http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...ms_france_dc_2
Well, is there any outrage about this or because its not the US this is peachy to everyone?
Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...ms_france_dc_2
Well, is there any outrage about this or because its not the US this is peachy to everyone?
Read this a couple of hours ago - don't know what got into him, his statements remind me a bit of messageboard-cowboys who frequently want to "turn the Middle East into glass" as a response to terrorist attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Also, I do not quite understand the logic behind not being willing to use nukes in military conflicts but considering it to be an adequate response to terrorist attacks.
Did he drink to much coffee this morning? :dizzy2:
In a poll during the Kosovo war most French were found in favor of nuking the whole region and get it over with.
:help:
Seems pretty sensible to me.
After all, paying for a weapons program that you then declare will never be used saved in the event of your own extirpation is a little silly.
Good Lord, I just said something positive about a French government policy!~:confused: :scared: :eeeek: ~:dizzy:
Nope, no outrage here, because this is France and that is peachy to me. If it were the U.S. I would revert to my Pavlov reflex and start decrying your nation as the crux of evil, the abode of everything decadent, corrupt and villanous on earth, the land of the vain and the home of slavery. But it isn't. So I won't. Not this time round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
:coffeenews:
You may be politically around the bend Adrian, but "damn my eyes" if I don't revel in your sense of humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
He didn't specifically name nukes. It could be conventional, 'or something else'. They may just flood them with chicks with hairy armpits. But even the french aren't that cruel.
To those of you who are supporting nuclear action: Remember the hamsters.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59933
You should be happy Dave, there IS a western country with a worse leader than yours...
You are thinking of Germany.Quote:
They may just flood them with chicks with hairy armpits.
:idea2: Germany?Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Nah, England. (dear) god shave the queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
There is a major problem with this. If Chirac is suggesting a nuke for Iran, you wouldn't just be vaporizing the government there. There are a lot, if not the majority of Iranians that do not have the same beliefs and radical tendencies of the government that governs them. That's a lot of innocent deaths. When the US dropped the bomb on Japan, the population, as a majority, worshipped the Emperor and would fight to the death. Making statements like this does not help the situation. Threatening military action is one thing, but i believe making a statement that even hints to a nuke attack will only hasten Iran to build up a nuclear arsonal. Nukes cannot be an option.
I hate to say it but someone needs to drop some 7* spys on Iran. The biggest problem with that is that you don't know what you'll get as a result. But I'd rather do it BEFORE they have nukes.
"Our country's security and its independence have their price," Chirac said.
LOL, I know this reminds the Euros of someone very near and dear to them. I guess Karl Rove is Chirac's brain as well!!!:laugh4:
So what did the CIA do with the real Chirac? :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Brainwashed him and made him John Kerry's love slave.:idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Mailed him a few self-help books for politicians who've painted themselves into corners, probably (I understand Chirac's domestic popularity... could be better). The same ones Bush reads. You know, swagger, talk tough, scowl in photos...
Damn he's really too old now :embarassed:
ok...so according to us at the org, the following world leaders suck.
blair of the united kingdom
george bush of USA
chirac of france
abdublahblahblah of iran
leader of germany
and that nuts midget in north korea
...wow, i wonder how many more we can slap on the great list.
What is wrong with his statement anyway? 'You blast us, we blast you just as bad, or worse.' Sounds like good old retaliation to me. He also indicates that France's nuclear strategy has been redirected to reflect other than old-fashioned, major military threats to the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by el_slapper
Looks like common sense to me. Maybe that's what some posters are lacking?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
It seems like the western world is getting a raw deal. I'd like to nominate sub Saharan Africa.
I don't think that it would have been common sense if the US had considered to drop a nuke on Afghanistan as a means of retaliation for 9/11, neither do I think that it would be common sense if Israel dropped a nuke on Palestine (or even threatened to do so) as a means of retaliation for the latest bombing in Tel Aviv.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Maybe some posters define "common sense" in a different way than others ~;)
EDIT: Would it also be common sense had Chirac threatened to use white phosphorous as a means of retaliation? :idea2:
AII's been hanging out with his mates in the CIA again...
BTW does the Org think Merckel sucks? Surely its too soon to tell, or has she got a domestic sucking record that I don't know about?
Using nukes is common sense. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I don't see the problem, what's a nuclear deterrant for if not to deter? :dizzy2:
Job creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
LOL, if Bush said that he would be deploying the Boy Scouts with pop guns against Iran you guys would be totally freaking out and call ing him a butcher and a war monger. Chirac is talking about vaporizing an entire region of the world and its common sense. Boy, if that's not putting your prejudice and political bias as your guide instead of reasonable justification, I don't know what is. Hypocricy at its finest. Thanks for sharing.:wall:
The French have the Dijon mustard and an attitude, so they get away with it. Everyone just kinda sighs, rolls their eyes, shrugs, and winks at each other: "those wacky French..." The Americans just have bad TV shows and junk food.
This, kids, is how prestige works in practice. And no, it's not even remotely fair.
i see it as a pure deterent, there basicly putting the shotgun to the terrorists and saying "you wanna hit me...well you don't got the balls, do ya...punk" but i doubt they'd actually pull the trigger. probably just idle threats to hope they don't get what every other country has gotten so far.
Sometime in the near future....
Newscaster: Hello, today is 23rd August 2006, and here are the main news headlines. Paris today suffered the perils of international terrorism as terrorists invaded a small coffee shop and called the owners 'stinky poo poo head christian zealots'. The terrorists were arrested for disturbing the peace, and may possibly be Al Qaeda operatives.
Newscaster: Hello, today is 24th August 2006, and here are the main news headlines. Paris today blew a small chunk of the country Madeupistan into space after yesterday's terrible attacks on the capital. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, with many more injured. Here is what the French President said shortly afterwards. 'They offended our honour and caused the people much suffering. The owners of that coffee shop will be disturbed for life!' French police later made an announcement that the Al Qaeda operatives who commited the atrocities were nothing more than a pair of local drunks wearing brown make-up.
I don't think they'd actually do it. How long was France unable to control Muslim rioters after two boys were accidentally killed? France would fall from within if they ever nuked an Islamic country.
Come on DD, you can't come into the backroom with a big sign round your neck saying Somebody Please Wind Me Up and not have somebody wind you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
And AII stop being naughty. You are upsetting Dave.
I know Britain has been considering redesigning its nukes to be a bit more practical. Not a lot of call for city-destroyers these days.
I wouldn't put just nuking Mecca and getting it all over with beyond Chirac...
I'm being generous to Adrian by taking his bait. If anything he could atleast show some gratitude and thank me.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
There was a speech by a countries leader not long ago , usual stuff you know , terrorism , rogue states and all that . Followed by something about full military might being brought to bear and all options being on the table .
Now would that full military might and all options include that countries nuclear capability ?
So Dave since your leadership has already said the same what is all this ...
Well, is there any outrage about this or because its not the US this is peachy to everyone?
......about ?
Chirac is a dickhead , just like Bush . Its in the job description .
That's about as likely as Chirac invading Germany, then going on television to tell Bush to 'sack up and get stuck in.'
If it was just blowing stuff up, kicking arse and taking names in Muppetistan I doubt the French would bother with nukes - that's what they have those nuts in the Legion Etrangere for.
I'm guessing Chirac's just trying a publicity stunt for the benefit of his party. Don't they have elections coming fairly soon ?
My God, you Americans are such a bunch of pussified pansies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
It's about time France does what all you bleeding heart liberal countries lack the guts for: we're going to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We're the only country with some balls anymore.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/france.gif
Vive la France, vive la République!
Wow, nuclear weapons against terrorists... This is actually even worse than anything the Bush administration has said lately. If he's serious, this can only be the tragic start of wide usage of nuclear weapons in non-emergency situations, which can only spiral away into full nuclear war in a not too distant future. Is it so difficult to understand that the moment the refusal to use nuclear weapons we've had since ww2 is broken, only a gradual increase of usage, until the total destruction of earth, can follow.
:laugh4: Well it looks like France wins this year's "Ball of Brass" award. Congrats!!!:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
I think France is just trying to do the traditional french isolationist thing. Do what you want but leave us alone; no, we are not going to help, we are not going to send troops, we have teh bomb.
It's a disclaimer if you ask me.
So the perception is that threats made by France are nothing but hot air.
It may be hot air, but it will be great propoganda for the Iranian nutjob prez toi use to justify his seeking of nuke technology. I'm being serious for once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartaq
Sorry I read a little more careful now - Chirac says "in the event of enemies using weapons of mass destruction against France". In that case it's a form of eye for eye, which is slightly better than what I first thought it was. But still not a good idea, because the terrorists aren't the same as their nation. If only Bush senior hadn't been a coward in the Gulf War and Bush junior hadn't handled the communication before the Iraq war so carelessly it would have been possible to carry out a strategy of forcing some kind of democratic system on all not yet democratic countries, and be successful with it, if their leaders carry out something inappropriate. Unfortunately the carelessness is starting to remove that possibility and worse and worse possibilities are left...
France isn't the first nuclear-capable country that says it can and will use nukes when and if it wants to. IIRC both Russia and the US keep the option open, it's just been a while since they needed to measure dicks on that scale.
It's partly what AdrianII said, a common sense re-evaluation of the goals of France's nuclear deterrent: "He also indicates that France's nuclear strategy has been redirected to reflect other than old-fashioned, major military threats to the nation.
Looks like common sense to me."
And a bit of what Watchman said: "I'm guessing Chirac's just trying a publicity stunt for the benefit of his party. Don't they have elections coming fairly soon?"
Yes, it's traditional Sabre-rattling in the best Gaullist tradition. (Chirac is the current leader of the Gaullist party). The next presidential elections are in 2007.
And a whole lot of what El_slappersaid: "Damn he's really too old now" :embarassed:
It's meant for a domestic audience, not as a threat or an announcement of any major shift in foreign policy.
Here's Chirac's full speech. Sorry, but understandably, it's in French.
An atomic bomb on a islamic country would be demographic suicide for France.
The ramblings of an old man that had too much wine.
An atomic bomb on a islamic country would be demographic suicide for France.
Why ? Have you invented some new demographics ?
So, if I understand what the French President said, is if France is attack by a STATE, through terrorist attack, France will defend herself with all her strength, and won’t exclude the use of Nuclear weapons, which goes from Intercontinental Missiles to Nuclear tactical Missiles (Ades, Goddess? of Death in Greek Mythology?).
Well, I supposed let’s say, if a Country despatch few pills of whatever product in the water supply of Paris, killing 2,000,000 inhabitants, I supposed that this country won’t be surprise to have her main towns vaporised. That is the Mutual Assured Destruction theorem. Before to start something, be aware of the consequences and be sure you want the consequences…
It didn’t say that France will retaliate immediately by nuclear weapons…
Now, less Bushism, more Marxism, if you don’t mind. The French riots weren’t a shock of civilisation, a Muslim up-rising and all this kind of crap. The rioters burned indifferently churches and mosque. I know it was not publish so much; it should have obliged the news to re-thing. And journalists like simple explanations for simple audience: Us.
France possesses Nuclear weapons from the 60’ or something like that. 10 years ago, the GIA, an Algerian Extremist Muslim Organisation put some bombs in sub-ways, transports and other public places. For what I know, Alger is still intact. Even better, when the Algerian President is sick, he goes in France to recover, in the Hopital Militaire, Military Hospital, for those of as who don’t speak or read, at least, two languages (rare).:inquisitive:
“Paris today suffered the perils of international terrorism as terrorists invaded a small coffee shop and called the owners 'stinky poo poo head christian zealots'.”
That did happened, and the blood and suffering of the victims is more than enough to bring shame of what you wrote.:furious3:
I don’t make joke about yours victims, don’t with mine.
Yeah, well, if I'm not mistaken the GIA and the Algerian gov't are in an open armed conflict (and a pretty ugly one at that), so slamming the latter for something the former did would've been kinda stupid.
And back in the day De Gaulle pretty much told the Americans to go stuff it and France went and developed their own nuclear arsenal. *shrug* Seems to be a bit of a tradition. Then again, even Sweden had a secret crash-course nuke program tucked away for a rainy day around those times...
Exactly, that is why all this fuss is about a STATE attacking France, not about a small group of terrorists.~D
Speaking of misleading and inflammatory thread titles...
~:rolleyes:
There is a big difference between a nation's leader making a direct, specific threat of using weapons of mass destruction (as the thread title implies) and a nation's leader saying:
Which is pretty much the standard policy of every nation that has nuke capability.Quote:
"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."
If Bush were to make that same statement I would also find it to be reasonable, given the context.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure you would.:coffeenews:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Read again, guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
"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."
Adapted response -- nothing alarming there, and certainly nothing remotely suggestive of what you wrote above.
Just like the thread on Chavez' supposed anti-semitism, this one is another big carfuffle about nothing.
True, but 'France threatens terrorists with nuclear strike' is what a lot of foreign press releases picked up on, from what a quick google revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
The title of the link DD provided reads: 'France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism'.
It's not untrue, but the real issue is: 'Chirac defends nuclear force to French voters'. That was the object of his speech.
The Soviet Union has collapsed ages ago and the cold war is over. The OTAN is desparately struggling to find new enemies. There is no foreign military force at the moment either bend on or cpable of subjugating western-Europe.
So what justification is there for spending 10% of France's already very high defense budget on nuclear deterrence? When we have a huge budget deficit already? We spend more money annually on polishing useless missiles than we manage to prise out of the EU through the CAP. :wall:
The Force de Frappe - France's nuclear arms, has a very symbolic meaning to Chirac's small-hung Gaullist electorate who need nuclear phallic symbols to bolster their manhood. He started his presidency with nuking Mururoa, and ends it with showing that under his leadership all the missiles still stand erect.
The right-wing craves a large nuclear force, ever since De Gaulle started one in 1964, it has symbolised French independence and strenght for them. Today, speaking at a naval base, Chirac provided a renewed justification for it. Though neither a very shocking, nor a very original nor a very convincing one.
Not very shocking, because a nuclear force is always an implicit threat to those threatening vital interests. Like, he means until yesterday he wouldn't have retaliated with all our might against a major attack? The only thing new is that, contrary to French tradition, the threat of retaliation is now explicit.
Not very original, because ever since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 the only foreign threats have been understood to be rogue states, or states supporting terrorists.
Not very convincing, because I don't think the war on terror is a military struggle. I still fail to see why we should need more than a dozen or so nuclear warheads combined with a state-of-the-art scientific nuclear programme. A bit like the Israeli's.
It's an ongoing waste of tax-money. :no:
I did read it - you conveniently only put those parts in bold that make this indeed look like a "normal" statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
For the second part (weapons of mass destruction) it would indeed be a "normal" response (it would not even really be a change in policy) - it's the second part (terrorist means) that constitutes a change in policy.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree if you think that even considering "unconventional" responses as a means of retaliation after a terrorist attack (and as he mentions weapons of mass destruction separately, we have to assume that these "terrorist means" do not include the use of WMDs) is normal and common sense policy
That will really help us in the talks with Iran :2thumbsup:
You guys seriously need to learn how to read properly. Chirac never said "We're going to wipe out anyone who attack us, especially Iran, cause we don't like them". He said that if France is hitten by a large scall terrorist or WMD-based attack (which will never happen), we'll retaliate and hammer-vaporize-back-to-the-stone-age a whole country if needed (which will never happen aswell).
That sounds to be what you could expect from any State leader in the world.
Louis IV wins the award for the funniest reply ever.
It's not as if French and German diplomats just said this morning that Iran will never negociate and is just trying to get some times before the west reacts.Quote:
That will really help us in the talks with Iran
So 20 years ago could Paris have been nuked because of the French Terrorist attack on the Rainbow Warrior?
Which is still one of the few modern cases of a government directly being found to be using terrorist attacks.
The exact phrase I use is "sheet of glass".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Sheet damn you, sheet!
What thread count? 300, 450? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I don't see the big deal. If a WMD ever struck LA, Chicago or heck, even San Francisco, I'd hope Bush would be ready to let 'er rip.
The only thing surprising here is that Chirac appears to be using common sense.
Do you think he'd really nuke Texas?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5350.htm
No. 'Adapted response' are the operative terms here. Nothing new.. Nothing to see, please move on..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
:dozey:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: youre silly:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
This is the French were talking about right. Ya know the guys who dont fight Germany and somehow mnage to lose a conventinal war against the Algerinas? We should hit them and take our freedom fries
Yeah, the same way you lost Vietnam. :dizzy2:
Old joke. Stale. Besides, don't you lot have your own potatoes anyway ?
its the princeple of the thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Spetuhlu was talking about Bush nuking Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
But, come to think of it, that 'freedom fries' stuff would qualify as verbal terrorism. And it was supported by your government. That makes Texas a valid nuclear target under the Chirac-doctrine. :deal2:
Be careful where you thread, young man. You can't see them, but our nuclear armed submarines surely can see you.~:smoking:
French nukes would bounce off Texas airspace and hit ohio. Thats how bad ass we are:laugh4:
Holy frickin sheet!!! You just said sheet to a mod. That's awfully sheety of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Texas would be interesting as a nukkular target. You'd have cowboys with three legs, radiating oil wells, surprisingly beautiful women.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Indeed - and apparently Chirac made this speech to make clear that there has been a change in what the French government considers to be an "adapted response".Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
My remark was not exclusively directed at you - people who share your view on this seem to visit messageboards in abundance (of course you could also just be very busy making such posts in various places ~;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I didn't get the impression that it was the "nuke countries that use WMDs against us" part in Chirac's speech that made people feel slightly uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
He said French nuclear strategy has been changed in order to reflect an increased risk of WMD terrorism from hostile nations. The response could be nuclear, depending on the nature of the hostilities. Absolutely nothing new there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Yes, but how about real American nukes? A domestic white supremacist group planning to use WMDs got caught there in 2003, mostly because the postal office was incompetent.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
France didnt threaten with nuclear weapons. He he said "convential or other weapons"
Actually, the end result is only glass if there are large concentrations of silicate present. Much of the area known as the Middle East is not sandy desert (though that is substantial), so I think you'd end up with a mixed sheet of numerous heat-generated compounds.:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
The thing is that Chirac might just have convinced a few more people in Iran and elsewhere that they need nukes. If someone threatens you with nukes you either comply or get nukes yourself. And evil dictators have a history for being irresponsibly bad at complying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Really Chirac could take lessons from Bush in being diplomatic. What did he achieve by this? Does anyone really believe that any evil dictator had just forgotten about the fact that France has nukes? Anyone who builds WMDs does so to have the option to use it. You do not have to mention it extra and it is in fact better not to mention it. Chirac was just playing "tough guy". And "tough guys" are always outdone by "completely insane guys".
Just for interest's sake, Chirac's popularity gained 4 points in the weekly poll. Up to a 37% approval rate.
Apparently, his tough talk struck a nerve.
lol France threatens? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Oh my god...if this continues he's going to be more popular then Blair or Bush are in their countries :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat