A Distant Roar
Since the advent of International Islamic Terrorism in the late 1960's, western countries have attempted to ingratiate their Moslem neighbors with lucrative trade contracts and military programs that would enhance their qualitative edge against their estrwhile enemy, Israel and yet, it appears that it was not enough to stave off Moslem terror attacks. Europe and America including Israel, have been the primary targets of International Islamic Terrorism during the 1980's and 1990's. The attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September of 2001 was the last straw. America with or without Europe will wage war with Islamic nations who utilize "assemetric warfare" as a means of political discourse. Even now, France has maintained "neutrality" throughout the War on Terror as a way of "protecting" themselves from Islamic retaliation. Today, however, this has changed.
From Reuters:
France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.
He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.
"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."
Well, well, well. It appears things have changed. Perhaps a nuclear Iran is in fact a reality that Paris must publically reiteriate to those less than enthusiastic about European culture and influence that she is herself willing to use a nuclear option in dealing with "rogue" states.
Reuters continues:
Chirac, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said all of France's nuclear forces had been configured with the new strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.
It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.
Chirac, 73, did not say whether France would be prepared to use pre-emptive strikes against a country it saw as a threat.
Somehow I don't think that really matters in this day and age. What one says may not be what one means.
the article continues:
France has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and experts believe it has some 300 nuclear warheads.
"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," Chirac said in his first major speech on France's nuclear arms strategy since 2001.
"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act."
Europe may be slower to react to terrorism than America but they will react. How and in what way apparently has now been made clear. I wonder if Tehran is listening?
From Reuters:
France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent.
He said there was no change in France's overall policy, which rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. But his speech pointed to a change of emphasis to underline the growing threat France perceives from terrorism.
"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."
Well, well, well. It appears things have changed. Perhaps a nuclear Iran is in fact a reality that Paris must publically reiteriate to those less than enthusiastic about European culture and influence that she is herself willing to use a nuclear option in dealing with "rogue" states.
Reuters continues:
Chirac, who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said all of France's nuclear forces had been configured with the new strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.
It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear response to a terrorist attack.
Chirac, 73, did not say whether France would be prepared to use pre-emptive strikes against a country it saw as a threat.
Somehow I don't think that really matters in this day and age. What one says may not be what one means.
the article continues:
France has had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and experts believe it has some 300 nuclear warheads.
"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or annihilation," Chirac said in his first major speech on France's nuclear arms strategy since 2001.
"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity to act."
Europe may be slower to react to terrorism than America but they will react. How and in what way apparently has now been made clear. I wonder if Tehran is listening?
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 11:13 AM
2 Comments:
You make it sound like "exploitation" is a bad word! Please, were it not for Western business interests the people of the Middle East would still be riding on camels and living without air conditioning! Try driving a car around in 130 degree weather without air conditioning! No wonder their mad and crazy!
The West has had the capability and the know-how to extract oil out of the ground and use it for our industrial purposes. They, the Islamic countries, both Sunni & Shia, have benefited greatly from black gold as much as anyone else. We are ALL exploiting the fertile ground for oil.
Lets also not forget the famous Silk Road ran straight thru Central Asia and the Middle East. They have sit astride the major trade routes for millenia. Oil is but one more commodity for them to exact concessions from us as it makes its way to the West.
As for Russian and Chinese interests, you don't think they would not "exploit" the Middle Eastern resources either? Please. You are far too naive. The Russians and the Asians will have their way with the Moslems soon enough. And I assure you, it won't be pretty.
Vive le France.
I don't think the Mohammedan's are that stupid. I think they know from the history of both the Russians and Chinese that they would be far more exploitive of their resources than the West.
At least we are willing to "share" the spoils, perhaps not as fairly as some might want, whereas no such arrangement would be had by post-mongolian peoples such as the Chinese and Russians.
As for the Classical World, we have such knowledge of it not because of the Arabs but because of the Byzantines! Nearly 90% of what we know of Rome and Greece is because of Constantnople, that other "eternal" Roman City. It was they that spoke the street language of the ancient world: Koine Greek.
Yes, some texts were preserved by Arabs because they seized the ancient classical libraries that dotted the North African plain from Mauritania to Egypt. However, it wasn't because of enlightened self-interest that some books/scrolls were preserved. In a process of de-Helenization, most of these books were destroyed or copied into the arabic language.
The knowledge of Ancient Egypt and that of the classical world therefore was deciphered and re-discovered because of WEST EUROPEAN efforts in the fields of archeology, history and anthropology and this during a time when Christianity was supreme.
The Medieval Ages was the pivot in Europe between the classical and modern world we have today. Were it not for THOSE scholars during the so called "dark ages" then we indeed would not have the knowledge of the past as we do now.
Make no mistake, Mr. Rogers, a dark-age still exists over the classical world and it is known as Islam. A scurge that will someday be lifted from the yoke of man.
Post a Comment
<< Home