France may answer terror with Nuke

[southsider2k5]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/...rms_france_dc_2

 

[EvilMonkey]

And how is this different from GWB's statements and actions? You mess with us, we will f*** you up!

 

[Steff]

And how is this different from GWB's statements and actions?  You mess with us, we will f*** you up!

 

 

 

 

Doesn't Chirac sound like a complete idiot in making these statements.. ?

[Balance]

Of course, how do you determine what country the terrorist attack came from? And how can you say that "Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack" as opposed to "Some guys who happened to be from Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack"?

 

I think France is posturing, more than anything else.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Of course, how do you determine what country the terrorist attack came from?  And how can you say that "Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack" as opposed to "Some guys who happened to be from Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack"?

 

I think France is posturing, more than anything else.

Who needs to know who is actually responsible. Just nuke Mecca.

[Mplssoxfan]

Just what makes Chirac think that NUKE will do his dirty work for him?

[Balta1701]

Just what makes Chirac think that NUKE will do his dirty work for him?

Clearly...those responsible will be on the 25 man roster of the Indians...

[kevin57]

Who needs to know who is actually responsible.  Just nuke Mecca.

 

Why the green?

 

Just as MAD (mutually insured destruction) was the key strategy in keeping the USA and USSR from blowing each other to bits during the Cold War, maybe only the threat to nuke Mecca would deter these crazies. Unlike the Soviets, they don't care about the lives of their compatriots or any country's survival. Now, their holiest shrine...?

[NorthSideSox72]

Why the green?

 

Just as MAD (mutually insured destruction) was the key strategy in keeping the USA and USSR from blowing each other to bits during the Cold War, maybe only the threat to nuke Mecca would deter these crazies.  Unlike the Soviets, they don't care about the lives of their compatriots or any country's survival.  Now, their holiest shrine...? 

 

Wow. Just... wow.

 

Didn't you say you were a Priest? Are you really prepared as a representative of a faith to intentionally target the holiest site for all Muslims? Thus indicting the entire religion as being fanatical and dangerous? Maybe we should target Rome because of all the Catholic a**holes out there in the world. How does that sound?

 

Trying to say MAD was a positive thing is like that episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burns is only healthy because so many diseases are trying to get him at once that they all get stuck in the door trying to get in. Sure it worked, in a fashion, but is that a chance you are prepared to take? And do you really think that's all that kept us from going to war?

 

GMAFB. Some messenger of peace.

:headshake

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

It's funny to hear Chirac posturing against radical Islamist terrorists...isn't France a Muslim country?

Edited January 20, 2006 by Steve Bartman's my idol

[Kyyle23]

Of course, how do you determine what country the terrorist attack came from?  And how can you say that "Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack" as opposed to "Some guys who happened to be from Country X perpetrated the terrorist attack"?

 

I think France is posturing, more than anything else.

 

I thought the same thing. Chirac is just going to unleash his nuclear fury on wherever his intelligence(and I use the word lightly) tells him the bad guys are? It sounds to me like France is getting a little worried that the terrorists arent out just to get rid of the American menace, and they dont really know what to do about it since they have thumbed thier noses at us so long.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why the green?

 

Just as MAD (mutually insured destruction) was the key strategy in keeping the USA and USSR from blowing each other to bits during the Cold War, maybe only the threat to nuke Mecca would deter these crazies.  Unlike the Soviets, they don't care about the lives of their compatriots or any country's survival.  Now, their holiest shrine...?  

 

And one other thing. Let's dismiss for a moment the moral indignity in your suggestion, and concentrate on the simple logic of response. There are two groups of Muslims for the purpose of this discussion - extremists who want to bery the West, and non-extremists who want to be left alone. What does targeting holy sites do to those two groups? Group A points at it and says, "see?! They are warmongers!", and it only strengthens their resolve. Group B, who previously could have been the bringers of peace, are now thinking, "well F*** you, if you think that of my religion. I'm joining the jihad."

 

Please give the actual results of your suggestion some thought.

Edited January 20, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[mr_genius]

Please give the actual results of your suggestion some thought.

 

 

 

Just curious, would you support a policy of no longer sending funds or weapons to Isreal? If you think about it, supporting Israel is the main action that has resulted in us being terrorist targets.

 

ps.

i'm not trying to defend what that other guy was saying (nuking mecca), just bringing up a point.

Edited January 20, 2006 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Just curious, would you support a policy of no longer sending funds or weapons to Isreal?  If you think about it, supporting Israel is the main action that has resulted in us being terrorist targets.

 

ps.

i'm not trying to defend what that other guy was saying (nuking mecca), just bringing up a point.

 

Well, sort of, yes. I believe Israel is no more "right" than the Palestinians in this thing. But then, I think bth groups are really victims of the rest of the world in some ways, and they are in an awful place. I would really hope that the UN, the US and a whole lot of other people would be putting in more effort to try to find a solution there (I realize that will be incredibly difficult). I believe the only way to work it is a seperate Palestine, and a neutrally controlled Jerusalem. As a last resort, if it gets really bad down there, I'd seriously support a multi-national force taking control of parts of that area in the long term. But if all that fails, then yes, I would be in favor of cutting off miltary aid to both entities. Right now though, we only supply the Israelis.

 

It's a very complicated puzzle there. For the person/country who finds a long term solution, they'd go down in history as one of the greats.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's funny to hear Chirac posturing against radical Islamist terrorists...isn't France a Muslim country?

 

 

Its well on its way.........as are several other nations such as Holland whose overly generous immigration policies have allowed a massive influx of Muslims from the 3rd world.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

France can't even deal with a few Muslim punks rioting in Paris. Who the hell are they kidding telling people they're gonna nuke someone.

 

 

LOL!!!!

 

 

[WilliamTell]

lol France saying this is like hearing the little neighbor boy say he's going to beat me up.

[Rex Kickass]

France has a history of treating people who are different poorly. Take a study of anti-semitism before 1925 and you're kinda surprised that the nonstop and systemic oppression of Jews came from France.

 

Look at the way Algeria was handled, look at the way they handled decolonization in Africa. A lot of former French colonies are still stuck with central banks controlled to a degree by the French government or French interests.

 

There has been a systemic undercurrent of bigotry in the way people of different faiths and ethnicity have been treated in France for decades. As a result, you're starting to see minorities hit a breaking point in France.

 

Threatening to nuke Mecca won't make a tenuous racial situation in France any better.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Will Israel solve our problem?

 

By Mona Charen

 

 

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It is remarkable how quickly discussions about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons turn to Israel. "Well," worriers are reassured, "Israel will never permit Iran to go nuclear. Remember Osirak?"

 

 

Very well. In 1981, Israeli planes streaked across the desert at low altitude and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, a facility built by the French and partially manned by Italians. The world's response was volcanic. "An unprovoked attack" and a "grave breach of international law" declared the British Foreign Office. The French called it "unacceptable" and pointed out that Iraq had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim (not yet unmasked as a former Nazi) called the Israeli raid a "clear contravention of international law." The Soviet Union denounced the "barbarous attack." And the U.S. State Department spokesman called the air raid ''a very serious development and a source of utmost concern.'' Israel was condemned by the U.N. Security Council with the U.S. voting aye. (Though at a press conference, President Reagan could not resist defending Israel's actions, pointing out, for example, that Iraq had maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948.) The New York Times called the Israeli attack "an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression . . . Israel risks becoming its own worst enemy."

 

 

Israel's explanation — that it was acting defensively because it believed Iraq was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons — was rejected by nearly everyone.

 

 

Yet today, many seem to hope that the world's favorite scapegoat will again take matters in hand and destroy a looming threat. Perhaps they plan to denounce Israel again and sleep soundly thereafter.

 

 

But there is a problem with this tidy scenario. The Iranians have learned from Iraq's mistake — they've thought of little else — and have hardened and dispersed their nuclear facilities all over the vast territory of Iran. The sites are buried deep and well disguised.

 

 

In other words, from the world's point of view, there is no easy fix. "Let the Israelis do it" won't work.

 

 

For more than two years, the Europeans, with America's blessing, have been exhorting the Iranians to forego nuclear weapons. Shocking though it may seem, this has not worked. Last week, Iran announced that the country is removing the seals from its Natanz plant — a direct violation of an agreement with Britain, France and Germany.

 

 

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran was made even more terrifying with the ascent last June of the Holocaust-denying, religious vision-seeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. Ahmadinejad reportedly believes in the imminent return of the righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, the 12th Imam, whose appearance on Earth will be presaged by war and chaos. A previous Iranian leader mused that only one nuclear bomb would be sufficient to completely obliterate Israel and the largest Jewish population on Earth. A return salvo by Israel could destroy only a fraction of the world's Muslims. Would this madness be within the realm of the conceivable to Ahmadinejad? Even apart from his hysterical rantings about Israel ("a disgraceful blot" that "should be wiped off the face of the Earth"), consider what he said to his own countrymen when a plane crashed into a Tehran building killing 108. "What is important is that they have showed the way to martyrdom which we must follow."

 

 

Ahmadinejad and the sick mullahs who run Iran may be crazy, but they're not fools. They know that between fighting al Qaeda and building a durable democracy in Iraq, we're hardly in a mood to deal with Iran at the moment. But we cannot avoid it. The current state of play suggests that Iran will be referred to the U.N. Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But sanctions against Iran will probably be vetoed by Russia or China.

 

 

That leaves us with no painless options. If we, together with a coalition of the willing, impose the only sanction that will truly pinch — an embargo on Iranian oil — oil prices will rise, probably by a lot. But that cost will have to be weighed against the cost of military action, which would be far higher.

 

 

In the meantime, as the far-sighted JWR columnist Michael Ledeen has argued for years, we ought to be supporting the democratic opposition within Iraq for all we're worth. The vicious Iranian regime sits atop a population that detests it. Revolution would be redemption — for all of us.

[Balta1701]

Is it just me, or in the last paragraph, does she make the same mistake the Bush administration made when it decided to rid the Mideast of WMD - replacing the N with a Q?

 

(Somehow, I doubt that many people right now want to be supporting the opposition in Iraq. Unless she's suggesting that the Sunni rebels are already in control of the country, and the elected leadership is now the opposition)

[Reddy]

Doesn't Chirac sound like a complete idiot in making these statements.. ?

 

and bush doesnt?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

and bush doesnt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When doesn't Bush sound like an idiot?

[Steff]

and bush doesnt?

 

 

 

That was the point....

[Reddy]

That was the point....

 

then we're agreed. i seem to have issues understanding your posts... it's been happening a lot lately. i guess i'm just a moron.

[FlaSoxxJim]

then we're agreed.  i seem to have issues understanding your posts... it's been happening a lot lately.  i guess i'm just a moron.

Yeah, but you're our moron.

 

I Kid Because I Care®