Replies

You make very interesting points too. Israel would most certainly not tolerate a nuclear hostile nation on its borders, particularly Syria. But wouldn't that give some credence to my theory ? Given the excellent penetration of Israeli intelligence service (as proved by the Osirak raid and many other operations), surely Israel would have acted if they thought the Syrian proposal was backed by any nuclear capability.

As for Israel not retaliating during the first Iraq war, the country showed a remarkable restraint, that's for sure, and that tells a lot about this country's nerves and its confidence in its allies. The modified FROG missiles fired at Israel could have easily been met with a devastating response, although I don't know if Israel would have fired nuclear missiles.

Finally, I have to entirely disagree with you regarding Islam and France. I know it's a popular theory - probably because of its sensationalism - but there's absolutely no fact to back it up. My country is not in the verge of a Islamic takeover, neither in the streets nor in the corridors of the Elysee Palace. This country - and particularly in its institutions - is Catholic. This Republic, for all her secularism, if of Judeo-Christian stock. Don't you think that Islamic radicals willing to go nuclear could more easily pry into Pakistan arsenals ?

I believe the general consensus on what Iraq had before the recent US military action was biological and chemical WMD only. No one thought they had an actual nuclear WMD capability. However, Bush stated that Saddam was pursuing nuclear WMD and dangerously close. I believe the consensus was within a few years. You are correct in stating that if they had them, Israel would have probably acted. After all Israel has destroyed a nuclear reactor in a nearby nation that was only suspected of being able to produce nuclear weapons grade material.

There is a history in that region however of not admitting a country has nuclear capability when they actually do. Initially Israel kept their possession a secret. I think however that Syria's possession of Anthrax and a Dirty Nuclear bomb is a more credible threat to Israel. After all, they share a common border only seperated by UN peacekeepers.

I have to admit that I have never visited France myself. Yes, my thoughts are probably tainted by the current popular anti-french sentiments. However, history does demonstrate that Charles Martel kept Western Europe from becomming Muslim by making a stand in Tours. In fact, when Mitterand was President of France they backed the coalitions Gulf War action. We in America do not understand why Chirac would behave like he did with this recent action. He also had a personal relationship with Saddam that is well documented.

There has been some questioning of Saddams connection with Chirac even in the French media. Although I think that area of investigation has not been given much attention. That in itself seems odd. One would think the left would be all over Chirac. France is in a wierd state right now, if there was a serious terrorist attack within France, the left would blame America. That does not bold well for your predicament. Noone can come to your aid. We conservatives know the left in our own country will easily sacrifice national security for short term political gain.

Perhaps as our 'good friends', France would kindly let us know the current location of their two operational and one soon to be operational nuclear warhead armed submarines ? And, we would probably like to know if there are any muslims in their crews ?