Conference back40::soapbox

    Piracy in defense of an ill-considered intent to conduct nuke tests.
    
    France is vastly in the wrong.
    
    DougO

    
    About two years ago the French commando who blew up the Rainbow Warrior
    was awarded a medal, an act that seriously pissed off New Zealand (and
    rightly so).
    
    Given France's past behavior, this recent incident comes as no surprise;
    indeed, it seems almost tame.
    

    The *real* issue isn't France's treatment of a ship ignoring previously
    and widely communicated orders (remember the Soviets shooting down the
    Korean airliner anyone?), but why in the h*ll France needs to conduct
    more nuclear tests (just to test a model's accuracy).  I hope *that*
    isn't overlooked in the upcoming media frenzy.
    
    My thoughts on the surface issue?  Greenpeace got what they deserved;
    it appears France learned it's lesson when it stepped *way* over the
    line 10 years ago.  
    
    What to do next?  Boycott, boycott, boycott French stuff.  Hurt in the
    wallet/purse - it's worked in the past many times before.  Write your
    elected representative and give your thoughts to him/her.  
    
    I'm just waiting for one of those underground nukes to oepn up the
    earth's crust and really cause some damage (I know, a bit
    unrealistic..)
    
    Doug

    simple, France is one of the more arrogant, selfish, and
    non-appreciative countries in the world...

    re -1
    
    and that could be used to describe Greenpeace as well (except it
    obviously isn't a country). Who appointed them saviours of the universe
    and how can they prove that their so-called experts are any more in the
    right than those who differ in viewpoint?

re.5:

Greenpeace are very accountable, they are funded by their members - no members
then no funds. That membership is drawn from over 30 countries around the world
making Greenpeace an international pressure group with an impressive mandate for
their actions.

Dave.

    re .6
    
    Whats an impressive mandate? Who are they impressing? Certainly not the
    French Government. Greenpeace are only a limited pressure group. They
    seek to impose their will (which may or may not be a minority view) on
    the majority. Is their mandate any more impressive than a
    democratically elected Government going about its daily business? Not
    in the slightest.
    
    You evaded the point about their experts. They trot out (as do 
    Governments) expert opinion after expert opinion yet fail to
    prove that theirs is the view that should prevail through reasoned
    argument hence their need for international vandalism, sorry Direct
    Action as they label it.
    
    Stuart   

    re: 0
    A few of points:

    > But Greenpeace said four inflatable boats which carried a total of
    > eight people were launched from the ship before the commando raid and
    > that at least one of the boats had reached the lagoon inside Mururoa
    > Atoll. The French government did not confirm the claim, and Greenpeace
    > spokesman Jon Walter said the eight activists remained unaccounted for
    > in the confusion. 

    If France announces that they are going to go on with the test anyway, 
    that should get the little buggers outta there right quick.  If they don't
    leave, no big loss anyway.  They will either get vaporized, or provide 
    good experimental evidence as to the effects on humans.

    > Protesters gathered Monday in Australia and New Zealand to
    > mark the 10th anniversary of the sinking by French agents of the
    > original Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbor, New Zealand, drowning
    > Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira. 

    Well, I guess that there are no safe occupations in this world.  Ain't
    that a shame.

    > ... said Bunny McDiarmid, ...

    Maybe I'm hard hearted, but someone with a name like this, is not going to
    be a great loss to society.

    > Chirac said last month that the nuclear tests would resume at the
    > atoll, where France has set off more than 130 atmospheric and
    > underground nuclear tests since 1966. 

    I'm curious as to why the French resumed testing.  I have yet to hear a
    reason that makes sense.

    > The French Socialist Party called on Chirac to abandon the tests. It
    > released a statement Sunday calling the plan "an initiative that ...
    > compromises the French image (and) relaunches the atomic arms race." 

    Is this what they fear most, compromising the French image?
    "...relaunches the atomic arms race." - pray tell, with whom?

    
    re:.7
    > argument hence their need for international vandalism, sorry Direct
    > Action as they label it.
    
    good one!  I like that....
    
    :-)
    Dan

re.7:

So you're not impressed, what a surprise! I didn't evade your point on experts,
I ignored it because it was beneath comment. Greenpeace are not an emotive
organisation and rely on scientific research to back their campaigns.

Greenpeace's use of direct action is necessary in a cynical and uncaring world
where news is but another commodity.

Dave.

    ...commandos in black helmets and jumpsuits...
    
       sounds like their version of the BATF.

    Dave,
    
    Greenpeace are an emotive group. Whilst they base their arguments on
    scientific research, they try to influence public perception through
    emotional news clips, in much the same manner that the Worldwide Fund
    for Nature and other pressure groups do.
    
    >I didn't evade your point on experts, I ignored it because it was 
    >beneath comment.
    
    I don't see why. If Greenpeace is trying to win an argument on
    scientific grounds, then it must be able to prove that its expert
    opinion is valid whilst its opponents opinion is incorrect. I have yet
    to see any expert provided by Greenpeace who has proved to be far superior
    to any provided by the Government.
    
    >Greenpeace's use of direct action is necessary in a cynical and
    >uncaring world 
    
    And this is the justification for their actions? Their are plenty of
    other groups in our Society who are fighting for varying causes within
    the law but don't break it to get their message across and many of
    these are arguably more succesful.
    
    Stuart

    eco-terrorists come in 2nd best to the government jackbooted thugs.
    Seems predictable to me.

> Greenpeace are not an emotive organisation

Friday already? Geeziz - where _does_ the time go? 

re.11:

Perhaps this Greenpeace document will help you see things differently Stuart, I
can't see much emotion in it myself.

Dave.

----------cut here ------------------

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON FRENCH
NUCLEAR TESTING AND THE NUCLEAR
NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

What does the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (npt) have to do with the tenth
anniversary of the Rainbow Warrior bombing? 

On July 10 1985 French agents bombed the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour to
prevent its protest voyage to the nuclear testing site of Moruroa in French
Polynesia.

The tenth anniversary of the bombing coincides with an historic conference on
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. 

During the Cold War, nuclear testing was a symbol of the nuclear arms race and a
technical necessity to develop new nuclear weapons. An end to nuclear testing
has therefore been seen as an essential lever in stopping the creation of larger
nuclear arsenals and the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries. 

Under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nuclear weapon states agreed to
end the nuclear arms race and work for nuclear disarmament 'at an early date',
in exchange for non-nuclear states rejecting nuclear weapons possession. The
1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) had ended nuclear tests in the atmosphere,
and the non-nuclear states party to the NPT saw a comprehensive test ban
outlawing all tests in all environments as the next step to halt, or impede, the
development of new nuclear weapons. In the preamble to the NPT, therefore, they
called for a comprehensive test ban as a priority, and ever since have seen
progress toward it as a 'litmus test' for assessing the commitment of the
nuclear weapon states to disarmament. 

In April-May 1995, a decision on the future of the NPT will be made at a meeting
at the United Nations in New York. Nuclear weapon states and their allies want
the Treaty extended indefinitely; the non-nuclear, non-aligned states generally
are calling for much greater progress on nuclear disarmament. 

A return to French nuclear testing? 

France's commitment to both the NPT and achievement of a Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) is questionable. France has so far refused to sign the 1963
Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) - banning tests in the atmosphere - and only
became party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991. In spite of President
Mitterrand's commitment to a testing moratorium, observers say France played an
obstructive role in negotiations at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in
1994, calling for some tests to be excluded from the treaty, on the spurious
grounds of 'safety' testing. The French military has strongly lobbied the
conservative government of Prime Minister Balladur to resume testing, arguing
that at least 20 more tests are necessary before France could use computer
simulated tests to develop new nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Balladur has said
that France would resume testing if it were necessary to maintain France's
deterrent. 

What do the military want to test at Moruroa? 

If testing was resumed at Moruroa, new nuclear warheads for France's new
Triomphant class submarines would be among the systems tested. Twelve of these
warheads will be fitted to each of the new missiles that will be deployed on the
submarines after the year 2000. The military is also keen to develop and test a
warhead for a new air-to-surface missile. 

What are the health and environmental costs of French testing? 

An independent health study of the people of French Polynesia has never been
undertaken, and the military records of the health of personnel from the site
have not been released. No follow-up programme has been undertaken to monitor
workers' health once they have left the site. 

In 1963, the French Governor of Tahiti, M Grimald claimed 'Not a single particle
of radioactive fallout will ever reach an inhabited island'. But immediately
after the first atmospheric tests, radiation was detected as far away as Samoa,
Fiji and New Zealand. According to testimony from people affected by the tests
collected and published by Greenpeace, higher rates of cancer, birth
abnormalities and other illnesses have been experienced by people in French
Polynesia since testing began. 

The environmental safety of testing nuclear weapons underground at Moruroa has
been the subject of major controversy and concern. Moruroa and its sister test
site at Fangataufa are water permeable coral atolls on basalt, now containing
several Chernobyls worth of radioactivity. Testing threatens the geological
stability of these fragile and vulnerable environments and makes leakage of
large quantities of radionuclides into the marine environment an ever present
threat. 

Since 1975, more than 130 nuclear warheads have been expolded in deep shafts in
the atoll, resulting in huge cavities that fill with molten rock and radioactive
debris.

Because of the fracturing of the rock, some radioactivity leaks into the
surrounding areas through venting or seepage. 

While the French authorities have argued that testing is safe, several
scientific missions to the atoll - all of which have had severely limited access
to the site - have raised serious questions about its ability to contain the
radioactivity released by underground tests. 

In 1981, a mission led by French geologist Haroun Tazieff issued a warning about
the geological stability of the atoll in the long-term if nuclear weapons
testing continued. In 1983, a New Zealand-Australia-Papua New Guinea mission
found elevated levels of tritium, and severe fissuring of the atoll and
subsidence of more than one metre in parts of the atoll. In 1987, Commandant
Jacques Cousteau found short-lived radionuclides such as caesium 134 and iodine
131 in the Moruroa lagoon, indicating leakage from test explosions was already
occurring. He filmed spectacular cracks and fissures in the atoll as well as
submarine slides and subsidence, and described the impact of testing on the
atoll as creating 'premature and accelerated ageing... which explains.to a great
extent, the next move of the largest nuclear tests to Fangataufa atoll.' In
1988, French officials announced that larger tests would be exploded from then
on at Fangataufa. 

In 1990, a Greenpeace team - even though denied access to the test site and
restricted to working outside the 12 mile military exclusion zone around Moruroa
-found artificial radioactivity in plankton. In 1991, an International Atomic
Energy Agency mission invited by the French military to counter Greenpeace's
findings found elevated levels of plutonium in samples taken 12 miles from the
atoll. 

Any further nuclear testing at Moruroa and Fangataufa could exacerbate
environmental damage at the atoll. Greenpeace has called for a comprehensive and
independent monitoring and sampling programme at the French test sites, along
with a fully independent epidemiological health survey and full disclosure of
all information held by the French authorities about the environmental and
health effects of nuclear testing. 

France - where to now? 

In spite of the leadership shown by President Mitterrand in announcing the 1992
nuclear testing moratorium, France has failed to meet its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has yet to meet other disarmament
commitments. It has: . not signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty. . failed to meet
its obligations under the Euratom Treaty to provide data on radiation monitoring
and contamination at the test site. . not supported a fully comprehensive test
ban treaty text at negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. .
made a reservation to the ban on radioactive contamination of the marine
environment contained in the South Pacific Region Environment Protocol. .
refused to sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. 

CHRONOLOGY 1960 France conducts its first nuclear test in the atmosphere in
Algeria. 

1960 - 1966 17 tests conducted in Algeria, including 4 atmospheric and 13
underground. 

1966 - 1992 175 tests detected at the Pacific test site, including 44
atmospheric tests (39 at Moruroa, 5 over Fangataufa) and 131 underground (123 at
Moruroa, 8 at Fangataufa). Some low- yield tests may not have been detected by
seismic monitoring however; unconfirmed military sources have put the total at
more than 200. 

1972 Greenpeace sails into the French test site at Moruroa. Its ship, the yacht
Vega, is badly rammed by French warships and towed to Moruroa. 

1973 The Greenpeace ship Fri sails to Moruroa, is boarded and its crew detained.
Later, the yacht Vega returns to the test site; skipper David McTaggart is
severely beaten by French commandos. 

1974 France halts atmospheric testing at Moruroa. 

1981 The Vega returns to Moruroa to protest against underground testing. 

1982 The Vega returns to the test site. The yacht is arrested, held for a year,
and then freighted back to New Zealand by the French military. 

1985 While Greenpeace is preparing to sail the Rainbow Warrior to Moruroa, the
ship is blown up in Auckland harbour, New Zealand by French secret service
agents, killing crew member, photographer Fernando Pereira. Later that year,
Greenpeace returns to Moruroa with other vessels to maintain its opposition. 

1989 Greenpeace launches the new Rainbow Warrior in Hamburg on July 10, the
anniversary of the Rainbow Warrior bombing. 

1990 The Rainbow Warrior visits Papeete, Tahiti, to protest against the effects
of nuclear testing. Later that year, the ship sails to Moruroa. Water samples
near the test site show radioactivity may be leaking from the atoll. 

1992 In March, just before elections in France, the Rainbow Warrior again sails
to Moruroa. It is boarded by the French military and its crew expelled from
French Polynesia. On April 8, just 10 days after the Rainbow Warrior is forced
to leave French Polynesia, President Francois Mitterrand announces a 12 month
moratorium on French testing, to be extended if other countries follow suit. 

In August, the US joined the nuclear testing moratorium followed later by the
UK. 

1993 In June, President Mitterrand and President Clinton announce they will
extend the nuclear testing moratorium. 

1994 France joins Conference on Disarmament negotiations on a yet-to-be
concluded comprehensive test ban treaty. 

1995 In April - May, the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is
to be decided at the United Nations in New York. July 10 marks the tenth
anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. 

re.12:

Greenpeace are not terrorists they are dedicated to non-violent direct action.

Dave.

    Dave, 
    
    I could probably find a document amongst the hundreds that are stored
    there, on Greenpeaces WWW page to back my argument as well ;^)
    
    FWIW, eco-terrorists is too strong a term. Eco-meddlers maybe.
    
    Stuart

    
      GP is quixotic.  I can never listen to their spokespeople on TV
     without thinking these people have overdosed.
    
      bb

    
    The question "What gives Greenpeace the right..." is somewhat lame.
    
    Every human has the right to take an interest in the current and
    future well-being of this planet, and to strive for change.
    
    Maybe *you're* too lazy to bother, but thankfully not everyone is.
    

    
        
    .8

    >Well, I guess that there are no safe occupations in this world.  Ain't
    >that a shame.
    
    Pretty flip dismissal of the French actions, for someone so outraged
    by the Ruby Ridge incident.
    
    I supposed that if the French had done the same thing in Boston 
    Harbour, you'd have no qualms about it?

Oh wow, deja vu.  I wander out of EF95 and I find that this discussion
complete with its contributors has followed me.

Chris.

    BTW Greenpeace has an annual budget of about 150 million $US.  This
    makes for fairly powerful lobbying potential on a global scale. 
    Greenpeace's record of non-violent intervention in activities they deem
    to be inappropriate is far better than most that clearly deseerve the
    moniker of eco-terrorists.  
    
    John has a good point in that not everything GP does is necessarily 
    agreeable with all of us but they are helping to slow the global erosion 
    of our natural resources.  One only needs to look at the woefully delpeted 
    fish stocks, widespread pollution of the oceans, rain forest destruction 
    for grazing lands and disappearance of wet lands to get a picture of how 
    selfish we as a whole are.  GP is taking direct action.  I don't like 
    being lectured but I do believe it is necessary for someone to speak up.  
    I do not support GP because I believe many of their "just don't do it" 
    rants are win-lose propositions, IMO.  There is a need to help the 
    business community to find cost effective ways of testing, disposing, 
    manufacturing etc. with an eye towards lowering the environmental impact 
    of operations.  
    
    Brian

    Chris,
    
    We enjoy your company.
    
    Stuart

    > >Well, I guess that there are no safe occupations in this world.  Ain't
    > >that a shame.
    > 
    > Pretty flip dismissal of the French actions, for someone so outraged
    > by the Ruby Ridge incident.
    
    Two different situations, in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior,
    Greenpeace was intentionally, and actively attacking the French
    government.  In the Ruby Ridge incident, the U.S. government went after
    someone who wanted to be left alone.  The two are in no way similar.

    > I supposed that if the French had done the same thing in Boston 
    > Harbour, you'd have no qualms about it?

    No, I would have no qualms about it, provided of course that they
    didn't cause any damage to our harbor.  I would also prefer if they
    hauled the hulk out of the harbor, and preferably put it someplace that
    it would be useful, say as a jetty.

    Dan

    
    .23
    
    >Two different situations, in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior,
    >Greenpeace was intentionally, and actively attacking the French
    >government.
    
    Yes, I understand that the photographer was guilty of selling sawed-off
    telephoto lenses, and was planning to use his vast arsenal of Nikon
    assault cameras to shoot French military personell.

    >No, I would have no qualms about it...
    
    French commandos, usurping American autonomy by conducting covert
    military operations in American territory, you would have no qualms?
    
    I don't believe you.
    

    for the clue impaired: the terms "eco-terrorists" and "government
    jackbooted thugs" were stated tongue-in-cheek. \hth

    
    I don't agree with the testing, but Greenpace intentional sailed 
    into France's 12-mile territorial limit.
    
    Mary
      

Why are the GP detractors ignoring the assinine
intentions of the new conservative French government?
They are a bunch of idiots if they resume nuclear
testing.  Arrogant idiots.

    Doctah, I thought your tongue in cheekism was pretty humorous FWIW....
    
    To say GP is not emotive and manipulative when it comes to arguing
    their positions is pretty naive.  They employ any tactics they can
    especially when it comes to publicity of their protests.  Their PR
    folks and media representatives know how to choose their photo shots
    and film clips to maximum advantage.  GP uses in your face tactics to
    elicit a response from their supporters and those they target for
    action.  
    
    As for their predicament in the Pacific, France warned them repeatedly
    not to interfere.  GP as usual ignored the warnings choosing near
    martyrdom instead.  GP is the aggressor in this instance regardless of
    how reckless France's testing actions are.  This seems to be right in
    line with GP's past actions.  It's all part of the high cost of
    defending principles and lofty ideas.  
    
    Brian 

re.25:

You get a clue, I don't like being called a terrorist, whether tonque-in-cheek
or otherwise. Got it?

Dave.

    
     That is correct.  The French government is wrongheaded on this.
    
     So what ?  GP isn't even French.  The power of the French government
    is legitimate, because it is formally derived from the French people,
    who have a God-given right to do stupid things.
    
     By contrast, GP has no right to do anything, and deserve what they
    get.  And they are both confrontational and stupid themselves.  The
    only thing you will convince a person in the street of, by sailing into
    a nuclear test zone, is that you personally are deranged.  The world is
    not about to change in response to illegit hippies, even if right.
    
      bb

How dare the evil GP react that way to the
insanity of a retarded decision by the 
french government to resume nuclear testing.

Let's all get behind the poor french government
and support their god-given right to pollute
the world.

Nasty, nasty GP!

        
    > Yes, I understand that the photographer was ...
    
    This is an irrelevant statement, designed to distract the reader from
    the fact that I am correct.
    
    > French commandos, usurping American autonomy by conducting covert
    > military operations in American territory, you would have no qualms?

    Try this.  U.S. allies eliminating potential aggressors in a friendly
    territory.  As I said, no, I have no qualms.  I did however assume that
    the appropriate U.S. military officials would be notified.

    > I don't believe you.

    Here's a dime, call someone who cares.

    Dan

    
    Dan, 
    
    Greenpeace are not eco-terrorists.  They are non-violent.  
    There is a big difference between the methods used by Greenpeace
    and more combative groups like Earth First.  Greenpeace may not
    exactly be mainstream, but they are certainly not way out on the
    fringe.
    
    Greenpeace was not attacking the French, or anyone else for that
    matter.  They were participating in a non-violent protest to draw
    attention to French nuclear testing.  You must agree that it is 
    not acceptable to respond to a nonviolent protest with mayhem and
    murder.
    
    If you go to stand with a protest sign on your shoulder outside 
    the BATF (or the NEA) and they come out and shoot you or bomb
    your car, I'm sure you would hope that people would find these
    actions disgusting and criminal.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    
    .30
    
    >So what ?  GP isn't even French.
    
    ...although it undoubtedly has members who are tax-paying French 
    citizens.
    
    >The power of the French government
    >is legitimate, because it is formally derived from the French people,
    >who have a God-given right to do stupid things.
    
    Fine.  Let them test the bombs at EuroDisney.
    
    >By contrast, GP has no right to do anything...
    
    Sez who?  Why not?
    

    
      Well, by contrast with the stupid nuclear test, and the NZ action
     ten years ago, the French response was well chosen this time.  They
     killed nobody.  The used tear gas, rammed the boat, boarded it, took
     the crew into custody, and removed it from the area.  Exactly right.
     No need to shoot or drown anybody.  They've learned something.
    
      bb

re.30:

Your note leaves me wondering whether you've ever protested against anything in
your life? Is nothing important to you? Would you even bother fighting to defend
your family? Probably not. You would not want to look stupid or confrontational
and of course, you would deserve everything you got.

I think you are wrong about the influence of Greenpeace on public opinion, time
will tell. You are probably not aware of their recent victory against Shell in
Europe after massive consumer boycotts sparked off by Greenpeace direct action.

Dave.

    
    .32
    
    >This is an irrelevant statement, designed to distract the reader from
    >the fact that I am correct.
    
    Speaking of arrogance...
    
    >I did however assume that the appropriate U.S. military officials 
    >would be notified.
    
    Bad assumption on your part.  The French were operating without the 
    knowledge or permission of the New Zealand gov't.  Still no qualms?

    
     Well, actually, no, I've never protested anything by carrying a sign.
    
     I've voted out governments I disagreed with.  I voluntarily went to
    a war I was against.  For me, it was that, or leave the USA.  I stuck
    with my country.
    
     How can we let a minority dictate to a majority in this way ?  What
    sort of world do you want to see, in which public policies are decided
    by fiat of private groups interfering with governments ?  Do you think
    anti-abortion groups should succeed because of fervor ?  Nope - they
    have to get a majority.  A 2/3 majority, which dooms their efforts to
    failure if they go on as they are.
    
     It's the same with GP.  The world will do what it does because most
    people agree on a vision of the future, not because of this sort of
    minority high-handedness.
    
     bb

    Please Bob, leave God out of it lest Tom drag out the thumper index
    :-).
    
    Whether or not GP is deranged is a matter of public opinion.  Their
    supporters seem to feel their actions are courageous and worthwhile. 
    Whenever some pissant country goes and kills a couple a hundred
    thousand of it's own, the world gets all bent out of shape.  When some
    arrogant, self serving "civilized" country does something potentially as
    stupid, we all just tut tut them and say, "bad show ol' bean"  and
    react as if someone just farted in the room but there is no U.N. or
    Tri-lateral Commission (tm) response other than a bunch of meaningless
    protests in the General Assembly.  GP tries to fill the gap by 
    raising public awareness of what potentially stupid things are
    happening in the world that otherwise would not be newsworthy.  
     
    Brian

    
    > >This is an irrelevant statement, designed to distract the reader from
    > >the fact that I am correct.
    > 
    > Speaking of arrogance...
    
    As I said....
    
    > Bad assumption on your part.  The French were operating without the 
    > knowledge or permission of the New Zealand gov't.  Still no qualms?
    
    God you are slow this morning.... 
    The French were operating without the knowledge or permission of the New 
    Zealand gov't... That you know of.... I'm sure that the New Zealand
    government knew, too dangerous otherwise....
    Please read this slowly....
    STILL    NO    QUALMS    !
    One does not risk war with a superpower lightly.
    
    Dan

    I'm compelled to take a step back and ask a historical question:
    
    How and when did France come to possess nuclear weapons?
    
    If the U.S. "helped", then I object.  Who else did the U.S. "help"
    attain nuclear capabilities?
    
    Maybe it'd be easier to ask who *doesn't* have these things...
    
    Chris

    
    > You get a clue, I don't like being called a terrorist, whether 
    > tonque-in-cheek or otherwise. Got it?

    Dave,.... 
    I suggest you try the decaf...
    Lighten up.  You'll give yourself a stroke that way....

    Mark does that kinda snot to everybody, I've found the best way to
    handle it is to walk away for awhile and cool down.  Then write a reply
    that show him to be the mental midget he is..... :-)
    ( nothin' personal Mark :-) )

    :-)
    Dan

    

>    How and when did France come to possess nuclear weapons?

In the '60s, Jerry Lewis smuggled nuclear secrets to the French.  They were
secretly encoded in the film "The Nutty Professor."  This is why the French
love Jerry Lewis so much.

    >You get a clue, I don't like being called a terrorist, whether
    >tonque-in-cheek or otherwise. Got it?
    
     Get over it.

    
    
    Why is this any different than the way other countries handle ships
    crossing into territorial limits or planes flying into no fly zones?
    It's not.  The warnings go up, and then action is taken.
    
    Although Greenpeaces intent was good, they honestly could not have
    thought that France would not take some sort of action for breaking the
    law.
    
    And that is what they did, they broke the law.  I have a problem with
    allowing any group, whether it be Greenpeace or some other activist
    group breaking laws.  They are not entitled to special priviliges or
    rights because of the cause they are protesting against.
    
    Mary
    

>I think you are wrong about the influence of Greenpeace on public opinion, time
>will tell. You are probably not aware of their recent victory against Shell in
>Europe after massive consumer boycotts sparked off by Greenpeace direct action.
    
     It seemed to me to be alarmist at the time, unless they were right and
    the platform had not been drained of pollutants (as had been claimed by
    the company and confirmed by the British government.) Indeed, such
    structures actually enhance habitat rather than destroy it (providing,
    of course, that they don't leach pollutants.)

    
      By the way, note how many of the crew were newspeople.  I wonder
     if some time in the future we will have "news events" in which ALL
     of the participants are newspeople, on both sides of conflicts.
    
      bb

    > Some 150 tear navy commandos, using teargas, stormed the Rainbow
               ^^^^
    Somebody help me parse this !

    Also 150 commandos stormed the Rainbow Warrior.... I find this
    difficult to believe, that is a snot load of men.  How'd they all get
    on da boat ?
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    Glad they announced that, now I am sure that they will be detected by
    French authorities.
    
    

    They have not asked for special priveleges.  They would rather it be
    confrontational.  There is more news in a Davey/Goliath relationship. 
    Public sentiment is being used to try to dissuade France from testing
    nukes as it was successfully used to stop Shell from dumping Brent 
    Spar.  GP did not firebomb the Shell stations in Europe, the public
    did.  No matter what France does short of stopping the testing, they
    will come out looking like the bad guys and rightfully so IMO.   
    
    Brian
    

    re .48
    
    This note sums up why more people disagree with Greenpeace in this
    case. The media is being used by Greenpeace (nowt wrong in that) but it
    smacks of a cynical PR stunt rather than an attempt to stop the
    testing.
    
    As for those wandering round, the French Govt should let them stay
    there until testing begins. Then see how long they stay undetected
    for...
    
    Stuart

    
    .41
    
    >As I said....
    
    Dan, it's a common indicator of arrogance to confuse one's own opinion
    with fact.  This, you have done.  The Ruby Ridge incident and the 
    Rainbow Warrior incident are not dissimilar.  Differences in the
    situations don't render the comparison invalid.  To the best of my
    knowledge, the photographer was not engaged in any activity worthy of
    capital punishment at the time the boat was bombed.  Your memory of the
    incident no doubt differs.
    
    >God you are slow this morning....
    
    It seems that debating skills continue to elude you.
     
    >The French were operating without the knowledge or permission of the New 
    >Zealand gov't... That you know of.... I'm sure that the New Zealand
    >government knew, too dangerous otherwise....
    
    Oh, so now you're "sure" that New Zealand "knew".  Care to illustrate
    how this is anything other than your personal opinion?
    
    >One does not risk war with a superpower lightly.
    
    War?  Between France and the "superpower" of New Zealand?
    
    jc
    

    re .55
    
    jc 
    
    >Care to illustrate how this is anything other than your personal opinion?
    
    er, isn't this what it is all about?
    
    hugs
    
    Stuart

    
    .56, Stuart:
    
    Undoubtedly, you know the difference between a factual statement ("I'm
    sure that the New Zealand gov't knew...") and a value statement ("It's
    just not right for France to carry out covert operations...").
    

    re .57
    
    To turn the argument on its head then, can you prove that the New
    Zealand Govt didn't know of the Testing?
    
    Doubt it.
    
    
    

        
    > Dan, it's a common indicator of arrogance to confuse one's own opinion
    > with fact.  This, you have done.

    You seem to need a new parser.  I was not claiming that what I said was
    fact, I was claiming that I was correct.  These are two different
    things.

    > Rainbow Warrior incident are not dissimilar.  Differences in the
    > situations don't render the comparison invalid.  

    The two are dissimilar.  The Greenpeace organization was ACTIVELY
    attempting to provoke a reaction from the French government.  Weaver
    was attempting to avoid the government.  These two things certainly
    look different to me.

    > To the best of my
    > knowledge, the photographer was not engaged in any activity worthy of
    > capital punishment at the time the boat was bombed.  Your memory of the
    > incident no doubt differs.

    I am not condoning the death of the photographer.  It was an
    unfortunate tragedy.  However things like that happen to combat
    photographers all the time.  The man's next of kin should not have been
    surprised by what happened.  If you intentionally put yourself in harm's
    way, and get killed, you are responsible for your own actions.

    > Oh, so now you're "sure" that New Zealand "knew".  Care to illustrate
    > how this is anything other than your personal opinion?

    I never claimed it was anything but an opinion.  A well formed and
    intelligent opinion, but still an opinion.

    > >One does not risk war with a superpower lightly.
    > 
    > War?  Between France and the "superpower" of New Zealand?

    You know full well that I was referring to mucking about with GP in U.S.
    waters.  You are being disingenuinous.

    Dan

    
    Are you following along, Stuart?  We're talking about the bombing
    of the Rainbow Warrior, not the testing of an H-bomb.
    
    Can I prove that the New Zealand gov't *didn't* know that French
    commandos were operating on their soil?  No, I suppose not.  As
    I recall, however, New Zealand suspended diplomatic relations with
    France and imprisoned the bomber.  That doesn't sound like the 
    actions of an accomplice.
    

    re .60
    
    >Are you following along, Stuart?
    
    Yes, merely not checking typing before entering. 
    
    Simply acting correctly afterwards does not mean that the NZ Govt did
    not know about the French intentions/actions. However, it would have
    been highly embarrassing for them to stand up at the trial of said
    killer and admit "Hey we knew the score but didn't do anything about
    it". Better to be seen to have acted properly after the event than to
    have acquiesced before hand.
    
    Stuart

    
    .59

    >I was not claiming that what I said was fact, I was claiming that I 
    >was correct.  These are two different things.
    
    Whatever you say, Dan.

    >I am not condoning the death of the photographer.  
    
    Condoning it, perhaps not.  But you find it acceptable, as you
    rationalize below.  I do not.
    
    >It was an
    >unfortunate tragedy.  However things like that happen to combat
    >photographers all the time.  The man's next of kin should not have been
    >surprised by what happened.  If you intentionally put yourself in harm's
    >way, and get killed, you are responsible for your own actions.

    >I never claimed it was anything but an opinion.
    
    You made a factual statement, Dan.  Now who's being disingenuous?
    
    >A well formed and intelligent opinion...
    
    I guess I should know better than to argue with The Dan, eh?

    >You know full well that I was referring to mucking about with GP in U.S.
    >waters.  You are being disingenuinous.

    You've lost it, Dan.  We were talking about France in New Zealand, and
    why it's wrong.  Apparently, it's okay by you for France to muck about
    in New Zealand without the permission of the NZ gov't, but it is NOT
    okay to muck about in the US without American permission.
    
    Or is your position too intelligent and well formed for my tiny mind to
    grasp?
    
    jc
    

    
    .61,
    
    I guess that's why the bomber got his medal, eh?  For willingly taking
    a prison term and keeping his mouth shut about NZs role in the bombing.
    

    re .63
    
    And probably a handy little pay-off afterwards, along with full pay
    whilst he was imprisoned...

    
    .65:
    
    I remain unconvinced.
    

    
      Photographer was collateral damage.  Like NBA refs, media are
     considered part of the floor.
    
      The French political angle is actually fairly complicated.  In
     international affairs, it's a negative for Chirac.  But for domestic
     French politics, it's probably turned out splendidly for him.  In
     the recent elections, France changed parties after a long left reign.
     What Chirac needed was a cheap way to "assert" French status against
     a hatable foe.  Since the nuclear test is pretty pointless militarily,
     it wasn't going to do the job, like Tyson shadowboxing in front of
     the cameras.  Enter Greenpeace, tada !  Suddenly, Chirac has a foil -
     he can stand tough against the very sort of leftish quixotic
     behavior he campaigned against, and in a way it is very hard for the
     French left to challenge without becoming susceptible to questions
     about their patriotism.
    
      I expect a similar dance when the left takes over in the UK next
     election.  Expect them to look for an easy victory somewhere,
     followed by chest-pounding.  The US' military dominance post Cold
     War makes the "little 4" permanent Security Council members seem
     faintly ridiculous.  The political leaders in these countries dare
     not appear weak or vaccillating.
    
      bb

    re .67
    
    >I expect a similar dance when the left takes over in the UK next
    >election.  Expect them to look for an easy victory somewhere,
       
    
    Aah, so we're going to pick a fight with Greenpeace then. Great. I
    presume that The Labour Party will choose to take them on by testing a
    bomb roughly the same distance as France and the little insignificant
    island. Hmmm, now how far away is Hawaii?
    
    Stuart

    
    > >I never claimed it was anything but an opinion.
    > 
    > You made a factual statement, Dan.  Now who's being disingenuous?

    You do enjoy twisting reality don't you.
    
    > I guess I should know better than to argue with The Dan, eh?

    You got it babe !

    > >You know full well that I was referring to mucking about with GP in U.S.
    > >waters.  You are being disingenuinous.
    > 
    > You've lost it, Dan.  We were talking about France in New Zealand, and
    > why it's wrong.  Apparently, it's okay by you for France to muck about
    > in New Zealand without the permission of the NZ gov't, but it is NOT
    > okay to muck about in the US without American permission.
    
    As I said about you twisting reality...
    1) You asked me if I had any qualms about something similar happening
       in US territory.
    2) I gave a lengthy explanation regarding the US, which I followed with
       the comment about going to war with a superpower.  I actually
       thought about re-prefacing the statement, but I didn't want to seem
       like I was insulting your intelligence.
    3) You then went off on a tangent regarding NZ and superpowers.
    4) I attempted to bring you back to reality, apparently unsuccessfully,
       and here we are again.
    So much for a recap.  Please try to stay with it.

    > Apparently, it's okay by you for France to muck about
    > in New Zealand without the permission of the NZ gov't, but it is NOT
    > okay to muck about in the US without American permission.
    
    I never said that it was O.K. to do any such thing.  I believe that NZ
    knew in advance as to what was going to happen.  If NZ didn't know,
    then it is an act of war, and NZ should take appropriate action.

    > Or is your position too intelligent and well formed for my tiny mind to
    > grasp?

    I never said any such thing, nor did I mean to imply such.  However
    there is an old saying....
    "If the shoe fits..."

    :-)
    Dan

    .5 and what are you prepared to do in support of the earth?
    
       i don't support all of their tactics (as fanatical as they get),
       but your rhetoric could be applied to a lot of other countries,
       agencies, and groups...
    
       Chip

    
    re, .68 - nah, you'll do it your own way.  Argentina WAS good, no ?
    
      Once Boris drinks himself to death, the Russkis will try something
     as well.  Stand up for fellow Slavs in Bosnia, mayhap ?
    
      And the Red Chinese will pot the odd activist, out of principle.
    
      Tough job, superpower wannabe.  We, on the other hand, will build
     $20 billion more bright new Stealth bombers with all the trimmings.
    
      bb

    > superpower wannabe. 
    
    Better that than a has been...

>     What Chirac needed was a cheap way to "assert" French status against
>     a hatable foe.  Since the nuclear test is pretty pointless militarily,

Oh, so this is Chirac's version of Star Wars?  What foe did this idiot
have in mind?

    
     That IS a good analogy - Star Wars is to USA as force de frappe
    is to France.  A prestige-oriented show-weapon that doesn't help
    in real life, puts the engineers to work, never gets used, and
    allows the national leadership to preen.  After all, the ideal
    weapon would be one the mere exposing of which would cause all of
    your enemies to surrender out of sheer admiration.
    
     Greenpeace is not a credible foe for the French government, I didn't
    been that.  Butthey certainly are eminently hatable.  Yet ANOTHER
    bunch of obnoxious Americans telling everybody else what to do !
    And they look and dress funny too, and say dumb American things.  For
    Chirac to stand tall before the French (who disapprove, for example,
    of men in shorts, or sneakers in restaraunts), thwarting Greenpeace
    is perfect !  It's what American TV newsdroid pundits call
    "Solidifying Your Base".  Maybe he planned for this to happen.
    
     bb

    Greenpeace? American?  Take a look at what their staff is composed of.  
    You will find it decidedly international in flavor.  This is not 
    France/U.S. thing.  

    .69

    >You do enjoy twisting reality don't you.

    Well, Dan, the statement "I'm sure..." does tend to imply a bit more
    factual basis than "I believe..." or "I think...", but if you want to
    rely on splitting hairs, as you accused Dick of, then allow me to
    rephrase the question:

    What evidence do you have for your belief that the widely-accepted
    version of the event (that the French commandos were in NZ without
    permission) is incorrect?
    
    >As I said about you twisting reality...Please try to stay with it.

    Your arguments in the 'box over the past week have taken on a certain
    fractal quality.  Let me see if I understand you clearly.  You find
    *no* fault with the French action in NZ because: 1) you believe that
    the NZ gov't was in the loop the whole time, and: 2) the photographer
    was deliberately engaged in the admittedly risky activity of being on
    a GP boat moored in the harbour?

    jc
    

>And they look and dress funny too, and say dumb American things.

This is probably why they love Jerry Lewis.  To them, Lewis 
probably represents the typical American barbarian.  Those
French!  They think their merde don't stink!

    
    jc -
    
|   What evidence do you have for your belief that the widely-accepted
|   version of the event (that the French commandos were in NZ without
|   permission) is incorrect?
    
    Trust me on this.  Dan's position is simple.
    
    Evidence, we don't need no stinkin' evidence!
    
    								-mr. bill

        
    > What evidence do you have for your belief that the widely-accepted
    > version of the event (that the French commandos were in NZ without
    > permission) is incorrect?

    None, what evidence do you have for your belief that the
    widely-publicized version of the event (that the French commandos were in 
    NZ without permission) is correct?

    > You find *no* fault with the French action ...

    This is not what I said.  I believe that the sinking of the ship was
    extreme, not wrong, but definitely extreme.

    > the photographer
    > was deliberately engaged in the admittedly risky activity of being on
    > a GP boat moored in the harbour?                     

    Close, but not quite.  The photographer was deliberately engaged in the 
    admittedly risky activity of associating with know environmental
    extremists with a history of confrontational actions.  With a known
    agenda of attacking the French government's attempt at nuclear testing.

    HTH
    Dan

    re:.78
    
    No billy, that is your approach.
    
    THT
    Dan

    Dan, the ship was at anchor with the permission of the NZ government. 
    The ship was not a threat to the French.  The French took it upon
    themselves to preemptively destroy the ship to stop a planned and
    publicized peaceful protest of testing in the pacific.  A reporter died.  
    It is called murder.  Murder is right?  
    
    Brian

    
      Well, actually, Bri, no, murder it ain't.  It's killing.  Murder
     usually requires intent.  If they didn't think anybody was on the boat,
     it isn't murder.  Now, it can be so-called "felony murder", by
     which an accidental death caused by another intentional felony,
     can be murder.  That is, the question has to do with the legality
     of them destroying the boat.  Since France is a country, and these
     were military personnel, it is certainly not murder.  It might be
     an Act of War, however.
    
      bb    

>Since France is a country, and these were military personnel,
>it is certainly not murder.

bollocks.  Servicemen on active duty can still be found guilty of murder.

Chris.

    .82
    
    > Since France is a country, and these
    > were military personnel, it is certainly not murder.
    
    As the Lager Lout says, bollocks.  These were military personnel who
    attacked, in peacetime, a privately owned ship on a peaceful mission
    and sank it without provocation, killing civilians on board.
    
    Lieutenant William Calley was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor for
    his part in the MASS MURDER of the civilians of the town of My Lai,
    Viet Nam - and that was even in wartime.

    
    > These were military personnel who
    > attacked, in peacetime, a privately owned ship on a peaceful mission
    > and sank it without provocation, killing civilians on board.

    > ... peaceful mission ....
    Arguable.

    > ... sank it without provocation, ...
    Again arguable.

    This could be described as a pre-emptive strive against terrorists.  I
    don't believe that this is the case, but it is a valid argument.

    Given this argument, if they were under orders from superiors, I don't 
    believe that constitutes murder, negligent homicide, potentially, 
    act of war, probably.

    Minor Nit:
    > Viet Nam - and that was even in wartime.

    Mr Binder, I'm surprised at you!  It was not a War, I believe it was a
    "police action"

    :-)
    Dan

    What color's the sky in your world, Dan?

>    Given this argument, if they were under orders from superiors, I don't 
>    believe that constitutes murder, negligent homicide, potentially, 
>    act of war, probably.

I guess you haven't heard about the trial of Pvt Lee Clegg, then?

Chris.

    
    .79

    >None, what evidence do you have for your belief that the
    >widely-publicized version of the event (that the French commandos were in 
    >NZ without permission) is correct?
    
    The fact that NZ suspended diplomatic relations and imprisoned the 
    bomber is evidence, I would say.  I don't recall France denying
    their involvement, or the covert nature thereof.

    >I believe that the sinking of the ship was
    >extreme, not wrong, but definitely extreme.
    
    Needless to say, many disagree with this view.

    jc
    

    Dan, please show us the argument supporting GP's violent actions
    requiring French commandos to blow up the RW I.  I don't think there is
    one but I am willing to listen. 

    
    Dan has already admitted that he's made up one fact today.
    (See .76 and .79)
    
    Why are you asking him to make up another?
    
    								-mr. bill

    billy, are you trying to a record of most message in the P&K note or
    what?

    I have never made up a fact.  People have misinterpreted what I have
    said, but their inability to understand written English has nothing to
    do with me.  I can not believe that you have the b*lls to call anyone a
    liar the way that you spread them.

    Brian, a confrontational organization with very strong beliefs often
    resort to violence if they are continuously foiled.  What my point is is 
    that when dealing with any kind of confrontational organization, say PETA, 
    you can not safely assume that they will be peaceful.

    Dan

    Dan,
    
    GP has a long legacy of annoying their adversaries but I don't think
    they have ever been a violent aggressor in pursuit of their ideals. 
    Until evidence to the contrary is produced, it is not arguable that
    France had reason to feel threatened by attack from GP when they
    indulged in criminal actions resulting in the death of a civilian
    photographer.    
    
    Brian

    
    On this Brian I think we will disagree.
    
    :-)
    Dan

    .93 sounds suspicially like the beginning of a truce.
    
    I was sorta rooting for you guys to post 100 replies in just 2 days,
    tho.

Wars have been fought for flimsier, baseless arguments such
as Dan has presented, but I still think they should all
french kiss and make up.

So, what's the big deal, here.  France was engaged in activities of which
many of us condemn, but were nevertheless legal.  GP, by contrast, put
themselves in harm's way (as pointed out by many posters before me) and
suffered the consequences.

One of the points I want to make is that the extent to which protest is
effective is proportional to the extent of the punishment, injury, or both
sustained by those conducting the protest.

I *like* the notion that we get agitated over this issue.  And it is
precisely this knowledge that GP plans, with great care, their obstructionist
activities.  They expect and *want* to provoke a response.  Protest is
vacuous and without one.  The weepers among you wringing your hands over
the "disproportionate" response have a lot of company at GP headquarters.
The only difference is that the tears of the GP headquarters staff are like
those shed by the walrus after cleaning out the local oyster population.
We're talkin'crocodile tears, here.

This is the nature of protest!  Like GP, we should value it. GP got what they
wanted AND what they deserved.  More power to 'em.


/mtp

    
    Re: .94
    
    Either your right or he has dug deep enough a hole for himself.

    re: .95
    
    The only one I'll french kiss is one of the 'box babes !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Note 485.91, DEVLPR::DKILLORAN

    >I have never made up a fact.  People have misinterpreted what I have
    >said, but their inability to understand written English has nothing to
    >do with me.

Dan, since you appear to believe that I can't understand written English, 
allow me to demonstrate the remote possibility that you may be mistaken.

    Note 485.23, DEVLPR::DKILLORAN

    >Two different situations, in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace
    >was intentionally, and actively attacking the French government. 
                            ^^^^^^^^

As we have established, the boat was moored, not "actively" attacking anything.
You have yet to describe the nature of these "attacks" that required the use
of lethal force in response.

    >In the Ruby Ridge incident, the U.S. government went after
    >someone who wanted to be left alone.  The two are in no way similar.
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The two are similar in many ways.  The excessive force used for a relatively
minor matter.  The end run around due process.  Unnecessary death.  The denial
of wrongdoing by the authorities involved.  More similarities, as noted by
yourself:

    >If you intentionally put yourself in harm's
    >way, and get killed, you are responsible for your own actions.

    >The photographer was deliberately engaged in the 
    >admittedly risky activity of associating with know environmental
    >extremists with a history of confrontational actions.  With a known
    >agenda of attacking the French government's attempt at nuclear testing.

Replace "photographer" with "Weaver", replace "environmental" with "religious",
replace "French" with "American", replace "nuclear testing" with "gun control".

Regarding the legality of the action, I said this:

    > I supposed that if the French had done the same thing in Boston 
    > Harbour, you'd have no qualms about it?

Now here we seem to get into difficulty.  You see, I said "...done the same 
thing...".  When your position became difficult to defend, you simply decided
to say, in .41:

    >God you are slow this morning.... 
    >The French were operating without the knowledge or permission of the New 
    >Zealand gov't... That you know of.... I'm sure that the New Zealand
    >government knew, too dangerous otherwise....

You probably know what "I'm sure..." and "the same thing" mean.  If not, look 
them up.  You made a factual statement regarding NZ's prior knowledge of the
bombing that you admitted in .79 you have no evidence for.  Your response in
.59 was thus:

    >I never claimed it was anything but an opinion.  A well formed and
    >intelligent opinion, but still an opinion.

A well-formed, intelligent opinion, based on nothing.  Hmmmm...

In .59, you said:
        
    >You seem to need a new parser.  I was not claiming that what I said was
    >fact, I was claiming that I was correct.  These are two different
    >things.

But in .41, you said: "This is an irrelevant statement, designed to distract 
the reader from the fact that I am correct.
                    ^^^^           ^^^^^^^
Seems like the English language has eluded you here.  It is NOT a FACT that
you are correct, it is your OPINION.  I have listed above my reasons why I
believe the Rainbow Warrior and Ruby Ridge incidents to be similar.  You 
have not provided any concrete refutation, so it's possible that you may
NOT be correct in saying the the two incidents "are in no way similar."

In .79, after being asked: "You find *no* fault with the French action?", you
reply:

    >This is not what I said.  I believe that the sinking of the ship was
    >extreme, not wrong, but definitely extreme.

Until that point, you certainly hadn't said that you felt the bombing to be 
wrong, or even extreme.  What exactly *did* you say, Dan?  All I've been able
to find is your *opinion* that Greenpeace was responsible for their own
misfortune.

jc

    FWIW
    
    the old adage " there aint no such thing as bad publicity " seems to be
    working. GP rightly or wrongly has at least started a LOT of people
    talking about the present situation.
    I personally am a bit perturbed about the fact that the CSIRO here in
    OZ has found higher levels of radiation in the soil to a depth
    indicating it is a direct result of the french testing. the smples were
    collected inland from the coast between 500-1000km. the deeper samples
    show "normal" levels of radiation present.
    I would hate to think what levels we could expect if the dormant
    volcano was destabilised enough to again become active.
    and I'm sure the french govt would foot the medical bills of the south
    pacific region if this were the case..
    
    bill

    Dan, give it up buddy. your position and your statement around 
    (and i paraphrase) a "confrontational" group has the potential
    to be violent is like saying we'd better lock up 100% of all
    U.S. citizens with firearms because they might shoot someone.
    
    totally ridiculous...
    
    

    
    re: .99
    jc, It is apparent that you refuse to face the fact that the two cases
    are vastly dissimilar.  You choose to ignore the intent portion which is
    the key to my whole argument.  So be it.  If you will not face reality,
    I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.  OBTW, the earth
    is round, and orbits the sun.... hate to bust your bubble.

    re:.101
    > Dan, give it up buddy. your position and your statement around 
    > (and i paraphrase) a "confrontational" group has the potential
    > to be violent is like saying we'd better lock up 100% of all
    > U.S. citizens with firearms because they might shoot someone.

    How on earth did you reach that conclusion?  Of the various
    organizations that I know, the supporters of the 2nd amendment,
    specifically the NRA, are the lest confrontational that I know of. 
    Compare them to, say ACT-UP, or PETA, or any number of other
    organizations.  This doesn't hold water, try again.

    Dan

    
    .102, Dan "That's-not-what-I-said" Killoran:

    >If you will not face reality,
    >I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.  OBTW, the earth
    >is round, and orbits the sun.... hate to bust your bubble.

    Wow.  A virtual flurry-to-the-solar-plexus, that was.
    
    How *will* I ever recover?
    

    Dan, i drew that conclusion from your statement of assumption. please
    try and keep up with your notes.
    
    if my argument isn't holding water maybe you are?
    
    :-)

    re. last several....if the NRA pushed it's agenda the way GP and
    other <fill in the blank>-wacko groups do we would likely be 
    arrested on a charge of felony menancing.
    
    

    <---  Nope.  Domestic terrorism.

Well, hey.  Why don't you try it and find out?
Whatsamatta, short on funds?

    
    ...So, why is France resuming testing anyway?
    
    
    ...The technology behind nuclear weapons is now ancient, and any
    high school student could effectively build and detonate one, given 
    access to the necessary materials.  So what gives with France?  Are they 
    training a new crop of Military scientists, who having completed the Grade 
    12 Physics Primer, and read all they can from the local library 
    encyclopedia, now have to do the experiments?  Seems to me building bigger 
    better badder bombs is kind of pointless.  How many ways can you
    vaporize your enemies?
    
    I also read in the daily paper that 70% of the French population
    supports the testing (cannot confirm the accuracy here, after all it's
    only a news paper).  I refuse to believe in this day and age that the 
    majority of the French population have lost all touch with reality and
    actually support this policy.   Please tell me it's just a Government 
    sponsored study of party loyals that produced these numbers. 
    
    ...I haven't been a strong supporter of Greenpeace in the past, but
    I think they are definitely on to something here.  If they had not
    brought this to light, I doubt that the news media could tear itself
    away from OJ long enough to report on it.
    
    ...As for me, I think the concept of a boycott on French products is
    not a bad start!  Here in North America, we have California wines, real
    automobiles, Boeing, and as for truffles-I think I can learn to live
    without them.
    
    Rod (...it seems to me we owe them one for De Gaulle planting the seeds
    	 for our present Anglophone/Francophone problems)
    
    Let's tally... Got the French, Military Scientists, OJ, the media,
    govenrment, French and English ...ya, that's enough for one note!

    
    they test the gizmos to verify new more compact bombe designs and
    to generate the gamma rays/neutron flux for testing electronics
    reliability during nukkelar detonations.

re.105:

>    re. last several....if the NRA pushed it's agenda the way GP and
>    other <fill in the blank>-wacko groups do we would likely be 
>    arrested on a charge of felony menancing.

Greenpeace is not a wacko group. It's membership consists of ordinary 
people who do not trust governments to look after the environment.

Dave.

re.106:

>    <---  Nope.  Domestic terrorism.

Do you know what terrorism is? Calling non-violent direct action 
"terrorism" is an insult to all the people of the world who have been 
injured, killed, or lost family and friends through terrorism. It's also a 
libel against Greenpeace who have always advocated non-violent protest.

Dave.

    
    Dave,
    
    I think you have misunderstood Mr. Leech.  He is not taking a shot
    at Greenpeace, he is commenting on the low regard the U.S. gov't
    holds for the NRA.
    

    re: .111
    
    Tell that to the government.  Under the latest vague crime bill that
    was passed, I could be railroaded as being a domestic terrorist by
    their definitions.  I am about as non-violent as you can get.
    
    I imagine my comment was lost on you, as you may be unused to my noting
    style.  It wasn't an insult to GP, it was a pointed effort to show the
    direction that the US government is heading with regards to what it
    considers "domestic terrorism".
    
    Though I doubt I will be hauled off and jailed currently for my rather
    un-PC views, I see a trend that worries me.  Congress seems to be
    burying more and more vague definitions within the thousands of pages
    passed into law each year.  One of these days, this vagueness may well be
    used against those who are politically unpopular.
    
    Color me paranoid.
    
    
    
    -steve

    NZ is contemplating sending a naval vessel, non-combat type, to escort
    a flotilla of yachts setting sail to Mururoa.  Some members os
    parliament will possibly be attending so the move is deemed necessary
    for security reasons.  It appears GP is not the only group to be taking
    direct action.  
     
    Brian

>                       <<< Note 485.109 by WRKSYS::RAH >>>
> nukkelar

Anyone else remember Jimmy Carter saying "nukuler"? I still cringe.

    
    <-------
    
    Along with all those edjumacated people saying:
    
     "Eye"raq  and "Eye"ran...
    
    
     Shudder!!!!!
    

Doesn't Ms. Jandrow say "I Raq?"

    No, it's I, Raq.  You, Gerald.  

Could one of the punctilious punctuators rule on whether there should be
commas in "Me Tarzan.  You Jane."?

    .119
    
    Yes.  One could.

    I don`t like the look of Greenpeace types. What with their woolly 
    jumpers and plastic macs. They all have beards,including the wimmin.
    

        
    > NZ is contemplating sending a naval vessel, non-combat type, to escort
    > a flotilla of yachts setting sail to Mururoa.  Some members os
    > parliament will possibly be attending so the move is deemed necessary
    > for security reasons.  It appears GP is not the only group to be taking
    > direct action.  

    Interesting, but useless.  Time is on France's side.  Realistically how
    long are these people going to hang around the test site.  The other
    alternative is for France to test anyway, and send official condolences
    to the next of kin.

    :-)
    Dan
       

re.112:

I apologise for the misunderstanding. However, I still can't see where I went
wrong after re-reading the note I replied to, I also can't see what U.S.
domestic issues and the NRA have to do with French nuclear tests and Greenpeace.

Dave.

    
    Dave,
    
    .106 was a wry response to .105, and that's all there is to it.
    
    Forget about it, it's not important.
    

    Yeah Dave, no worries.  No one think you or GP are terrorists, as far
    as you know.  :-)

    
    
    hey hey hey...sure, talk about me in a string i don't even read (that
    is until i happen to catch someone claiming to be me...)
    
    
    - me, raq
    
    

    
    
    
    .102 
    
    Dan, What is the answer. 
    
    How was Greenpeace planning to attack France?
                                   ------
    
    A simply pointer to the note where you explain this will be fine.
    

>       Dunno about the commas, but each must have a colon, without which
>       they would be unable to crap.
       
I dunno, some people who shall remain nameless seem to find their
mouth a perfectly adequate orifice to perform this bodily function... :)

Chris.

    
    Two points:
    
    1. trespassing  !== attacking
    
    2. When pollution and radiation start to recognize sovereign borders,
       then Greenpeace will have no leg to stand on.
    

    
    Greenpeace violates French waters in an overly confrontational act.

    In the case of the mining of the Rainbow Warrior, it was well know that
    Greenpeace was intending to violate French sovereignty.  THIS is an
    attack on France.  If Greenpeace were a country, their actions would be
    grounds for war.  Since they are not a country, it is impossible to go
    to war with them.  It is possible however to destroy their means of
    attacking France, therefore the French performed a pre-emptive strike. 
    This caused the death of the photographer.
    

    
    > 1. trespassing  !== attacking

    Sorry John, but it is.  The violation of one countries borders by
    another country is an "invasion".  The only difference here is that
    Greenpeace is not a country and as a result France can not declare war
    on them.  That does not make them immune to the penalties of their
    actions.  France over-reacted, no question about it.  However
    Greenpeace was NOT innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

    Dan

    An unarmed "attack." What inventive use of language.

    >the French performed a pre-emptive strike
    
    The French new that GP was going to "violate French sovereignty" based on 
    rumor or fact. I think that I will blow up my neighbor's
    house because I think he is planning on setting mine on fire. My other
    neighbor told me so. Therefore, I am justified.
    
    ...Tom  :-)

    
    Well, Dan, since you admit that Greenpeace is not a country, then the
    term "invasion" doesn't seem to hold.  It sounds more like an illegal
    immigration matter to me, and no issue at all for GP members who are
    French (by the way, the photographer was Dutch.  If Holland was an EU 
    member at that time, would that have given him the right to travel into 
    French territory?).
    
    "Invasion" is more along the lines of sending secret service agents
    into a country on false passports to conduct a military action.
    
    You neglected my second point.  What right does France have to claim
    that their territory is being violated if they can't contain the
    effects of their tests within their borders?  Isn't their radiation
    "invading" or "attacking" the surrounding sovereign nations?  Ditto
    for pollution, another pet project of GP?
    
    jc
    

    
    
    re. 110
    
    wacko or non-wacko.....seems very much a matter of opinion 

    
    Wacko is relative... I know, mine are. :-)
    
    -b

    hey Dan, what's GP's military budget for fiscal '96?

    >what's GP's military budget for fiscal '96?
    
    Dunno, how much does a new boat cost?
    
    

    hmmmm... we talkin' a Lexington Class aircraft carrier or an Iowa Class
    destroyer.

re.136:

>    wacko or non-wacko.....seems very much a matter of opinion 

Isn't 'wacko' slang for insane? In which case, that opinion has to be a 
medical one. If by 'wacko' you just mean extreme then I fail to see how 
anyone, other than someone just to the right of Atilla the Hun, would agree.

Dave.

    I am absolutely mystified as to how one can equate illegal entry into a
    country with an act of war!
    
    Yes, if Greenpeace were a country, it would be an act of war.
    
    IT'S NOT A COUNTRY! IT'S A COLLECTION OF CITIZENS FROM MANY NATIONS!
    
    They're friggin' tresspassing, and that's it!
    
    Then again, maybe we should nuke Mexico, seeing as how zillions of
    Mexicans invade our country with the horrible intent
    of...>gasp<...finding a job!

    
    A small flotilla of boats from the US allegedly wandered into
    Cuban territorial waters for a memorial service yesterday.  One
    of the boats was rammed by a Cuban gunboat - 2 seriously injured.
    Usual howls of outrage at Cuba.  The US coastgaurd was apparently on
    hand to witness the affair.
    
    If they did sail into Cuban waters, and all aboard were US citizens,
    I guess this must be an invasion attempt justifiably fought off by a
    soverign state?
    
    Colin
                    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    Hmmmmmmmm....
    
    Maybe this belongs in the TTWA note....
    
    
     I wonder why Greenpeace never "strays" into or tries to illegally
    enter Iraq???
    

    
    > If they did sail into Cuban waters, and all aboard were US citizens,
    > I guess this must be an invasion attempt justifiably fought off by a
    > soverign state?
    
    It depends, if they intentionally went into Cuban waters, then they got
    what they deserved; if they wound up there by accident, then Cuba was
    wrong.  Next question please.....
    
    Dan
    

    
    Next question is,  How did they get there by accident with the US coast
    guard on hand?

    
    re: .133
    > An unarmed "attack." What inventive use of language.

    ever heard of the martial arts (karate, etc.) ?

    re:.135

    > Greenpeace is not a country, then the term "invasion" doesn't seem to 
    > hold.

    Why not?  This is an unfounded opinion, not a fact.  One does not need
    to be a country to invade.  You do need to be a country to be declared
    war on I believe, but in that I could be mistaken.

    > ... (by the way, the photographer was Dutch.  If Holland was an EU 
    > member at that time, would that have given him the right to travel into 
    > French territory?).
    
    As far as I know the EU did not exist at the time of the destruction of
    the RW.

    > You neglected my second point.  What right does France have to claim
    > that their territory is being violated if they can't contain the
    > effects of their tests within their borders?  

    That's too easy.  If you have entered their territory against their
    wishes, you have violated their territory.

    > Isn't their radiation "invading" or "attacking" the surrounding 
    > sovereign nations?  Ditto for pollution, another pet project of GP?
    
    Potentially, but are there any countries surrounding the test sight? I
    believe that these tests are being performed on islands in the ocean, a
    goodly distance (exceeding international limits) from any other
    countries territory.


    re:.141

    > ... other than someone just to the right of Atilla the Hun, would agree.

    I'm FAR right of Atilla the Hum... :-)



    re:.142

    > I am absolutely mystified as to how one can equate illegal entry into a
    > country with an act of war!
    > 
    > Yes, if Greenpeace were a country, it would be an act of war.

    You just clarified it for your self.  The question becomes, why does it
    have to be a country?  Some companies are larger than many countries. 
    They certainly could retain mercenaries to "defend" their rights in a
    particular region.  Why not say an oil company, hires an army to invade
    Kuwait (sp?).  Would that be an act of war?  Just a thought...

    > IT'S NOT A COUNTRY! IT'S A COLLECTION OF CITIZENS FROM MANY NATIONS!
    
    Not really.  I believe that Greenpeace is a legal entity, a company for
    lack of a better term.  As in my last comment, can a COMPANY commit an
    act of war?  This looks to be a matter of opinion, but I don't see why
    a company couldn't.

    > They're friggin' trespassing, and that's it!
    
    See last comment.

    > Then again, maybe we should nuke Mexico, seeing as how zillions of
    > Mexicans invade our country with the horrible intent
    > of...>gasp<...finding a job!

    You are becoming irrational.  I believe that prozac (sp?) may help you,
    see a doctor, and then get back to us.... :-)

    Dan

    Dan,
    
    >As far as I know the EU did not exist at the time of the destruction
    >of the RW.
    
    The EEC has been in existence since the mid - 50's.
    
    hth
    
    Stuart

    Dan, if they wandered into Cuban waters they should've been blown outa
    the water. they really didn't get what they deserved, did they? NOT!
    
    you are truely amazing. i guess we should authorize the CG to begin
    ramming Cuban rafts and to torpedo Haitian boats when they enter
    out waters. we're just growing too sift for my hawkish likin'!

    .147

    >> Greenpeace is not a country, then the term "invasion" doesn't seem to 
    >> hold.
    >
    >Why not?  This is an unfounded opinion, not a fact.

    Well, Dan, the word "invasion" may be technically correct, but it isn't
    widely used to describe a situation like this.  "Invasion" of a country
    is usually thought to involve a large, armed force that intends to hold 
    the real estate.  Your chosen application of the word is, shall we say, 
    `creative'.

    >As far as I know the EU did not exist at the time of the destruction of
    >the RW.

    You are, then, unable to answer my question.  Perhaps one of the 
    British or European boxers can accommodate.  At the time of the bombing,
    did Dutch citizens have the right to travel into French territory?

    >> Isn't their radiation "invading" or "attacking" the surrounding 
    >> sovereign nations?  Ditto for pollution, another pet project of GP?
    >
    >Potentially, but are there any countries surrounding the test sight?

    There are US- and NZ-held islands in that area.
 
    >> Then again, maybe we should nuke Mexico, seeing as how zillions of
    >> Mexicans invade our country...
    >
    >You are becoming irrational.

    Says who?  Your `creative' use of the term "invasion" applies equally 
    to the Mexicans who cross your southern border, if your position is to
    remain consistent.

    jc
    

    
    > Your chosen application of the word is, shall we say, `creative'.

    Why so, because it disagrees with you? 

    > >As far as I know the EU did not exist at the time of the destruction of
    > >the RW.
    > 
    > You are, then, unable to answer my question.  Perhaps one of the 
    > British or European boxers can accommodate.  At the time of the bombing,
    > did Dutch citizens have the right to travel into French territory?

    This whole point is irrelevant, because the real point is that it was
    an ORGANIZATION (Greenpeace) that was invading the French territory. 
    Since when does the nationality of a soldier dictate who is invading? 
    If the British hired German mercenaries to invade Italy, who is
    invading, Germany or Briton ?

    > There are US- and NZ-held islands in that area.

    How far from the test sight?

    > Your `creative' use of the term "invasion" applies equally 
    > to the Mexicans who cross your southern border, if your position is to
    > remain consistent.

    Only if the Mexicans coming over the border are being directed by a
    governing body, as is the case with the Greenpeace example.  If not
    your analagy does hold up.  Is there such an organization?

    Dan

    .151
    
    >> Your chosen application of the word is, shall we say, `creative'.
    >
    >Why so, because it disagrees with you?

    It would seem that it disagrees with others in this forum besides myself.
    Has anybody yet supported your interpretation of this issue? 

    >This whole point is irrelevant

    Why so, because it disagrees with you?

    >If the British hired German mercenaries to invade Italy, who is
    >invading, Germany or Briton ?

    What if the British hired Italian mercenaries to invade Italy?  It would
    be hard to argue that the Italian mercenaries had no right to enter Italy.

    >How far from the test sight?

    Don't have an atlas handy at the moment.  Perhaps someone else can 
    answer this more accurately, but I'd say: within 200 miles.

    >Only if the Mexicans coming over the border are being directed by a
    >governing body, as is the case with the Greenpeace example.

    The individuals involved with Greenpeace are self-directing volunteers,
    furthering a personal agenda.  In that way they differ little from 
    Mexican illegals.  Whether or not there is an organization behind them
    matters little, except in as much as you wish to (once again) squirm
    out from underneath your own inconsistency.
 
    jc
    

Dan, like the prisoners who counseled cool hand luke
during his bashing by george kennedy, I say to you:

Stay down.

    I am starting to get sick of hearing about greenpeace's crusades.   Who
    made them the police of the world?   NOBODY - they are a bunch of  
    powerless winying zealots who have there own agenda regardless of what the
    world thinks.   
    
    Were the French violating some nuclear nonproliferation treaty or
    something?    I don't think so.  If this (nuclear research) is  such 
    a problem for the world then I believe the world collectively would 
    do something about it.
    
    They (gp) have other means but they choose not to exercise them.   Instead
    they go off and jump in there stupid boat and play get in the way.  
    GP is going about it all wrong.  I am surprised the French didn't
    put a bullet in everyone's head.
                                  
    

winying zealots?

Oh, fer sure it's not a problem for you.  Your butt
is probably nowhere near the proposed testing area.

 no I said "powerless winying zealots "
    
    .155 - is your butt in the proposed testing area?
    
    

    
    .156:
    
    Is your butt below your waist?
    

Well, what's "winying".  A chinese entree?

    drunk

Well, then, go home and sleep it off.

    
    re:.152

    > >This whole point is irrelevant
    > 
    > Why so, because it disagrees with you?

    Try reading the REST OF THE SENTENCE, and then get back to me.

    > >If the British hired German mercenaries to invade Italy, who is
    > >invading, Germany or Briton ?

    You didn't answer the question, try again.

    > What if the British hired Italian mercenaries to invade Italy?  It would
    > be hard to argue that the Italian mercenaries had no right to enter Italy.

    No it wouldn't, if that were true, all a country would have to due is
    hire mercenaries of a particular nationality and walk in and take over. 
    That is an asinine statement.  I expect better than that from you ! 
    Give it another try, don't make this so easy.

    > Don't have an atlas handy at the moment.  Perhaps someone else can 
    > answer this more accurately, but I'd say: within 200 miles.

    Than your complaint is baseless, try again.

    > The individuals involved with Greenpeace are self-directing volunteers,
    > furthering a personal agenda.

    If you REALLY believe this you are more gullible than I thought.  Who
    determines where the boat goes?  Perhaps the crew?  I think not!  Try
    again...

    re:.153

    > Stay down.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

    Right, I'm trying to, but he keeps slamming his face into my fist  !!!!!
    How do I make him stop that ? ! ? ! 

    :-)
    Dan

    exactly that's what gp should do.
    

    > Who made them the police of the world?   
    
    NOBODY is the correct answer, give yourself a ceegar.
    
    > - they are a bunch of powerless winying zealots who have there own 
    	agenda regardless of what the world thinks.
    
    BZZZZZT - give that ceegar back.  They obviously are not powerless as
    they were able to influence a multi gajillion dollar corporation into
    reversing a decision to dump an obsolete oil rig at sea.  Pretty
    persuasive, no?
    
    >>> Were the French violating some nuclear nonproliferation treaty or 
        something?    
    
    Sort of but not really since they never really signed on in the first
    place or maybe they did but said "Just kidding!"  Regarding the rest of
    the world, most of the world protested, verbally and in writing to
    which France basically told them all to take a collective pee.  
    
    >>> They (gp) have other means but they choose not to exercise them.  
    
    Please elaborate.  What other means did/does GP have?  GP prides itself
    on crossing the boundary between diplomatic pressure (passive,
    in-action, without substance) and active interference (overt, active,
    reactionary) 
     
    >>> GP is going about it all wrong.  
    
    Your solution to stop France from thumbing their gallic noses at the
    global us is?  
    
    >>> I am surprised the French didn't put a bullet in everyone's head.
    
    And add to their murderous history?  Yes, that would surely sway world
    sentiment back into their favor, of this I am sure.   
    
    Brian

    .161

    >Try reading the REST OF THE SENTENCE, and then get back to me.

    I did, and boy, was it BORRRRR-ing.

    >You didn't answer the question, try again.

    Your question was a non-sequtir, a poor attempt to distract me from my
    point, which is that French citizens, and citizens of EU nations, have 
    the right to travel into French territory, regardless of the fact that
    they are Greenpeace members, EVEN IF THEY ARE REPRESENTING GREENPEACE
    AT THE TIME.  Their membership in Greenpeace does not revoke their
    citizenship.  Certainly, they are subject to the laws of the land, but
    due process applies, and the French did not practice due process.  They
    were wrong, and the Defence Minister resigned, and the head of the
    Secret Service was sacked, and France had to pay GP almost $8-million
    in compensation.

    >That is an asinine statement.  I expect better than that from you ! 
    >Give it another try, don't make this so easy.

    A prime example of how your arrogance diminishes the practical returns
    of your intelligence.

    >> Don't have an atlas handy at the moment.  Perhaps someone else can 
    >> answer this more accurately, but I'd say: within 200 miles.
    >
    >Than your complaint is baseless, try again.

    Do YOU know the geography of the area, smart-guy?  You didn't even
    seem to know whose holdings were in the area.  At least I admit my
    ignorance rather than try to bluff my way through it, which you have
    unsuccessfully attempted more than once thus far.

    >Who determines where the boat goes? 

    Greenpeace, of which the crew are members, and I'll bet that you have
    no clue how decisions are made within the organization.

    >Right, I'm trying to, but he keeps slamming his face into my fist  !!!!!
    >How do I make him stop that ? ! ? ! 

    Do you ever tire of this flatulence (because it sure is stinkin' up
    the 'box)?

    jc
    

    
    John you have yet to answer why a group of people, following the orders
    of a company, to violate the sovereignty of a nation, is different than a
    group of people, following the orders of a government, to violate the
    sovereignty of a nation.  The latter is an act of war and would be
    condemned roundly.  The former is just ducky with you.  Perhaps it is
    because you support this eco-terrorism?  It is still an act of war, and
    should be dealt with as such.  Until you can come up with a plausible
    explanation why one is an act of war and the other isn't, you don't
    have a leg to stand on.

    I suggest that you think about it over the weekend, gather your
    thoughts and come up with some clear and concise arguments.  It will
    save yourself a lot of embarrassment.

    Good luck,
    Dan

    
    Dan,
    
    When are you going to abandon this write-only status of yours?
    

    
    <------
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
    
    That's good...
    
    Dan

    .167
    
    *I* thought it pretty good.  Apropos, and all that, you know.

    
    .168:
    
    My humble thanks, kind Sir.
    
    :^)
    

    Dan,
    
    One need not be a supporter of GP to support their actions in this
    regard.  They have not attacked anyone.  They may put themselves in
    harms way, sor tof like tying themselves to the train tracks if you
    will but that is not an attack.  
    
    Brian

    re the wacko string.
    
    wacko in not a medical term its a state of mind another observes thus
    it's an opinion about another
    
    wacko as in bungee jumping, wacko as in sky diving, wacko as in loony
    toons, wacko as in skiing over cliffs, wacko as in rock climbing w/o
    ropes, wacko as in sailing your vessle in harms way, wacko as in then
    whining about it.....wacko as in enviro-wackos...clearer yet??
    
    BTW...perhaps the French should simply declare that they will be
    detonating 2 or more devices....say 200-300 miles apart and let GP try
    to cover all the bases with their little rubber "in your face we
    don't like what you do assult, landing and demonstration" craft.
    
    

    The issue here is that GP members indeed put themselves in harm's
    way. And in the sort of harm's way that has greater potential
    damage, than, say blockading an abortion clinic.

    This was a protest against a government, engaging in nuclear
    weapons research. It's not surprising things get a bit testy
    when nuclear weapons are involved. If you think the French are
    so terrible, perhaps you'd like to take a stroll across a
    few places in the desert in say, Utah or Nevada, and see how
    long it takes before you're picking .223 out of your cranium.

    You got to think about who you're pissing off... and if pissing
    off professional commandos is really what makes your millennium,
    well, expect your orifice count to increase dramatically.

    -b

    
    The Rule Of Law - who needs it?
    

    
    
>    You got to think about who you're pissing off... and if pissing
>    off professional commandos is really what makes your millennium,
>    well, expect your orifice count to increase dramatically.
    
    	pucker factor at 10 captain...:)
    
    

    
    RE: .170

    Brian, I'm not a supporter of Greenpeace, nor am I opposed to
    preventing France from detonating a nuclear device.

    But the fact of the matter is that violating a country's territory by a
    foreign power is an act of war.  Greenpeace is not a solely French
    organization.  Therefore it is my contention that it, like any other
    government, or large multi-national company, would constitute a
    "foreign power".  If Greenpeace were solely a French organization, then
    I would not be arguing this; however GP is a multi-national
    organization.  Therefore I believe that it constitutes a "foreign
    power".  Given this find a rational argument as to why GP's actions do
    not constitute an act of war?

    Brian, I have addressed this to you, but my question is more for the
    whole 'box community.  I honestly would like to know how we could find
    any other explanation for their actions.  There are multi-national
    companies that are larger then many countries in the world.  How can we
    say that the hostile actions of a small African country is an act of
    war, but similar actions by a company, are not?

    Dan

    
    From today's Toronto Star:
    
    PARIS - A leading vulcanologist has warned the French government that
    a resumption of nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia
    could destabilize a submerged volcano, releasing substantial radio-
    active pollution into the water and atmosphere.  The Mururoa volcano,
    which has been inactive for 9 million years, could be returned to
    "conditions of activity" by means of a nuclear blast, said Pierre
    Vincent of the Volcano Research Centre in Clermont-Ferrand.  Vincent
    believes that each blast further fractures the delicate atoll, and he
    theorizes that a surge of water and volcanic debris from radioactive
    cavities could possibly result from future tests.
    

    To both Dan and !Joan:

    My earlier point was simple: when nuclear weapons are involved,
    the "national security" stakes are higher. Rule of law! Hah!
    The rule here is, if you attempt to "invade", gain access to,
    trespass or otherwise muck about on a military reservation, you
    will be shot. ESPECIALLY if there's nukes or some other top
    secret weapons involved. That may seem unnecessary to you,
    but frankly, I find no great comfort in the thought of the
    military being "nice" to people who gain unauthorized access to
    areas where such weapons are being developed and/or stored.
    Who's to say some GP cum Unibomber didn't have pinching a
    nuke in mind!

    I 100% endorse the idea of my government killing anyone it
    finds who has made intentional unauthorized access to a
    military reservation. Let me add that I would be quite
    upset if they did anything _but_ shoot on sight. I
    doubt the rules the French play by are any different than
    the rules the Americans play by. This is absolutely 100%
    the right thing to do. The French were stunningly correct
    in their actions, and stunningly predictable in their
    pussy-footing around after the fact. They should show a
    little backbone and chuck the bird at anyone who complains
    about it. And quit firing cabinet ministers for doing
    their jobs!

    It doesn't MATTER if it was an act of war or not; shooting
    on sight at a military reservation is standard procedure
    throughout the world. And that's as it should be. I assume
    that even if it is a temporary designation, the site where
    a nuclear bomb test is being conducted would most certainly
    qualify as a military reservation.

    -b

    P.S. That should have read Unabomber, not Unibomber in
         the previous message. I suppose if they ever catch
         a Unibomber, they should put him on death roe... :-)
    
    -b

    
    Well, Brian, can I assume you are referring to the latest incident (the
    boarding of Rainbow Warrior II in French territorial waters), and not the
    incident Dan and I were discussing (the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior 
    while moored in New Zealand's territorial waters)?
    

    
    You are correct, !Joan.
    
    -b

    
    re:.180

    Brian, I am accustomed to installations where use lethal force is
    authorized.  I generally agree with your statements; but I am unsure if
    lethal force could be used in the case of the RW II seizure.  It would
    depend on EXACTLY how close the ship was to the test site.  If however
    we can define the GP's actions as an "invasion by a foreign power",
    then their actions constitute an act of war.  In which case little to
    no justification is needed to kill or take prisoner all the people on
    board, as well as seize or sink the vessel.

    Dan

    .173
    
    Bastiat maybe ?

    .178
    
    "...death roe".  Is this a stagnant fish ?
    
    ;^))))

    
    .181

    >If however we can define the GP's actions as an "invasion by a foreign
    >power", then their actions constitute an act of war.
    
    Dan, you're free to define their actions as "ingestion by a bluefin tuna"
    if it turns your crank.
    

re.154: by CSC32::C_BENNETT
    
>    Were the French violating some nuclear nonproliferation treaty or
>    something?    I don't think so.  

France's commitment to both the NPT and achievement of a Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) is questionable. France has so far refused to sign the 1963 
Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) - banning tests in the atmosphere - and only
became party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991. In spite of President
Mitterrand's commitment to a testing moratorium, observers say France played an
obstructive role in negotiations at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in
1994, calling for some tests to be excluded from the treaty, on the spurious
grounds of 'safety' testing. 

In spite of the leadership shown by President Mitterrand in announcing the 1992
nuclear testing moratorium, France has failed to meet its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has yet to meet other disarmament
commitments. It has: . not signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty. . failed to meet
its obligations under the Euratom Treaty to provide data on radiation monitoring
and contamination at the test site. . not supported a fully comprehensive test
ban treaty text at negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. .
made a reservation to the ban on radioactive contamination of the marine
environment contained in the South Pacific Region Environment Protocol. .
refused to sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. 

Dave.

    re .183
    
    the pun wad already built in... i used the spelling "roe" because
    of the word "uni" which is japanese for a type of roe (sea urchin,
    if i'm not mistaken) ... it was a joke son!
    
    -b

    Somehow I find the logic in .177 a lot easier to digest than the...
    well, it's not really logic... in .175.

OOoooo, I love uni.  I take mine with a raw 
quail egg on top.  MMmmmmm.

    
    Re: .183

    > "...death roe".  Is this a stagnant fish ?

    As opposed to "death row" where they make you work as a galley slave
    until you die.

    
    re: .184
    John, you have not even attempted to answer the question I posed in
    .175

    re: .187
    You are correct, .175 is a question.  Let me try again.  Why are the
    hostile actions of a country considered an act of war, and the hostile
    actions of a foreign business not an act of war?

    
    Listen, Dan.  For you to define GP's actions as "invasions" or acts of
    "war", you have to abandon the traditional definitions of those two
    words (hint: both involve armaments and violence) and instead rely on
    less traditional definitions ("invasion" of privacy, "war" of words).
    
    You go right ahead, if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but this
    creative use of language puts you within a hair's breadth of the
    logic necessary to begin locking up members of the NRA or the Michigan
    Militia on charges of conspiracy, sedition, treason, and terrorism.
    
    That's all the answer you're gonna get, and more than your ravings
    deserve.
    
    jc
    

    re: .190
    
    I dunno...ya got me there.
    
    But they are defined that way!

    
    re: .191

    Gee John, you're touchy .... 

    You seem to take it personally when people disagree with you.
    What a shame, but that's life.  
    I suggest you grow up.

    Dan

    
    RE: .191  Quite a leap of logic there.  

    
    You *wound* me, Dan.
    

>>    You *wound* me, Dan.

    hey, wait a second - it wasn't his turn to wind you, was it?
    

    Yes, mike, quite the leap indeed.  It is analogous to the leap of
    calling a protest an invasion and therefore an act of war.  I think
    this was John's point.  

    
    .196:
    
    Ummmmm, no Di, I think it's Mike's turn to wind me.
    
    :^)
    

    
    .197, Brian:
    
    Egg-zackt-lee!
    

french commando snarf!!!

    
    Mon cher Jacques Chirac........
    
    ==>     http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~keshi/
    
    PS:  Jacques Chiracs Internet mailaddress is off the net.

Stay down, Dan!  Stay down!

    
    Ahhhhh, how?   I'm still standing ?
    
    :-)
    Dan

Submitter: geoffb@ale (Geoffrey Baehr)

From: Des Young <des@irvin
Subject: Australian letter to French President

Here's the open letter published in an Australian newspaper:

    An open letter to M. Jacques Chirac:

    Mon cher Jack

    Je suis a bit fromaged off avec votre decision to blow up La
    Pacifique avec le Frog bombes nuclears.  Je reckon vous must
    have un spot in La Belle France itself pour les explosions.
    Le Massive Central?  Le Quay d'Orsay?  Le Champs Elysees?
    Votre own back yard, peut etre?

    Frappez le crows avec stones, Sport!  La guerre cold est fini!
    Votres forces militaire need la bombe atomique about as
    beacoup as poisson need les bicyclettes.

    Un autre point, cobber.  Votre histoire militaire isn't tres flash,
    consisting, n'est-ce pas, of battailles the likes of Crecy,
    Agincourt, Poitiers, Trafalgar, Borodino, Waterloo, Sedan, et
    Dien Bien Phu.  Un bombe won't change le tradition.  Je/mon pere/
    mon grand pere/le cousing third avec ma grandmere/la plume de ma tante
    fought avec votre soldats against Le Boche in WWI (le Big One).
    Have vous forgotten?

    Reconsider, mon ami, otherwise in le hotels et estaminets de
    l'Australie le curse anciens d'Angleterre - "Damnation to the French" -
    will be heard un autre temps.

    Votre chums don't want that.

    Millo.

    almost nasserish

    who is this nasser?  some kind of ballplayer or something?

    Study your history.  
    
    Gamal Abdul Nasser, onetime President of the United Arab Republic, was
    a great politician and general, but also had a fey side.  He was known
    as an almost legendary satirist in his native Arabic, and managed the
    transition of his Art into English, with about 75% success.  While
    there are those who claim he was a ghostwriter for Don Novello, others
    dispute this as an unwonted calumny on a world-historical figure.
    
    hth, nnttm
    

    .208
    
    > While
    > there are those who claim he was a ghostwriter for Don Novello, others
    > dispute this as an unwonted calumny on a world-historical figure
    
    And with good reason.  Don Novello don't need no steenkin' ghostwriter,
    he writes all his own stuff!

    is that nasserish or is it /nasserish

>>    is that nasserish or is it /nasserish

	neither.  \nasserish.  nnttm.

    
    My apologies if this has appeared somewhere else in da 'Box.
    
    From the Boston Globe, 8/3/95:
    
    Greenpeace agent gets decoration
    
    Paris - The commander of the French secret agents who sank the Rainbow
    Warrior antinuclear protest ship in New Zealand 10 years ago has been
    made a Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, France's second highest
    order.  The daily Le Monde said yesterday that the discreet
    announcement in the Official Journal on July 2 of Maj. Gen. Jean-Claude
    Lesquer's decoration by French President Jacques Chirac had gone
    unnoticed for a month.  The announcement in the Official Journal did
    not give any reason for Lesquer's award.  (Reuters)
    

	re: .204

	I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe.

	Who can I sue ?

    An excellent article appeared in THE GLOBE AND MAIL, a national
    newspaper here in Canada, on Tuesday, August 29, 1995.
    
    The front page story story reads, "'French' a dirty word Down
    Under".  The article, written by Timothy Appleby, is in Sydney
    Austrailia following both local and international
    responce to the upcoming French nuclear testing in the south Pacific.
    
    The article, very lengthy, detailed and filled with quotable quotes, is
    an education in itself, with respect to the histroy of the French nuclear
    testing and shows pictures of exactly where the testing has been in the
    past and the estimated (the article states that "the exact date,
    unsurprisingly, has been withheld - ") testing locations of the
    anticipated French nuclear tests soon.
    
    The detailed map of the area shows the Mururoa Atoll situated halfway
    between the continent of Australia and South America.  The closest
    (pictured or identified) island is Tahiti.  The map shows that the
    South Subtropical Current flows toward Australia and well north of the
    New Zealand islands.
    
    One very interesting fact that I did not know was that the French
    government also rules Tahiti "where thousands of antinuclar protestors
    rallied over the weekend" .
    
    Did you also know that "the French government will commence a series of
    eight underground nuclear tests . . ." ??? !!!
    
    I would like to show everyone in this conference the entire article so
    that the full impact of the story could be felt - delaing with the
    anticipated damage to a fragile marine ecosystem and fallout of the the
    radiation entering the air currents and travelling to Australia - but
    the article is very long. 
    
    As much as I would love to render an opinion on the article, I want to
    make it available to you, via fax, if you would like to read it in its
    entirty.
    
    Included in the article was this:
    
    THE THREAT
    France planse to conduct eight underground nuclear test at the Mururoa
    atoll in French Polynesia.
    
    THE RESPONSE
    The Austrailian government and people are enraged.  They have protested
    to France and to the French embassy in Austrailia, and are boycotting
    Fench products.  Greepease is leading a flotilla of boats to the test
    site in protest.  The European Commission is sending a team to monitor
    radiation emissions.
    
    THE PROBLEM
    The protest have had almost no impact on France, which insists that it
    must conduct the tests before a test-ban treaty comes into effect next
    May.
    
    THE QUESTION
    Can the international community oblige a state to heed the concerns of
    other nations when its actions are viewed as not only insensitive but
    environmentally threatening?
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
               
    Any comments . . . ?!
    
    . . . David

    
    David,
    
    I missed that issue.  If you could, please drop a photocopy of it 
    in the interoffice mail for me, TRO 1/2.
    
    Thanks!!
    
    John
           

    So, ozzies have to drink kaliph wines for awhile?

    They can drink their own.  

    
    > One very interesting fact that I did not know was that the French
    > government also rules Tahiti "where thousands of antinuclear protesters
    > rallied over the weekend" .

    Any exact numbers?  Are we talking 10,000 or 1001?  The more I think
    about it, even 10,000 ain't a hill of beans.  I mean GOAL got 6000-8000
    to a pro-gun rally just in Massatuchits.  IF this is such a WORLDWIDE
    concern, where are all the people?

    > ...dealing with the
    > anticipated damage to a fragile marine ecosystem and fallout of the the
    > radiation entering the air currents and traveling to Australia ...

    fallout...air currents...UNDERGROUND tests...sounds like eco-freak
    psycho babble to me.

    > Greepease is leading a flotilla of boats to the test site in protest.

    Now that'd be a funny sight.... :-)

    > Can the international community oblige a state to heed the concerns of
    > other nations when its actions are viewed as not only insensitive but
    > environmentally threatening?

    Sure, but it's an act of war.....

    right Dan. eveyone knows nuclear explosions are environmentally
    friendly... that's one for the books my friend.

    
    Where did you get that from what I said?
    

    
    
    
    
    
     
    Your comments are . . . interesting.
    
    I find myself at a loss for words to describe the emotions you provoke
    in your statements regarding this issue.  Although I cannot speak for
    this organization, of which I am a financial contributor, nor can I 
    defend all of their actions of bringing attention to a situation
    that poses potential side-effects to our eco-system.
                                         ---
    
    I am not about to "sell" you this organization, nor am I about to try
    to recruit you.  I am curious about the stance of your position - 
    allbeit a devil's advocate or sheer ignorance - you are entitled to
    your opinion, given, but clearly bring it to light.  I personally don't
    see why the exact number of people at a demonstration would affect your
    postion on an issue.  Am I to imply that public opinion would sway your
    decision, I don't think so.  You seem to have very clear opinions, at
    least in your mind, but you don't relate them.  You leave the door wide
    open to interpretation. 
     
    In your reply you stated "UNDERGROUND tests".  Do you know what nuclear
    fission does to the surrounding area.  I am not an expert in this area,
    but from seeing the destruction of previous and commonly known
    facts about nuclear blasts, it is of my opinion that the immediate area
    affected would not be restricted to the ground.  Just because it is out
    of site, does not make it invisible to surrounding air or water tables
    (fresh or salt water).  
    
    I would like to discuss further your position about this, but I offer
    you the opportunity to read a little bit about this organization to
    explore it's history.  This will in no way sway your position, I'm
    sure, it is intended to introduce you to new possibilities.  
    Possibilities that GP's intention is not that far off from yours.
    
    
    GP has been around for some time.  Their philosophy is explained in the 
    following exerpt from their home page off the WWW.
    
    
    
    Welcome to the Greenpeace WWW Information Page
    
    Greenpeace was conceived in 1971 when members of the Don't Make A Wave
    Committee in Vancouver, Canada, renamed their organisation the better 
    to proclaim their purpose: to create a green and peaceful world. 
    In 1979 Greenpeace offices in Australia Canada, France, Holland, 
    New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States joined to form
    Stichting Greenpeace Council, the international organisation. 
    The present international office settled in Amsterdam in May 1989.
    
    Greenpeace is an international environmental organization with
    approximately four million members worldwide. Greenpeace has offices 
    in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, 
    Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, 
    the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Soviet Union, Spain, 
    Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    
    The organization traces its roots to a small group of people in British
    Columbia, Canada, who successfully opposed US nuclear testing in Alaska 
    in the early seventies. The organization has since developed considerably 
    and is now involved with a wide range of environmental issues, 
    including threats to the marine environment and its living resources, 
    climate change and toxic waste problems.
    
    Greenpeace campaigns through research, education, non-violent direct
    action and lobbying on both the national and international levels. 
    Greenpeace has recognised status with a number of international 
    organizations, including consultative status with the United Nations 
    Economic and Social Council. Greenpeace employs highly qualified experts 
    in a number of environmental fields.
    
    Greenpeace does not accept financial support from governments or 
    corporations, but is financed exclusively through individual donations.
    
    
    Policies
    
    Greenpeace allies itself with no political party and takes no political
    stance except the protection of the environment.
    
    Greenpeace is independent of the influence of any government, group, or
    individual.
    
    Greenpeace embraces the principle of non-violence, rejecting attacks on
    either persons or
    property.
    
    

    Dan,
    
    Horse hockey.  The French may me peeing in their own yard but it will
    certainly dribble to everyone else's.  The by product of a nuclear test
    is at a minimum, fallout and irreversible damage to an already
    threatened and stressed local eco-system.  Their actions are reckless and
    have consequences far beyond their sovereign borders.  This is even
    discounting the foaming rhetoric of the anti-nukers and tree huggers. 
    Trying to pressure them to stop os akin to you asking your neighbor not
    to change their oil in their yard because it may drain onto your
    property.  Only difference is the neighborhood they are playing in is
    much larger.  Act of war?  No more so than the stupid French for going
    ahead with the testing.  
    
    Ban France.

    
    > In your reply you stated "UNDERGROUND tests".

    I was pointing out that a lot of hoopla is being generated regarding
    air currents carrying "fallout".  However this is NOT an atmospheric
    test.

    > Greenpeace is an international environmental organization with
    > approximately four million members worldwide.

    By their own documentation, they are a minority group attempting to
    force their will upon the majority.  How do you find this defendable?
    Because it's for our own good?  That seems a little patriarchal to me. 
    How 'bout self determination etc?

    > and is now involved with a wide range of environmental issues, 
    > including threats to the marine environment and its living resources, 
    > climate change and toxic waste problems.

    eeerrrr... perceived threats would be more accurate.

    > Greenpeace employs highly qualified experts in a number of environmental 
    > fields.

    "highly qualified experts" who agree with there preconceived notions.

    > Greenpeace embraces the principle of non-violence, rejecting attacks on
    > either persons or property.

    This is patently false.  Invading a sovereign country is most certainly
    an attack.  If Greenpeace were a country, this action would be an act
    of war.  Why should we let Greenpeace off the hook?  They commit the
    equivalent to an act of war, and we look the other way, why?

    
    Bri, 
    
    > to an already threatened and stressed local eco-system.
    
    you have proof of this?
    
    BTW - I think France is idiotic for doing this testing, but I am
    unwilling to go to war with France over it.  We should boycott their
    products, no problem.  Write our congress critters to complain to
    France.  Write to the French embasies, etc.  But this invasion of
    French soil is just plain WRONG!
    
    All of this is of course MY OPINION.

    Yes, I do or should say have it.  Look at any number of studies and 
    documentaries that show fish stocks in decline, the slow (and not so 
    slow) death of coral formations, the disrpution in the migratory patterns 
    for some species of birds and the depletion of marine food stocks such 
    as krill, plankton and some forms of algae.  No, I will not look them 
    up and post them.  Rent any one of several Cousteau documentaries from
    the past 20 years or so as a starting point.  
    
    Industiral pollution, man's greed and the reckless way in which the 
    resources are being abused by developing and industrialized nations alike 
    is appalling.  The additional damage that will be caused by the French 
    testing is criminal and preventable.  
    
    Mururoa is geologically active.  There is no way to prevent the 
    venting of radioactive material into the surrounding sea water or
    through subsequent eruptions and the resulting ejecta.  The tests will
    yield an additional amount of fallout into the environment that will
    end up migrating through ocean and atmospheric currents.  France has no
    way of controlling this short of not testing.  The insult to the injury 
    is their arrogance in the face of international protest.  I certainly hope
    France feels the pain of their arrogance economically through boycotting.  
    
    Ban France.

    
    How does said fallout from the test compare with the radio active
    compounds released by nearly any volcanic eruption.  Bri, you seem to
    be blaming all of this bad stuff on man.  Look at what man does to
    protect the environment, such as deer hunts to cull the deer
    population, etc.  I am just tired of hearing all this gloom and doom
    from the eco-fascists.  As I said I am opposed to the French test, BUT
    IT IS THEIR COUNTRY!  If you want to prevent the test that badly,
    petition Congress to declare war on France.

    Dan... "eco-freak psycho babble..."

    I know I speak for John when I say I am opposed to volcanic eruptions.

    The issue is not culling of herds.  The issue is not prehistoric or
    even contemporary geological activity.  The issue is the wanton
    disregard for one's neighbors and potential impact on their health and
    well being.  Industrial pollution is a direct result of man's actions. 
    The decimation of edible fish species is a direct result of man's
    actions either through over fishing or through public works like dams
    and the resultant disruption of natural migration patterns and the 
    depletion of spawning grounds.  But this is not the point either.
    
    The point is that France is ignoring the pleas and protests of the
    neighboring countries and just about every other nation.  Greenpeace 
    and most recently a flotilla of citizens from New Zealand, Oz, and 
    neighboring islands are taking this a step further by going to 
    France's door step and saying ENOUGH!  They are certainly trespassing 
    but don't call it an act of war.  Civil disobedienc maybe but not war.
    
    BTW, if this was the good ole U.S. of A. and it was your neighbor that
    was behaving recklessly with potentially disastrous results, it would
    not be an act of war if you went over an protested them for doing so. 
    Unfortunately we can't drag France in front of Judge Wapner so the next
    best thing is to go and make a spectacle of the situation at the site.  

    
    > France's door step and saying ENOUGH!  They are certainly trespassing 
    > but don't call it an act of war.  Civil disobedienc maybe but not war.
    
    No, Greenpeace is not going to France's door, they are barging past the
    door, walking into the livingroom, putting their feet up on the
    furniture, and saying "What are you gonna do about it!"  Violating a 
    country's borders to enforce the will of a foreign power is an act of war.
    
    > BTW, if this was the good ole U.S. of A. and it was your neighbor that
    > was behaving recklessly with potentially disastrous results, it would
    > not be an act of war if you went over an protested them for doing so. 
    
    No it would not be, unless my neighbor's property was in another
    country.  Then it most certainly could be.  If we are in the same
    country it would be trespassing which in most places is punishable by a
    fine, imprisonment, or both.
    
    

    
    
      The organization traces its roots to a small group of people in British
        Columbia, Canada, who successfully opposed US nuclear testing in
    Alaska 
        in the early seventies. The organization has since developed
    considerably 
        and is now involved with a wide range of environmental issues, 
        including threats to the marine environment and its living
    resources, 
        climate change and toxic waste problems.
    

    
    How is this different then what you posted in .221 ?
    

    
    re:  .231
    
    oopps . . .
    
    Note (.231) was supposed to be in quotes and at the end of this note.
    
    I want to stress to Dan that GP is taking issues directly to heart of
    the matter, whatever that matter may be, nuke testing, killing of baby
    seals, burying of oil platforms at sea, etc.
    
    Their numbers may be small by comparison of large countries, but their
    actions are usually a last resort and <almost never> take on violent
    actions.  Usually their public demonstrations result in over-action
    taken by others in order to quell what they beleive to be the truth.
    
    In no way can GP be compared to a country because, it is my
    personal opinion, that they collectivly speak for the majority of their
    members (ie. unions).  They do not go out and solicit people in 
    order to be in their group nor do they get people to conform to 
    their opinion, as you stated in an earlier reply.
    
    Their actions, at least the one's that you see and hear about, are
    usually a last resort.  Yes they do try to sway public opinion but in
    no way do they control the actions of the media (except to advertise to
    them that they will be at such and such place to demonstrate against a
    particular cause).  Their actions are to bring attention to what they
    beleive is a danger to human, or animal, or of global porportion. 
    
    Dan, GP's actions cannot be compared to a country nor fanatic faction. 
    They do not have an agenda to control the world, the want our
    children's children to have a world in which to live.
    
    . . . David
     

        
    > Their numbers may be small by comparison of large countries, but their
    > actions are usually a last resort and <almost never> take on violent
    > actions.

    "almost never".... is that like kinda pregnant?

    > They do not go out and solicit people in 
    > order to be in their group nor do they get people to conform to 
    > their opinion, as you stated in an earlier reply.

    They don't attempt to recruit new members?  Are you SURE of this?
    It seems to me that Greenpeace is attempting to force France "to
    conform to their opinion".  How can you deny that?

    > Dan, GP's actions cannot be compared to a country nor fanatic faction. 
    
    How are they different from a government?  They have a populace, they
    have real resources (ships, buildings, etc).

    > They do not have an agenda to control the world....

    aahhh but they do, they don't want to control the world in the common
    understanding of the phrase, but they do want to dictate how we utilize
    the resources of the planet.  That, to me, is a distinction without a
    difference.

    > they want our children's children to have a world in which to live.

    That is a noble purpose.  One which I wholly support, but I REFUSE to
    allow a foreign power dictate to me how I will live my life.  They strike 
    me as an oligarchy, dictating from on high as to what resources if any I 
    may use.  That is unacceptable.

    See http://www.vicnet.net.au/~theage/french.htm
    
    for special report by The Age (Melbourne newspaper) on the French
    testing.  Has map.  Some of the fissures have, I believe, been
    documented by Custeou (Sp?)
    
    Axel

    .234
    
    >That is a noble purpose.  One which I wholly support, but I REFUSE to
    >allow a foreign power dictate to me how I will live my life.  They strike 
    >me as an oligarchy, dictating from on high as to what resources if
    >any I may use.  That is unacceptable.
    
    Diving into convenient rat-hole: You will allow the local power to
    dictate how you will live your life?  You realize that the US is the
    foreign power to most of the world?  GP can't dictate - they represent
    a point of view.  The opposite point of view is presented continuously
    by nationalistic governments (using tax payers funds) and companies
    using public and private resources (using income ultimately derived
    from consumers or in case of subsideised industries again from the tax
    payer)
     
    

    
    > You will allow the local power to dictate how you will live your life?  

    Not if I can avoid/prevent it.

    > You realize that the US is the foreign power to most of the world?

    Obviously, your point being?

    > GP can't dictate

    Well they sure are trying awful hard.

    > The opposite point of view is presented continuously
    > by nationalistic governments (using tax payers funds) and companies
    > using public and private resources (using income ultimately derived
    > from consumers or in case of subsidized industries again from the tax
    > payer)            

    Not precisely.  IMO, the purpose of a government is to serve the needs
    of its' people.  The purpose of a company is to serve the desires of
    its' shareholders.  These may coincide with the views of Greenpeace, they 
    may not.  Where they do not, the government/company has its' primary
    responsibility to its' people/shareholders

    Re - foreign power - no point really, just a rathole - I have an
    instinctive reaction to the word foreign.  The world is becoming
    borderless in many respects.  The US, by means of commercial expansion,
    dictates resource use on a number of other countries.  To a lesser
    extent other countries force the same on the US.
    
    Governments and companies - What if the actions of a government or
    company have a negative effect on others e.g. a bordering country or
    non-shareholders?  Someone needs to publish the information of the
    negative effects.  Just as an example; power companies around the world
    all publish the same glossy brochures showing how their smoke stacks
    are so tall that not a particle of pollution lands anywhere nearby
    (pictures of bunny rabbits and daisies, or wallabies and wattles if in
    Australia).  There needs to be some organisation to publish the
    balancing information on acid lakes hundreds of miles down wind. 
                                          

    Dan, methinks you was kidnapped by and reared by a roving band of
    gypsy court jesters. 
    
    Let me help, the secret to not being pummelled in here (as a few of
    our esteemed boxers have tried to explain) is to stop looking at 
    your point and look at the population that is opposed to your state-
    ments and positions. You have no alliance in this note yet you con-
    tinue to make incoherent statements like "GP is gov't because it has
    a populace", etc... You will soon be in Bejing if you do not stop
    removing dirt from that hole you are so enamored with. 
    
    Ever hear of "cut your losses"? While I admire the tenacity, there are
    times when it borders blind fanaticism. Open your eyes and the
    responses will truely set you free.                   
    

    Heck, BUGS have tenacity.  Pull off a leg or two, they keep going. 
    Yes, this is admirable... but... :-)
    

    Dan, 
    
    Try trespassing, criminal trespassing even but calling it an act
    of war was and still is incorrect.  BTW, if France wanted to blow up
    all things french and leave everyone else alone, no sweat.  Let 'em
    have at it.  The problem remains that their actions will negatively 
    impact their neighbors to varying degrees.  
    
    Ban France.

    
    re: .240
    
    Bet you used magnifying glasses on them when you were a kid... right?
    

    
    re:.238

    > The world is becoming borderless in many respects.

    True, however territory is not yet one of them.

    > Governments and companies - What if the actions of a government or
    > company have a negative effect on others e.g. a bordering country or
    > non-shareholders?  

    Companies - file a court action and seek reparations.
    Governments - political/economic sanctions.  War if necessary.

    > Someone needs to publish the information of the
    > negative effects....

    I have no problem with this.  My complaint is Greenpeace insistence on 
    invading a foreign country to impose their will on a duly elected resistant 
    government.  Why should we allow Greenpeace to get away with things like 
    this?
                                          
    re:.239

    > ...is to stop looking at 
    > your point and look at the population that is opposed to your state-
    > ments and positions....

    What does who opposes me have to do with the price of tea in China?

    > You have no alliance in this note ...

    Your point is?

    > yet you continue to make incoherent statements like "GP is gov't 
    > because it has a populace", etc... 

    More personal attacks, can't you make a point without one?  BTW I have 
    never said that Greenpeace was a government, I asked why are they different
    from a government.  My point being why do we allow Greenpeace to do things
    that we would not allow a government to do?  Why do we give them a free
    ride?
    
    > Ever hear of "cut your losses"? While I admire the tenacity, there are
    > times when it borders blind fanaticism. Open your eyes and the
    > responses will truly set you free.                   

    Cut my losses?  How can I cut my losses when I'm winning?  No one has yet
    answered why we should give Greenpeace a free ride.  They are a foreign 
    power attempting to enforce their will on a duly elected government.

    re:.241

    > Try trespassing, criminal trespassing even but calling it an act
    > of war was and still is incorrect.

    Bri, let me try again.  If your neighbor's property is in another country,
    if you try to force your will on him, against his will.  That certainly 
    could be considered an act of war.  And in my opinion should be considered
    an act of war.  If your neighbor's property is in the same country then it
    is not an act of war, it is trespassing.  Which in many states is punishable
    by fine, imprisonment, or both.

    > The problem remains that their actions will negatively 
    > impact their neighbors to varying degrees.  

    So boycott their products.  Write your congress critters.  Write the French
    embassy.  Petition congress to declare war.  These things are all 
    acceptable.  Hell if Greenpeace wants to invade French territory, let 
    them.  But if they are shot, bombed, or otherwise killed, DON'T make 
    martyrs out of 'em, they were committing an act of war.

Wasn't it GP who destroyed a norwegian whaling ship in harbor?

Wasn't it GP who has been cutting Japanese (and others) Fishing nets at sea?

Wasn't it GP who rammed russian fishing boats?

Wasn't it GP who invaded a russian harbor to disrupt canneries operations?

Acts of piracy are usually acts of violence. and punishible by hanging in 
admirality courts.

Amos

    okay Dan, i'll be up front with "my point". you piss people off.
    having no one even consider your position valid (can you say no
    one) might mean that you're all wet. but you wouldn't budge an
    inch. and don't gimme that crap of "it's my opinion and i'm
    sticking with it". Hitler stuck to his to the end with the
    entire world actively destroying him. was he right to stick to 
    his values and position? no answer needed here Dan'l. an extreme
    analogy? okay. it does make the point you were asking about.
    
    actually Dan, it wasn't a personal attack. i was trying to help
    you out, but i defer to the others' read on you. 
    
    get some professional help for that masochistic thing you've got going
    here. believe me, you'll feel much better... 

RE: .244 

>>> Wasn't it GP who destroyed a norwegian whaling ship in harbor?

I believe this was done by the Sea Shepard Society, not GP. No question
what this is though.


>>> Wasn't it GP who has been cutting Japanese (and others) Fishing nets at sea?

Yep, my high school biology teacher spent 1 year in a Japanese prison for this.
Is that piracy though ?


Mark

    
    re:.245
    
    > ...you piss people off.

    You say that like it's a bad thing... :-)
    Actually more importantly to you is that I piss you off.
    
    > having no one even consider your position valid (can you say no
    > one) 
    
    I suggest you read .244 
    
    > might mean that you're all wet. 
    
    The key word is MIGHT.  It also might be that I'm right.
    
    > but you wouldn't budge an
    > inch. and don't gimme that crap of "it's my opinion and i'm
    > sticking with it". Hitler stuck to his to the end with the
    > entire world actively destroying him. 
    
    Are you calling me a NAZI?
    
    > was he right to stick to his values and position?  no answer needed here 
    > Dan'l. an extreme analogy? okay. 
    
    NO IT'S NOT OK.  If you believe I am a NAZI have the B@!!$ to say it,
    otherwise apologize!
    
    > it does make the point you were asking about.
    
    What point EXACTLY are you refering to.  I want to be PERFECTLY CLEAR
    on this.  You've brought up an INTERESTING historical individual. 
    Please state EXACTLY what you meant by it!
    
    > actually Dan, it wasn't a personal attack....
    
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one but your last
    statement makes that VERY difficult.
    
    > get some professional help for that masochistic thing you've got going
    > here. believe me, you'll feel much better... 

    I assume that this is also not a personal attack?
    

    
    >              -< Let France test in France, not Polynesia. >-
    
    eerrr.... are you saying that the French are testing the weapon on
    non-French soil?
    

     how do get me calling you a nazi out of that sentence?
    
     don't worry about my balls. there's enough steel in 'em to build
     a '61 Fleetwood. if it was my intention to call you something your
     ears would still be ringing.
    
     oh, you don't p.m.o. it takes a lot to p.m.o.
    
     on the note reference... well, i guess you're not as lonely as i
     thought. i stand corrected.
    
     the apology thing, though... you'd better better be part amphibian
     'cause you'll be holding your breath for quite some time. 
                                  

    
    .247

    >...otherwise apologize!
    
    HAR!  Isn't he great folks?  He'll be here all week!
    
    

    
    > the apology thing, though... you'd better better be part amphibian
    > 'cause you'll be holding your breath for quite some time. 
    
    Kinda what I figured, imply something and backpeddle.  We got a name
    for a person who does that where I come from, but I'll leave it at
    that.
    
    Oh BTW Joan, Your opinions were trashed last time you came in here, you
    sure you want back in?
    

    
    Thank you donny for that truly useful entry.

    uh, danny-boy, there's a big difference between simply trashing
    one's opinions and offering debate/discourse upon the subject....
    hate to say it, but that trashing bit is reminiscent of meowski
    and his towel.....
    
    nnttm

    Meowski is dating Corky?
    
    Oh towel!
    
    Nevermind.

    Dan, i implied nothing. i tried to provide an analogy. 
    
    by all means take it for what you think it's worth and have a happy
    day... well, have a reasonably comfortable one anyway.

    Dan-
    You were asked the question:
    >What if the actions of a government...have a negative effect on others
    >e.g. a bordering country...?
    
    You responded:
    >War if necessary.
    
    You also said:
    >My point being why do we allow Greenpeace to do things that we would
    >not allow a government to do?
    
    It seems to me that Greenpeace (a coalition of people from many
    nations, including Australia and New Zealand) will be negatively
    affected by the nuclear testing. Why, then, cannot they go to "war,"
    using your logic? Or, on the other hand, are Autralia and New Zealand
    justified in declaring war on France?

RE: .248  
  
*    >              -< Let France test in France, not Polynesia. >-
*    
*    eerrr.... are you saying that the French are testing the weapon on
*    non-French soil?

Basically, yes. French sovereignty over those atolls is tenuous at best, IMO.    
How very convenient to have atolls somewhere 10000 miles or so away
that you can nuke when you get the urge. You don't have to worry about the
ramifications in your own yard and to hell with the local populace.

Mark

    
    .251
    
    >Oh BTW Joan, Your opinions were trashed last time you came in here, you
    >sure you want back in?
    
    <snap>  <snap>
    
    DAN!  DANNN!!!  WAKE UP!  It's morning, time to get dressed for work!
    

    
    re:.257

    > It seems to me that Greenpeace (a coalition of people from many
    > nations, including Australia and New Zealand) will be negatively
    > affected by the nuclear testing. Why, then, cannot they go to "war,"
    > using your logic? Or, on the other hand, are Autralia and New Zealand
    > justified in declaring war on France?

    Jim,  If Autralia/New Zealand/Greenpeace really WANTS to go to war with 
    France, that's fine with me as I said in note 485.243 :

    > My point being why do we allow Greenpeace to do things
    > that we would not allow a government to do?  Why do we give them a free
    > ride?

    and

    > Petition congress to declare war.  These things are all 
    > acceptable.  Hell if Greenpeace wants to invade French territory, let 
    > them.  But if they are shot, bombed, or otherwise killed, DON'T make 
    > martyrs out of 'em, they were committing an act of war.

    My main bone of contention is that Greenpeace is allowed to get away
    with doing things that no country would be allowed to do.  Why should
    they be allowed that privilege?  If a country attempted to do many of
    these things it would be an act of war.  Greenpeace seems to think that
    they should be allowed to go where they want and do as they please, and
    not have to face the consequences of their actions.  Greenpeace
    committed an act of war when they entered French waters.  The French
    responded in a VERY restrained manner (IMO).  The press reports
    Greenpeace as being some kind of saints / martyr.  THEY WERE THE
    AGGRESSORS!

    re:.258

> Basically, yes. French sovereignty over those atolls is tenuous at best, IMO. 
> How very convenient to have atolls somewhere 10000 miles or so away
> that you can nuke when you get the urge. You don't have to worry about the
> ramifications in your own yard and to hell with the local populace.

    Mark, do you think that this was there intention when they acquired the
    atolls?

    
    re:.259

    Another useful comment from the peanut gallery.  You've been hanging
    around Don haven't you?
    

    Don and John?

Don Juan.

    .260
    Cool! An answer! So rare in da box...
    
    >The press reports
        Greenpeace as being some kind of saints / martyr.  THEY WERE THE
        AGGRESSORS!
    
    But justified aggressors, no?

    
    Don Juan, from Juandon.
    

>>    Mark, do you think that this was there intention when they acquired the
>>    atolls?

Acquired ? They stole them from the Tahitians. Who cares what there intentions
were then. The concept of French Polynesia is absurd. Polynesia belongs to the
Polynesian cultures there. Greenpeace or any other groups are totally justified
in taking whatever actions are necessary to prevent the French government from
caring out their nuclear testing. If the French government is still having
cold war jitters, they can display their military ineptness by rebuilding the
Maginot line, IMHO of course.

Mark

    Greenpeace as martyrs in the press?  Not a chance.  The goal is to
    bring to light what the French are doing.  They have achieved that.  
    Diplomatic channels are being worked as well by Oz, NZ and Japan not 
    to mention the remaining South Pacific states.  I think we have already 
    agreed the GP is breaking the law by trespassing into French territory.  
    That's the point though isn't it?  The only people that really have to 
    decide on whether or not GP should be punished is France.  They have 
    elected to attempt to deflect the issue by towing the captured vessels 
    and crews, along with anyone else caught in the 12 mile exclusion zone, to 
    another atoll 350 miles away.  This includes private vessels that set out 
    as a flotilla with several dignitaries including a non-voting member of 
    congress from American Samoa, and members of the NZ parliament.  They have 
    been detained but will most likely be released.  The French cannot 
    afford to have another act of piracy and murder on their hands so they 
    will try to be seen as firm but compassionate.  The only correct course
    they can take is to suspend the tests.  Given their track record, I
    fully expect them to test anyway.  
    
    Ban France.  

    
    re:.264

    > >The press reports
    >     Greenpeace as being some kind of saints / martyr.  THEY WERE THE
    >     AGGRESSORS!
    > 
    > But justified aggressors, no?

    Maybe, maybe not, that is not the point.  The point was that they are
    an aggressive foreign power attempting to enforce their will on a
    resistant government.  They were committing the equivalent of an act of
    war.  They should take their lumps.  We should not give them a free
    ride.  If they want to run with the big dogs, they're gonna get
    scratched.

    re:.266

> >>    Mark, do you think that this was there intention when they acquired the
> >>    atolls?
> 
> Acquired ? They stole them from the Tahitians. Who cares what there intentions
> were then. 

    I take that as a NO.

> The concept of French Polynesia is absurd. Polynesia belongs to the
> Polynesian cultures there. 

    Any more absurd than say French Canadia?

> Greenpeace or any other groups are totally justified
> in taking whatever actions are necessary to prevent the French government from
> caring out their nuclear testing. 

    Up to an including acts of war?  If they do commit acts of war, should
    they have to face the consequences of their actions?

> ...they can display their military ineptness by rebuilding the
> Maginot line, IMHO of course.

    Why do you say the French are militarily inept?  

    re:.267

    > I think we have already 
    > agreed the GP is breaking the law by trespassing into French territory.  
    
    I believe the appropriate term is invasion.

    > That's the point though isn't it?  

    Precisely.

    > The only people that really have to 
    > decide on whether or not GP should be punished is France.  

    Agreed.  And the choice of punishment is also France's.  I personally
    believe feeding them to the sharks would be extreme.  However, taking
    them prisoner, and sinking their vessels would be completely acceptable.

    > They have 
    > elected to attempt to deflect the issue by towing the captured vessels 
    > and crews, along with anyone else caught in the 12 mile exclusion zone, to 
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    .          .          .          .          .          .          .
    > been detained but will most likely be released.  

    That is France's decision.

    > The French cannot 
    > afford to have another act of piracy and murder on their hands so they 
    > will try to be seen as firm but compassionate.  

    Within France's Territorial waters, I don't believe it would be piracy
    or murder.  Destruction of an invading foreign power certainly would
    not constitute piracy or murder.

    > The only correct course they can take is to suspend the tests.  

    In your opinion.  This is France's decision to make.  We can react to
    it in any way that we choose, including petitioning congress to go to
    war with France.

    > Given their track record, I fully expect them to test anyway.  
    
    I'm not so certain.  They may be playing political games, trying to win
    concessions from the USA or someone else.  This is something I doubt
    we'll ever know.

    > Ban France.  

    New deodorant?  :-)

RE: .268

> >>    Mark, do you think that this was there intention when they acquired the
> >>    atolls?
> 
> Acquired ? They stole them from the Tahitians. Who cares what there intentions
> were then. 
>
>    I take that as a NO.

Yes, it's a NO. But it doesn't matter anyway.

> The concept of French Polynesia is absurd. Polynesia belongs to the
> Polynesian cultures there. 
>
>    Any more absurd than say French Canadia?

Were talking about a land and culture that's controlled by a government in
Paris. Last time I checked, French Canada doesn't take it's orders from Paris.

> Greenpeace or any other groups are totally justified
> in taking whatever actions are necessary to prevent the French government from
> caring out their nuclear testing. 
>
>    Up to an including acts of war?  If they do commit acts of war, should
>    they have to face the consequences of their actions?

Act of war ? That's a reach. You could call it trespassing if it was France,
but it's not. It's Polynesia. That part belongs to Tahiti and the Tahitians.
France doesn't have the right. Any soverignty claims are bogus.

> ...they can display their military ineptness by rebuilding the
> Maginot line, IMHO of course.
>
>    Why do you say the French are militarily inept?  

Because I think that the development and testing of nuclear weapons is
outdated. The strategic value is null, and in fact, pursuing them encourages
proliferation which undermines their security. The arms race is over. Either
they don't realize it, or are trying to score political points at home. They're
using Polynesia as a convenient dumping ground.

Mark

    France as a military power... they haven't been this century!

    If it`s safe enough for Americans to test nuclear bombs in the Arizona
    desert, then how come it`s not safe for the French to test their bombs
    in the ocean? 
    
    All credit to the French. Nobody tells them what to do.
    
    
    

    
    re:.269

> > Greenpeace or any other groups are totally justified
> > in taking whatever actions are necessary to prevent the French government from
> > caring out their nuclear testing. 
> >
> >    Up to an including acts of war?  If they do commit acts of war, should
> >    they have to face the consequences of their actions?
> 
> Act of war ? That's a reach. You could call it trespassing if it was France,

    Beg to differ, unless I'm very much mistaken, the atoll is under French
    rule.  Therefore invasion by a foreign power (Greenpeace) most
    certainly would qualify as an act of war.  

> but it's not. It's Polynesia. That part belongs to Tahiti and the Tahitians.
> France doesn't have the right. 

    You claim that the atoll belongs to Tahiti.  All the reports I have seen 
    seem to indicate that the land belongs to France.  Can you back up your 
    claim?

> Any sovereignty claims are bogus.

    Based on what?

> ...they can display their military ineptness by rebuilding the
> Maginot line, IMHO of course.
>
>    Why do you say the French are militarily inept?  

> Because I think that the development and testing of nuclear weapons is
> outdated. 

    Perhaps, perhaps not.  Fact is you need to test a weapon to improve it.

> The strategic value is null, 

    How do you figure that?

> and in fact, pursuing them encourages proliferation which undermines their 
> security. 

    Nuclear weapons will continue to be tested and developed regardless of
    what the French do.  Have you forgotten about the Chinese?

> The arms race is over. 

    Wishful thinking.  There is ALWAYS another enemy!

> ...or are trying to score political points at home. They're
> using Polynesia as a convenient dumping ground.

    Perhaps, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

    re:.270

    > France as a military power... they haven't been this century!

    It all depends on who you're fighting.  I've seen a small sample of
    their airforce, and if the rest of their military is similarly equipped,
    I think that they could give most countries a run for their money. 
    Besides what they were in the past is not an indication of where they
    will be in 20 or 50 years.

The first of the 8 tests scheduled occurred this morning. 

Is Tahiti as integral a part of France as our 49th and 50th states are?
Do Tahitian citizens have voting rights equal to those of citizens of
national France? Are Tahitian citizens equally represented in French
government as other citizens of France on the European mainland, as
Hawaiians and Alaskans are?

(Just asking. I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that,
 as an example, Puerto Rico, while a territory, or D/C, as a District
 doesn't get the same consideration/representation as the 50 states do,
 i.e. no members of the Senate.)

    
    Apparently, the Polynesians get to elect a deputy and a senator to the
    French Parliament, for whatever that's worth.
    
    The status of these islands would be similar to that of St. Pierre and
    Miquelon, just off the southwest coast of Newfoundland.
      

    Dan,
    
    France is not a military power. They might hold the record for getting
    the booted out of the most countries, e.g. Africa (Chad?), Viet Nam,
    and (hell) France, if count WWII. WWI doesn't count because they were
    bailed.
    
    I agree that there testing serves no strategic value. I'd like to hear
    how developing (France) a nuclear arsenal is going to help them in what
    area.
    
    They certainly are one of the poorest allies this country (US) has ever
    had.
    
     This one's for the frogs   :-pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp's
     

France detonates nuclear bomb in South Pacific


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

French nuclear tests under fire 

PAPEETE, Tahiti (Sep 6, 1995 - 02:18 EDT) -- France
detonated a nuclear device buried deep beneath a remote
coral-ringed atoll Tuesday, the first of a planned series of tests
in the South Pacific that have brought condemnation from
foreign governments and environmental groups.

The explosion at Mururoa Atoll, about 750 miles southeast of
the French-administered island of Tahiti, was carried out at
12:30 p.m. in Mururoa and was detected within minutes by
seismic monitoring stations as far away as Australia.

While the French have provided few details on the type of
weapons now being tested in the South Pacific, the Defense
Ministry said in a statement released in Paris that Tuesday's
blast had the force of less than 20,000 tons of TNT. By
comparison, the American atomic bomb that was dropped on
Hiroshima 50 years ago had the force of about 15,000 tons.

The French government has said that it will carry out several
tests from September through May, when it will renounce
nuclear testing forever and sign a comprehensive global
test-ban treaty.

The tests were ordered by President Jacques Chirac shortly
after he took office last spring. He has insisted that the tests
are necessary to guarantee the accuracy of a new generation of
nuclear warheads and to perfect computer simulation techniques
that would end the need for further testing.

Chirac's decision to resume the tests in the South Pacific --
three years after his predecessor, Francois Mitterrand, placed a
moratorium on nuclear testing -- drew criticism from the United
States and other nuclear powers that have ended their own
testing programs.

The worldwide protests have had some impact in Paris judging
by comments Tuesday from Chirac, who said that he might cut
short the testing program.

"If we have the information we need to change over to
simulation before the eight tests," he said in a television
interview in Paris, "I will stop the blasts, since my objective is
not to carry out eight tests." France had originally planned to
carry out seven or eight tests.

Among the other nuclear powers, only China continues to carry
out testing of large nuclear devices, although its testing program
has drawn notably less emotional protest from foreign
governments and antinuclear campaigners since the Chinese,
unlike the French, carry out their tests on their own soil.
Mururoa Atoll is more than 10,000 miles from the French
mainland.

Chirac's suggestion Tuesday that he might cut short the testing
program appeared to do little to placate South Pacific leaders,
who have been outspoken in their criticism.

"France is flying in the face of world opinion," Prime Minister
Jim Bolger of New Zealand said Tuesday after learning of the
first blast.

Foreign Minister Gareth Evans of Australia, which has
withdrawn its ambassador from France, told the Australian
Broadcasting Corp. that the test "increases not only the dangers
in a fragile marine environment in the South Pacific, but it's a
blow to our hopes for achieving a nuclear free world." He added,
"This is not the action of a good international citizen."

Across the South Pacific and Asia, there have been waves of
protests against the resumption of French testing, with tens of
thousands of people joining in demonstrations in Australia, New
Zealand and Japan.

French products are being boycotted across Asia and the
Pacific, with sales of French wine down by nearly a third in
major Australian cities. The French honorary consulate in the
Australian city of Perth was firebombed in June.

A flotilla of nearly 25 protest ships, ranging from an unarmed
New Zealand naval research ship to a ceremonial canoe from
the Cook Islands, have ringed Mururoa.

The flotilla had been led by the Rainbow Warrior II, a ship
owned by the environmental group Greenpeace. The ship's
predecessor, Rainbow Warrior, was blown up by French secret
agents in a New Zealand harbor in 1985, killing one
crewmember, as it prepared to lead a protest to Mururoa during
an earlier round of tests.

But last week, the Rainbow Warrior II and its sister ship, the
Greenpeace, were seized by French naval commandos as the
protest vessels moved toward the exclusion zone. The French
also apprehended two Greenpeace divers who used inflatable
dinghies to pierce the 12-mile exclusion zone and hid
themselves at a test rig.

The government insists that nearly 30 years of nuclear testing at
Mururoa, which is composed mostly of basalt, a hard volcanic
rock, proves that the testing is safe. The French say that the
basalt prevents the radioactivity from leaking into the sea.

The first tests at Mururoa and another neighboring atoll,
Fangataufa, were held in 1966. Tuesday's explosion was the
176th at the two atolls.

Scientists from other nations are not convinced of the safety of
the tests. There have long been reports of radiation-related
illness among residents of neighboring island chains.

If the French followed earlier practice at Mururoa, the nuclear
device was inserted into a steel tube and lowered by crane to
the bottom of a shaft nearly half a mile deep within the atoll.

In the past, the steel tubes have been outfitted with instruments
allowing scientists to monitor the explosion in the millisecond
before the tubes are vaporized in a blast producing heat
measured in the millions of degrees.



RE: .272

You're right Dan, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and since the French stole
Tahiti and the neighboring island and atoll groups under threat of arms back in
the 1800's but noone was there to arrest them, it's theirs now. Similarly in
the way the U.S. stole Hawaii from the Hawaiians, or the Maori got New Zealand
stolen from them. Forced expulsion and relocation from their lands 100 years
or so ago voids any claims by these Polynesian groups now. If you'd like a
history lesson on the stealing of Polynesia by Europeans and Americans, I
suggest you go to the library.

As for continued nuclear testing by France, one has to wonder why a country
that's a member of the NATO alliance would conduct unilateral nuclear testing
when noone else in the alliance is doing the same ? Why the need to continue
development of weapons that the world is trying to phase out ? Enemies will
always exist but does a response measured for the threat require new nuclear
weapons over what currently exists ?  Where does Frances nuclear threat come
from now ? Russia ? Bwahahahahahahaha. More likely terrorists. And continued
development and testing increases the terrorist risk. Rather than wasting
resources developing and testing new nuclear weapons, they should try to remove
or reduce existing stockpiles in the former Soviet Union.

As for China, the government is run by a bunch of power hungry dirt-bags. I
don't expect then to act anymore responsibly than I would Khadaffi. The only
restrait they have is that they have no way of projecting their forces much
beyond their borders.

Mark

    Anyone have any idea how this helps them improve the accuracy of their
    warheads when the device is lowered into the sea by a crane?

    
    
    
    An open letter to the PM of france:
    
    
    Congratulations France.  You have successfully detonated your first of
    your proposed eight nuke experiments, in your terrioroty.  You have
    further successfully out-maneuvered world-wide condemnation of this
    barbarric and inhuman experiement dispite appeals from the highest
    ranking members of the G-7 and from the four million people within your
    own country that signed a petition that was delivered to your doorstep.
    
    Take heart, though.  Your exports will soon enjoy their lofty appeal,
    that the backlash of countries are now boycotting, after some time.  
    I'm sure that a global PR campaign is now in the works to sway people's
    opinion that products from France are just as good as they were before
    the "tests".
    
    Once again, you have successfully repelled all attempts from special
    interest groups, and your own elected government officials, from
    delaying, interveining or interrupting these "tests".  If it is of any
    comfort to you and your "tests", France, you do have at least one person 
    here in this box that agrees with you.  Even though we take great pride
    and pleasure in allowing people to speak their minds and freely
    congragate to express their opinions, one person within this box
    agrees with your actions that they should not have this right.  It is
    agreed that at times their actions may hinder, and even stop, some
    things, their purpose is (basically) to make you stop and perhaps
    reconsider your actions as they may be affecting more than what your
    short-sighted eyes can see.
    
    Yes France, you may have the right to do what you want where you want,
    at least in your own back yard, but perhaps taking a moment to stop to
    hear what the world has to say may influence this and any future
    decisions that are made that may affect your global neighbours.
    
    Now that this deed has indeed begun, France, what is to stop, say
    China, or one of the breakaway communities of Russia, or even Saddam
    Huesain (sp?), from doing the exact same thing, knowing that they can
    proceed against the overwhelming global consensus that this testing is
    wrong, but still carry out "tests".  Yes we have all heard that you
    plan to stop testing after May, 1996, but after 176 nuke tests in
    this immediate area, haven't you tested enough?  It seems to me that
    you haven't quite perfected your "tests" yet.  Aren't they destructive
    enough?  Are we to imply that these "tests" or your equipment, are not
    accurate?  This opens up an area of discussion that should be
    freighening, to a lot of people!
    
    Take a moment and think, just for a minute, that your actions may
    potentially change the world, as we know it, in a millisecond.
    
    For what it's worth, 
    
    an entity
    

    
    re:.277

    > France is not a military power.

    IYO.  As I said before, it all depends on who you are fighting.  I
    would not suggest that France is a threat to our national security, but
    their are a lot of other countries in the world.  There conventional
    weaponry is nothing to sneeze at.

    > I agree that there testing serves no strategic value. 

    Again it depends on who you are fighting.

    > I'd like to hear how developing (France) a nuclear arsenal is going to 
    > help them in what area.
    
    As I have said before, to improve a weapon you must test it.  I believe
    that this is what France is doing.  They have said themselves that they
    are trying to gather enough information so that they can use computer
    generated simulations in the future.  You laugh at the French military
    now, but 200 or so years ago the US military was a joke.  Things
    change, and France is trying to protect her self and her people for the
    future.  What is wrong with that?

    > They certainly are one of the poorest allies this country (US) has ever
    > had.

    Currently that is correct, but times change.  Just because she cannot
    help us now does not mean that we should discount her forever.

    re:.278

> While the French have provided few details on the type of
> weapons now being tested in the South Pacific, the Defense
> Ministry said in a statement released in Paris that Tuesday's
> blast had the force of less than 20,000 tons of TNT. By
> comparison, the American atomic bomb that was dropped on
> Hiroshima 50 years ago had the force of about 15,000 tons.

    Sounds like a pretty small device.

> The French government has said that it will carry out several
> tests from September through May, when it will renounce
> nuclear testing forever and sign a comprehensive global
> test-ban treaty.

    hhhhmmmmm interesting.

> are necessary to guarantee the accuracy of a new generation of
> nuclear warheads and to perfect computer simulation techniques
> that would end the need for further testing.

    Sounds like a noble goal.

> Chirac's decision to resume the tests in the South Pacific --
> three years after his predecessor, Francois Mitterrand, placed a
> moratorium on nuclear testing -- drew criticism from the United
> States and other nuclear powers that have ended their own
> testing programs.

    Well there's a news item!  People with the big guns don't want anyone
    else to have them.  Surprise, surprise.

> Among the other nuclear powers, only China continues to carry
> out testing of large nuclear devices, although its testing program...

    NEVER EVER FORGET THE CHINESE!

> ...has drawn notably less emotional protest from foreign
> governments and antinuclear campaigners since the Chinese,
> unlike the French, carry out their tests on their own soil.
> Mururoa Atoll is more than 10,000 miles from the French
> mainland.

    I see. that makes the Chinese testing OK then.  It wouldn't be the fact
    that Greenpeace member would probably be summarily executed by the
    Chinese.  Nah that couldn't have anything to do with it.

> "France is flying in the face of world opinion," Prime Minister
> Jim Bolger of New Zealand said Tuesday after learning of the
> first blast.

    So.

> Foreign Minister Gareth Evans of Australia, which has
> withdrawn its ambassador from France, told the Australian
> Broadcasting Corp. that the test "increases not only the dangers
> in a fragile marine environment in the South Pacific, but it's a
> blow to our hopes for achieving a nuclear free world." He added,
> "This is not the action of a good international citizen."

> ...but it's a blow to our hopes for achieving a nuclear free world." He added,

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, This guy's out of his mind.  A nuclear free
    world...right!  I think he might want to take it up with the US and
    China.  {snicker}

> "This is not the action of a good international citizen."

    This guy's on some serious drugs.  How does one become an
    "international citizen"?  "Bad international citizen! Bad!" grow up!

> French products are being boycotted across Asia and the
> Pacific, with sales of French wine down by nearly a third in
> major Australian cities. 

    Good!  Now maybe we can buy a decent French wine for a reasonable
    price, for a change!

> The French honorary consulate in the
> Australian city of Perth was firebombed in June.

    More acts of war perpetrated by anti-nuclear types....

> But last week, the Rainbow Warrior II and its sister ship, the
> Greenpeace, were seized by French naval commandos as the
> protest vessels moved toward the exclusion zone. 

    Greenpeace was lucky the French didn't send the ships to the bottom.

> The French
> also apprehended two Greenpeace divers who used inflatable
> dinghies to pierce the 12-mile exclusion zone and hid
> themselves at a test rig.

    I'll certainly give those divers credit for persistence.  And a failing
    grade in the brains department.

> The first tests at Mururoa and another neighboring atoll,
> Fangataufa, were held in 1966. Tuesday's explosion was the
> 176th at the two atolls.

    Wow, 176, over almost 30 years.  Going on what's been implied but the
    anti-nuclear literature I've seen, nothing should be left alive within
    thousands of square miles. hhhhmmmm maybe their info was quite
    accurate?

> Scientists from other nations are not convinced of the safety of
> the tests. There have long been reports of radiation-related
> illness among residents of neighboring island chains.

    Like how many cases?  How severe?  Why hasn't this been better
    publicized?  Is Greenpeace falling down on the job?

    re:.279

> You're right Dan, possession ...
>   .          .          .          .          .          .          .
>   .          .          .          .          .          .          .

    As I thought, it is French territory.

> As for continued nuclear testing by France, one has to wonder why a country
> that's a member of the NATO alliance would conduct unilateral nuclear testing
> when noone else in the alliance is doing the same ? 

    Possible answers: a) other allies will not give them the information
    that they desire.  b) other allies don't know the information that they 
    desire.  c) to verify the information that the other allies have given
    them. (allies have been known to lie to other allies before).

> Why the need to continue
> development of weapons that the world is trying to phase out ? 

    This statement is not accurate.  Again you forget the Chinese.

> Enemies will
> always exist but does a response measured for the threat require new nuclear
> weapons over what currently exists ?  

    Most certainly.  You you actually think that we (USA) aren't developing new
    nuclear weapons?  I'd bet the farm on it.  We'd be stupid not to.  We
    had the bomb in 1945.  Did we stop there?  Of course not because there
    is always someone who wants to build a better one.  If you want to have
    a secure nation you better be sure that you have the means to properly
    defend yourself, and the weapons to attack your possible enemies.  If
    you don't, your country will not be long lived.

> Where does Frances nuclear threat come from now ? Russia ? ...

    Let's see... 
    o China, as a NATO ally, if any of the allies get into a war with China, 
    France is supposed to help us.  

    o Nearly all or the former Warsaw Pact countries.  There are nukes 
    floating around all over the place over there.

    o The middle east, they have the money to purchase Chinese made nukes.

    o The UK, last I heard they had nuclear capabilities.

    o The US of A, we maybe allies now, but times change....

> More likely terrorists. And continued development and testing increases 
> the terrorist risk. 

    You man of course from the anti-nuclear terrorists I assume...

> Rather than wasting resources developing and testing new nuclear weapons, 
> they should try to remove or reduce existing stockpiles in the former Soviet 
> Union.

    And you have a way of doing this I assume...?

> As for China, the government is run by a bunch of power hungry dirt-bags. I
> don't expect then to act anymore responsibly than I would Khadaffi. The only
> restrait they have is that they have no way of projecting their forces much
> beyond their borders.

    Which they are undoubtedly working on as we speak.  This is THE reason
    why nuclear weapons development must continue.  At least until we can
    develop a weapon that supersedes it.

    
    
    give me a break dan, you think the u.k. is going to lob a nuke
    over the english channel? 
    
    also re:-some notes back...
    
    why does testing a nuke increase the chance of terrorism???
    

    
    re:.280

    > Anyone have any idea how this helps them improve the accuracy of their
    > warheads when the device is lowered into the sea by a crane?

    eerrr Jim, I think that they are trying to determine the accuracy of
    there computer simulation.  Also they lower the device down a steel
    lined shaft (through the rock), not into the sea.

    
    > If it is of any
    > comfort to you and your "tests", France, you do have at least one person 
    > here in this box that agrees with you.  Even though we take great pride
    > and pleasure in allowing people to speak their minds and freely
    > congragate to express their opinions, one person within this box
    > agrees with your actions that they should not have this right.  It is
    > agreed that at times their actions may hinder, and even stop, some
    > things, their purpose is (basically) to make you stop and perhaps
    > reconsider your actions as they may be affecting more than what your
    > short-sighted eyes can see.
    
    eeerrrr, it's a little early, so maybe it's me.  But could you please
    explain this paragraph?  I'm getting confused by all the pro-nouns.
    
    

    
    > give me a break dan, you think the u.k. is going to lob a nuke
    > over the english channel? 

    maybe, maybe not.  You forget that major countries can fight their wars
    all over the world, either directly, or through allies.  Such as the
    US and the USSR fighting each other in central america.  what if..... 
    UK and France backed opposite side of a war in say Africa.  If the UK 
    are providing nukes to their side, France would not be able to help the 
    French allies.  This is a far-fetched scenario, but stranger things have 
    happened.

    Well, the French now how to do things eh?

    If I was going to be doing nuclear tests, the South Pacific certainly
    would be one of the spots I'd choose.

    
|    maybe, maybe not.  You forget that major countries can fight their
|    wars over the world...
    
     the trend of 20th century confrontations have been either between
     dictatorships or between dictatorships and democracies.  the chances
     of two democracies elevating hostilities to the point of nuclear
     confrontation are next to nill.  
    
     
    
     

    Well, that's it then.  I'm boycotting stuff made in France.
    
    Er... do they make anything in France?
    
    Hmmm... aha, okay, no Peugeot's for me.
    
    re: they have to defend themselves (from some earlier reply)
    
    When have they ever had to do that?  They just pick up the
    phone and call us.  Of course, next time, we might just let
    the answering machine take their call.
    
    Chris

    Please, everyone boycott french wine! (With the lousy exchange rate, a
    loss in demand is my only hope for reasonable prices for the good
    stuff!) Thanks.

    I wish everybody would stop buying Ontario wines.

    
    Many fine Ontario wines appeal not only to the Ontario palate, but
    also the the cognoscenti of Great Britain.
    

    >I wish everybody would stop buying Ontario wines.
    
     Is this really a problem?

    Well, no, not really.

    France is not a member of NATO last time I checked. They went their own
    way in the late 60's or early 70's.

> you think the u.k. is going to lob a nuke over the english channel? 

They'd have to. I'm quite sure it's illegal to transport thermonuclear
devices through the chunnel.

>    Let's see... 
>    o China, as a NATO ally, if any of the allies get into a war with China, 
>    France is supposed to help us.  

You really consider China a serious threat. When was the last time China
was in a real war ? Hell, everytime they try something with Vietnam, they
get their butts kicked.


> More likely terrorists. And continued development and testing increases 
> the terrorist risk. 

>    You man of course from the anti-nuclear terrorists I assume...

No I mean terrorist groups who obtain warheads from Soviet weapons systems.
How is testing new weapons going to prevent someone from driving up the
Champs-Elysee and detonating a nuke warhead ?



> Rather than wasting resources developing and testing new nuclear weapons, 
> they should try to remove or reduce existing stockpiles in the former Soviet 
> Union.

>    And you have a way of doing this I assume...?

Of course. A Nukes-for-Nikes exchange program. Just do it.   %^)


>    why does testing a nuke increase the chance of terrorism???

I think testing encourages proliferation and that increases the chance of a
nuclear terrorist attack.

m&m

    Actually, if the French want to nuke something, they could
    kill two birds with one stone by setting ground zero to be
    the despised Disneyland Paris (the artist formerly known
    as Euro Disney).
    
    Chris

    
> You really consider China a serious threat. 

    Yes I do.

> When was the last time China was in a real war ? 

    That's not nearly as important as when their NEXT one will be.

> Hell, everytime they try something with Vietnam, they
> get their butts kicked.

    eeerrrr, as much as I hate to admit it, so did we.

> >    You mean of course from the anti-nuclear terrorists I assume...
> 
> No I mean terrorist groups who obtain warheads from Soviet weapons systems.
> How is testing new weapons going to prevent someone from driving up the
> Champs-Elysee and detonating a nuke warhead ?

    I was referring to the fire bombing of the French building, but I'm sure
    you knew that.  Obviously testing new war heads will in no way stop a
    terrorist directly.  However it might stop the nation that was
    sponsoring the terrorist.  To date there have not been a lot of
    successes reported in fighting terrorists.  But certainly testing newer
    weapons wouldn't promote more terrorist activities.  Using you
    scenario, the terrorist in question has acquired an existing warhead
    from a Warsaw Pact country.  So France's testing certainly would not
    effect the terrorist.

> >    And you have a way of doing this I assume...?
> 
> Of course. A Nukes-for-Nikes exchange program. Just do it.   %^)

    I must assume then that you don't have a solution to that thorny
    problem then.

> >    why does testing a nuke increase the chance of terrorism???
> 
> I think testing encourages proliferation and that increases the chance of a
> nuclear terrorist attack.

    Why?  Do you think that the countries that have the weapons will
    suddenly become more lax about their storage procedures?  "I mean what
    the hell is a couple of warheads one-way or the other..."  Somehow I
    have difficulty with this scenario.  Possibly the most anal-retentive
    organization I've ever encountered was the US military munitions group.
    They went so far as to remove the cigarette lighter from our car before
    they would allow us 100 yards onto the installation.  The paperwork
    that we had to fill out was inches thick, and we had to have two or
    three copies.  I strongly suspect that most militaries have similar
    guidelines regarding munitions.

    
    This one's for Terrie
    
    
    HI MARK !
    
    
    
    
                     S N A R F   !   !    !   !
    
    

    
      Stepping back from the customary rhetoric, what strikes me is just
     how cynically political this whole symbolic confrontation is.  Makes
     you wonder if the French and Greenpeace didn't secretly choreograph
     the whole thing.
    
      The "force de frappe" never made any military sense, from de Gaulle
     on.  It is for domestic political consumption, and it works, since
     it allows the French government to strut its "honor".  Chirac is
     coming up roses here - going it alone in the world is wildly
     popular in France, even better when opposed by a bunch of mostly
     American hippy types.
    
      And Greenpeace knows perfectly well that 8 more underground tests
     on the same atoll as the laset 170+ is of miniscule importance in
     a world environment deteriorating from the cutting of rainforests
     and the polluting and overharvesting of the sea.  But they also know
     that this is dramatic high-profile stuff, and the hard work of trying
     to make even a dent in the real problems requires commitment of
     large numbers of people and lots of contributions.  Also, it is very
     good for them to be seen as being "on the ramparts", willing to "die
     for the cause".  It is much harder to stop impoverished third world
     peoples from making a few bucks exploiting nature.
    
      So, why wouldn't both the French and Greenpeace have a stake in this
     suspiciously staged event, with media galore hyping every move ?  It is
     a win-win situation.
    
      bb

    Dan, it's their choice not to help us not because they can't. They 
    are not a "stand up" country. They wouldn't let us fly over when
    Ray-gun flew his slap-in-the-face mission at Momar Cadaver.
    
    They have a tendency not to support many countries who pulled their
    butts out of the frying pan when they laid down for Der Fuhrer...
    
    We loaned and sent millions of dollars to France after WWII to help
    it regain economic health and have received little in return. 
    
    I simply have no respect for that country. I'm sure there are many fine
    people in France, but the gov't sux.

    .284
    
    >I think that they are trying to determine the accuracy of
        there computer simulation.
    
    From the AP:
    The tests were ordered by President Jacques Chirac shortly
    after he took office last spring. He has insisted that the tests
    are necessary to guarantee the accuracy of a new generation of
    nuclear warheads and to perfect computer simulation techniques
    that would end the need for further testing.
    
    Maybe it's that French way of thinking...
    Besides, who needs a hyper-accurate 20 KT nuclear warhead, anyway?

    
    re:.302

    Please understand this, I don't give a rip about France per se.  I've
    been called a lot of things, but never a fracophile (sp?).  Being an
    American, I strongly object to the ways in which we've been chit on
    after we help them.  My mom being a German has absolutely NO USE for
    them either.  She has traveled through most of Europe, but the only
    way to get her into France is if there is a lay-over on her flight to
    Germany (and then she probably wouldn't get out of the plane!)  I'm
    defending XXXXXX's country right to plot it's own course through
    history.  I'm also opposed to allowing a foreign power (Greenpeace) to
    attempt to force them to bow to the foreign power's will.  I don't
    believe that Greenpeace should be allowed to commit the equivalent of
    an act of war, and get away unscathed.

    Now if the USA went to war against France over this nuke test, you can 
    bet your bottom dollar that I'm gonna side with our guys, and to hell 
    with the frogs.  

    
    > are necessary to guarantee the accuracy of a new generation of
    > nuclear warheads and to perfect computer simulation techniques

    Jim, maybe they were referring to the accuracy of the determination of
    the power of the warhead..... Beats me, could be just talking head
    trash.

  <knee-deep, knee-deep>

> When was the last time China was in a real war ? 

>    That's not nearly as important as when their NEXT one will be.

Oh, so the French better watch out for Chinese made Citrons making their way
to Paris with nukes attached to their roofs cause they certainly can't 
deliver 'em any other way.



>    I must assume then that you don't have a solution to that thorny
>    problem then.

Nope, the nuclear jeannie is out of the bottle forever. But it's utter
hypocrisy for France to conduct nuclear testing and then pursue a moratorium
on testing and expect all third world nuclear wanna-bes to agree to such a ban.


It of course also pisses me off to no end that they conducted testing in the
"French administered Polynesia".

m&m

    
> > When was the last time China was in a real war ? 

> >    That's not nearly as important as when their NEXT one will be.

> Oh, so the French better watch out for Chinese made Citrons making their way
> to Paris with nukes attached to their roofs cause they certainly can't 
> deliver 'em any other way.

    > can't deliver 'em any other way.

    YET!

> But it's utter hypocrisy for France to conduct nuclear testing and 
> then pursue a moratorium on testing and expect all third world nuclear 
> wanna-bes to agree to such a ban.

    No more so than the US doing the same thing and expecting France to
    agree to such a ban.

> It of course also pisses me off to no end that they conducted testing in the
> "French administered Polynesia".

    Well as much as you may not like it, it is still theirs.  I suggest
    that if you feel so strongly about it, that you move to move to Tahiti
    and start a revolution to throw the French out.  Pretty much anything
    else will not be particularly useful, and might just irritate you more.

    
    
    
    Rep .307
    
      Not that I want to get into the middle of this but,
    
    >>>Oh, so the French better watch out for Chinese made Citrons making
    their way to Paris with nukes attached to their roofs cause they 
    certainly can't deliver 'em any other way.
    
      The Chinese have a well developed launch vehicle for their nukes
    already. In fact htey have been selling their launch services to
    western satellite markers for a couple of years now. To say nothing
    of the short and medium range rockets they have been selling in 
    large numbers for years.
    
    
    -mike
    

re .295

>    France is not a member of NATO last time I checked. They went their own
>    way in the late 60's or early 70's.

Wrong.  France is a member of NATO.  They just decided in 1966 to pull their
forces out of the unified command and to kick the U.S. forces out of France.

They are a full member, though, and are participating in the NATO action in
Bosnia.

/john

    
    
    What do people think of the nukey testing going on in the Pacific ?
    
    I don't like it personally. I mean if you keep drilling holes in an
    apple and then making big bangs in the bottom of the holes, the apple
    will split, won't it ? I wouldn't like that to happen.
    
    I think the tests should stop, and I am voting with my feet, ie:
    
    I ain't buying no French stuff for the time being.
    
    What about you ?
    
    
    
    /David

    
    And you had better not have any french fries either, Mr Topaz.
    
    We won't even discuss kissing.....

    The Tahitians ?? don't like it. They are bustin' the place up and
    rightly so. Their area of the world has 'received' the after effects 
    of tests time after time.
    
    REMEMBER:-
    
    Asbestos was a brilliant building material until it was discovered that
    it gave everyone lung cancer if breathed the dust from it.
    
    Atomic tests were a good idea until it was discovered that everyone
    dies of radiation exposure after an air test, and it completely messes
    up everything it comes into contact with.
    
    What will be discovered about underground/sea atomic tests ? 
    Eveything we already know plus a good bit more no doubt. 
    Anyway, all of those old scientists and politicians will be dead by then,
    so who cares. 
    
    
    
    
    I applaud the Aussies and Kiwis who do not suffer from the 'we can't
    say that because of economic reasons or we want to buy this or that so
    we mustn't upset anyone" syndrome.
    If its a bum idea, if it makes no sense and everyone (majority) think
    it sucks, then they say so.
    
    What IS wrong with the rest of us? Is silently dissaproving all we do?
    
    The world IS mad........
    
    

Jacque Chirac and his merry-band of bureaucratic pinheads should
be stabbed repeatedly with pointed sticks, have 10 ton tiki statues
dropped on them, and then their worthless corpses dropped into the
nearest active volcano. Other than that, I have no opinion on the
subject.

m&m

Protesters in Tahiti attack French commission


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

PAPEETE, Tahiti (Sep 7, 1995 - 03:01 EDT) - Tahitian
anti-nuclear protesters ran amok on Wednesday, attacking the
residence and offices of the High Commissioner of French
Polynesia in Papeete and the international airport.

Rioters hurled a molotov cocktail through a commission office
window and threw steel barricades, garbage bins and bottles into
the residence of the high commissioner in the Tahitian capital.

They also threw rocks through windows and smashed cars as
police fired tear gas.

One Reuter correspondent at the scene said a column of riot
police were marching down the street in front of the High
Commission as rioters set alight several buildings, including at
least one government building.

Hundreds of Tahitian anti-nuclear protesters wielding sticks and
clubs had earlier marched towards the centre of Papeete after
clashing violently with riot police and torching the international
airport.

The rioting followed France's resumption of nuclear tests at its
Mururoa atoll testing site on Tuesday, the first in a planned
series of eight.

Shopkeepers and authorities told Reuters they had closed their
shops and restaurants and shuttered up their windows because
they were afraid the protesters would march the four kilometres
(2.5 miles) from the airport.

"They are all scared," a fashion boutique owner said.

People were pouring in on foot and in the backs of jeeps and
four-wheel drive vehicles towards the French Polynesian
Territorial Assembly, the local parliament.

"If the people decide to burn the town, we will burn the town,"
Gabriel Tetiarahi, the national coordinator of the Hiti Tau group,
told Reuters just before protesters began their march into town.

Hiti Rau represents French Polynesia's 12 non-governmental
organisations.

All of the city's lights had been turned off, leaving the city in
darkness.

Earlier on Wednesday anti-nuclear and pro-independence
protesters used an earthmover to smash their way into the
island's airport before setting alight the terminal buildings,
smashing windows and demolishing internal walls.

Several police and protesters were injured in the running battles
which followed between chain and stick-wielding protesters and
riot police firing teargas.

By 4.30 pm Tahiti time (0230 GMT), all of the Tahiti business
district's shops had closed down. Many of the more expensive
boutiques and all the banks had been closed all day. These shops
normally close at 6.00 pm Tahiti time (0400 GMT).

A spokesman for French Polynesia's High Commission,
Emmanuelle Steinberg-Martin, however, denied reports on
Australian radio that the French authorities had called in
reinforcements to quell any new violence.

"It is not impossible that we call for reinforcements, but whether
they come from New Caledonia or France is not up to me to
say," Steinberg-Martin told Reuters.

Riot police had blocked the main highway leading from the
airport to the city, he said.

The injury toll from the airport riots had risen to 13, seven of
whom were riot police, he said. One protester and one policeman
were seriously injured, but were in a stable condition and were
expected to live.

Before protesters began pouring into central Papeete,
Steinberg-Martin denied rumours French legionnaires had been
called in from military bases at Hao and Mururoa atolls. "It is the
usual procedure in extreme cases that we call in the military, but
we are very far from doing that," he said.



    
    These guys better hope they don't bring in the legionnaires, otherwise
    they will discover EXACTLY what a REAL WAR is like.  I don't think
    their gonna like it.  Seriously if they are ready to pay the price of a
    revolution, I wish them the best of luck.  I just hope they realize
    what they're getting into.....
    

    One wonders, in an offhand moment, if Killoran has ever heard of 
    similar riots in colonial possessions quelled by military forces of the
    colonial administrators, and if he is aware of the long-term results in
    nearly all such cases.  One doubts that either conjecture is true.
    
    DougO

    
    For those of you boycotting the French:

    - don't make or take any phone calls. The standards which
      prescribe virtually every technical aspect of phones
      are governed by an organization known as the ITU,
      which was formerly known as the CCITT, and while an
      international organization, was started (and is
      administered worldwide) by those pesky French.

    - this includes modems and high speed direct connects
      such as T1; those are ITU standards as well; no AOL
      or CompuServe, and while we're at it, no more Notes
      Conferences. Or e-mail; especially X.400 mail.

    - you can't look anyone up in the phone book either; yup,
      another ITU standard.

    - you can't watch the news anymore; these microwave and
      satellite links are ITU stuff... CNN is right OUT!!

    -b

    i think GP should seriously think about developing nuclear capability
    and do some testing in Paris

    
    <-  Such as the foreign legion getting their bottoms kicked out of
    North Africa and Viet Nam?   

    
    re:.320
    
    DougO, what does your note have to do with anything I said?  Near as I
    can tell, it in no way contradicts.  Please clarify if you would.
    

    >what does your note have to do with anything I said?
    
    you didn't do your last homework assignment.  why are you asking for
    another one?  but if you insist:
    
    Look up two words: "colonial" "administrator".  Analyze the two words
    when used together: "colonial administrator".  Reference some history
    books for examples.  Identify 10 historical episodes when such "colonial
    administrators" used military forces to quell or suppress subject
    populations (10 should be easy; there are scores in the last hundred
    years alone.)  Identify how many of such "colonial administrations" are
    still actively engaged in running such possessions in the present day.
    Look up another phrase I used: "long term".
    
    Finally, return to your note .319 and my response .320.  Notice the
    parallels between your homework and the subject under discussion.
    Consider whether the French have learned anything more than you have
    about the advisability of using military troops to suppress riots in
    their colonial possessions.
    
    > Near as I can tell, [.320] in no way contradicts [.319].
    
    Perhaps after you do your homework you'll reconsider this opinion.
    
    > Please clarify if you would.
    
    Happy to.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO, I'll go slow, stop me if you don't understand....

    > These guys better hope they don't bring in the legionnaires, otherwise
    > they will discover EXACTLY what a REAL WAR is like.  

    The rioters will be dealt with harshly by the legionnaires.  This will
    give them a small indication what war is like.

    > I don't think their gonna like it.  

    should be self-explanatory.

    > Seriously if they are ready to pay the price of a revolution, I wish 
    > them the best of luck.  

    In this statement, I am wishing them luck in pursuing independence, if
    they are willing to way the price.

    > I just hope they realize what they're getting into.....

    This is a fervent hope that they realize that to win a revolution,
    there will be a price to pay.

    Again, what on earth does your note have to do with what I said.  Near
    as I can tell, nothing.

    you aren't doing your homework.  why am I not surprised?
    
    DougO

    
      There is not a single recorded case of a Pacific Island successfully
     rebelling against a European colonial power, or the US.  From the
     standpoint of military tactics, islands would find this impossible
     unless local air or sea superiority could be attained.
    
      bb

    You and Killoran are focussing on rebellion.  I am not.  You are
    focusing on Pacific Islands.  I am not.
    
    How many colonial possessions, Pacific Islands if you must stipulate,
    are NO LONGER held by their colonial administrators?  the trend is
    clear- it is very hard in the present day to maintain colonial
    possessions.  Military force used against such populaces may not be
    directly militarily defeatable, but in the long term such use is
    counter to the goal of maintaining stable enough relations to maintain
    the possession.  France won't send in troops if it can possibly,
    possibly avoid it.  It will *not* maintain a longterm force majeure to
    control Tahiti.
    
    DougO

    
    re:.327

    aaahhh another useful note, overflowing with crucial information,
    entered by one of the 'box knowledge overlords.....Thank you for
    enlightening this poor ignorant one.  May you be blessed with a
    thousand years of impotence, and all of the accompanying benefits.  I
    stand in awe of your abilities.

    awaiting further enlightenment,
    I remain your most humble and willing servant

    

    eeerrrrr.... importance, that's what I meant, importance...

    
    {whistling the Marseillaise}
    
    

    {playing the tape recorder up my brother's nose}

    
      No, DougO, the whole military thing is silly.  In fact, Tahiti
     is French because it voted itself in, if I recall.  And if it
     voted itself out, the French treasury would breathe a sigh of
     relief.  Colonies are tremendous moneysinks, as are mandates,
     protectorates, etc.  Colonialism mostly died because of the
     economic exhaustion of the "mother countries".  Still happens -
     see Russia.  But that, too, is silly.  The riots in Tahiti are
     a protest against the policies of the government, but not a sign
     of any sort of separatism.  Do I think the riots in LA meant that
     Los Angeles was about to secede ?  I only wish it were.
    
      bb

    
    | you didn't do your last homework assignment.  why are you asking for
    | another one?  
    
    ixnay on my earlier comment about dougo not talking down to fellow
    boxers.
                  

    >ixnay on my earlier comment about dougo not talking down to fellow
    >boxers.
    
     Well, he doesn't do it to people who don't deserve it. IMO (in case
    anyone confused this with eternal Truth)

Tahiti isn't a colony, unless Alaska and Hawaii and everything west of the
Atlantic seaboard are also colonies.

/john

    
    >  Well, he doesn't do it to people who don't deserve it. IMO (in case
    > anyone confused this with eternal Truth)

    Mark, you wound me!  You've been criticizing me for talking down to
    people here in the 'box, so I've been more than accommodating if I do
    say so myself, oh most knowledgeable goderator.  How have I sinned
    against thee?

    
      Well there actually isn't a political unit called "Tahiti".  There
     is an island called Tahiti, 402 square miles, with under 100K
     population.  Its major town is Papeete, which is the capital of
     a French entity called (in rough translation) "French Polynesia
     Overseas Territory", comprising some 130 islands in 5 widelt disparate
     archipelagos.  The territory has an elected governor, assembly, and
     council.  It sends one delegate and one senator to the French
     assembly, with full voting rights.  But it is NOT incorporated into
     any French "departments", as, for example, Corsica is.
    
      The hereditary background of Tahitians is very mixed, with European
     and Polynesian heredity both very common.
    
      bb

    
    .337

    >You've been criticizing me for talking down to people...
    
    
    Nobody's ever criticized you for talking down to people, Dan.  
    
    However, you HAVE been criticized for TRYING to...
    

    I knew I was on to something!

    
    Yes Glenn, as always YOU ARE the CUTTING EDGE of fashion

    
      But might not dropping one's pants be an ambiguous message ?
    
      bb

    Not if you're wearing a nukuler frog on your skivvies, methinks.

    >No, DougO, the whole military thing is silly.
    
    That looks more like you agree with me than disagree.
    
    > Colonialism mostly died because of the economic exhaustion of the
    > "mother countries".  Still happens - see Russia. 
    
    Also a statement in agreement with mine.
    
    > The riots in Tahiti are a protest against the policies of the
    > government, but not a sign of any sort of separatism.
    
    [well, specifically they are a protest against the actions of the
    government of France, not against the local administration.  A nit.]
    
    Not that I said anything different here, either.  The poiut of my first
    note was to suggest to Killoran that his notion that the French would
    blithly send in troops to quell riots, to suppress *his* notion of
    nascent rebellion, was foolish.  I think so because France is much
    smarter about managing such relationships with former (ok, Covert?)
    colonies than Killoran is, that they know sending in the troops as
    Killoran imagines is counterproductive.  Thus his history lesson,
    from which he seems to take little profit.  What is your point,
    exactly, Braucher?
    
    Parts, I certainly am deliberately condescending to those who don't
    trouble themselves with the available facts.  Killoran asked what my
    statement in .320 had to do with his note.  It isn't my first encounter
    with his reluctance to observe the implications of historical evidence,
    though I can't recall the specifics of the other occasion when he
    wouldn't do his homework.  But he earned the response he got, make no
    mistake.  And he followed it up by ignoring the history I as much as
    laid out for him, instead merely repeating his question in an even less
    intelligent manner.  Parts, I don't know why this troubles you.
    
    DougO

    
      Actually, no point, DougO - neither of us expect anything much to
     come of the Tahitian riots.  The French are likely to try to downplay
     the whole thing.  The detonations are a very long way from the Society
     Islands where Tahiti is, and these protests are thus of no greater
     or lesser importance than any others.  Interesting, the ancient
     Jacques Cousteau, very much respected in France, has been publicly
     criticizing the Chirac government's move.  I suspect he will have
     more impact.
    
      Like any "symbolic" protests, neither Cousteau, nor Tahitian riots,
     nor any of the Greenpeace activists' staged-for-the-media actions
     can succeed by brute force.  Hopeless in that sense, they try to
     succeed through changing French public opinion through clever
     publicity stunts.  But the nuclear tests themselves are ALSO just
     symbols - symbols of French independence, not real military
     necessities.  Chirac was not elected by people likely to be at all
     sympathetic to Greenpeace, and he probably views their more
     outlandish actions as a big plus for him.
    
      Thus I see this whole business as yet another instance of "created"
     news, good for both antagonistic sides.  Nor does the apparent
     spontaneity or virulence of the riots, careful videocammed, change
     my view that this will go on indefinitely.
    
      bb

    > The riots in Tahiti are a protest against the policies of the
    > government, but not a sign of any sort of separatism.
    
    Oh, by the way, this isn't strictly accurate; I just came across a
    news article which I'll extract:
    
    > PAPEETE, Tahiti (AP) -- France ordered hundreds more police to this
    > riot-torn island Thursday after anti-nuclear and pro-independence <<<
    > protesters set fires, broke windows and forcing the closing of the
    > airport. 
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > The furor over French nuclear testing also has given a dramatic boost
    > to French Polynesia's small independence movement. 
    >
    > "The Polynesian people have been pacifists and calm for many years, for
    > 17 years, and we've had enough of it, said Nelson Ortas, the chief
    > adviser to independence leader Oscar Temaru. "If the other nations
    > can't help us, we're going to have to go out on the street with our
    > bare hands and try and do something." 
    
    DougO

    .346
    
    >Nor does the apparent
         spontaneity or virulence of the riots, careful videocammed...
    
    I'd say it's pretty hard today to have anything significant happen
    these days without it being videocammed - saying that something was
    staged just becasue it happened to be caught on tape isn't
    valid anymore. Used to be a legitimate gripe, but no longer.

RE: .331
   
    {whistling the Marseillaise}
    
Is that some gangsta-rap tune or sumptin' ?   




RE: .346

>      Actually, no point, DougO - neither of us expect anything much to
>     come of the Tahitian riots.  The French are likely to try to downplay
>     the whole thing.  The detonations are a very long way from the Society
>     Islands where Tahiti is, and these protests are thus of no greater
>     or lesser importance than any others.  Interesting, the ancient
>     Jacques Cousteau, very much respected in France, has been publicly
>     criticizing the Chirac government's move.  I suspect he will have
>     more impact.

Perhaps, but this might be more of an indication that the next time Tahitians
vote for independence, they might not think first of the economic benefits of
being a "French possession". They might instead think of the fact that the
French government has little regard for their land, even if it is an atoll
several hundred miles away.

m&m

    
    re:.345

    > Not that I said anything different here, either.  The poiut of my first
    > note was to suggest to Killoran that his notion that the French would
    > blithly send in troops to quell riots, to suppress *his* notion of
    > nascent rebellion, was foolish.  I think so because France is much
    > smarter about managing such relationships with former (ok, Covert?)
    > colonies than Killoran is, that they know sending in the troops as
    > Killoran imagines is counterproductive.  Thus his history lesson,
    > from which he seems to take little profit.  What is your point,
    > exactly, Braucher?

    Oh dougO, pardon me, I didn't realize that you were psychic.  You KNEW
    what I was thinking....  Face it, your comment had NO relationship to
    my note.  You of course will not admit this, but then to the best of my
    knowledge, you never admit when you are wrong, why start now.

    > Parts, I certainly am deliberately condescending to those who don't
    > trouble themselves with the available facts.  

    No, you are condescending to people who disagree with you, but of
    course you will not admit this either.

    OBTW - "blithly" is really "blithely", but NNTTM, or admit you're
    wrong...

    > Oh dougO, pardon me, I didn't realize that you were psychic.  You 
    > KNEW what I was thinking....  Face it, your comment had NO relationship 
    > to my note.
    
    oh foolish one, have you forgotten that you spelled out exactly what
    you were thinking in .319 when you wrote .326?  You've already
    confirmed that my comment in .320 was directly on target.  NNTTM.
    
    >"blithly" is really "blithely"
    
    wow, you really got me there.  gosh, you're right.  first time for
    everything, I guess.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO, I have very carfully explained my comment.  You to dat have NOT
    explained how your comment had ANY bearing on mine.  Would you care to
    do this?
    

    >You to dat have NOT explained how your comment had ANY bearing on mine.
    
    Danny-boy, I have, you know.  You didn't do your homework, though, so
    you still don't understand the explanation.  I'm not gonna lead you by
    the hand through it, you know- life's too short.  My comment to Braucher 
    you excerpted in .350 is exactly an explanation of how my comment bears
    upon yours.  So if you want a clue, do your homework, and maybe it'll
    make sense then.  But if it doesn't, well, too bad.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO, Please re-read (if you read it the first time) what I wrote, and
    then get back to me.  Until then the fact remains that your comment
    had no bearing on what I said.  In this universe anyway.
    

    If you ever get a clue, feel free to drop back in and demonstrate it by
    responding to the substance of .320 or .345.  Until then, don't waste
    my time.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO, Whether the French have a pattern of calling in the military to
    quell riots is of no consequence to what I wrote.  I suggest you take a
    course in reading comprehension, and then practice it.  As I said, your
    comments have no relationship to what I said.

    HTH
    

    Uh, Dan, you, um, well, ok-you are beginning to sound like meowski.
    
    hth

    My daughter and her husband, married a week ago on Sunday, left a week
    ago on Monday to honeymoon on Tahiti.  We haven't heard from them,
    they're due back this coming Saturday.
    
    I'm attempting to calm my wife with, Don't worry, if they don't get
    caught up in the riots, the nuclear testing should give them a great tan.
    
    -- Jim

    
    Not to make light of a worrisome situation, but I don't think I'd be
    phoning Mummy & Daddy on my honeymoon either 8^).
                         

    It might cause de fission in the family.

    Re: .358
    
    Marge and Dan did get back last night, okay and all that.  They arrived
    at the Papeete airport about 12 hours before the riots started and left
    for Bora-Bora shortly thereafter.  They had a great time, because the
    normal amount of tourists were unable to get there so they had the
    place almost to themselves.
    
    When I asked her, why they didn't call and let us know they were OK,
    she said something about being too busy snorkeling, diving, riding
    tandem, laying on the beach, and all that.
    
    They brought back a local newspaper.  The airport was really messed up. 
    Cars in the parking lot burned to a crisp, terminal burned.  Dan
    brought back a rubber bullet that the local gendarmes used in coercing
    rioters to non-riot.
    
    -- Jim

Fresh claim arises that nuclear tests damaged test island


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

PARIS (Oct 11, 1995 - 13:06 EDT) -- Raising new questions
about the safety of French nuclear tests, a newspaper
published photographs Wednesday that it said show cracks in
one of the South Pacific atolls where the underground
explosions take place.

Ouest-France said the photographs contradict government
claims that the tests cause no damage to Mururoa Atoll in
French Polynesia.

Critics say the nuclear tests could cause the atoll to break
apart, spewing radioactivity into the water and air in what many
consider to be one of the world's last paradise.

The government denied a similar report last week in the
respected daily Le Monde. It had no immediate comment on
Ouest-France's claims.

Ouest-France said the photos were taken in 1987 and 1988 by
a diver several dozen yards under the Mururoa Lagoon. The
cracks are about 9 to 10 1/2 feet wide and several miles long,
the newspaper said.

It did not reveal the photographer's identity or for whom he was
working.

Normally only military personnel and scientists working on the
French nuclear program have access to the isolated atoll, about
750 miles southeast of Tahiti.

After the Le Monde report, French Foreign Minister Herve de
Charette told the National Assembly that "no crack of any sort
has ever been discovered" on the atoll.

Experts at the French Atomic Energy Commission said that
some fractures were created by the first tests carried out
directly under Mururoa's reef. But they said there had been no
further cracks since tests were moved to the middle of the
lagoon.

France has exploded two nuclear devices in the South Pacific
since President Jacques Chirac announced the resumption of
the nuclear testing last June after a three-year moratorium.

The decision to carry out up to eight tests raised an
international outcry.