Warmonger Chirac Vows to Nuke Terrorist States Who Attack France

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
What kind of idiots are the French? They've elected a warmonger who has vowed nuclear destruction on any state deemed "responsible" for a "terrorist" attack on France! The world simply cannot suffer a madman like this with his finger on the button! War does not beget social and economic justice of those oppressed common people whose leadership may or may not be acting in conjunction with terrorist groups. He's threatening attacks on people just because they don't subscribe to France's version of democracy and societal norms, this madman must be stopped at all costs.

I call on responsible nations and peoples of the world to bring Jacques Chirac before the Hague as a terrorist leader of a nuclear armed rogue state. Nothing short of that will ensure world peace.

France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism

By Elizabeth Pineau Thu Jan 19, 9:11 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 arms 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."

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.

It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.

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.

Since the end of the Cold War, questions have been raised about the usefulness of the nuclear program, which makes up 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.

Link

Arms are meant for hugging not killing. Doesn't France realize this?
 
Funny hows arms races evolve out of what some people believe to be little more than "preparing for peace by preparing for war" (or whatever that preposterous phrase is).

Your contention with Chirac is such that you'd laugh at him and call him a buffoon for arguing that the sky is blue. "HA HA, you dumb bastard! The sky is made up of colourless (spelled that way since its more "European") gases! OMFG you are teh dumb!" is what I imagine you'd say.

Now, threatening terrorist organizations and/or states with a military retaliation is the response we've been giving for years now (if not decades). Despite our "bigger dick" complex compared to the French military, they have every right to want to respond in this way. The United States doesn't have the market cornered on terrorist attacks, unless I missed Madrid and London becoming the newest colonies (joining such esteemed colleagues as "Guam" and "American Samoa").

Here are the serious questions: Do you think that France is immune to a terrorist attack? If so, why? If not, why do you take issue with a nuclear threat?

Really, in the end, you need to realize that France and Germany were entirely correct in their skepticism for authorizing war in Iraq. Not a single rationale presented to the UN General Assembly by the United States has panned out to be even remotely true. Germany was right to be skeptical of curveball's legitimacy. Our government didn't listen, and we are stuck rebuilding a country whose government we took down, only to find that, despite the previous despot's well known record of genocide and general asshole-dom, there is more room for debate in the intelligent design versus evolution fields than there is in the were there/weren't there weapons of mass destruction.

For all the shit you've talked about France, only to be completely dead fucking wrong, you ought to buy a truckload of the finest Cote du Rhone as a means of apology.

I'm still trying to figure out the animosity towards the French; is it because they were right, and the guys you exalt dead wrong? (I know how much that must sting) Or, is it some sort of false sense of entitlement you feel because our ancestors liberated France from the Nazi invasion (let's be clear, *our* ancestors did that, but *you're* the one who seems to think that the French should be bowing towards the West three times a day, do you not)? What is the source of your anxiety?

I can't wait to find some mundane, middle-of-the-week news story about your favorite country. "French Eat Three Squares a Day: 'breakfast,' 'lunch,' 'dinner' all the rage in Paris, Bordeaux." You'd still find a way to mock it: "Socialist Frog Pussies Dream of Eating Every Day: Liberal vs. Board Members Drool Over Bread and Cheese."

You think about it and get back to me. In the meantime, I've got to figure out who this fuckin' bearded guy is on my television. Osama bin whatsit? I dunno who he is; he's not Iraqi, so he must not be important. Probably the guy who abducted Natalie Holloway. I'll update you if there turns out to be something important about this guy. He seems shady.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What kind of idiots are the French? They've elected a warmonger who has vowed nuclear destruction on any state deemed "responsible" for a "terrorist" attack on France![/QUOTE]


Haven't you studied french history for the last 250 years? They routinely elect "men of questionable sanity" as their leaders.

Let's see... there was Robespierre.... followed by Napoleon.... followed by Napoleon III.... followed by, oh some guy in the 1950's who resembled a dictator instead of a president. Forget his name. Now this new guy.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Haven't you studied french history for the last 250 years? They routinely elect "men of questionable sanity" as their leaders.

Let's see... there was Robespierre.... followed by Napoleon.... followed by Napoleon III.... followed by, oh some guy in the 1950's who resembled a dictator instead of a president. Forget his name. Now this new guy.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='MrBadExample']Wake me when France invades a country that didn't attack them first.[/quote]

Wake me when troy learns some fucking history.

Back on topic. I think I understand the animosity toward the French Myke, and I disagree with your assertion that "not a single rationale ... panned out to be even remotely true". We in fact, focused on the thwarting of inspections, and the Human Rights violations. Saddam had every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions, and still thwarted them, he even fired on our forces patrolling areas pursuant to an agreement he signed.

I know that the primary stated motivation was "He has WMDs, he is a clear and present threat", but it's not like we just picked a country off the map and attacked it. Even without the WMDs, we had justification.

Back to the French hatred, I think it stems from the French superiority complex conflicting with the American superiority complex. They dislike us as much or more than we dislike them. My understanding is that most of Europe dislikes them too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your contention with Chirac is such that you'd laugh at him and call him a buffoon for arguing that the sky is blue. "HA HA, you dumb bastard! The sky is made up of colourless (spelled that way since its more "European") gases! OMFG you are teh dumb!" is what I imagine you'd say.[/QUOTE]
Of course, we all should know that air is blue, which is why our atmosphere looks like a blue haze around our planet from space. It may seem clear between you and the wall, but after miles, the "clear" gas becomes rather opaque.

[quote name='electrictroy']Haven't you studied french history for the last 250 years? They routinely elect "men of questionable sanity" as their leaders.

Let's see... there was Robespierre.... followed by Napoleon.... followed by Napoleon III.... followed by, oh some guy in the 1950's who resembled a dictator instead of a president. Forget his name. Now this new guy.[/QUOTE]
What? Are you seriously TRYING to make yourself sound more and more dumb? I mean, let's take the easiest one: Napoleon. He took over the French government, he wasn't elected. I mean, just do some research before you open your mouth. Wikipedia is FREE.
 
I hear that the British are actually more snotty than anyone else in Europe. Don't know if it's true since I've never been to Europe. I just hear that from a lot of travelers.

But back to the OP -- France isn't doing anything to help with the nuclear arms situation with the world community. It's bad enough that any country has them, and I don't want to see other countries feel that they need to develop the bomb now to defend against France.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Napoleon. He took over the French government, he wasn't elected. I mean, just do some research before you open your mouth. Wikipedia is FREE.[/QUOTE]

Technically true. Like Hitler "took over". But neither of these men could have done that w/o the support of the People behind them.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I hear that the British are actually more snotty than anyone else in Europe. Don't know if it's true since I've never been to Europe. I just hear that from a lot of travelers.

But back to the OP -- France isn't doing anything to help with the nuclear arms situation with the world community. It's bad enough that any country has them, and I don't want to see other countries feel that they need to develop the bomb now to defend against France.[/QUOTE]
Somehow, I'm pretty sure every country is going to develop a rationale to build a bomb regardless of who has nuclear weapons at the time. Much like Pakistan felt that it needed a nuclear weapon to defend itself against India.

[quote name='electrictroy']Technically true. Like Hitler "took over". But neither of these men could have done that w/o the support of the People behind them.[/QUOTE]
No, Hitler was elected, and then transformed Germany from a polarized democracy into a dictatorship. Napoleon went to France, dissolved the parliament by force, and had a single guy pronounce him as the pro consul. Seriously, do research.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Technically true. Like Hitler "took over". But neither of these men could have done that w/o the support of the People behind them.[/QUOTE]
No, Hitler was elected, and then transformed Germany from a polarized democracy into a dictatorship. Napoleon went to France, dissolved the parliament by force, and had a single guy pronounce him as the pro consul.
 
[quote name='Quillion']We in fact, focused on the thwarting of inspections, and the Human Rights violations. Saddam had every opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions, and still thwarted them, he even fired on our forces patrolling areas pursuant to an agreement he signed.

I know that the primary stated motivation was "He has WMDs, he is a clear and present threat", but it's not like we just picked a country off the map and attacked it. Even without the WMDs, we had justification.[/QUOTE]That's a major point of contention. I will concede that he wasn't fulfilling the UN resolutions; that's not even a debatable point. However, the context justifying the use of force is related to his attempts to stop weapons inspectors as well as human rights violations. I certainly don't want to discard the seriousness of the latter charge, but at the same time Zimbabwe is not even on the United States radar, yet Robert Mugabe is easily one of the greatest abusers of human rights globally. That he poses no threat to us militarily or economically is related to our administrative disinterest. I can deal with that argument (though I don't like it), but also it disgusts me to hear the "he violated human rights" rationale when coupled with such a disinterest in getting strategically (much less militarily) involved in stopping human rights abuses globally.

The difficulties we have had with weapons inspectors are also not a debatable point. However, at the time we invaded Iraq, Hans Blix and co. were in Iraq doing their job. If we were concerned about the inspectors, we certainly could have waited several more months for the UN to do its duty; as Iraq had *finally* begun complying with inspectors, that should have satisfied the greivance that they weren't (at least satisfied it temporarily to stave off a military invasion). That we ushered out those inspectors (or "strongly encouraged them to leave," if you prefer) suggests what little regard we have for UN resolutions ourselves. If you think the UN is a sham, then bully for you, that's precisely what you wanted. I tend to think the UN is a necessary entity, and that no country in this day and age of global communication, negotiation, and impact should immediately step away from the negotiation table when it doesn't get its way immediately.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']No, Hitler was elected, ....[/QUOTE]
Nope. The German people did NOT elect Hitler.

Maybe you ought to follow your OWN advice - "Seriously, do research." Don't pull out the splinter in my eye, until *after* you've removed the log from your own. i.e. Don't criticize me, because you're not perfect either.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Nope. The German people did NOT elect Hitler.[/QUOTE]

He's technically right about this.

Hitler's Nazi party captured 18% of the popular vote in the 1930 elections. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. A political deal was made to make Hitler chancellor in exchange for his political support. He was appointed to that office in January 1933.
 
[quote name='Mike23']He's technically right about this.[/QUOTE]
He's also extremely wrong about Napoleon being elected. He's trying to change subjects here.

Here's a tip E.T., try phoning wikipedia and do some research.
 
Technically true. Napoleon, like Hitler, "took over". I was wrong. You were right. But neither of these men could have done that w/o the support of the People behind them.


So it's valid to include Napoleon in post #3 as "yet another foolish leadership choice by the French", since they so joyfully supported him & followed him into warfare.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']So it's valid to include Napoleon in post #3 as "yet another foolish leadership choice by the French", since they so joyfully supported him & followed him into warfare.[/QUOTE]
They didn't joyfully support him. As far as dictatorial military leaders go, he didn't last very long. He was just very successful and nationalistic during his reign.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']PAD, where does chirac vow to use nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]

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.

And to think just yesterday I posted an article about supposedly educated people unable to garner facts from news articles and editorials...
 
Would be ready, stating the use of conventional and/or nuclear weapons etc. is a lot different from a vow to use a particular weapon. The u.s. itself at first refused to rule out nuclear weapons being used in afghanistan. So again, where's the vow to use nukes?
 
Vow- make a vow; promise; "He vowed never to drink alcohol again"

Where does Chirac promise to use nuclear weapons PAD? They said it was a possibility, not a promise to use them.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Technically true. Napoleon, like Hitler, "took over". I was wrong. You were right. But neither of these men could have done that w/o the support of the People behind them.


So it's valid to include Napoleon in post #3 as "yet another foolish leadership choice by the French", since they so joyfully supported him & followed him into warfare.[/QUOTE]


Napoleon is probably the smartest leader the French people have ever known. His social reforms (go and see what he did for education) along with his military strategory made French a major player in world politics after the actions that occured in the revolution and really was the last person to go out and make the French people an ass kicking machine.

and if you are criticizing him about going into war, most of the countries he went out and fought wanted a piece of France a few years ago after it had lost their king. Him going on the offensive was just returning the favor.


I would rather be ruled by someone like Napoleon who is making me proud of my country and doing great things than some mother fucker who is chopping off a ton of people's heads for no reason or a man who is married to some cunt who tells the poor "let them eat cake."




On topic, while PAD is making fun of the French regarding their actions, it is not like the French haven't been egging on a terrorist attack for a while. They almost elected a racist for their presidency a few years back and there has been a ton of strife with muslims especially in the past year or so (riots and the head scarf law) so it is not totally unexpected to hear him say something of this nature.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm making fun of the French and their actions?

Wow, talk about missing the point entirely.[/QUOTE]

I guess I could have stated that better, but its not like you have not made several statements in the past bashing the French and while you are criticizing both liberals and the French in your opinion on the article it seemed to be done in a comical fashion (or it could just be what most americans think of the french and the language you used when making your point)
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']
On topic, while PAD is making fun of the French regarding their actions, it is not like the French haven't been egging on a terrorist attack for a while. They almost elected a racist for their presidency a few years back and there has been a ton of strife with muslims especially in the past year or so (riots and the head scarf law) so it is not totally unexpected to hear him say something of this nature.[/QUOTE]

They didn't almost elect le pen. Le Pen recieved the second most votes in the first round (narrowly beating a far left group), and in the second round was absolutely destroyed. The first round had the lowest voter % turnout on record, the second had the highest turnout on record. After the first round many non political people turned out to vote. Chirac got the most votes in the first round (under 20%) but over 80% in the second round (many leftists, who despise chirac, also voted for chirac in protest against le Pen), and the period before the second round was marked by mass protests against le pen.

France seems to be a place of subtle racism, which allows things like the riots to occur. They do not seem to have much outright racism, and don't seem to tolerate it as well as it would seem. You always have your extremists though.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm making fun of the French and their actions?

Wow, talk about missing the point entirely.[/QUOTE]



C'mon, PAD, you clearly insult the french as a whole, and have done it plenty of times. Can't you do anything else besides toss petty insults around? This isn't your white trash momma's dinner table ya'know...
 
You never answered my question, what do you contribute? I have never seen you post a deal, you have no cag trading feedback...


You're a troll, and now you're an illegal troll to boot!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They didn't almost elect le pen. Le Pen recieved the second most votes in the first round (narrowly beating a far left group), and in the second round was absolutely destroyed. The first round had the lowest voter % turnout on record, the second had the highest turnout on record. After the first round many non political people turned out to vote. Chirac got the most votes in the first round (under 20%) but over 80% in the second round (many leftists, who despise chirac, also voted for chirac in protest against le Pen), and the period before the second round was marked by mass protests against le pen.

France seems to be a place of subtle racism, which allows things like the riots to occur. They do not seem to have much outright racism, and don't seem to tolerate it as well as it would seem. You always have your extremists though.[/QUOTE]

the fact that he was in a runoff aganist Chirac is what I was pointing at. Sure he was destroyed in the second round, but its pretty fucking crazy that someone of his ilk even makes it that far. I was just pointing out that he got fairly close to the presidency and that it shows that there is a track record of racial strife in France within the past few years.
 
Le Pen made it into the primary elections merely as a result of the extreme factioning of the left wing in 2002(?). It'd be like the conservative christians and the fiscal conservatives (those that want the budget balanced and small government) and the fiscal conservatives (those that want all kinds of amenities and protections for the bourgeoisie) and the big cock military conservatives (that would be the irresponsible "blow 'em up and turn it into a parking lot" mentality) all voting on varied interests int he next primary.

The next thing you know, David Duke cruises into victory. And unlikely scenario, of course, but I'm just trying to color the pretty picture. In the states, it happens more easily among Democrats due to the inherent varied interests and prioritizations of various factions. You have labor democrats who couldn't give a fuck about racial equality democrats, who couldn't give a fuck about women's rights democrats, who couldn't give a fuck about limited corporatism democrats, who couldn't give a fuck about environmental democrats...need I go on?
 
2 days and no response, i'm going to assume what we already know about PAD, weak kneed, unresponsive, and probably busy cutting and pasting another opinion journal.
 
bread's done
Back
Top