France vows to deploy nukes...

[cslewis]

... If attacked by terrorists.

France would use nuclear weapons against terrorism
By Elizabeth Pineau
Thu Jan 19, 10:57 AM ET
BREST, France (Reuters) - France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.

Deflecting criticism of France's costly nuclear weapons program, President Jacques Chirac said security came at a price and France must be able to hit back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act."

He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would consider using, in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to a nuclear submarine base in northwestern France.

"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind," said Chirac, the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

Chirac, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said all of France's nuclear forces had been configured with the new strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.

Chirac, 73, did not say whether France would be prepared to use pre-emptive strikes against a country it saw as a threat.

SECURITY TIGHT

France has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and experts believe it has some 300 nuclear warheads.

"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," Chirac said in his first major speech on France's nuclear arms strategy since 2001.

"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act."

France has tightened security since Islamist suicide bombers killed more than 50 people in attacks on London transport last July, and following the Madrid bomb blasts which killed more than 190 people in March 2004.

Despite its strong opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, France remains a target for Islamist militants because of its intelligence links with the United States and Britain.

Last July, national police service chief Michel Gaudin said a radical Algerian Islamist group, the GSPC, had been in contact with al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, about launching attacks in France.

France's Communist opposition party and disarmament groups said Chirac's comments were irresponsible.

"Far from ridding France of nuclear weapons, the president is, on the contrary, considering the actual use of nuclear bombs," the Sortir du Nucleaire group said.

Communist deputy Jacques Brunhes said Chirac's position was extremely dangerous: "It can only encourage states which have signed the non-proliferation treaty to opt for military uses of nuclear technology."

With the end of the Cold War, critics have questioned the use of the French nuclear deterrent, which accounts for some 10 percent of the overall defense budget.

Chirac's government is under pressure to cut spending as it struggles to bring its public deficit below the European Union's deficit limit of 3 percent of gross domestic product.

"Our country's security and its independence have their price," Chirac said.

:eek:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_3

[skunk]

"Ouaf! Ouaf!", as French dogs say.

[XNine]

Wow, France has grown balls, eh? Good to see. I think it's about time soemone stood up and said this. This ************ about attacking people jus tto terrorize them is getting on my nerves. Be a man, play by the rules of war. Dress in a uniform, carry a gun, and carry out your mission on a military, not civillians.

Then again this could be the undoing of the world. *sigh* the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[zimv20]

i wonder if the clock (http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm) will move.

this is a distressing development. what exactly constitutes, to chirac, a "terrorist attack", and by what standard is "any state that carried out a terrorist attack" measured?

had the july tube and bus bombings happened in paris with this new stance in place, would that have triggered a nuclear strike? i'd like to know if there is any historical attack which would have triggered a strike, and against whom.

[skunk]

i wonder if the clock (http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm) will move.

this is a distressing development. what exactly constitutes, to chirac, a "terrorist attack", and by what standard is "any state that carried out a terrorist attack" measured?

had the july tube and bus bombings happened in paris with this new stance in place, would that have triggered a nuclear strike? i'd like to know if there is any historical attack which would have triggered a strike, and against whom.Exactly. If this isn't empty posturing, what is it? Is Iran a "terrorist state" from the French point of view? If Iran struck, or was suspected of planning to strike, French interests, would Chirac really nuke Teheran? If OBL did, would he nuke the NW frontier?

[AP_piano295]

This is exactly the kind of thing terrorists want. Start losing your head, invading random non related nations and the terrorists are winning.

[Thomas Veil]

So in retaliation for a terrorist attack, France would nuke, say, Iran or Syria...including civilians who had nothing to do with it?

[solvs]

What's funny is, people look at Paris and think that's what France is like. That's like looking at L.A. or Hollywood and thinking that's what the whole USA is like. They have this perception of being liberal, but most of you would be surprised at what the country is really like. Just ask those kids who were rioting awhile ago. Which is partially why, despite their lack of involvement in Iraq, they are still a terrorist target.

But, yeah, posturing. I doubt they'll go all Hiroshima on Afganistan or Iran and kill all those innocent people because a group that has no affiliation with the gov attacks them. Least maybe they would go after the right country, unlike US! :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Wow, France has grown balls, eh? Good to see. I think it's about time soemone stood up and said this. This ************ about attacking people jus tto terrorize them is getting on my nerves. Be a man, play by the rules of war.

Perhaps they would if we would. Seeing as how we've taken the past half century to install and prop up nasty little dictators who will agree to be chummy with our conglomerates (etc., etc.), we're not exactly oppressing them with any sort of traditional warfare, guerilla or no.

Now I'm curious though. If the US executed one of those "kill the journalists" carpet bombings (like Bush wanted to do with Al Jazeera) on an AFP office, would we see Gallic fallout on Long Island?

[silverback66]

Bout time we started getting back to good old fashioned decisive warfare.

[Chaszmyr]

This seems like a dangerous threat. Saying they will deploy nukes as a retaliation of state-sponsored terrorists could provoke someone to make an attack appear to be sponsored by an enemy state. It reminds me of WWI. WWI essentially began because of an act of terrorism that was believed to be state-sponsored... As it turned out it was in fact state-sponsored to some degree, but the retaliation came before they really knew that, they could just as easily have been wrong.

[Chaszmyr]

So in retaliation for a terrorist attack, France would nuke, say, Iran or Syria...including civilians who had nothing to do with it?

Presumably terrorists (at least those in organizations like al Qaeda feel a strong attachment to their native people. This recent bin Laden tape, asking for a truce blah blah is in part to just try to make the US look unreasonable and evil, but it hints that Sept 11 might not have happened if bin Laden knew how sever the repercussions would be. Now, of course, it's too little too late because they will keep attacking us if they have the opportunity, because we are using our full force against them anyway.

[silverback66]

Hey did they ever confirm whether or not Zawahiri was found dead in that rubble? Maybe the Quieda's are running with their towels hanging soaked between their legs.

[Nickygoat]

Hey did they ever confirm whether or not Zawahiri was found dead in that rubble?
No (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4613108.stm) - just a few more villagers.
Maybe the Quieda's are running with their towels hanging soaked between their legs.
Not likely. Why would they?

[silverback66]

Well at least it's villagers who were helping Bin Laden to stay hidden in the region. Let that be a warning to the rest of em'.

As for the Quiedi's running....wouldn't you if you had drones with missles hunting you like the terminator?

[Peterkro]

Well at least it's villagers who were helping Bin Laden to stay hidden in the region. Let that be a warning to the rest of em'.

As for the Quiedi's running....wouldn't you if you had drones with missles hunting you like the terminator?

Jesus wept.

[silverback66]

Jesus wept.

for those lost without Christ, absolutley. He also died for em' too.

[Nickygoat]

Well at least it's villagers who were helping Bin Laden to stay hidden in the region. Let that be a warning to the rest of em'.
Where does it say the villagers were Al Qaeda?
As for the Quiedi's running....wouldn't you if you had drones with missles hunting you like the terminator?
Why should they run when they can't hit anyone from Al Qaeda? How many times have there been reports that Zawahiri or Bin Laden have been hit? They're still there.

[silverback66]

Where does it say the villagers were Al Qaeda?

Why should they run when they can't hit anyone from Al Qaeda? How many times have there been reports that Zawahiri or Bin Laden have been hit? They're still there.

I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.

[Peterkro]

I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.

So presumably you don't think September 11th 2002 was anything to have a fit over.

[Blue Velvet]

I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.


Destroy the village in order to save the village. :rolleyes:

And yet many of you wonder why you are so despised...

[Nickygoat]

I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.
You don't think that blowing up villages is slightly counterproductive? I'm aware that the US military has a skewed image of hearts and minds ops, but you would have thought that they would get the message after all these years.
Or that a lot of Islamists might feel the same way about Americans?
But we're way off topic now, and I'm off to Borough to get my breakfast.

[Peterkro]

You don't think that blowing up villages is slightly counterproductive? I'm aware that the US military has a skewed image of hearts and minds ops, but you would have thought that they would get the message after all these years.
Or that a lot of Islamists might feel the same way about Americans?
But we're way off topic now, and I'm off to Borough to get my breakfast.
Say hello to Gonzo(the whale)if you see him.

[Nickygoat]

Say hello to Gonzo(the whale)if you see him.
I'm not sure Applebees stand is big enough to take him :D

[zimv20]

So presumably you don't think September 11th 2002 was anything to have a fit over.
there were a lot of tributes that day, as i recall. and bush was banging the iraq war drum, but no, nothing too out of the ordinary.

:-)

[zimv20]

Destroy the village in order to save the village.
i don't think it's even that valiant. "take a pot shot and hope for luck, and **** anyone who was in the area."

i'm bearish on peace in my lifetime.

[Peterkro]

there were a lot of tributes that day, as i recall. and bush was banging the iraq war drum, but no, nothing too out of the ordinary.

:-)

I'm a bit crap at americanese but I thought he mean't "fit" as to be upset.

[zimv20]

I'm a bit crap at americanese but I thought he mean't "fit" as to be upset.
that's right. if my post doesn't make sense, check your date again.

[Peterkro]

Duh OK,I can only plead its 8.30 am and I've been up all night I'm guessing I got the date wrong.:)

[zimv20]

Duh OK,I can only plead its 8.30 am and I've been up all night I'm guessing I got the date wrong.:)
i'm just yankin' your chain a bit. no worries.

[Blue Velvet]

i don't think it's even that valiant. "take a pot shot and hope for luck, and **** anyone who was in the area."

Well, they're all heathen ragheads anyway. Doomed to the fiery pit so why not hasten their exit from the world?

[solvs]

Maybe the Quieda's are running with their towels hanging soaked between their legs.
Didn't you get banned for saying deplorable things like this? And what does this have to do with France? Besides the fact that they, like us in the situation you described, have become more like the people we so despise when we are willing to kill so many innocents because of the acts of some who don't even represent them.

[pseudobrit]

Hey did they ever confirm whether or not Zawahiri was found dead in that rubble? Maybe the Quieda's are running with their towels hanging soaked between their legs.

And you really think that al Qaeda are all just a pack of stupid towelheaded sandmonkeys, don't you?

Well I guess that's the image Bush wants the gullible masses to consume. Drink up!

[pseudobrit]

I didn't say the villagers were Al qaeda. What I was saying is that these villages along the border are the same ones that are harboring bin laden somewhere and so since they are essentially aiding the enemy I don't think what happened is anything to have a fit over.

Between this thread and iGary's (that you ruined) I've come to the conclusion that you lack the capacity to empathize with your fellow man.

I cannot respect that and I cannot respect you. I could respect your opinion, but lack of empathy is not an opinion. It's a psychological disorder.

[solvs]

I've come to the conclusion that you lack the capacity to empathize with your fellow man.
Why is it that those who talk the most about Jesus rarely actually act like him? Really, I'm not trying to bait anyone and lock another thread, but I seriously wonder that. Wouldn't a follower of Christ show his love of Jesus by being more like Jesus? I can't say I'm perfect, and my temper does get the better of me at times, but is it wrong to feel sorry for innocent people who died because of a mistake? Even if they are "the enemy"?

Especially if they are the enemy.

[Stella]

Funny those who are slagging off the French AND who are american.

This is exactly american policy, too, isn't it? ( if the usa is attacked by a nuclear weapon, it will do the same to the aggressing country )

You cannot attack terrorists with nuclear weapons ( I'm sure French know this ) - but you can attack terrorist *countries*.

[Nickygoat]

Funny those who are slagging off the French AND who are american.

This is exactly american policy, too, isn't it? ( if the usa is attacked by a nuclear weapon, it will do the same to the aggressing country )

You cannot attack terrorists with nuclear weapons ( I'm sure French know this ) - but you can attack terrorist *countries*.
It's probably an attempt by Chirac to try and steal some of Sarkozy's thunder. Chirac is desperately worried that his chosen successor, De Villepin at the moment, will be soundly thumped by Sarko when Chirac steps down. Playing tough to a domestic audience is one of the parts of this.
At least that's what my mates in Paris tell me.

[silverback66]

Didn't you get banned for saying deplorable things like this? And what does this have to do with France? Besides the fact that they, like us in the situation you described, have become more like the people we so despise when we are willing to kill so many innocents because of the acts of some who don't even represent them.

No, I got banned for calling someone an a#@hole who insulted people that I care about. As fro us becoming like the terrorists....wow, you're way out there aren't you? It's called war dude and we ought to be even more viscious in our attacks.

[silverback66]

Between this thread and iGary's (that you ruined) I've come to the conclusion that you lack the capacity to empathize with your fellow man.

I cannot respect that and I cannot respect you. I could respect your opinion, but lack of empathy is not an opinion. It's a psychological disorder.

Well feel free to block my posts if you don't like them. Otherwise quit whining Because frankly, I don't respect you or your opinion so yur words are basically irrelevant..

[silverback66]

Why is it that those who talk the most about Jesus rarely actually act like him? Really, I'm not trying to bait anyone and lock another thread, but I seriously wonder that. Wouldn't a follower of Christ show his love of Jesus by being more like Jesus? I can't say I'm perfect, and my temper does get the better of me at times, but is it wrong to feel sorry for innocent people who died because of a mistake? Even if they are "the enemy"?

Especially if they are the enemy.

Innocent and enemy in the same breath? You're out there man.....you're so far left you fell off the map! Don't worry, there's a pile of your friends over there to break your fall. As for Christianity, sure I should be more "loving" to you guys but when you mock what I believe regardless of how it's presented and attack me on virtually everything I say it somehow makes me disinclined to play nice. Go figure. What goes around comes around eh gov?

[Ugg]

Innocent and enemy in the same breath? You're out there man.....you're so far left you fell off the map! Don't worry, there's a pile of your friends over there to break your fall. As for Christianity, sure I should be more "loving" to you guys but when you mock what I believe regardless of how it's presented and attack me on virtually everything I say it somehow makes me disinclined to play nice. Go figure. What goes around comes around eh gov?


So you're an ideological christian only then and have given up on the teachings of your god in favor of attacking those who don't follow your beliefs. That's what is so sad about religion in America today, it's more about suppression of the enemy than love and justice. Hmmm, that's a lot like communism isn't it? Hope you get what you so truly want.

[aquajet]

No, I got banned for calling someone an a#@hole who insulted people that I care about.

It doesn't matter anymore. Let's just try to not get another thread shut down.

[silverback66]

It doesn't matter anymore. Let's just try to not get another thread shut down.

I agree.

[silverback66]

So you're an ideological christian only then and have given up on the teachings of your god in favor of attacking those who don't follow your beliefs. That's what is so sad about religion in America today, it's more about suppression of the enemy than love and justice. Hmmm, that's a lot like communism isn't it? Hope you get what you so truly want.

No I'm human and not perfect in my faith and when people are abrasive jerks I respond. I know I ought to turn the other cheek, but there's so damn many of you that I've run out of cheeks to turn and so now I go for the jugular.

[Ugg]

No I'm human and not perfect in my faith and when people are abrasive jerks I respond. I know I ought to turn the other cheek, but there's so damn many of you that I've run out of cheeks to turn and so now I go for the jugular.

You had some time off for calling me a rather rude name. Since you've been back your rudeness has persisted, although so far it hasn't gone to the point of no return. Why? Don't you think that civil discourse is important? Isn't that what your god tried to convey that despite our differences we should all get along? I really find it hard to deal with someone who spouts off on religion the way you do and yet are less civil than those who confess to no religion.

Is it just anger? I'm really trying to understand, so help me out a little.

[silverback66]

You had some time off for calling me a rather rude name. Since you've been back your rudeness has persisted, although so far it hasn't gone to the point of no return. Why? Don't you think that civil discourse is important? Isn't that what your god tried to convey that despite our differences we should all get along? I really find it hard to deal with someone who spouts off on religion the way you do and yet are less civil than those who confess to no religion.

Is it just anger? I'm really trying to understand, so help me out a little.

Of course it's anger. I'm merely doing unto others what others have done unto me. I apologize for calling you the name I did, but it was quite rude what you said regarding my two friends and it made me very upset. I would gladly return to a civil discourse if those of you who don't agree with me would cut out the reamarks insulting my faith at every opportunity and if we could merely have an exchange of ideas rater than insults. I'm capable of being very reasonable but it will all depend upon how I'm treated here. I will treat you in the same way you treat me.

[Ugg]

Of course it's anger. I'm merely doing unto others what others have done unto me. I apologize for calling you the name I did, but it was quite rude what you said regarding my two friends and it made me very upset. I would gladly return to a civil discourse if those of you who don't agree with me would cut out the reamarks insulting my faith at every opportunity and if we could merely have an exchange of ideas rater than insults. I'm capable of being very reasonable but it will all depend upon how I'm treated here. I will treat you in the same way you treat me.

For the record, I simply doubted what you claimed your friends had said. Since it's unverifiable, I'm still skeptical.

The old testament has a lot of hate and bigotry in it, I can't imagine any modern christian using it as a basis for their actions. Somehow I doubt that jesus would approve.

You've said that your interest in religion is quite recent and I'll be honest with you, it's very apparent. Your enthusiasm is based on your emotions and that's great because we all need to be enthusiastic, but there's a difference between enthusiasm and zealotry. Perhaps toning down some of the more outrageous claims you make might make people take you more seriously. You come across as young and not knowing your own mind and you back up your statements with rumors and hearsay, which doesn't lend credence to your arguments.

Debate has its rules just like any other human activity and respect is the single most important rule of them all.

[silverback66]

For the record, I simply doubted what you claimed your friends had said. Since it's unverifiable, I'm still skeptical.

The old testament has a lot of hate and bigotry in it, I can't imagine any modern christian using it as a basis for their actions. Somehow I doubt that jesus would approve.

You've said that your interest in religion is quite recent and I'll be honest with you, it's very apparent. Your enthusiasm is based on your emotions and that's great because we all need to be enthusiastic, but there's a difference between enthusiasm and zealotry. Perhaps toning down some of the more outrageous claims you make might make people take you more seriously. You come across as young and not knowing your own mind and you back up your statements with rumors and hearsay, which doesn't lend credence to your arguments.

Debate has its rules just like any other human activity and respect is the single most important rule of them all.

I'm not here to argue. I'm simply stating what I believe. Besides with every valid argument I make yourself and others look for whatever excuse possible to invalidate it. When I do the same for what you present I get hypocritical excuses about why yours is valid and mine is not. I' done with that game. I'll present my opinions and the manner in which I do so will contniue to depend upon the manner in which you treat me. Give more respect, get more respect. I get the impression from your statements that you think Chrsitians are supposed to be nice and gentle. Try reading some John Eldredge or Brennan Manning. You may have a different view of Christians after than.

[Ugg]

I get the impression from your statements that you think Chrsitians are supposed to be nice and gentle. Try reading some John Eldredge or Brennan Manning. You may have a different view of Christians after than.

There are plenty of christians who are bad people, of that there's no doubt. That they would pervert their religion to further their goals is simply a sign of their lack of humanity. What does jesus have to say about that?

[silverback66]

There are plenty of christians who are bad people, of that there's no doubt. That they would pervert their religion to further their goals is simply a sign of their lack of humanity. What does jesus have to say about that?

and yet these are the very same people who go out and feed the hungry and clothe those who are cold. these are the same people who travel around the world often at their own expense to dig wells for villages in Africa and to vaccinate the people against fatal but preventable diseases. These are the same people who comfort widows and send massive supplies to area like New Orleans.

I can tell you exactly what Jesus said with regards to what you mentioned and frankly Christians who engage in that might be shocked to hear it:

1"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[takao]

Offtopic: we're talking about christianity again ? besides france being a catholic country i don't see why we need to talk about that again ? how about some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility ?

ontopic: i'm with NickyGoat on the topic: very likely a stunt in domestic politics...i see no other reason because the international backslash was kinda obvious

that aside France always stood to their nuclear weapons.. i still remember the uproar about their tests in the pacific

[Ugg]

ontopic: i'm with NickyGoat on the topic: very likely a stunt in domestic politics...i see no other reason because the international backslash was kinda obvious

that aside France always stood to their nuclear weapons.. i still remember the uproar about their tests in the pacific

I agree that it's a domestic ploy to win over voters especially in wake of the riots. Sort of a warning shot over the bows of any suspected Islamists in France as well.

Yeah, those tests along with all other nuclear tests have destroyed a lot of prime real estate.

fI think what is potentially worrying about this is France's position outside of NATO. Along with the no vote to the EU Constitution. I'm wondering if some kind of "go it alone" movement is gaining ground in France.

On a side topic, does anyone know of any good English language, on-line French newspapers?

[Peterkro]

There's a few on this site,second row first column,I'm trying to find a english version of Liberation can't find yet:

http://www.thebigproject.co.uk/news/

Actual if you look around on that site there are online translations of others including Liberation.

[mactastic]

Isn't it France's right to deploy nukes if attacked? Hell, isn't it their right to use tactical nukes as first-strike weapons if they are threatened by a terrorist?

[takao]

fI think what is potentially worrying about this is France's position outside of NATO. Along with the no vote to the EU Constitution. I'm wondering if some kind of "go it alone" movement is gaining ground in France.

actually i'm not so sure about such a thing... the no on the constitution was mostly a big "no" for chirac and not for europe... a lot depends on the axis Berlin and Paris

it's nowhere near the situation in the UK where a lot of people are still missing their own Empire and can't get over it... (at least that's my observation) and now with the shift to a stronger central europe away from the west it gets even worse

for the NATO: while still being important it is still mostly a US centric thing (from the austrian non-NATO viewpoint) and with further EU integration i simply don't see a future in it.. it's a relict from the cold war

[Ugg]

it's nowhere near the situation in the UK where a lot of people are still missing their own Empire and can't get over it... (at least that's my observation) and now with the shift to a stronger central europe away from the west it gets even worse

for the NATO: while still being important it is still mostly a US centric thing (from the austrian non-NATO viewpoint) and with further EU integration i simply don't see a future in it.. it's a relict from the cold war

The UK's ambivalence or even antagonism towards the EU is going to bite them in the butt if they don't get a handle on it. Straddling the fence between the US and the EU isn't going to get them anything but a pair of sore bollocks.

I too wonder about the future of NATO. I can't see any need for it in its present form. Putin seems to be heading towards economic power more than military power. The only real justification for NATO is for the US to keep its finger in the pie. I think the EU would be better by sorting out its own defensive needs. A common defense would quickly lead to a common foreign policy and would avoid the acrimony the has resulted from Iraq.

[Nickygoat]

Isn't it France's right to deploy nukes if attacked? Hell, isn't it their right to use tactical nukes as first-strike weapons if they are threatened by a terrorist?
Yes it is their right to use them if attacked. But if they're attacked by Al Qaeda itself who do they retaliate against? Bin Laden is a Saud, Zawahiri is Egyptian, their main base was Sudan, then Afghanistan, and now, probably, South Wasiristan in Pakistan. They have huge support in all those countries, and growing. The London bombings were by British born Muslims, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a suicide attack on France would be home grown (large Muslim populations in Marseille and Paris). If it's an attack concocted and launched from St Denis what is the French government supposed to do? Blow up northern Paris?
France's main danger is from Algerian extremists (GIA, and far worse the Salafists - the GSPC). If France were to be attacked again by the Algerian groups and retaliated with nuclear weapons the response would be magnified a hundredfold.
France is not exempt from Muslim anger about Iraq and Israel but it's threats were self imposed after it's conduct in Algeria, which have never really been resolved.
The UK has a similar problem in Ulster but the difference is that the Irish haven't resorted to suicide bombings, nor do they have ideological support outside of Ireland.

[mactastic]

Yes it is their right to use them if attacked. But if they're attacked by Al Qaeda itself who do they retaliate against? Bin Laden is a Saud, Zawahiri is Egyptian, their main base was Sudan, then Afghanistan, and now, probably, South Wasiristan in Pakistan. They have huge support in all those countries, and growing. The London bombings were by British born Muslims, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a suicide attack on France would be home grown (large Muslim populations in Marseille and Paris). If it's an attack concocted and launched from St Denis what is the French government supposed to do? Blow up northern Paris?
France's main danger is from Algerian extremists (GIA, and far worse the Salafists - the GSPC). If France were to be attacked again by the Algerian groups and retaliated with nuclear weapons the response would be magnified a hundredfold.
France is not exempt from Muslim anger about Iraq and Israel but it's threats were self imposed after it's conduct in Algeria, which have never really been resolved.
The UK has a similar problem in Ulster but the difference is that the Irish haven't resorted to suicide bombings, nor do they have ideological support outside of Ireland.
I know, I'm just amused that the same crowd that says it's OK for the US to have nukes (not to mention ongoing nuclear weapon development) yet doesn't like anyone else having or using them.

[Nickygoat]

I know, I'm just amused that the same crowd that says it's OK for the US to have nukes (not to mention ongoing nuclear weapon development) yet doesn't like anyone else having or using them.
When did I say I agreed with nuclear weapons? Far better to use that money running Special Forces (proper elite units - not the ones the DOD calls Spec Ops), and use them wisely.
Anybody having nukes is a bad idea, be they Iranians or the US.

[EGT]

Why do I bother with the CND membership?

:(

[garybUK]

Yes it is their right to use them if attacked. But if they're attacked by Al Qaeda itself who do they retaliate against? Bin Laden is a Saud, Zawahiri is Egyptian, their main base was Sudan, then Afghanistan, and now, probably, South Wasiristan in Pakistan. They have huge support in all those countries, and growing. The London bombings were by British born Muslims, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a suicide attack on France would be home grown (large Muslim populations in Marseille and Paris). If it's an attack concocted and launched from St Denis what is the French government supposed to do? Blow up northern Paris?
France's main danger is from Algerian extremists (GIA, and far worse the Salafists - the GSPC). If France were to be attacked again by the Algerian groups and retaliated with nuclear weapons the response would be magnified a hundredfold.
France is not exempt from Muslim anger about Iraq and Israel but it's threats were self imposed after it's conduct in Algeria, which have never really been resolved.
The UK has a similar problem in Ulster but the difference is that the Irish haven't resorted to suicide bombings, nor do they have ideological support outside of Ireland.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was a lot of 'ideological' support from the US over the IRA.

[skunk]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was a lot of 'ideological' support from the US over the IRA.Ah, but that was different.

[OnceUGoMac]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was a lot of 'ideological' support from the US over the IRA.


Most Amerians know little of the IRA and I've met a few that support them, but most Americans that know about the situation don't support it.

[Sayhey]

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was a lot of 'ideological' support from the US over the IRA.

So if I follow this line of thinking .... would it be ok for the brits to nuke Boston? :eek:

[Stella]

Ah, but that was different.

I think your not being serious here ( different in italics ).

.. anyway, it brings me to my point - america says they don't support terrorists... riiiiight.


Many times ( before the N.I cease fire ) Jerry Adams, leader of Shinfane - then a terrorist organization ( actually it was the political wing of the IRA ). ( JA would attend funerals of IRA members... ) would be invited to the white house by the current president of the usa and fund raising events...

How is that not supporting terrorism?

[Sayhey]

I think your not being serious here ( different in italics ).

.. anyway, it brings me to my point - america says they don't support terrorists... riiiiight.


Many times ( before the N.I cease fire ) Jerry Adams, leader of Shinfane - then a terrorist organization ( actually it was the political wing of the IRA ). ( JA would attend funerals of IRA members... ) would be invited to the white house by the current president of the usa and fund raising events...

How is that not supporting terrorism?

It's actually Sinn Féin (http://www.anphoblacht.com/) and to reduce it to the phrase "a terrorist organization" is to make a caricature of a very complex political situation. As someone who has supported the cause of Irish republicanism all my adult life, as well as opposed the bombers, I think to start off by buying into these labels is to start off on the wrong foot. I would say the same thing about any so called "terrorist" organization. It not just a case of condemning actions that hurt innocent civilians, as important as that is, it is also about understanding what these folks are really all about. The IRA, Sinn Féin, the Protestant militias, the DUP, the UUP and many others have all made profound errors in the way they have fought each other. The question becomes how does one construct a society in which they can live in peace without outside forces, mainly British, trying to control their destiny. Meeting with Adams and Sinn Féin to bring that about isn't supporting "terrorism;" it's dealing with the reality of Northern Ireland.

In the case of al Qaeda, they have not only killed thousands of innocents, but also want to construct an Islamic world of narrow minded bigotry, enslavement of women, and religious intolerance. How does someone negotiate with that? I don't think it is possible to come to a "meeting of minds" with an ideology stuck in the 8th century.

[OnceUGoMac]

I think your not being serious here ( different in italics ).

.. anyway, it brings me to my point - america says they don't support terrorists... riiiiight.


Many times ( before the N.I cease fire ) Jerry Adams, leader of Shinfane - then a terrorist organization ( actually it was the political wing of the IRA ). ( JA would attend funerals of IRA members... ) would be invited to the white house by the current president of the usa and fund raising events...

How is that not supporting terrorism?

What a load of crap.

Bush wasn't in office when the ceasefire took place, Clinton was. It's Gerry Adams and Sinn-Fein, not Jerry Adams or Shinfane. As for when Gerry Adams vistited the White House, it was because Clinton (of Irish descent) wanted to push for a ceasefire in N.I. Get your facts straight next time.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/gerry_adams/?offset=60&s=oldest&

In Fact, the current President excluded Gerry Adams from the White House.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/18/ira.mccartneys/

[solvs]

Innocent and enemy in the same breath? You're out there man.....you're so far left you fell off the map... As for Christianity, sure I should be more "loving" to you guys but when you mock what I believe regardless of how it's presented and attack me on virtually everything I say it somehow makes me disinclined to play nice. Go figure. What goes around comes around eh gov?
When did I mock you? I'm religious too BTW, but I practice what I preach. Doesn't mean I don't angry, like when I'm calling someone on their BS, but I can't show empathy towards innocents caught in the crossfire of a war? I felt bad for those in the Twin Towers and the planes on 9/11, I feel bad for the people who are just sitting around at home minding their own business trying to live their lives and we bomb them because we made a mistake. I understand this is a war, but I still feel bad. That's what you do when you know that these people are just that... people. Even if they are "the enemy". Notice the quotes BTW. That means that I'm being sarcastic. The average Pakistani citizen is no more responsible for the evil that is commited by the terrorist than the average American citizen is responsible for the atrocities commited by the American gov. Less so, because they didn't vote for the terrorists. Which is why if France (or if we) did this, it would be reprehensible and irresponsible. We would be terrorists, and hiding behind the guise of war doesn't make it any better. A real Christian would understand that, as would anyone with a modicum of decency.

What goes around, comes around... don't remember that in the Bible.

[mactastic]

When did I say I agreed with nuclear weapons? Far better to use that money running Special Forces (proper elite units - not the ones the DOD calls Spec Ops), and use them wisely.
Anybody having nukes is a bad idea, be they Iranians or the US.
I never accused YOU of any such thing for sure. I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

I was speaking more of certain elements in the US... some of our more hawkish conservatives.

[Stella]

You knew who I was talking about - so what if I got the spelling wrong, oh Pedantic you are.

Before telling me that my post is crap - I suggest you read posts correctly - where did I say BUSH?!!!! I didn't, I said the president AT THE TIME!!

Nevertheless shinefane ( sic ) were a terrorist organization, just like all the other groups. If you disagree with me - then fine - I'm entitled to my opinions.

Complex the suitation was.

The British government was absolutely right in talking to Sinn-Fein, secretly, because the situation was never going to sort itself out. Unfortunately the wave of terror in NI still hasn't finished - with so called Punishment beatings. At least the IRA have started destroy their weapons.



What a load of crap.

Bush wasn't in office when the ceasefire took place, Clinton was. It's Gerry Adams and Sinn-Fein, not Jerry Adams or Shinfane. As for when Gerry Adams vistited the White House, it was because Clinton (of Irish descent) wanted to push for a ceasefire in N.I. Get your facts straight next time.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/gerry_adams/?offset=60&s=oldest&

In Fact, the current President excluded Gerry Adams from the White House.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/18/ira.mccartneys/

[cslewis]

My poor, poor thread. :(

[Stella]

removed.

[aquajet]

My poor, poor thread. :(

There there, mac_head. Don't feel bad. There seems to be a lot of sabotage around here lately. ;)

[OnceUGoMac]

Before telling me that my post is crap - I suggest you read posts correctly - where did I say BUSH?!!!! I didn't, I said the president AT THE TIME!!


No, you said: ( JA would attend funerals of IRA members... ) would be invited to the white house by the current president of the usa and fund raising events...

Also, Gerry Adams wasn't invited to the White House for fundraising, as I pointed out in my last post, he was invited to negotiate a peace treaty.

How is that not supporting terrorism?

If you call inviting the representative of one of the sides of a conflict into the White House for peace negotiations supporting terrorism, you're clearly ignorant of the facts or delusional.

Nevertheless shinefane ( sic ) were a terrorist organization, just like all the other groups. If you disagree with me - then fine - I'm entitled to my opinions.

I agree that the I.R.A. and Sinn-Fein are terrorist organizations. Where did I say that they weren't?

[Stella]

The terrorist, Adams has visited the states on more than one occassion. I clearly remember he went to fund raising events too. For example:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DD143DF93AA25750C0A963958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fA%2fAdams%2c%20Gerry

Thus, americans giving money to terrorist organizations.

Yes, I did say the current president - was Bush the current president *at the time* when GA last visited, No. I meant , at the time of the visit. OK, you could have taken that the wrong way, I should have worded it better.


No, you said:
I agree that the I.R.A. and Sinn-Fein are terrorist organizations. Where did I say that they weren't?

When did I say you??? A posting can be also general as well as quoting to reply.

You must not take posts so personally.



This thread is getting sooo off topic ( I apologise for helping to take it off topic ), so won't be coming back, to this.

No, you said:

Also, Gerry Adams wasn't invited to the White House for fundraising, as I pointed out in my last post, he was invited to negotiate a peace treaty.



If you call inviting the representative of one of the sides of a conflict into the White House for peace negotiations supporting terrorism, you're clearly ignorant of the facts or delusional.



I agree that the I.R.A. and Sinn-Fein are terrorist organizations. Where did I say that they weren't?

[OnceUGoMac]

The terrorist, Adams has visited the states on more than one occassion. I clearly remember he went to fund raising events too. For example:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1DD143DF93AA25750C0A963958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fA%2fAdams%2c%20Gerry

Thus, americans giving money to terrorist organizations.


I agree with you on this point. There are some Americans that sponsored Sinn-Fein, but those few don't peak on behalf of the rest of us nor our government. Take care.

[mactastic]

My poor, poor thread. :(
There, there... you can always start another one.