France warns of nuclear retaliation

[Jake]

I don't understand the logic behind killing several hundred thousand innocent people (+ the millions who would be impacted in the future) as a retaliation to a terrorist attack. Find the people responsible and punish them, not every single person in an entire nation.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

Well, for one, a lot of people tend to see Bush (especially in the world outside of the US) as a warmonger.

Bush Invaded Iraq, a lot of people disagreed and still do, but he took a step that most foriegn leaders didn't do.

That is probably the main reason why there would be a lot more outcry from people than the Chirac comments. Not to mention, this is probably getting a little more play in France than it is over here.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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

France didn't gain anything from it. The U.S. went in for their own interests.

[CaptainCrunch]

France gained several billion in military aid, it also gave them a escape route that they didn't have before.

Did America go in for thier own reason, absolutely, after France completely bungled thier role in Vietnam and needed a bailout from the States.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

France gained several billion in military aid, it also gave them a escape route that they didn't have before.

Did America go in for thier own reason, absolutely, after France completely bungled thier role in Vietnam and needed a bailout from the States.

That whole thing doesn't exactly sound like a "we bailed them out of something they couldn't finish" scenario. You aren't bailing someone out if you keep paying for them to stay involved and for the next 20 years keep yourself embroiled in the situation even if the guy you "bailed out" is long gone.

[Jayems]

Anyone see those french army artifacts on ebay?

Had a french rifle
- Never used, dropped once.

And the tank?
- 1Forward gear, 6 in reverse!

oooohhh...


Oldies... i know... i know...

[CaptainCrunch]

I respectfully disagree Rouge (don't we always), at the time that the American's started funding the French Military actions in Vietnam, the French were still deeply routed in the defense of RC4, RC 1, and R3 the triangular section of roads that linked Hanoi with Cao Bang. Lang Son and Mong Cal. The French wanted to continue to fight the war and protect thier interests in the country, however the continual rotation of area commanders (I think 4 were outright dismissed for incompetance) the loss of lives especially involving both thier french foreign legion and elite parachute brigades and the loss of valuable supplies and weapons to the enemy were slowly bleed the French White. However they wanted to continue fighting the war on thier terms and the American's bailed them out with an enormous amount of money and weapons support including the American manufacture of french m-24 (I think) tanks for almost no charge. It wasn't until later in 1954 after the French were clobbered in the battle of Dien Dien Phu that the French finally decided to basically take thier ball and go home leaving the American's to clean up what was a French created unwinnable situation.

By the time the American's hit Vietnam, they were basically fighting an established and dug in enemy who had validated thier tactics against a similar foe, had most of the high grounds in the country and were ready for what was coming. I've always said that the American's should have stayed out of Vietnam not for political reasons but tactically I don't think they could have won the war without going to extremes that are beyond barbaric. However I think that if the American's had not gone into Vietnam, they would have never been forced to restructure thier military get rid of the draft and refine thier tactics.

Anyways I digress.

Sorry

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Anyone see those french army artifacts on ebay?

Had a french rifle
- Never used, dropped once.

And the tank?
- 1Forward gear, 6 in reverse!

oooohhh...


Oldies... i know... i know...

But as classic as the older one

The french military was sent to a small african nation to provide peacekeeping duties and keep two warring tribes apart. They surrendered Paris in 4 days.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respectfully disagree Rouge (don't we always), at the time that the American's started funding the French Military actions in Vietnam, the French were still deeply routed in the defense of RC4, RC 1, and R3 the triangular section of roads that linked Hanoi with Cao Bang. Lang Son and Mong Cal. The French wanted to continue to fight the war and protect thier interests in the country, however the continual rotation of area commanders (I think 4 were outright dismissed for incompetance) the loss of lives especially involving both thier french foreign legion and elite parachute brigades and the loss of valuable supplies and weapons to the enemy were slowly bleed the French White. However they wanted to continue fighting the war on thier terms and the American's bailed them out with an enormous amount of money and weapons support including the American manufacture of french m-24 (I think) tanks for almost no charge. It wasn't until later in 1954 after the French were clobbered in the battle of Dien Dien Phu that the French finally decided to basically take thier ball and go home leaving the American's to clean up what was a French created unwinnable situation.

By the time the American's hit Vietnam, they were basically fighting an established and dug in enemy who had validated thier tactics against a similar foe, had most of the high grounds in the country and were ready for what was coming. I've always said that the American's should have stayed out of Vietnam not for political reasons but tactically I don't think they could have won the war without going to extremes that are beyond barbaric. However I think that if the American's had not gone into Vietnam, they would have never been forced to restructure thier military get rid of the draft and refine thier tactics.

Anyways I digress.

Sorry

He did what on the who now?

Really I don't have a clue about all that. You lost me at "the defense of R4..." and didn't find me until never.

But... I'd say Yanks went to Vietnam on their own accord and for their own interests. The Frenchies pulled out but that didn't mean the Americans had to pull in for the next 20 years. Looks to me like France bailed out on their own because they were losing/they had lost.

The post that started this little debate said "the US bailed them out". I don't see it that way. The US voluntarily and happily ponied up for France to fight the war and then voluntarily and with great gusto decided to keep fighting long after France was out of the picture. Not a "bail out" kind of thing but more of a a "buy in" deal.

[Daradon]

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.

First of all, Bush has made comments like that before (I think this has been addressed further down the post). The fact that he hasn't acted on them is a good thing.

Not defending the French at all, they have some serious identity issues (at least they feel they do) and I think it shows in their policy and attitudes.

However I think I know why people will take more offense to the U.S. comments.

1. They're the big fish. When you the big fish, everyone wants to take you down a notch. It's stupid, and it's not their fault, but it's true.

However I think it's more than just that. Not everyone is the narrow-minded

2. Current polices. Many people just disagree with their current world policies. They are seen as the bully (rightly so IMO) for decisions ranging from softwood here in Canada to the invasion in Iraq. The French have not invaded anyone recently, they are spared form such a barrage.

3. Hypocracy. This is were I fall in. It absolutely gets my goat to no end how one nation can proclaim it's the bastion of peace and freedom, and then go and invade a country. Even barring the terrorist and WMD arguments (which were and are no more than ever weak to non-existant) the U.S. helps hold up puppet states that hold no freedom for their own ends, and invades other countries which have freer forms of government. They do what is in the U.S.'s interest.

Which you know what? Fine, every country does. That's not my arguement.

My arguement is. Don't fricken tell the rest of the world you're doing it for them, for freedom. Don't fricken lie to the world about WMD's. Don't play savior.

The U.S. admin is hypocritical and a bunch of liars. And they have been exposed as such. I'm sure the French is the same (along with the Canadian, and the Japanese and the Tobagian lol).

But you don't see the last three 'invading to save freedom'.