http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/20/france.chirac.nuclear.ap/index.html

They are talking tough, but how great would the fallout from a nuclear strike be for them? I'd have to imagine it would have most of the world up in arms.

Well they lack the ability to really lay siege to a country and occupy it like the US could. And knowing that you, your entire country, and everything in it for the next ten thousand years will glow in the dark if you fuck with them should be a dterrent. But then we're talking about trying to deter people that think they need to bring about Armageddon anyways...

And as much shit as I give the Frogs, most their military types are decent folks.

Jeeze he kinda sounds like a lunatic to me.

I suppose this means the French would not have minded if we nuked Tora Bora back in 2001. Good to know.

So lets say Osama attacked France with a few planes...would he then Nuke Saudia Arabia then since hes born and raised from there or would he nuke Afghan instead because he trained there...boy hes going to be real busy trying to find out what country to blow up from a terriost attack. What a dip shit is all I can say..soon he will find out terrorists dont really claim any country unless of course you call Islam a country.

When Osama attacked the US where did the US go? So that must mean that Osama represents Iraq. So by that logic France would then nuke Iraq.

So lets say Osama attacked France with a few planes...(...)would he nuke Afghan instead because he trained there...
Is it ironic or something? Didn't several western countries attacked Afganistan and Talibans because they were a nation using terrorism?

soon he will find out terrorists dont really claim any country unless of course you call Islam a country.I'm too lazy (and too late) to find links, but I'm pretty sure that statement is wrong. Afganistan was an example, Iran could be one. (and this speech was "indirectly" targetting them)

Bruno Tertrais, a defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research, said Chirac was not changing the threshold for use of French nuclear weapons but the array of threats that could trigger a nuclear response. The United States moved in the same direction last year.

"This is a message to any kind of regional power that might believe it could bypass French nuclear deterrence by using terrorist means," Tertrais said.(emphasis mine)
I guess this speech was more to bloat "don't forget we have some nuclear power" rather than "we have balls and we will parking slots your ass".

And on a side note... It's fireworks (http://www.koreus.com/media/compilation-explosions.html) time!!!

And actually I think he said or at least meant "State sponsored" (For those confused Canucks, meaning country sponsored)

When Osama attacked the US where did the US go? So that must mean that Osama represents Iraq. So by that loic France would then nuke Iraq.

No the US went into Afghanistan and then later into Iraq (but you already know this) so by Jacques Chirac's logic he would of nuked Afghanistan...wow great idea. So all the people who were under Taliban rule and are now free in Afghan would of loved to be vaporized with a nuke. The US went into Iraq to free the people of an evil dictator ..come on man its been said over and over again..Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't operation terrorist removal..that came later.

Is it ironic or something? Didn't several western countries attacked Afganistan and Talibans because they were a nation using terrorism?


Big difference here...they attack the Taliban not the citizens or even the government of Afghnistan...going into the rugged hills on search and destroy missions against fighters is a lot different than sending a nuke into Kabul.

If you're Muslim and you're claiming a country, it's Saudi Arabia. Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia. Osama has referred to our troops trespassing on holy land several times.

Well then he could talking about parts of Israeli occupied land as well. Muslims take a liking to the Dome on the Rock and the few surrounding extremly important worship sites on the Temple Mount area.

So you see it gets a little confusing.............

The US went into Iraq to free the people of an evil dictator

No, the US went into Iraq because we were led to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq wouldn't go along with the UN mandates, or so we were told.

Freeing the Iraqi citizens from an evil dictator was reason 1b we were told after we were told their weren't any weapons of mass destruction, at least that we could find. Whether going into Iraq was the right thing or not, we did not originally go there under pretenses to simply remove a dictator and free the people of Iraq.

Iraq wouldn't go along with the UN mandates, or so we were told.

Hmmmm Tale? Make such statements and it sounds like you doubt Iraq wouldn't cooperate. It's public fact/record and noted in the UN that Saddam was infact not cooperating. Hell the entire Oil for food program is proof of that.

Fandros

Taleron, it's really not that hard to be educated. Try it sometime. Skip down to the bolded section if all the letters and words makes your head hurt.




IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

The US went into Iraq to free the people of an evil dictator ..come on man its been said over and over again..Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't operation terrorist removal..that came later.

It would be more correct to say the US went into Iraq to free a market from evil nationalised control. That might be the same thing in Bush's mind.

I tend to agree with that.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Just because it "should" have been the reason that we went into Iraq, it is NOT the reason that was set out before the US or the rest of the world to try and garner support for an invasion.

I also said my comment about us feeling they weren't cooperating because lo and behold there weren't any wmd's (that we've found yet, they could still be there somewhere). If they didn't have wmd's, whether they were getting in the UN's way or not, they were following the sanctions at least to a point. I'm not defending the old Iraqi regime. We were NOT told before the invasion though that our mission was to go in and get Saddam(though I'm sure we all thought that would be part of it). We were told we were going in to rid them of wmd, as simple as that. Other reasons popped up later as we found out no wmd's were there.

Whether or not some comment from 1998 says we should have removed Saddam(something I am in agreeance with), that was not the pretenses we were given for going to war.

Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime


Taleran you missed some important things above.

I would not so much think that the word support was intended to be interpreted as "The US will be basically the sole force that will remove the Iraqi government from power"

Also, to promote the emergence of a democratic government does not necessarily mean we should be there holding their hands. We could have most likely been more effective by offering economic incentives to the Iraqis if they would move towards democracy.

Whether or not some comment from 1998 says we should have removed Saddam(something I am in agreeance with), that was not the pretenses we were given for going to war.



You are absolutely correct in this. However, you are not taking into account that Bush supporters will drag up anything to avoid the facts that the administration has created what is most likely to go down in history as the largest blunder of foriegn policy even larger than the Vietnam war. It is also a way to drag Clinton into the fray and once again blame him for the failures of Bush.

Hey found myself repeating what I already said...


now back to France.

All of you who subscribe to the notion that there was a single reason we went into Iraq need to look at the bigger picture. There were several reasons, not all of which we are even arguing about.

Anyway, as far as the French go, they can talk the talk but can they walk the walk?

I doubt it. I think Chirac was just playing politics.

Chirac can play whatever the hell he wants, he'll be out of the door soon and maybe Europe will have a chance.

'It would be more correct to say the US went into Iraq to free a market from evil nationalised control. That might be the same thing in Bush's mind.'

- Yeah, pretty much America's Opium War, except the Iraqi's don't look Chinese.

That casus belli wouldn't have bothered me *too* much if it wasn't coaxed in the obviously bullshit and insultingly false trife of WoMD.

Anywho, god knows where the manpower for an Iranian War will be found. We're already stretched in Africa, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not sure we could contribute much.
I do think posterity will look back and judge you Yanks for not conscripting, however. Romans that you are.