Splort! Alde “my post is my cite” is now asking for cites from others? :rolleyes:
Every single statement I made is verifiable by anyone with a passing familiarity of internet research, or a working knowledge of French. Especially the part about:
Europe providing nuclear weapons to the Third Word for decades
Yes, YOU, EUROPE (France especially in both nuclear and conventional arms) armed Saddam far more than the US ever did.
If any ME nation starts a nuclear war using Pakistani technology, that will be Europe and China’s fault. Yes, Yourope.
Alde, Suggestions: LeMonde, L’Express, Liberation
They compare Irak (That was for you) to Vietnam on an almost daily basis. Just look at the political cartoons. You need not even read the boring articles.
The European media was so consistently wrong on their war coverage that many of them had no explanation for the US tanks sitting in Saddam’s palace parking lots. Now you want me to “cite” to you what they said EVERY day during the very short war. Do you read French papers?
I could cite one of the big French papers, but this article (among thousands) has “Vietnam” in the title – that should make things perfectly clear.
By the way, the entire Vietnam crisis is directly tied to the brutal, outdated French colonialism (they’re always a little behind on what’s going on) and their total lack of backbone or ethics in opposing the most violent and murderous ideology in history: Communism. Sure, other nations were smart enough to de-colonize after WWII, but not France.
I have some feelings that your feelings are wrong.
Uh oh…now what?
-LC
Master Debater
Out of sheerly and purely perverse curiosity I am compelled to ask you, “Which Third World nation(s) posess nuclear weapons, (especially ones with nuclear weapons “proliferated” by Europeans, (nations, I presume)?”
This could benefit from some expounding and explaining. Currently, it reads like empty verbal abuse, name-calling.
I’m glad it’s not just me. Beagle’s usually more coherent than this, no? Some of his posts in here read like bad-addled gibberish.
Sorry, but no, they were not “wrong” in their coverage. They were in fact among the only ones who had independent jounralists in Iraq. We are not going to talk here about the difficulties those journalists encountered to even be able to enter Iraq, let be to be able to report and have their reports transmitted.
The US itself had/has (officially) no explanation why the expected Great Battle For Baghdad didn’t happen.
I do read a lot of EU papers, among them some are French and some others are French languaged.
You link makes something perfectly clear, but sorry for you it is quite in contrast with your wild claims.
The title of that article,
Cette fois, l’ombre du Vietnam…
TRANSLATION:
This time, the shadow of Vietnam….
Refers to
TRANSLATION:
D’ailleurs (I can’t translate “d’ailleurs” in English. One could translate as “on the other hand” but that is not quite correctly expressing the right intention) since the republican senator of Arizona John McCain, who passed almost 5 years in the prisons of Hanoi, has made a parallel between Irak and the war in which he fought, the reference to Vietnam <<invaded the Amercain political debate>>.
The rest of the article goes about the attacks and their targets and so on… and the article ends
TRANSLATION:
In a confidential <<memo>> from which <<USA Today>> received a copy, the secretary of Defence Donal Rumsfeld estimates the Americains Must prepare themselves to endure a long and difficult calvary>> in Irak…
Both these quotes make the chosen title quite valid in my opinion.
It has nothing to do with how EU’ers “see” this situation, it has to do with how US’ers see and describe it.
And I didn’t see even much of this type of articles in the EU press.
There were since the start of this invasion a few articles who questioned if yes or no this could become a situation comparable with Vietnam or who questioned if yes or no the US public and/or government would start to make the parallel. But as far as I recall, I didn’t see any journalist making that claim or making the comparison himself.
If you have articles in which the writer makes that claim = comes with the suggestion or conclusion that Iraq is going to be a second Vietnam for the USA, you are free to post them to support your assertion that in the EU such claims were made, and - as you claim - even “daily”.
Salaam. A
There are two European nuclear powers - the UK and France. You clearly say that France has especially, which i guess implies the UK has as well, just not to as great an extent. Any chance i could see a cite that the UK and France have been providing nuclear weapons to Third World countries for decades?
I don’t really understand your vitriolic hatred of Europe. Sure, various European countries (my own included) have done some pretty nasty things in the name of “national interest”. But thats no different to the US.
Are you familiar with the Khan scandal? It’s only just started developing and one thing is clear:
The imperialistic warmongering Dutch and Germans love their nuclear technology to be spread around.
I’m trying to adapt to the new, lower standard of debate around here.
That’s the biggest news since the Soviets stole the nuclear bomb from the US through traitorous US citizens. Well, if you like living. If you are suicidal, break out the bubbly.
Beagle: The imperialistic warmongering Dutch and Germans love their nuclear technology to be spread around.
(checking against ostensible thread topic in thread title)
France? nope
headscarf? nope
Usama? nope
al-Qaeda? nope
foreign policy? well, kinda sorta, I guess. Overall, though, Beagle, I am still pretty much in the “huh, what?” camp when it comes to understanding what this thread of yours is supposed to be debating.
“imperialistic warmongering Dutch”?
heheheheheheh 
From what you linked to, it seems that the major contributors to Pakistans nuclear program were China and North Korea. There’s only one mention of any European country re Pakistan and nuclear weapons.
Doesn’t really sound like the Europeans are as involved with Pak’s development of nukes as China was. It seems contrived that one should try to blame the “various sources principally in the FSU and Western Europe,” given there’s only one mention of Western Europe re Pakistans Nuke capability, and the mention reads like an afterthought.
Hers are the relevant sections re Pakistan, China and NK:
Contrast all of this with the sole sentence on Western Europe:
Pakistan acquired “nuclear related and dual-use equipment and materials” from the FSU and WE.
From either China or NK Pakistan acquired:
missile technology
Missile-related items, raw materials, technical assistance.
assistance with plutonium production
M-11 missiles
nuclear materials and expertise
critical assistance in the production of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.
Pakistan is said to be dependent upon “continuing support from China and North Korea”
It is really a stretch to use this document to support the idea that, “The imperialistic warmongering Dutch and Germans love their nuclear technology to be spread around.”
Maybe you accidentally linked to the wrong document again?
Actually I am. I fact, about a year ago, on another board, I started a thread about the relative threats presented by Iraq and Pakistan. I found Pakistan to be several times more dangerous and worrisome than Iraq. It was part of what made me realize that the Bush Admin et al, while being technically truthful, (mostly), were not being honest about the reasons for invading Iraq.
I feel that the French headscarf thing proves that we have struck Al Quida a deadly blow.
If Osama was able to retaliate against France, he would have.
He didn’t.
I think he can’t.
Our fighting in Afghanistan seems to be against Taliban holdouts, or non-Taliban factions that want to seize power. I wonder how much, if any, of the attacks in Iraq are actually connected to Al Quida. I wonder how much time Bin Ladin spends “blowing smoke”.