Palestina mind you... but ofcourse you forget Iraq isn't Afghanistan, so it wouldn't be so hard to make that misconception...

 

And now for the "Why we totally do not care what Chirac says": Hello, it is France. It isn't like their is a chance that they actually gonna do it...

It isn't like people as Blair and such have said worse things that totally slipped the loop. Oops, such is the fate of being a leader of a "non-meaningfull" country not trying to predict "World-Freedom"...

If this comment was made by Putin, the Iranian president or the North-Korean it would have world-wide spread though, as they 'are capable of doing so'. Not just the US. But, well, they are clever and don't say things like this, and I don't have to tell you how "smart" your president is...

[Lucius]

That's probably because Denmark doesn't get attacked by terrorist groups funded by US citizens. I remember sh!t-loads of people saying that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Chupacabra]

And for the Americans who say "Bush didn't say so" why don't you look at your OWN media instead of going "European media" sucks right away. If so many report it in various countries over the continent, well, there has to be some truth in it, doesn't it. Or do dozens of country had a major scam written for the US to feed to their people for... eh, nothing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about instead you actually try to prove he did say it? Which I guaruntee you won't be able to.

[WinterSun]

That's probably because Denmark doesn't get attacked by terrorist groups funded by US citizens. I remember sh!t-loads of people saying that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand what you're getting at.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certain US citizens used to donate money to the IRA. They used this money to fund attacks on Britain. After 9/11 there was a general attitude of "now they know what it's like" over here.

[~Di]

Hey, if the European media said it then "there has to be some truth in it, doesn't it."

 

 

And I dare anyone to interpret this jewel: "Or do dozens of country had a major scam written for the US to feed to their people for... eh, nothing?"

[Rosbjerg]

it never fails .. when someone doesn't have an argument they begin with personal attacks..

 

 

and I'll just add that I agree with Lucius .. I still feel sympathy for the American public though, but I've lost faith in your ability to choose leaders long ago! still your choice though..

 

Denmark was very sympathetic towards US the years after 9/11, but statement after statement and conflict after conflict eroded that sympathy to the point where ,every one I know, only feels resentment (ranging from slighty to alot)..

Edited January 22, 2006 by Rosbjerg

[kirottu]

And for the Americans who say "Bush didn't say so" why don't you look at your OWN media instead of going "European media" sucks right away. If so many report it in various countries over the continent, well, there has to be some truth in it, doesn't it. Or do dozens of country had a major scam written for the US to feed to their people for... eh, nothing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about instead you actually try to prove he did say it? Which I guaruntee you won't be able to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You

[Jack the Ripper]

Gotta disagree with you there.  America suffered a major terrorist attack that killed thousands of people.  Did the world unify and say, "nuke the s.o.b.s?"  No, the world did not.  In fact the world wrung collective hands, horrified at the possibility that the bloodthirsty USA might just be mad enough to commit such an atrocity.  Meanwhile, the world gave limp sympathies from one side of its mouth while the other side repeatedly whispered that we had asked for it.

 

The difference is that the United States wasn't attacked or threatened by a sovereign nation like Chirac is warning against (Iran), it was attacked by a terrorist organization being fostered by a government that came to power by force, and financed by militant extremists all over the world. A nuclear weapon wouldn't have solved anything in terms of vengeance for the terrorist attacks on the United States. There's no reason to punish innocent civilians for the sins of only a few people, and instead the United States invaded Afghanistan, and today, the people of that nation are happy we did. Many people around the world, however, were not convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. They would rather that the world continued as it had with Hussein in power, for the only objections otherwise are that the United States is stealing Iraqi oil, which is not true, or that the United States is creating a puppet government in the middle east, which is also not true.

 

Indeed.  That is what I found so blatant about the entire thing.  I suspected that there would be little outrage if I posted it here, and I was correct.  In fact, some folks even tried to take the focus off of Chirac's words and ... what a shock... yank Bush into the discussion.  Others who would have gleefully dripped rabid drool into the conversation if this had been an American threat were quite conspicuous by their absence.  If one person looks into this tiny slice of mirror and recognizes their own double standard and bigotry, then I can die a happy woman!  I doubt that will happen, but hope springs eternal and all that cliched rot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Smart. :cool:

Edited January 22, 2006 by Jack the Ripper

[BattleCookiee]

How about instead you actually try to prove he did say it?  Which I guaruntee you won't be able to. 

 

Untill I find a better quote from Bush here's Rumsfeld claiming it

[kirottu]

How about instead you actually try to prove he did say it?  Which I guaruntee you won't be able to. 

 

Untill I find a better quote from Bush here's Rumsfeld claiming it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he