France warns of nuclear retaliation - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cowperson · 01-20-2006, 08:19 AM

President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons to a state-sponsored terrorist attack, broadening the terms of his country's deterrence in the face of emerging threats.

"Nuclear deterrence ... is not aimed at dissuading fanatic terrorists," Chirac said in a speech delivered at the L'Ile-Longue nuclear submarine base in the western region of Brittany.

"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 fitting response from us," he said. "This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature."

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html

Cowperson

transplant99 · 01-20-2006, 08:24 AM

Can you imagine if Bush had made such remarks about "another" form of retaliation than something conventional...against terrorist harboring/boosting states??

Chirac seems even more "right" on the political spectrum than Bush and his cronies, yet seems to get carte blanche freedom to do and say what he wants without the world piling on him.

Strange.

Flame On · 01-20-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can you imagine if Bush had made such remarks about "another" form of retaliation than something conventional...against terrorist harboring/boosting states??

Chirac seems even more "right" on the political spectrum than Bush and his cronies, yet seems to get carte blanche freedom to do and say what he wants without the world piling on him.

Strange.

So they're both dicks.

Cowperson · 01-20-2006, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame On

So they're both dicks.

On this topic at least, they're both absolutely correct and if that makes them dicks so be it.

Cowperson

transplant99 · 01-20-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

So they're both dicks.

Fine...so why is only one villified beyond anything seen before?

It's just odd to me is all.

And really...imagine the worldwide outcry if it was the US leader that made these comments. Why does Chirac get to say it? He is just as nuclear capable as the US.

Plus he has a history of disrespecting the Muslim tradition....he supported a movement to ban women from wearing their hijabs.

Mike F · 01-20-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Can you imagine if Bush had made such remarks about "another" form of retaliation than something conventional...against terrorist harboring/boosting states??

How wide is the gap between this, and Bush's talk of developing "mini-nukes" to be deployed somewhat broadly, and his stance when questioned about the use of nuclear weapons that America would not take any options off the table, and would use any means it felt necessary to defend itself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why does Chirac get to say it? He is just as nuclear capable as the US

Not condoning the difference, but when is the last time France attacked someone?

The same threat from Bush would garner more outcry because it would stand as much more likely to occur.

TheyCallMeBruce · 01-20-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowperson

On this topic at least, they're both absolutely correct and if that makes them dicks so be it.

Cowperson

Hear hear.

transplant99 · 01-20-2006, 08:52 AM

Quote:

The same threat from Bush would garner more outcry because it would stand as much more likely to occur.

BS.

If it was "more likely", why didn't it happen?

Never did he single out terrorist states (IE mid-east/muslim dominated countries) as a target either.

And since the US WAS attacked, and there was absolutely no threat of nuclear retaliation...I think you can answer the nonsensical question yourself.

Flame On · 01-20-2006, 08:56 AM

Transplant what do you care what the world thinks of Bush or what ratio of outcry there is over his comments? You know that the US is the biggest fish in the pond anyway, so when bush says something which is perceived badly it's going to reach more ears than Chirac.
And CP although I tend to agree that's still only just your opinion and it's possible for them to be right and dicks.

transplant99 · 01-20-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Transplant what do you care what the world thinks of Bush or what ratio of outcry there is over his comments?

I dont care what the world thinks of Bush. Truly could not care less.

However, it's quite important to understand that although they are the biggest fish in the pond, they are niether the most dangerous nor the only one to be concerned with. In fact i would think that they are WAY down the list. Its the same reason terrorists got away with so much for so long until 9/11.

If things like this aren't dealt with seriously and at the time they happen...the results can be catastrophic.

Much like N Korea's wingnut. The pervailing attitude seems to be, "just leave him alone and all will be fine". I happen to believe that preventative measures are much more effective and save more lives than reactionary ones.

The same may be said for what is going on in Iran...just cant allow these guys to have free reign to make threats when they do have, or are close to possessing nukes.

One other difference? Bush has 2 years left in office. Period. He will be replaced. Others? Not necessarily.

Igottago · 01-20-2006, 09:44 AM

How effective are remarks like these, really? In a way, I think its just egging them on. For example, why would Iran or North Korea drop their nuclear development programs, when clearly, western powers are able to flex their nuclear muscle? Strategically, wouldn't they want that kind of power too? And in the case of state-sponsored terrorism, are the terrorist groups really willing to think about nuclear retaliation, or would they even care? I mean, they're obviously willing to die themselves in order to make their point.

Table 5 · 01-20-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fine...so why is only one villified beyond anything seen before?

We don't need to vilify the French any more. The whole world already hates them anyway.

transplant99 · 01-20-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

We don't need to vilify the French any more. The whole world already hates them anyway.

LOL...fair enough.

Hack&Lube · 01-20-2006, 11:03 AM

Well, at least the French aren't surrendering right away anymore.

GrinderMac · 01-20-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Much like N Korea's wingnut.

Blasphemy!!

Good discussion. As far as Chirac...his sabre is a wee bit smaller and definately no where near Bush league.

I've given up listening to, counting on, or caring about anything out of France years ago.

FlamesAddiction · 01-20-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrinderMac

Blasphemy!!

Good discussion. As far as Chirac...his sabre is a wee bit smaller and definately no where near Bush league.

I've given up listening to, counting on, or caring about anything out of France years ago.

I agree his sabre is smaller, but France is not a weak country by any means. When it comes to the ability to project power globally, France in among the strongest.

They are also a very hard country to defend, regardless of power. Certainly harder than the U.S., and has been attacked many more times in its history than the U.S. Such things build a culture with a principle of fierce retalliation for when it feels threatened. The U.S has this same principle, but maybe not a vocal. Israel is the same way.

Otto-matic · 01-20-2006, 05:45 PM

What we need is a Jack Bauer and CTU

GrinderMac · 01-20-2006, 05:57 PM

I understand the point you're making, from my perspective, I fear not Chirac, the French Gov't, nor their mighty armed services. What does scare me is that the French would start something they couldn't finish and the US will have to bail them out, yet again. The US owes France....absolutely nothing, period.

RougeUnderoos · 01-20-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrinderMac

What does scare me is that the French would start something they couldn't finish and the US will have to bail them out, yet again. The US owes France....absolutely nothing, period.

You'll have to remind me of what France started and the US bailed them out of.

I don't think anyone said the US owes France anything and after the hysterical response to France's stance on the Iraq war, I can't imagine they would expect anything.

CaptainCrunch · 01-20-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You'll have to remind me of what France started and the US bailed them out of.

I don't think anyone said the US owes France anything and after the hysterical response to France's stance on the Iraq war, I can't imagine they would expect anything.

Vietnam, the American's practically funded and armed the French Military as they struggled to leave that wretched place.