Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: straffo on February 16, 2003, 08:02:03 AM
-
Hangtime can you show French military support to sadam since 1991 (and not before 1991).
In each of your post lately you say that we (the french) provided support to sadam since 1991.
Proove it now (from an accountable ressource ... and I don't trust the NYP ;))
If you got the time you can show me those multi-billion trading we are doing with Iraq
Regards
straffo
-
France - the ambiguous ally (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/01/16/France.Iraq/)
CNN January 17, 2001
Today, France is still not entirely in step with other Western powers in its attitude towards Saddam's regime.
Its companies participate in Franco-Iraqi trade fairs in open defiance of the international embargo against Iraq, while it has shown itself increasingly reluctant to enforce the "no fly" zones in the north and south of the country.
Egypt third largest trade partner with Iraq after France, Russia (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010418/2001041828.html)
Arabic News, Iraq-Egypt, Economics, 4/18/2001
Egypt is the third largest trade partner with Iraq after France and Russia, according to Iraqi Minister of Trade, Mohammed Mahdi Saleh who was speaking on the sidelines of a trade exhibition of Egyptian products recently held in Baghdad.
France accused of aiding Iraq's weapons supply (http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw042301.html#France)
ARMS TRADE NEWSWIRE
Calgary Herald - April 22, 2001
France accused of aiding Iraq's weapons supply
Britain and America have accused France of mounting a billion-dollar export drive to Iraq that they fear could help Saddam Hussein build weapons of mass destruction.
A confidential list of 6,000 contracts signed by Baghdad, obtained by The Sunday Times, reveals that French companies have agreed to supply Iraq with chemicals, refrigerated trucks and sophisticated pumps that British security sources believe could be used to make chemical weapons.
The planned exports -- which under United Nations sanctions must be approved by the Security Council -- also include fast computers and high-speed communications equipment that could be employed in making missiles.
British and American diplomats are blocking 117 French contracts worth about $450 million Cdn, containing components thought to be of potential use in making missiles or chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. They are among 965 contracts being challenged from the 18-month period to February 2001. All but one challenge has been instigated by officials in London or Washington.
The exports are permitted under the "oil for food" program set up in 1996 to allow Iraq to buy humanitarian aid from the proceeds of oil sales.
British security sources claim to have uncovered evidence that exports described as part of farming or school program were instead destined for the Iraqi military.
In February Britain blocked one such $450,000 Cdn contract claiming it contained high-technology valves that were "an essential component of ballistic missiles." The name and nationality of the exporting company were not clear.
Francis Maude, the shadow foreign secretary, accused Paris last week of ignoring the dangers of Iraqi rearmament. "The French are engaged in a massive export program designed to enhance their economic power," he said. "But this should not be a signal for us to abandon these controls."
Of the $22 billion Cdn of contracts under consideration, the largest shares are accounted for by Egyptian companies (worth $2 billion) and by Russian firms ($2 billion). French exports, worth $2 billion, are viewed of greatest concern, because many involve high technology.
The list shows $26 million of contracts are with British companies as against $17 million for American firms. According to the list, obtained in conjunction with Gulf States Newsletter, the contentious contracts include a $67,000 deal by Rohm & Haas France to supply Iraq with water treatment chemicals. It has been blocked as "dual use" -- with military as well as civilian applications. The company says the chemicals are harmless.
Eurobiz Is Caught Arming Saddam (http://www.insightmag.com/news/357431.html)
According to U.N. databases Insight was able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license applications worth billions of dollars. The United States put 93 of those contracts, worth $217 million, on hold. Among them was the sale as "medical equipment" of a series of lithotripsy machines for treating kidney stones without surgery manufactured by the company Karl Storz Endoscopie France SA. Perfectly normal? Think again. The lithotripter employs a high-speed krytron switch similar to those used to trigger nuclear warheads. Along with the six medical machines, Iraq sought 120 spare krytrons, the U.N. Website reveals.
Feel free to dismiss all of this.
But where there is smoke, there is fire, n'est pas?
-
oops.
-
1st article :
Is a wonderfull mess of before 2001 and 2001 information credilbilty is at the level of CNN credibilty ... discutable :)
2nd article : and so ?
3rd :a confidential list of contract (note that we don't know the content of contract ) ... interresting information
more houmorous is this sentence :
the contentious contracts include a $67,000 deal by Rohm & Haas France to supply Iraq with water treatment chemicals. It has been blocked as "dual use" -- with military as well as civilian applications.
Dual use ...
and if any butcher owner of a refrigerated truck is to be trialed because of WMD potential it's gonna be fun :p
4th: it's like the Onion but without humour ?
I should have precised 1st that potential use is not to be confused with primary use ...
Did the french sell weapons to Sadam :
answer : yes before 1991
Did the french sell weapons to Sadam after 1991:
answer : proove it ,potential is not enought.
-
Figured you'd just discard it Straffo.
However, let's look at the trail here.
France, indeed, has been in open defiance of the UN embargo. You guys were flying planes in with the Russians early on. Undeniable fact, n'est pas?
Two, France is the largest trade partner with Iraq. Undeniable fact, n'est pas?
Three, 117 French contracts with Iraq are being held up by the UN Security Council as potential "dual use" violations of the trade. Simple fact again, n'est pas?
Four, it's alleged that since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq. Given the previous three points, this is extremely likely.
As I said, where there is smoke, there is fire.
Allow me to ask you this, mon frere:
If the US does go into Iraq and IF there are significant US casualties and IF those casualties can be traced to Iraqi weapons/equipment stamped "Fabriqué en France".....
what do you think will be the relationship between France and the United States after that?
Perhaps this is what Monsieur Chirac is really worried about?
The proof will be before you then but it will be too late for you to avoid the unpleasant results of such proof.
Should France eventually join the coaltion and French boys die to French weapons, I would think that would be quite unpleasant in France as well.
-
Well?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Figured you'd just discard it Straffo.
Unlikely to happen ...it's no in my nature and cost me a lot of death in the MA :D
However, let's look at the trail here.
France, indeed, has been in open defiance of the UN embargo. You guys were flying planes in with the Russians early on. Undeniable fact, n'est pas?
yep :)
Two, France is the largest trade partner with Iraq. Undeniable fact, n'est pas?
sure ...
Three, 117 French contracts with Iraq are being held up by the UN Security Council as potential "dual use" violations of the trade. Simple fact again, n'est pas?
yes (btw it's "n'est-ce pas" the proper gallicism ;))
Four, it's alleged that since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq. Given the previous three points, this is extremely likely.
I'm trying to figure were the US sells their weapon ...
you have your beloved customer in the Gulf ... we only have sadam ... give us a share of the Koweitian or Saoudian market and we will stop selling items to Sadam quite fast :p
As I said, where there is smoke, there is fire.
sure "il n'y a pas de fumée sans feu ..."
Allow me to ask you this, mon frere:
If the US does go into Iraq and IF there are significant US casualties and IF those casualties can be traced to Iraqi weapons/equipment stamped "Fabriqué en France".....
I keep saying that we didn't sell weapon to Iraq since 1991.
In this case you'll have to lookup the fabrication date :D
what do you think will be the relationship between France and the United States after that?
They can be worst than actually ?
When an allied is menacing another allied how is it called ?
A dis-agreement ? a dissension ?
When I read all that insulting posts ,all those newspaper headline all those fox headline ...
I've trouble indentifying the actual american and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for my freedom.
Perhaps this is what Monsieur Chirac is really worried about?
I don't think he got the minimal tool to be worried .
read : I don't think he got a brain it would have been clever to act like the UK and we will have our share of oil after the inevitable war.
Now our chances to have low cost oil are gone.
The proof will be before you then but it will be too late for you to avoid the unpleasant results of such proof.
When you use menace don't expect me to act your way.
Except pissing me it has no result.
Should France eventually join the coaltion and French boys die to French weapons, I would think that would be quite unpleasant in France as well.
Did happen in the past.
There was even some insignifiant frogs killed by a 'clever' foreign policy of the USA (we've already discussed that in the past).
-
So you are blaming the superiority of US arms and their succes in the global marketplace for France's need to violate UN sanctions and, uhhh lets say, "drop" their substandard weapons on Iraq?
:D
-
Originally posted by straffo
I'm trying to figure were the US sells their weapon ...
you have your beloved customer in the Gulf ... we only have sadam ... give us a share of the Koweitian or Saoudian market and we will stop selling items to Sadam quite fast :p
Surely you aren't using France's failure to acquire other customers as a justification for selling to Saddam?
They can be worst than actually ?
[/b]
Yes, I think it can be much worse.
When you use menace don't expect me to act your way.
Except pissing me it has no result.
[/b]
No one is "menacing" you or threatening you. But you undoubtedly understand that relations between France and the US can get much worse. I'm not talking about militarily, I'm talking about diplomatically and economically.
I think you know in your heart that your country has been supplying weapons or at the very least "dual use" items to Saddam.
I think you also know in your heart that Saddam is a dictator of the same type as Hitler.
I think, however, that you prefer not to think about that too much.
-
Originally posted by straffo
give us a share of the Koweitian or Saoudian market and we will stop selling items to Sadam quite fast
So you admit it then.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Hangtime can you show French military support to sadam since 1991 (and not before 1991).
In each of your post lately you say that we (the french) provided support to sadam since 1991.
Proove it now (from an accountable ressource ... and I don't trust the NYP ;))
If you got the time you can show me those multi-billion trading we are doing with Iraq
Regards
straffo
Straffo.. Sorry; Toad beat me to it... and did a better job of it than I could.
I did get a kick outta your correcting Toads French. That was so... how do we say... French. ;)
I do have another quick question for you personally though..
What do you think France will do when we attack Iraq?
-
Originally posted by straffo
There was even some insignifiant frogs killed by a 'clever' foreign policy of the USA (we've already discussed that in the past).
Lets talk 'clever' foreign policy...
(http://www.aucklandcitypolice.govt.nz/History/images/rw1.jpg)
-
Sorry to say but I don't compare one Greenpeace member to several french soldier uncliding member of my familly because the OSS was supporting uncle Ho.
And in fact there is always a tragedie in the New-Zealand seas as seen the ridiculous prestation of the kiwi team for the america's cup :)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
So you admit it then.
1st I admit nothing.
2nd since how long I'm a representative for the whole French population ?
It's like saying that Hangtime represent the whole American citizen mind it's a very dangerous shortcut.
I only represent myself (and sometime I don't represent anything at all :D)
-
Originally posted by straffo
Sorry to say but I don't compare one Greenpeace member to several french soldier uncliding member of my familly because the OSS was supporting uncle Ho.
Yah know straffo, the more we learn about the French, the more we begin to really despise you.
"THE TRAGEDY OF MISSION 19 TO HAIPHONG"
An excerpt from Martin L. Mickelsen's forthcoming book of the History of French Indochina:
Long before America's war in Vietnam, General Claire Chennault's 14th Air Force conducted a savage war in the skies over French Indochina, as Vietnam was called during World War II. It was a battle fought largely without publicity, hidden in the shadows of more titanic struggles that captured the headlines of the war: Guadalcanal, Midway, El Alamein, Stalingrad, Normandy, or the Battle of the Bulge. By January 1945, as far as the American public was concerned, the life-and-death struggle in Indochina was literally reduced to funny pages in the strip, "Terry and the Pirates," which ironically credited the Navy for the fighting in the French colony.
The war in Indochina was made more dangerous and tragic by the actions of the Vichy French Indochinese colonial authorities who willingly aided the Japanese war effort militarily as well as economically. As part of a deliberate policy of collaboration with the Axis, the Vichy French government of Marshal Philippe Petain had allowed the Japanese to establish military bases in northern Indochina, or Tonkin, in September 1939, in order to attack the Nationalists in China. Vichy stood aside a year later, in July 1941, when the Japanese moved into southern Indochina.
Indochina's collaboration went even further. In March 1942, four airmen and an army engineer reached Tourane (item 1 on small insert map), now Do Nang, by launch from the Philippines. The four were turned over to the Japanese on the orders of Indochina's governor general, Vice Admiral Jean Decoux. Four of these men toiled for the rest of the war on the "Railroad of Death" in Thailand, made famous by Pierre Boulle's novel, Bridge Over the River Kwai. (Free French Lieutenant Boulle was himself one of Decoux's prisoners after he was captured trying to establish a resistance organization in the colony.) The fifth, a fighter pilot from the l6th Pursuit Squadron, eventually escaped and reached China safely the day the war ended. On May 20, 1942, a Flying Tiger was downed over Lao Kay, French Indochina (item 2 on small insert map). The pilot, Louis Bishop, too was surrendered on the admiral's orders to the Japanese for interrogation. Rumored to have been beheaded, Bishop instead was sent to POW camp in occupied China; he too managed to escape two years later. In June, two British soldiers escaped from a Japanese POW camp on the banks of the Saigon River and reached a French army camp. On Decoux's command, they were returned to the Japanese and beheaded. A year later, in April, 1943, a Dutch POW escaped from a Japanese ship anchored off Cape Saint Jacques and turned himself over to Vichy authorities, seeking their protection. He too was returned on Decoux's orders and executed.
Thereafter the Japanese demanded that all allied prisoners captured by Decoux's forces be surrendered on the spot without the formality of obtaining the admiral's agreement first. At the end of August 1943, enraged at the beginning of a bombing campaign in Tonkin by the 308th Bombardment Group based in China, Decoux accepted the Japanese demands and issued orders to his administrators and military commanders to surrender all captured non-Asiatics to the Japanese on the spot.
Fifteen days later, on September 15, 1943, the 308th conducted its 19th mission after joining the 14th Air Force in China. Its target was a French cement plant in Haiphong, a major port on the Gulf of Tonkin, that had just been turned over to the Japanese- though not without resistance from Decoux. The governor general wanted the French proprietors to maintain majority ownership of all plants in partnership with the Japanese, instead of sole Japanese control. Decoux's squabble with the Japanese was intercepted by American intelligence, which was reading all Vichy French messages as well as those of the Japanese. The 308th was assigned the task of ending the dispute between Decoux and the Japanese once and for all. The following account of Mission 19 (as well as the description above of Vichy's and Decoux's policies) is based primarily on previously unpublished documents found in the French archives, supplemented by interviews with survivors of the admiral's policy, and on reports from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and at Maxwell Air Force Base
I hope like hell yer proud of yer 'family'. The OSS correctly identifed Uncle Ho as a TRUE member of the Vietnamese resistance, and as such gave him aid. If your 'family' got burned, it's because officals of your nation betrayed us by backing the japanese.
I cannot fathom WHY we ever backed the French there later on.. stuns the hell outta me. But then again, most of the things america has done for france in the last 60 years makes no sense at all either.
On 3 August 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group(MAAG), Indochina, arrived in Saigon to administer the material assistance program. The MAAG's Navy Section, comprised of Commander John B. Howland and seven other officers and men, was on hand at the end of October to process the first shipment of naval material, which consisted of Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters, to French forces. During the next four years, as part of the Mutual Defense Assistance Program, the United States delivered military aid totaling $2.6 billion, including two light aircraft carriers, renamed by the French Bois Belleau and La Fayette, 438 amphibious landing ships and craft, armored river patrol boats and other vessels, and 500 aircraft. In addition, the Navy Section of MAAG oversaw the provision of spare parts and the development of base facilities such as the Naval Shipyard in Saigon and the Naval Amphibious Base in Haiphong.
Dept of The Navy
-
Originally posted by Toad
Surely you aren't using France's failure to acquire other customers as a justification for selling to Saddam?
No, in fact it was a pretty stealth allusion to the fact that we (french & American) have strange taste concerning our customer ...
I see no difference between Ryad and Bagdad .
But the USA say : Saoudia is an ally (allied ?) and Iraq is an enemy and so you can sell weapon to one but not to the other.
Double langage ,I think that using moral arguement to say you shall not sell weapon to Iraq and selling weapon to Saoudia is plain bull-shit (or self-interrest)
Yes, I think it can be much worse.
No one is "menacing" you or threatening you. But you undoubtedly understand that relations between France and the US can get much worse. I'm not talking about militarily, I'm talking about diplomatically and economically.
I'm sorry to notice that you're not aware that France and America are at war economicaly since about 1981.
I think you know in your heart that your country has been supplying weapons or at the very least "dual use" items to Saddam.
Have you some knowledge in chemistry ?
If not you would be surprised by the number of dual-purpose product.
For exemple nothing look more close to explosive than a simple fertilizer ...
I think you also know in your heart that Saddam is a dictator of the same type as Hitler.
I'm not on the side of this scumbag.
I'm just trying tos say that GB Jr's crusade will have a shrecked side effect on this planet political stability without any gain for any one (except perhaps democratia for the Iraqi's ... and frankly I'm quite unsure it will happen) .
I think, however, that you prefer not to think about that too much.
Wrong, I would be the 1st to applause the disparition of Sadam (from natural death to a guided weapon or a bullet).
But I'm more affraid of the continus support of some muslim extremist on my own country by one of your closer ally ... the Saoudian.
-
Nice post Hang it's the very same arguement you used the last time we spoke of this:
"we started the mess but are not accountable"
BS
-
No it ain't straffo.
Never used this before.. found it when I went looking for your obliqe refrence to the OSS and Uncle Ho killing somebody in your family.
What I found turned my stomach. Frenchmen surrendering British, American, Dutch and Allied prisoners to the Japanese.
I despise you for attempting to use your family loss in french indochinca circa WWII as a cause for your stance on issues today.
You sicken me.
-
yeah it's sick ...
is using the warm body of your citizen dead the 9/11 smarter ?
If your prefer cooler one you can use those from the 40's
-
Why argue with straffo? You show him some credible articles proving your points and he says sorry I do not believe that.
I guess that is the French way. Live in denial.
It goes with the arrogance I guess.
-
As you know Habu I can even argue with some BBS troll-bot.
Btw did any french spit in your breakfast when you were young or is it freudian ?
-
Just pointing out some 'clever foreign policy' stuff from the French straffo.
Some of us won't forget. I despise the greenies myself. I believe Greenpeace is just another corporate parasite.
However, that doesn't excuse the terrorist activities and murder against unarmed civilians France has committed on my nations soil. And everytime France stands up and screams 'morals and ethics' I'll haul one of these pictures onto the BBS.
Its France's right to decline to be part of this war. But calling American's cowboys, comparing Bush with Hitler, well thats just ironic isn't it?
-
Surrender Straffo
-
Originally posted by straffo
But the USA say : Saoudia is an ally (allied ?) and Iraq is an enemy and so you can sell weapon to one but not to the other.
Pardon?
I believe it is the UN[/u][/color] that has instructed its member states to restrict sales of weapons AND "dual use" items to Iraq.
The very same UN of which France serves as a permanent Security Council member.
Does it bother you that a permanent member of the Security Council was the first to ignore the embargo? Is the country who's deals with Iraq are viewed as "of greatest concern"?
Fine example, eh?
Straffo: I'm sorry to notice that you're not aware that France and America are at war economicaly since about 1981.
[/b]
I'm sorry you are not aware that it can get worse. I'm sorry that you are not aware that it is hurting France more than Amreeka.
Straffo: Have you some knowledge in chemistry ?
If not you would be surprised by the number of dual-purpose product.
For exemple nothing look more close to explosive than a simple fertilizer ...
Yes, I do.
Do you have knowledge of the UN sanctions, embargo and restricted "dual use" items with respect to trading with Iraq.
The world is advised by France that the UN MUST be involved, consulted and agreeable before any action is taken against Iraq.
And then France ignores the UN embargo against Iraq and attempts to sell "dual use" items that are not allowed.
Something of which to be very proud, eh?
Straffo: But I'm more affraid of the continus support of some muslim extremist on my own country by one of your closer ally ... the Saoudian.
Consider this. Perhaps the quickest way to end the Saudi monarchy without outside intervention is by placing a democratic Iraq in their backyard. There are many layers to an onion; we see only the top one.
-
Surrender Straffo
yah know, you'd think he'd know how.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As long as the French are following the rules and asking for permission and not trying to smuggle stuff into Iraq
September 2000 French planes flew to Iraq carrying not only doctors and medical supplies but also business executives and soccer players.
Following the rules?
There's the problem, eh? Surely they wouldn't smuggle stuff to Iraq or try to deceive the UN... surely not.
-
yah.. but were the exectutives evil or were they selling furmage?
yup. stinky cheese.
i'm tellin yah, saddam's a grapefruit. he can wait.
bomb paris.
-
Come now.
I shouldn't have to point out the part that doesn't fit.
The French and Russians were the first to blatantly ignore the UN embargo rules by flying into Iraq.
Doesn't say much for their regard for the UN resolutions now does it?
-
What about Unka Dick Cheney?
-
Nor did I say it was.
I think you're way smarter than you're posting here.
What I said it the French and Russians were the first to ignore the UN rules on the embargo; contacts with Iraq were supposed to be approved by the UN sanctions committee.
As I said, it doesn't say much for their respect with regards to the UN resolutions does it?
It leads to the question of "what else have they chosen to ignore" in my mind.
Then you get to the follow on facts posted above.
-
Weazel, I'm probably one of the few here that actually considers what you write anymore but I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific before I can make anything out of that.
And it'll help if you write like an adult and drop the childish name calling and diminutives.
I can, in fact, be persuaded of some things with reasoned argument, logic and facts. However, you severely prejudice your case in a negative way with all this "Unka" and "Chimpy" childishness.
Thanks for your courtesy in advance.
-
Contempt for the embargo. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm)
Bush and Cheney changed the saying "The buck stops here" to the buck passes through here.
Originally posted by Toad
Following the rules?
There's the problem, eh? Surely they wouldn't smuggle stuff to Iraq or try to deceive the UN... surely not.
-
OK, help me out here Weazel.
I read it. These are the salient points to me:
The trade was perfectly legal. Indeed, it is a case study of how U.S. firms routinely use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid the opprobrium of doing business with Baghdad, which does not violate U.S. law as long as it occurs within the "oil-for-food" program run by the United Nations.
Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."
They returned to dealing with Iraq after the council established the "oil-for-food" program in December 1996, permitting Iraq to export oil under U.N. supervision and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and humanitarian goods. The program was expanded in 1998 to allow Iraq to import spare parts for its oil facilities.
The Halliburton subsidiaries joined dozens of American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000. Since the program began, Iraq has exported oil worth more than $40 billion.
The proceeds funded a sharp increase in the country's nutritional standards, nearly doubling the food rations distributed to Iraq's poor.
So?
-
They were trading with the enemy...and using the french as their lap dog while doing it.
"And even if Cheney was not told about the business with Baghdad before the purchase, Perrella said, the CEO almost certainly would have learned about it after the acquisition. "Oh, definitely, he was aware of the business," Perrella said, although Perrella conceded that this was an assumption based on knowledge of how the company worked, not a fact to which he could personally attest because he never discussed the Iraqi contracts with Cheney.
A long-time critic of unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he has argued penalize American companies while failing to punish the targeted regimes, Cheney has pushed for a review of U.S. policy toward countries such as Iraq, Iran and Libya.
In the first expression of that new thinking, the Bush administration is campaigning in the U.N. Security Council to end an 11-year embargo on sales of civilian goods, including oil-related equipment, to Iraq."
-
I think it's a long reach Weazel. In fact, your charge just doesn't stick.
You have to admit that all of these exports from the US, like exports from all the other countries have to go through the UN Security Council.
These Halliburton deals went through. At a time when Clinton was President and his representative to the UN Security Council did not object to the exports.
So... who was "trading with the enemy" in that case?
-
Simple question, as I don't know the answer.
Was Iran under a UN weapon trade embargo in the 80's?.
If it was, then stop accusing others of doing the same, as you did just the same.
If it wasn't I'll shut up on this matter. ;) in any case I think Toad's sources pretty much prove French weapon sales to Iraq after 1991, so Straffo, I think you should open your eyes a little bit...that you don't aprove it doesn't mean it didn't happen :)
As a spanish, I'm part of a nation that's backing US' intention to attack Irak. As a spanish, I must say that a calculated 91% of my people is AGAINST that attack, and thus JM Aznar's government is acting AGAINST our nation's will.
As much as I hate S.H., this war will be (and it's intended to be) a massive-scale robbery of Irak's natural resources -namely oil- under a fake excuse of throwing a dictator out of his seat.
Dictator who could've been trhowed out of that seat just about 12 years ago, and wasn't because -someone- in Washington decided not to do it. If you were so genuinelly interested by democracy you'd have put a free government in Baghdad then, but you didn't. Why? economic and political reasons said that having Saddam in that seat was "better" for YOU, than trying to kick him out of power and calling for elections. That was (that IS) your compromise with democracy in the world: as long as YOU -YOU, not the people in the nation you're about to attack- are bennefitted with it, so be it. If you don't think its worth it for the US, you DON'T do it.
So congrats, america, because if you stand where you are now is because you decided it 12 years ago. And please stop using stupid excuses about WMD, dictators, or Saddam's evil. The only thing your president wants is that black oily thing pumped out of those deserts. Not democracy.
P.D. While Saddam was using chemical weapons over Kurds, I never heard you yell so loud as you do it today. How ironic, coming from people who's caring "so much" about all the world's freedom and right to live.
P.D.2 this is a very sarcastic, acid post. Take it as you want, but if you go to war on your own ,or alone with UK (Because, read this, even if Spanish diplomats on the UN back up your intention to steal Iraq's oil, 90% OF THE SPANISH PEOPLE DOESN'T), from that point onwards don't ask why the rest of the world doesn't like you anymore. You're answering that question lately, day after day.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Dictator who could've been trhowed out of that seat just about 12 years ago, and wasn't because -someone- in Washington decided not to do it.
While much of your post offers opportunity for discussion, this one part leaps out.
Since it's late, I'll address just that one for now.
Please go back and read the headlines and world opinions right at the end of the 100 hours of the first war.
Focus on the worldwide reporting of the "Highway of Death". Note the cries to "stop the slaughter".
Then you'll have a more balanced and more accurate understanding of why Saddam is still in power.
-
Originally posted by Toad
While much of your post offers opportunity for discussion, this one part leaps out.
Since it's late, I'll address just that one for now.
Please go back and read the headlines and world opinions right at the end of the 100 hours of the first war.
Focus on the worldwide reporting of the "Highway of Death". Note the cries to "stop the slaughter".
Then you'll have a more balanced and more accurate understanding of why Saddam is still in power.
I can understand that media pressed for stopping the war. But I don't buy that was the reason Saddam was not overtrhown. In 1991 Irak's army was as much as wasted as a nation's military can be, I can think of several ways to force Saddam out of power in that situation (starting from keeping the attack on, telling the media the objective is to kick Saddam Hussein out of his seat, not just Kuwait's liberation; to offering a halt of fire and a time limit for Hussein to be overtrhown by the Iraqis themselfs.).
You did neither of those. US forces stopped the attack, and after the UN established a couple of air exclusion zones (the northern one never was properly enforced, which allowed Saddam to commit genocide against the kurds), you pumped most of your foreces out of the zone and crossed your arms waiting for...what?.
Sorry, Toad, that is a simple excuse. If you wanted to kick Hussein out, you could've done it with almost no cost for USA, politically talking. You didn't do it, and that was because other reasons were more important for your nation at the time, than forzing the end of the dictator.
-
Obviously, you also need to go back and read the UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in Desert Storm. Also do some research into the French position back then. It wasn't only the French then either.
There simply was no mandate to remove Saddam. Had there been, they'd have never gotten the resolution to use force.
You're a smart guy, Ram. Read your history though.
-
I haven't read too many resolutions of the UN regarding Irak, but I do remember 678....
Point 2 of resolution 678, passed by UN SC in november, 1990 says:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area
Resolution 660 mostly called for total withdrawal of Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Up to that point, you'd have the reason, Toad...
But focus on that "and to restore international peace and security in the area". I do think that asking for Saddam being kicked out by any means possible, was something desperately needed to restore peace and security in the area, after the same guy had started one war against Iran, and invaded and annexed a Sovereign nation in 10 years of time frame.
Point 3 of that resolution said:
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution
Point that could've been used to freeze any oposition coming from France, or anyone for that matter. France voted "YES" to this resolution. They couldn't have backed down later if US had asked for pressing for Saddam being overthrown.
You simply never pressed for this matter in the UN; there was no REAL try from the US to kick Saddam out before, during or after the war, Toad. And strictly reading that point, UN implicitly allowed it. At least the way I read it
-
I'm not doing your homework for you this time Ram. :)
Check on what it took to get France and Russia to vote "yes" on 678 and to get China to abstain.
Particularly, look at their positions with respect to removing S.H.
Additionally, there were other countries that stated they wouldn't join the coalition if S.H. was a target. Notably some important Arab nations.
Again, we couldn't have removed him as you say. Militarily, yes; quite easily I agree. Politically? No possible way.
It's history. It's there for your reading.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not doing your homework for you this time Ram. :)
Check on what it took to get France and Russia to vote "yes" on 678 and to get China to abstain.
sorry to say that,as I was just a kid back then (I was 13), my knowledge of politics at that time comes mostly from what I've read afterwards (a 13-year-old kid doesn't understand watermelon about politics, and doens't read that part of the newspaper either :D). And nothing on France's and Russian stances, because what I use for source is mostly UN webpage -and they don't list each nation's reasons for voting "yes" or "no" :)
I will dig in internet to find what you're talking about , and post later about what I've found and what do I think about it. Any links you might give me will be welcome (hint ,hint ;) )
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Just pointing out some 'clever foreign policy' stuff from the French straffo.
Some of us won't forget. I despise the greenies myself. I believe Greenpeace is just another corporate parasite.
However, that doesn't excuse the terrorist activities and murder against unarmed civilians France has committed on my nations soil. And everytime France stands up and screams 'morals and ethics' I'll haul one of these pictures onto the BBS.
Its France's right to decline to be part of this war. But calling American's cowboys, comparing Bush with Hitler, well thats just ironic isn't it?
Don't get me started on nouvelle Caledonie.
-
Straffo you suck. You asked for proof and when they gave it to you just said I dont belevie it because it makes me feel bad.
Why did you even ask in the first place?
-
well ... the probelm is the definition
This is a "pistolet" :
(http://iquebec.ifrance.com/2iemeguerre/figurines/images/pistolet.jpg)
This is a "pistolet" too :
(http://www.nievre.cci.fr/charpenet/images/pistolet.jpg)
There is the same link between Explosive and fertilizer don't you think ?
-
Yes, they broke the rules on contact with Iraq.
As for the rest of your questions, I personally have no "proof".
OTOH, there is a significant amount of circumstancial evidence in the public view.
Each must draw his own conclusion.
-
Toad I've not found a résolution broke by this trip (*) yet
(*) in fact I got a very hard time to find this trip or it was not in september 2000?
-
September 23, 2000.
Here's a fig leaf for you to hide behind. Make the most of it, while telling us how France has been doing it's very best to support the UN in disarming Iraq.
Whether UN Security Council resolutions ban air travel is subject to interpretation. But, because of a ban on commercial and financial transactions with Iraq, the practice has been that a flight must be approved by the UN sanctions committee.
... The French government, which has become increasingly critical of the sanctions policy, considers that a non-commercial flight does not necessarily breach UN resolutions and may require only "notification" to the sanctions committee and inspection by French customs.
Should be more than enough for you to hide behind. After all, it was "subject to interpretation."
My apologies. It was only a common Security Council "practice". Which of course France did not feel it had to support.
-
Haven't found anything about France's stand regarding SH's deposal in 1990, toad. However, I've found things like this:
http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-12%20WIN/the%20u.s.vssaddam.html
"Because U.N. "support" for Resolution 678 in the Gulf War against Iraq was a fraud, obtained by "bribery, black mail, and coercion," we might well wonder about the legitimacy of current U.N. "support." Ethiopia, Zaire, Colombia, and the Soviet Union received generous aid in return for supporting the Resolution. China was awarded $114 million dollars in deferred aid just for abstaining from voting. Syria was allowed to expand occupation of Lebanon. Jordan and Egypt were threatened with economic reprisals if they didn't vote for the Resolution. Egypt was manipulated to get the Arab League to condemn the Iraqi invasion."
Is this true?.
please guide me to any place where French and soviet stances regarding SH deposals are discussed...I've found none using google
-
hehe pretty clever sig-text from wwiiol board:
"The last time France wanted more evidence, it rolled right through France with a German flag."
:D
-
No need for apolgies Toad I have a strong respect for you .
Actually I was not able to find a trace of this trip in any french information source (sorry I'm a bit lazy tonight I won't read English sources ).
I wanted to know the name of the peoples in this plane .
Imagine J.Carter making a trip to Iraq will it automaticly mean that GWB support Sadam ?
I guess no ... same for actual oposition in France
I know that Le Pen (who was a candidate for the presidence) is involved in a Franco/Iraq association but he is an anti-americanism "primaire" a strong eulogist of American bashing ... so his agenda is clear he would make all possible to piss off the USA.
-
Try to find newspaper archives from October/November of 1990 while the Security Council was working up to Resolution 678.
Russian, France and China were all either reluctant to support or outright opposed to 678.
Yet they voted for it in the end.
James Baker, the US Secretary of State at the time and a prime move in lining up the votes for 678 said in his autobiography: "I met personally with all my Security Council counterparts in an intricate process of cajoling, extracting, threatening, and occasionally buying votes. Such are the politics of diplomacy."
That's how it was done. That's how the UN works and always has worked.
BTW, take a look at this sight; I think you'll find a lot interesting information there.
Iraq Watch (http://www.iraqwatch.org/index.html)
-
Straffo, I only apologize for saying it was a "rule". It was not; it was a "practice" which France chose to ignore.
Further, apparently the French government, as mentioned in that quote, saw nothing wrong with these flights.
I must say I find it somewhat ironic that France continually chides the US for acting unilaterally and without consulting and respecting allies.
However, nearly everywhere I turn I see France doing exactly that. Like in this instance of the flights.
As for this whole debacle, I think no matter what happens now the UN has changed and the relationship between France and the US is even more damaged.
We discussed economics before. I'm sure you saw on the news that "boycott France" talk is starting here and is bound to have some worsening effect on an already poor situation.
The American "Liberty Tree" was watered with French blood and I won't forget that as I've mentioned before on this BBS.
However, while that respect will always be there, that doesn't mean I can overlook what is happening now, either. And I personally believe that France has not been supporting UN sanctions and embargoes against Iraq.
Had these efforts succeeded, perhaps we wouldn't be facing this war at all. If that possibility is accepted then it can be seen that all the countries that ignored the sanctions and embargoes have helped lead us down this trail to war.
The whole situation sux, from start to finish.
-
Just feel sad to be an american with so many "patriots" around.
-
Don't worry Towd. I think we're headed for a second civl war ourselves.
Everyone will get to be a patriot! Just on different sides. Oh, joy!
-
Originally posted by Toad
The whole situation sux, from start to finish.
that's a perfect resume of my though :(
-
Can you please clear a point for me :
If your governement say you cannot go to Iraq (without any law forbidding you to do so) can your governement forbid you to go in Iraq ?
For France we know the answer : governement can just say "I won't do if I were you"
But for USA ?
-
USA can ban it's citizens from going to a country. They did that for Libya in the 90's.
-
without any law ?