http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_.../france_nuclear



Is France finally afraid of Islamic extremists? Was this a wise time for France to get tough, after their riots and now fear of Iran and terrorism?

What a terrific idea. Let us hunt down terrorists with nuclear weapons. Isn't is the best idea to threaten countries which do not have the bomb to keep them from building them on their own?

No, in all seriousness, this wasn't the brightest idea. But once you have a nuclear potential without a clear enemy like the Soviet Union, then why not include a shadowy term like terrorist. Otherwise the questions of financing that 4 billion $ potential could be too intense. Chirac is on his way out of office and wants to be respected one more time.
Furthermore, I don't think it is helpful to use the phrase "afraid of Islamic extremists". For fear is never a good adviser.

I wonder what support America would have gotten if they used the bomb in the mountain hills of Afghanistan.

Terrorism should only be fought with intelligence, the rule of law and surgical actions. Identification of their leaders and the prosecution of these individuals.


European reaction is very negative on Chiracs words and I doubt that his fellow Frenchmen support that statement. On the other hand, it is "la grande nation", the statement shows that France has potential alike the US (quality, not quantitiy), so maybe they are fine with it.

Is France finally afraid of Islamic extremists? Was this a wise time for France to get tough, after their riots and now fear of Iran and terrorism?

I have to say, this makes me laugh. The idea that the threat of French nuclear retaliation is aimed at terrorists in general and not Iran specifically is so absurd as to be comical.

Just what/who/where will the French target in the event of an Islamic terrorist attack? Mecca? ...or maybe a small village in the mountains of northern Pakistan? And what happens of the terrorists are domestic? Whats he going to do? Nuke Paris?

Chirac is off his trolley if he thinks any terrorists are going to take this threat seriously. Its obviously a veiled threat to Iran and thus a clear admission that the European diplomatic initiative has failed to yield any clear results at all.

Its time to go to the UN security council and have sanctions put on Iran.

If this affects the country's poor then too bad. They shouldn't have vote for leaders who are determined to take them into confrontation. The rest of the world bears a responsibility to protect the innocent, but not the expense of our own populations. Iran has chosen its own road and cannot blame any one else.

In the mean time, Jaques Chirac however needs to stop making a fool of himself.

"Finally" afraid? You think this is the first time they've "got tough"? Can you spell Algeria? How about Rainbow Warrior? (New Zealanders still avoid French produce if they can.) France has a long (and occasionally shameful) history of completely overreacting to threats to their national interests.

But let's be clear here. France is as supportive as anyone else in the War on Terror. It was a French newspaper who said "we're all Americans now" on 12 September 2001. French troops were deployed to Afghanistan without question.

The only time they've been "soft" in the War on Terror was when they thought Iraq had nothing to do with it, refusing to give credence to the supposedly robust intelligence that drove the war, because they knew it was largely forged or out of date anyway. Just as the US and UK knew.

The truth is, the ONLY time France has been "soft on Islamic terror" in recent times is their opposition to the Iraq War, on the grounds that there weren't any active terrorists in Saddam-era Iraq (Saddam routinely killed them, since he had more to lose by stirring up Islamofascism than he did by suppressing it), there was no sensible post-invasion plan, and they predicted that after the invasion Iraq would become a hotbed of terrorism that would take years or even decades to sort out. How silly of the French.

But then, this is all probably a plot by the nascent anti Christ, Javier Solana, to bring about the End of Days.

I never said he was the ant-christ. Just to be aware of him.

Ah, yes the French are soooo tough of terrorists that they can't even stop migrant workers from rioting in their own country for fear of a backlash. Oh and, wasn't their something about an "oil for food program" involving some European nations and Iraq. I'm sure they didn't want that brought out into the open.

Puh-lease. When they said "we're all American's" that was over four years ago. Alot has changed in four years, NOT saying our current administration is 100% correct, hell less than 50% correct IMHO, but I DEFINITELY haven't seen France leading the charge on the war on Terrorism. To me, Chirac's statement is like a person whose never fired a gun before aiming it at a burglurer telling them, "I'll shoot! I'll shoot!" Only to have the gun taken and used on them. Why now is France puffing up?

Its not always obvious from the outside, but France is a leading contributor in the 'war' on terrorism, that is to say, a large proportion of international efforts against global/Islamic terrorism have been coordinated by the French, working with the CIA, at a place refered to as 'Alliance Base', said to be in Paris.

Link.

However, I don't think this message has anything at all to do with terrorism per se, but rather those who would support terrorism, namely Iran. Nuclear weapons cannot be used against terrorists for the simple fact that they are too powerful to use.

Only by targetting a city or a hardened underground installation does a nuclear weapon have any validity in the 'war' on terrorism, and terrorists do not have such things at their disposal. These are the assets of states.

Wait, let me understand this correctly, are you saying terrorists don't have access to nuclear weapons?

Now I do agree that using a nuclear weapon is extreme on the part of fighting terrorism, and in using one would set a precedence and would bring the world to a place that I think none of us would to see.

No, I am saying that terrorists do not have cities or hardened underground installation's (the sort of places where you can produce plutonium and the sort of places you can target with a nuclear strike).

Terrorists can have nuclear weapons, but they can only acquire these from else where. They cannot produce them themselves and any way, you can't use a nuclear weapon strike to counter another nuclear weapon unless you know the exact location of that nuclear weapon and you are prepared to accept a potentially massive civilian death toll.

The fear in France is that Iran might give a nuclear bomb to one of its terrorist clients and this weapon will be used against France. What Chiarc is effectively, if not openly, saying (and in no uncertain terms) is that if this happens, then France will attack Iran (or any other state it believes armed the terrorists)

He is not saying he is going to strike back against the terrorists with nuclear weapons because every one knows he can't. If we could find the terrorists then they'd already be dead.

That's my point earlier, if France uses nuclear weapons as a "deterant" I think it could only blow up in their face. (No pun intended.)





Riiight...like when American forces had Bin Laden trapped in the mountains boardering Pakistan...

How so?


Yes, well...

Having some one 'trapped' in the mountains of Tora Bora is a bit of an oxymoron really. I think its fairly obvious that the US forces did not have an exact location on Bin Laden, only vague reports that he was some where in the region.

Needless to say, I believe if they'd known where he was and if Osama Bin Laden is who we all think he is, then they'd certainly have killed him.

My problem with France is, in the last hundred years, they haven't been a military might and to now all of a sudden jump in the middle of this and say, "well, remember, we have nukes too!" Is just provoking a fight that they can't win. The last thing I want is for people in France to get hurt.



Like when Clinton had him in sight in the Nineties?

We found Hussien pretty quickly. Don't see how hard it should have been to get Osama at that time, if we really put the resourses to it. Oh wait, we were diverting forces and attention to Iraq. I forgot.

I find it amusing that France, with it’s abysmal and corrupt performance on the Iraq issue in the Security Council is trying to sound tough on “terrorists”. The only “state” he can be referring to is Iran and perhaps Pakistan.

Sounds like bluster and little else.

One of these days, people are going to have to stop and realise that this silly steriotype is nothing but a silly steriotype.

France has a long and bloody history of dealing with terrorism and terrorists. They thought nothing of attacking Action Directe caps in North Africa even if they were violating another nation's sovereignty (sound familiar?) They prosecuted the war in Algeria with determination bordeing on fanaticism, and were not bove the use of torture to obtain information (sound familiar?)

France currently has most effective and well equipped military in Europe, and the most effective Navy in Europe too; the only nation in the world other than the US to have an active supercarrier. I am sure this does not make the US newspapers, but they have deployed it effectively and with precision several times in the last decade, such as during the Ivory Coast crisis and Sierra Leone. France has the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. France currently has the third largest national group actively serving in Afghanistan. That you have to compliment them for: If I as a nation were subject to the remorceless and unfounded ad hominum attacks from the US that France has been, I would have pulled my troops out of the US's war in Afghanistan ageas ago. But they made a commitment and are sticking with it, despite all the insults and barbs.

I know it is popular for the right to refer to the 'corruption' on the part of the French government. I assume then you have actual proof of French government corruption?

No?

None at all? I would like to remind you that the 'proximity to power' of those private citizens in France who were implicated in the scandal is far MORE DISTANT than the 'proximity to Power' of the various Bush Jr. scandals of recent months. The double standard here is obvious. There is no proof at all of the French government's 'corruption' in opposing the Iraq war. And lest Americans forget, France was not alone, a full 96% of the planet opposed the Iraq war. remember the great 'coalition of the willing'? US, the UK, Poland and... and... well... I think maybe Estonia?


France does what is best for France. You don't have to agree with all their decisions, I certainly don't, but this endless and pointless tossing silly insults with no basis in logic or reality really serves no purpose but to display the ignorance of the name-caller.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hang on, I did not support going into Iraq, I have not supported Bush on what he's doing in Iraq and think it's caused more problems than we had to start with. BUT, it's not to say that France isn't suspicious in it's dealing with Iraq leading up to the Gulf War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food

Vermillion



As poster by Billy Jean there is lots of proof France was corrupted by OFF money and the promise of big oil contracts from Iraq. IMO this corruption which included Russia is the chief reason why Saddam felt he could safely refuse to comply with UN resolutions – which led to war. Recall that France proposed dropping all sanctions against Iraq in 1999! One year after Saddam booted the inspectors.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133696,00.html

Saddam ‘bought UN allies’ with oil
The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280,00.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ood-050328.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7474

In France, the oil-for-food scandal dramatically escalated last week when Bernard Guillet, a former aide to French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, was questioned in a major probe into possible bribery of French politicians

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/mid...04746#message_7

Most disturbing, however, was the Duelfer report’s disclosure that supposed U.S. allies, most notably France and Russia were literally trading their friendship with Saddam’s regime for billions of dollars in profits from the sale of oil and humanitarian goods. France’s and Russia’s "friendships" apparently also included the illegal sale of guns, ammunition, military spare parts, and so-called dual use items like dump trucks that can be easily converted into missile launchers.
Many concluded long ago that the real motive behind France’s and Russia’s opposition to U.S. plans in Iraq stemmed from the billions they were getting from Saddam Hussein. But the Duelfer report finally provided many of the details that had been missing, and left the French and Russians without their proverbial clothes.http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/oil_for_food_new_details.htm

When I asked for proof of French government corruption, there must have been some confusion. What I was actually asking for is PROOF of French government coruption. The articles you posted listed allegations of corruption, and even then those allegations were of corruption by French companies.

The only even close to tenuous link with the French government is that one of the investigations asked questions of a Former aide to the French President. Not even evidence, let alone proof.

As I said, the double standard here is obvious. It tends to be the same people so instantly eager to believe corruption on behalf of somebody ELSES government, which denying to the stars the possibility of malfeasance of their OWN government.

You did know that the oil scandal also targeted several US businesses such as BayOil, Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp. El Paso Corp and Oilexco? Several of these companies paid LARGE contributions to Bush Jr., including Exxon Mobil funding a portion of the Bush Jr. presidential library. In fact, the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations determined that individuals and companies in the United States accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.

Thats more than went to ANY other nation including France and Russia. So I assume, since you are INSTANTLY willing to presume that the French government was corrupt, you will apply the same standards and assume that the US government is equally corrupt?


Sorry, proof means more than accusations by FOXnews.

Okay, okay....I gotta catch my breath. Incase you didn't know, I am one one the least likely people here to believe much of anything the current administration dishes out and am also the first to speak up on the corruption of our own government and it's dealings. First off with it's stance on gays as second class citizens, being that I'm a lesbian my self, I take MANY issues with "W". Ofcourse I could bring up Haliburton and other alligations, but then to be fair, I'd have to talk about Clinton and ALL his underhanded dealings, then the short come of Bush Sr, with the first Gulf War and ofcourse, lets not forget Reagan, and the administration who built up and supplied Iraq weapons and money.

BUT I am not blind to the fact that other countries are also corrupt. NONE ARE INNOCENT when it comes to the mess we find ourselves in.


[

The intense hostility of some Americans towards the French is incomprehensible from my perspective!

So far we have:

France was not a military might in the 20th century. [BJ]
-That is just plain wrong, as Dr. Zoid Vermillion has pointed out. Just a little bit of reading would correct that mistake. [Even now France spends more money on military than GB]

France has profited from the OFF programm. [TED]
I have not seen any evidence that supports this allegation.

France was against the war in Iraq because it was closely connected to Saddam. [TED].
I would love to see proof for that theory. Since a vast majority of the people of France were against the Iraq war this would be a good explanation for the stand against the war as well.


That is a remarkable argument. For one, there is no evidence for an involvement of the French government in the OFF programm as pointed out several times.
Then I question the connection that was made between France's stand in the SC on Iraq and terrorism. Iraq has had no connections to al-Qaida and their terrorists. There was none. France wanted, like Germany and Russia and China, more evidence for those ominous WMD.
Why is that of amusement to you when France declares that it will retaliate with nuclear weapons to attacks on their home soil from nations that provide terrorists with WMD?

So, let's not get carried away with these assumptions of Iraqs OFF program and France and focus on the poorly phrased question of France's "new" doctrine to counter terrorist attacks.

There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam had promised France enormous oil contracts. France even pushed to drop all sanction against Iraq in 1999 so they could move forward with contracts on what may be the richest oil fields in the world.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=13021

If you read the French press, or the glowing accounts of Chirac's opposition to the U.S. effort to build an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein that appeared here in America, you might actually believe that the French were standing on principle.

I reveal that Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect.

Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted – 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.

I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.
Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted – 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.

I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.