Share This Page:

  

The next war

General Military Chat. New to the forums? Introduce yourself, Who are you and where are you from?
Sisyphus
Member
Member
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun 11 Aug, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Runcorn

Post by Sisyphus »

Now I'm really worried, Frank! :(

I can agree with most of the reasons why the French are not the US's favourite people at the moment but nuking them because of it is a bit OTT. No hang on - it's not - it's absolutely bonkers! :o :o

Hopefully it's just a few nutters mouthing off as nutters do.
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

The more polished view:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-052002.htm

The unblemished view:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs15.html

Or this:

http://www.therazor.org/nukefrance.htm

Actually, if you do a Google search for 'nuke France', you'll get quite a few hits... And bear in mind, we have nutters in high places in the administration...
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

:o Sacre bleu

My God Frank, I really didn't know how serious this subject was "Nuking France" I knew there was ill feeling between the French and the US but I didn't realise the hatred that existed.

We in Britain have always taken the urine out of France as historically it is they that we have been to war with most often and over a lengthy period and they are our own nearest European neighbour.

I really think it is time that someone in authority Stateside takes this subject by the scruff of the neck to sort out this problem before anyone talks themselves into doing something drastic. I can see French Fries having a different meaning now, holy $hite, and you don't get many expletives from me!
Sisyphus
Member
Member
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun 11 Aug, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Runcorn

Post by Sisyphus »

Frank

Thank God for that. The nukefrench site [s**t on the furniture etc..] we can dismiss out of hand. Bit like Moore and Columbine. {Desecration of British wargraves by some nuts used to stereotype all French opinion}

Higg's unblemished (but completely ridiculous) article made me chuckle. :) So the French have enough nukes to attack the U.S. But the Russians had/have far more and for some strange reason never got round to actually doing anything. I wonder what the French secret weapon is that prevents US retaliation?

Kagan's article seems more interesting. It seems to admit that the US prefer coercion in Foreign Policy - presumably in the hope it makes his article seem more balanced.. But I haven't had time to read it properly.

Anyway, I'm feeling much more settled now. Cheers! :)
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

Sisyphus, I'm in complete agreement with the order of importance you attribute to the 'articles'.
Here's the thing, though: Kagan's article can be considered a 'primer', and it is posted on the website instituted by Bush's entourage. Very influential people.
It follows that at lower levels of media, but of more massive dissemination like the other two, writers don't feel so compelled to exercise restraint.
Lew Rockwell, in particular, has a sizeable following.

Consider too the expression "cheese eating surrender monkeys". Where did it originate from? The "Simpsons" cartoon show, which reflects everything mainstream, good or bad. I think other threads have demonstrated a dominating strain of anger in the American psyche, and that strain is best directed outwards.
I think the French make a great target for both real and manufactured reasons.
I reiterate my opinion that a war against the EU and France in particular is highly unlikely. However, the pump has been primed, and Bush's attitude as well as veiled threats from both the NSC and the State Department of 'consequences' for France's opposition to the war show that all options are open.
Maybe more important, the euro keeps getting stronger than the dollar, and given the administration's mentality, it may lead them to open a can of whoop a$$ to counter the economic threat.
As for the man on the street, frustrated and scared by economic woes, why, he'd love nothing more than kicking some foreign a$$, and the French are prime candidates, ain't they?

Ungrateful, conniving bastards that they are.
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

Howdy Frank.
Power and Weakness is going to take me a while to ingest and used most of my remaining printer paper.Robert Higgs is a little unbalanced imo.
As for the third article,just did not pay it too much heed.In my ever decreasing circle of friends we don't much talk of nuking anyone.Of course all we talk about is hunting and social security. :wink:
Wholley.
:o
User avatar
Whitey
Member
Member
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

Post by Whitey »

Nukes are not very sportsman like. I wish we and the French could repair relations, but really we were only bedfellows all along.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

It appears that the EU cannot agree on a"Constitution"
Now why do I find that a shock.Most of Europe can't agree on anything.
Most have hatred for each other that has gone on for hundreds of years.
France,Great Britain,Holland,Germany,Spain,Italy,Portugal et al have fought each other over Land,Gold,Whaling rights,Fishing rights in general.
They have no common language or identity.I think the EU was doomed from the start of this stupid notion that they could all just get along.
As to the US?Isolation is our best policy,provided we have an effective way to protect our borders.
I guess thats another issue.
Wholley.
:o
User avatar
Whitey
Member
Member
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue 12 Aug, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: Dixie, Well my heart anyway

Post by Whitey »

The EU, just when you think you got them figured out.
Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul. (Thomas Paine)
Spannerman
Member
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon 14 Apr, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: East Anglia

Post by Spannerman »

I read on a thread somewhere in the past few days about a 'war between US and Europe', I just cannot believe, or understand some of you across the pond, do you not realise that there is no perceived threat now or in the immediate future from Europe?

Because a nation doesn't agree with your ideaology doesn't mean you can wipe them off the face of the Earth if that is the case the UN's mandate on the Iraqi war would leave about half a dozen nations surviving. I suppose now that is why we have to listen to the US diplomatic and democratic way of life, 'vote with us or pay the consequences'.

I always favoured the US of A to Europe for many reasons, you guys talking like that have turned me against your administration even more. Sounds to me that you lot REALLY are the bully boys of the world........
Sisyphus
Member
Member
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun 11 Aug, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Runcorn

Post by Sisyphus »

wholley wrote:Most have hatred for each other that has gone on for hundreds of years.
France,Great Britain,Holland,Germany,Spain,Italy,Portugal et al have fought each other.
They have no common language or identity.I think the EU was doomed from the start of this stupid notion that they could all just get along.
wholley

You're spot on about the history. But the world's changing. WWII, WWI, 1870 Franco-Prussian War; The Napoleonic Wars, etc...

But now they're arguing over the table, not over the parapet of a trench. Germany and France, arch enemies since before the 18th century are now, co-operating. Spain and Poland has knocked them back. So much for the myth the Anti-Federal EU gang put out that we'll all lose our national sovereignty.

The notion of an inter-country war in Europe seems almost unthinkable now, thank heavens. The EU going to war with another country seems equally unthinkable - but that may change in the future. The Euro was ridiculed when it came out but it's now much stronger than the $ and 20% stronger than the £ was a year ago [or thereabout 1.62 then, 1.42 now]

Mind you, the £'s up against the dollar, too. £1 = $1.72. I can't remember when it was that high. We were supposed to be off the Spain in Jan but are thinking of trying the U.S. instead.!
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

Sisyphus.
If'n you decide on a US vacation you'd be more than welcome to stay with
us for a spell.Errrm...depending on how big your family is,oh well we have a tent.
Wholley.
:o
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

Sisyphus wrote: Mind you, the £'s up against the dollar, too. £1 = $1.72. I can't remember when it was that high.
That was back in 1992, I believe. If your travels bring you to California, I'll buy a few pints! :wink:
Wholley
Guest
Guest

Post by Wholley »

Spanner's.
I think this"Bomb the Bastards"attitude is way overstated by our media.
I don't think any right minded American want's to nuke anyone.
Just my opinion.
Wholley.
:o
Frank S.
Guest
Guest

Post by Frank S. »

Wholley I fear you're both right and wrong.
People our age (40 and above) are not as likely to support first use of nuclear weapons, as they were not as supportive of pre-emptive action as younger folks were.

Having said that, the media only reflect thought currents (we could argue they actually create them but I don't think so in this case).
As I said before, since September 11, much of the previously existing 'restraint' went out the window. If the enemy comes at you with a knife, you pull out a gun, if he uses planes as weapons, you start thinking nukes. And the prevailing thought remains 'you are with us or against us' in this.
We've spoken of the continuum of force before and there it is again.
The problem of any future administration will be to make the case for war to an aging population, not because the population doesn't have the stomach for a fight, but because an older population is more savvy and balanced as to the nature of force to be used. As well as the reasons for it.

Finally, when we talk of the media, bear in mind major pundits like Safire, William Buckley Jr or Charles Krauthammer repeatedly and loudly echoed the administration's cause to go to war in Iraq and sanction those who opposed it. These are not lightweight, fringe players.
But nowhere in their writings (and I read them all) do they provide firm proof of anything: they just amplify assertions.
Someone said: there is no 'truth', only 'agreed upon' truths.

Elsewhere, we may examine the nature and extent of participation in this fight against terror by those who 'opposed' us and opened themselves up for retribution. It may prove enlightening.
Post Reply