Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Quig, the French haven't attacked anything for the past 200 years. Or counter-attacked for that matter. That's what we are for. They just like to huff and puff a bit.
Remember the aircraft carrier sent to the first Gulf War ... without any aircraft?
“If Pres Bush mentioned this you guys would come unglued. What say you to this?”
Well, lets see just what Chirac said……..
1: "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."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…….. The last I looked, the term “states” means a nation…… an example of a nation would be…….. Bolivia, Italy, Central African Republic, Iran, North Korea, and Sri Lanka…..
“weapons of mass destruction” I do believe these would be biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
So then what he said was…………. that those nations who would attack France with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons would be inviting a response that would range from conventional retaliation to nuclear retaliation.
Gee Golly…….. this is the same response that the USA would have…. And there has been NO ONE who has said that this nation and or any other nation in the same position would be wrong to respond in this manner.
So your point is ??????
And by the way……. 1: On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists who were camped in the rogue nation of Afghanistan. The US response was immediate and correct. President Bush did the right thing in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden……. His mistake was throwing in with the neo-cons and invading a nation that was not involved in the terrorists attack……. Interesting to see Mr. Kristoll ( a major neo-con) bringing up possible military intervention in Iran……. Just love those neo-cons………..
2: Viges……..I know I’m just some stupid retired history teacher….but weren’t the French fairly involved in WWI on the western front……. Lost just under 2 million men in that war plus millions of civilian deaths as well…….and that was less then a hundred years ago…… And as a Yank, I will always be grateful for their help in the American Revolution…….. not too many Americans remember that besides military and financial aid we received, a French army was very important in the siege of Yorktown as was the French fleet under de Grasse that cut off Cornwalis's escape at Yorktown……..
There's nothing surprising in Chirac's comment or acceptance of those comments by some of us here.
Chirac is not talking about, or conducting, pre-emptive strikes on innocent people.
It is clear that building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal implies a threat that you may use it in response to an attack, as a means of reducing the threat of attack.
Be careful not to underestimate the French, who are capable of logical, well planned missions. The US would also be wise to ensure that France is not on its target list for strikes against potential Al Qaeda dinner parties.
Perhaps if more countries where to make statements like this and then create enough kindling for some crazy to set fire to the tinderbox maybe we could re-create the situ right before the outbreak of WWI. Everybody can come out and make strong statemetns and tehn we can global thermonuclear war. gee won't that be exciting. everyon gets to show how big their dick is by laying it out there and sayin "go ahead and hit me"
Comments
Remember the aircraft carrier sent to the first Gulf War ... without any aircraft?
Well, lets see just what Chirac said……..
1: "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."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm……..
The last I looked, the term “states” means a nation…… an example of a nation would be…….. Bolivia, Italy, Central African Republic, Iran, North Korea, and Sri Lanka…..
“weapons of mass destruction” I do believe these would be biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
So then what he said was…………. that those nations who would attack France with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons would be inviting a response that would range from conventional retaliation to nuclear retaliation.
Gee Golly…….. this is the same response that the USA would have…. And there has been NO ONE who has said that this nation and or any other nation in the same position would be wrong to respond in this manner.
So your point is ??????
And by the way…….
1: On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists who were camped in the rogue nation of Afghanistan. The US response was immediate and correct. President Bush did the right thing in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden……. His mistake was throwing in with the neo-cons and invading a nation that was not involved in the terrorists attack……. Interesting to see Mr. Kristoll ( a major neo-con) bringing up possible military intervention in Iran……. Just love those neo-cons………..
2: Viges……..I know I’m just some stupid retired history teacher….but weren’t the French fairly involved in WWI on the western front……. Lost just under 2 million men in that war plus millions of civilian deaths as well…….and that was less then a hundred years ago…… And as a Yank, I will always be grateful for their help in the American Revolution…….. not too many Americans remember that besides military and financial aid we received, a French army was very important in the siege of Yorktown as was the French fleet under de Grasse that cut off Cornwalis's escape at Yorktown……..
Chirac must have read my idea waaay back then and is just unveiling it now.
Thats all.
Chirac is not talking about, or conducting, pre-emptive strikes on innocent people.
It is clear that building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal implies a threat that you may use it in response to an attack, as a means of reducing the threat of attack.
Be careful not to underestimate the French, who are capable of logical, well planned missions. The US would also be wise to ensure that France is not on its target list for strikes against potential Al Qaeda dinner parties.
Spin
Doesn't stop 'em being smelly cowards.