Bush, France Clash over Relief for Iraqi Debt at G-8

[J-10]

Bush Fails to Gain G-8 Agreement on Amount of Iraq Debt to Cut

June 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush failed to reach agreement with other Group of Eight leaders on the amount of Iraq's estimated $120 billion in debt to be cut after France pressed to limit relief to 50 percent.

Bush wanted an agreement to write off the ``vast majority'' of Iraq's debt, a U.S. official said yesterday. France sought a G-8 endorsement for ``substantial'' relief, defined by the Paris Club group of creditor nations as 50 percent, a French official said today. Both spoke on condition of anonymity.

German Deputy Economics Minister Alfred Tacke said G-8 leaders want to grant ``substantial'' debt relief. The official G-8 statement included no indication on the amount to be cut and said details would be worked out by the Paris Club. The U.S. expects the amount to be more than half, a Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

``Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation,'' the G-8 statement said.

France doesn't want to write down more than half of Iraq's debt because the nation's oil reserves, second- largest in the world, make it better able to pay than some other nations seeking debt relief, Catherine Colonna, a spokeswoman for French President Jacques Chirac, said yesterday.

Iraq's Resources

``Iraq is a country which has resources,'' Colonna said. ``There are very strong points leading us to believe that treating 50 percent of Iraq's debt would be appropriate.''

More discussion is needed on the amount of debt to forgive, said a Japanese official who spoke on condition he not be named.

The 19 nations in the Paris Club, including the U.S., Japan, Russia and France, hold $42 billion in Iraqi debt, the IMF reported in May.

Iraq owes Japan $4.11 billion, of which almost nine- tenths is insurance payments related to trade. Late payment charges bring the total to about $7 billion, according to Japan's foreign ministry.

Canada is prepared to forgive the C$750 million ($552 million) it is owed by Iraq once the Paris Club forges an agreement. Canada also has promised C$300 million over five years to help Iraq rebuild.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, 65, said he wouldn't send troops to Iraq because he has none to spare after deployments in Afghanistan and Haiti. He said Canada, which is already helping to train Iraqi police officers, may do more to help the country establish democratic institutions such as courts.

``We are certainly prepared to participate,'' Martin said at press conference. ``I do not believe we will be participating with further troop movements, but we are certainly going to participate with expertise.''

From (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=adBuba_36VLU&refer=home)

G-8 looks like a rich people club, usually they couldn't do anything except drinking, eating delicious foods and taking pictures.... (joke :lol: p-) )

[Kilgor]

should be a lession to France, sell weapons to a man like saddam and you wont get your money back.

[Skullknight]

G8 represents only about 25% of Iraq's debt. If he really wants that $120 billion to go away maybe Bush should look into talking with the guys he gives billions in military aid to and also our strongest trading partners in the region.

[cut]

should be a lession to France, sell weapons to a man like saddam and you wont get your money back.

did we get our money for the stuff we sold to him?

[Kilgor]

what did u sell him ? :P

[Secret Squirrel]

should be a lession to France, sell weapons to a man like saddam and you wont get your money back.

did we get our money for the stuff we sold to him?

Did Iraq or Iran pay for the stuff the U.S sold them?

[cut]

what did u sell him ? :P

me personally nothing, but the UK and the US sold him stuff when we supported his regime. I'm pretty sure we even sold him chemicals used in chemical weapons (or was in biological weapons?). The US and the UK also sold old tanks and apcs to Saddam as we do with many countries around the world. It's the nature of the arms industry.

[Kilgor]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

[cut]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?

[Kilgor]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

[cut]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

[seruriermarshal]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

Cut you have proof ? send it in here . I'm not hope hear lie .

rofl

[seruriermarshal]

G-8 looks like a rich people club, usually they couldn't do anything except drinking, eating delicious foods and taking pictures.... (joke :lol: p-) )

Yes , hope all countries rich and freedom .

[Kilgor]

there is no proof, because there was no weapons :)

[seruriermarshal]

there is no proof, because there was no weapons :)


Saddam have more T-72 , T-62 , T-55 , BMP , Mig-29 , Su-24 , Mi-8 ...... that's U.S. give him ?

:roll:

[Kilgor]

no.. its those zionist conspiracy :)

they made covert arms in the USA after stealing russian plans and sold them to iraq for a tidy profit :P

[cut]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

Cut you have proof ? send it in here . I'm not hope hear lie .

rofl

I know you struggle with english so I'll say it slowly

Y-O-U C-A-N'T P-R-O-V-E A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G O-N T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T
;)

to many crappy sources like Newsmax, for proper information. But Iraq had the full support of the US in the iran-iraq war so obviously they were sold equipment.

I mean look Iranian chinook

http://www.acig.org/pg1/image042a.jpg

is Iran a good country to sell military equipment to?

[cut]

there is no proof, because there was no weapons :)

There isn't indisputable proof of french weapons on the internet either.

[Kilgor]

oh man

Iran is another topic all together, every man and his dog knows the sale of such things like the F-14's

IRAQ.

Any proof ?

is it just me or is there a echo in here ?

[Secret Squirrel]

there is no proof, because there was no weapons :)

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990), check it out sometime.

You can find the transcript here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

[Kilgor]

do me a favour and post it here then

[cut]

oh man

Iran is another topic all together, every man and his dog knows the sale of such things like the F-14's

IRAQ.

Any proof ?

is it just me or is there a echo in here ?

any proof of french weapons?

as I said all there is is this kind of stuff for both sides
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

[cut]

why is it ok for theUS to sell weapons to Iran?

[Kilgor]

yeah.. cause he used mirage fighter planes...

It was ok to sell weapons to Iran before the Islamic revolution because the leader was pro US

[seruriermarshal]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

Cut you have proof ? send it in here . I'm not hope hear lie .

rofl

I know you struggle with english so I'll say it slowly

Y-O-U C-A-N'T P-R-O-V-E A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G O-N T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T
;)

to many crappy sources like Newsmax, for proper information. But Iraq had the full support of the US in the iran-iraq war so obviously they were sold equipment.

I mean look Iranian chinook

http://www.acig.org/pg1/image042a.jpg

is Iran a good country to sell military equipment to?

Great proof , Great weapon like this .

http://www.sei-ind.com/images/ch47.jpg

:lol:

[Flagg]

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?

Exchange a Q or an N and you get Iran...which would be more appropriate.

It's my understanding that the US and UK had Iran(pre-Ayatollah) locked up for supplying military hardware( a list so long it would takes pages to cover it all).

The only Chieftans in theatre, to the best of my knowledge, were those of the Imperial Iranian Army.....ordered and delivered during the days of the Shah in the 1970s.

Iraq was primarily supplied with weapons systems by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries......and France

The exception to this being Iraq's purchase of Bell utility helicopters for "civilian" use...easily reconfigured for military utility use....or fulfilling a basic gunship role.

Also, the Iran Contra hostages for arms affair resulted in the delivery of TOW and other missiles and spares into the theatre.

[seruriermarshal]

oh man

Iran is another topic all together, every man and his dog knows the sale of such things like the F-14's

IRAQ.

Any proof ?

is it just me or is there a echo in here ?

any proof of french weapons?

as I said all there is is this kind of stuff for both sides
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105449427.jpg

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105535398.jpg

:roll:

[cut]

oh man

Iran is another topic all together, every man and his dog knows the sale of such things like the F-14's

IRAQ.

Any proof ?

is it just me or is there a echo in here ?

any proof of french weapons?

as I said all there is is this kind of stuff for both sides
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105449427.jpg

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105535398.jpg

:roll:

and that means weapon sales? so If I post that old pic of rummy and saddam that is proof that americans sold wepons to iraq? You must be joking.......

[Kilgor]

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

Check under france

[cut]

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?

Exchange a Q or an N and you get Iran...which would be more appropriate.

It's my understanding that the US and UK had Iran(pre-Ayatollah) locked up for supplying military hardware( a list so long it would takes pages to cover it all).

The only Chieftans in theatre, to the best of my knowledge, were those of the Imperial Iranian Army.....ordered and delivered during the days of the Shah in the 1970s.

Iraq was primarily supplied with weapons systems by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries......and France

The exception to this being Iraq's purchase of Bell utility helicopters for "civilian" use...easily reconfigured for military utility use....or fulfilling a basic gunship role.

Also, the Iran Contra hostages for arms affair resulted in the delivery of TOW and other missiles and spares into the theatre.

do bell make hueys?

[seruriermarshal]

oh man

Iran is another topic all together, every man and his dog knows the sale of such things like the F-14's

IRAQ.

Any proof ?

is it just me or is there a echo in here ?

any proof of french weapons?

as I said all there is is this kind of stuff for both sides


http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105449427.jpg

http://www.boy-toy.net/bbs/UploadFile/2004-6/2004610105535398.jpg

:roll:

and that means weapon sales? so If I post that old pic of rummy and saddam that is proof that americans sold wepons to iraq? You must be joking.......
Like this :
:lol:
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/images/rumsfeld.jpg

[cut]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

Cut you have proof ? send it in here . I'm not hope hear lie .

rofl

I know you struggle with english so I'll say it slowly

Y-O-U C-A-N'T P-R-O-V-E A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G O-N T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T
;)

to many crappy sources like Newsmax, for proper information. But Iraq had the full support of the US in the iran-iraq war so obviously they were sold equipment.

I mean look Iranian chinook

http://www.acig.org/pg1/image042a.jpg

is Iran a good country to sell military equipment to?

Great proof , Great weapon like this .

http://www.sei-ind.com/images/ch47.jpg

:lol:

where do you come from? you still havn't told anyone you're nationality, why are you so ashamed?

[seruriermarshal]

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?

Exchange a Q or an N and you get Iran...which would be more appropriate.

It's my understanding that the US and UK had Iran(pre-Ayatollah) locked up for supplying military hardware( a list so long it would takes pages to cover it all).

The only Chieftans in theatre, to the best of my knowledge, were those of the Imperial Iranian Army.....ordered and delivered during the days of the Shah in the 1970s.

Iraq was primarily supplied with weapons systems by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries......and France

The exception to this being Iraq's purchase of Bell utility helicopters for "civilian" use...easily reconfigured for military utility use....or fulfilling a basic gunship role.

Also, the Iran Contra hostages for arms affair resulted in the delivery of TOW and other missiles and spares into the theatre.

do bell make hueys?

A Ford automobile top carriage RPG, then also is the evidence.

[seruriermarshal]

Because this lie has been told enough "we sold weapons to saddam" it has become fact. I have only seen evidence of civilian helicopters sold to iraq , and then taken over by the military.

Many people, myself included would like to see hard facts, documentation or photographs of the iraqi army using american hardware.

why would anyone need to lie about it there chieftan tanks and arms that we sold to iraq in the 80s still around, why do we have to deny that?


thats what you guys sold him, and I know about that one.

I want to see proof of what the US sold him, other than civilan use helicopters.

proof? on the internet? how does that work?

Cut you have proof ? send it in here . I'm not hope hear lie .

rofl

I know you struggle with english so I'll say it slowly

Y-O-U C-A-N'T P-R-O-V-E A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G O-N T-H-E I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T
;)

to many crappy sources like Newsmax, for proper information. But Iraq had the full support of the US in the iran-iraq war so obviously they were sold equipment.

I mean look Iranian chinook

http://www.acig.org/pg1/image042a.jpg

is Iran a good country to sell military equipment to?

Great proof , Great weapon like this .

http://www.sei-ind.com/images/ch47.jpg

:lol:

where do you come from? you still havn't told anyone you're nationality, why are you so ashamed?

I hope hear your other lies .

:lol:

[Kilgor]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

[Flagg]

do bell make hueys?

Yup.....

Although now I think it's Bell/Boeing.....American company

[Secret Squirrel]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

like I said...

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990), check it out sometime.

You can find the transcript here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

[Flagg]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

Not to split hairs...but the difference between a helicopter being used for civilian or military utility use often differs only in the paint job on the helo and the uniforms of the occupants.

[seruriermarshal]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

like I said...

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990), check it out sometime.

You can find the transcript here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

Some people can write 10 this kind of articles in one day .

[seruriermarshal]

Perhaps U.S. sell some cow to Iraq , some people say :" Iraq soldiers eat U.S. milk , so U.S. support Saddam ......"

[Kilgor]

Our local tv stations used to use hueys :roll:

[Pandy]

When Saddam was in power, his primary brought from the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact countries. What he would do is, buy all weapons and ammo three times the worth. Another words, if one AK-47 was $100, then he would give the Soviet Union $300 for it. This is mainly so that, if Saddam tries to do anything, he would have someone high up in the UN help him out.

Iraqi Armor, Army, Navy and Police mainly used Russian Tech. The Iraqi Air-Force on the other hand brought lots and lots of Russian Aircraft, but also, out of luck and friendship to the French, brought a bit of Helicopters. France before hand sold Iraq an nuclear reactter (sorry with my spelling).

That's only thing France sold Iraq for Military use (non-nuclearly), helicopters. Iraqi main source of military equipment was from Russia and the Warsaw countries.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

yeah.. cause he used mirage fighter planes...

It was ok to sell weapons to Iran before the Islamic revolution because the leader was pro US
And the weapons and parts Iran recieved after the revolution was there not a little spat after this episode. :)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Its worth remembering that the NATO countries that sold Iraq weapons and machinery were doing so with the full co-operation of the US as there was some basic rules and agreements on who it was wise to arm and assist.

[Kilgor]

Its worth remembering that the NATO countries that sold Iraq weapons and machinery were doing so with the full co-operation of the US as there was some basic rules and agreements on who it was wise to arm and assist.

Yeah.. its just gotta be the US's fault somehow.... :roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

like I said...

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990), check it out sometime.

You can find the transcript here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

Some people can write 10 this kind of articles in one day .

if you check the documentary or transcript you'd realize that its not an article dumbass. rofl

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Yeah.. its just gotta be the US's fault somehow.... :roll:
Not so much the US's fault but they were accountable as the senior partner in NATO, the US more or less called the shots back then.
You seem to forget that the UK and the US played side by side when it came to arms exports.

[Flagg]

Its worth remembering that the NATO countries that sold Iraq weapons and machinery were doing so with the full co-operation of the US as there was some basic rules and agreements on who it was wise to arm and assist.


Not so much the US's fault but they were accountable as the senior partner in NATO, the US more or less called the shots back then.
You seem to forget that the UK and the US played side by side when it came to arms exports.



http://i.xanga.com/dissidentfrogman/saddamgraph.gif

Right........

So I guess if the US is responsible for it's own arms sales AND that of it's(at the time) NATO neighbors...them the US shares a mere 2% responsibility for the arming of Iraq.

Is it just a coincidence that the two biggest arms profiteers to Iraq (70% Russia & France) are among the biggest whingers againts debt relief?

I guess they want final payment for all of those weapons they sold to Iraq

[Kilgor]

yeah... i wonder what the USSR, China, France and those others would say to the US if they protested.... "please dont sell Arms to Iraq"

"get ****ed" id say, but in a more mild term.

[seruriermarshal]

check under US.

like i said.. civilian use

like I said...

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990), check it out sometime.

You can find the transcript here...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

Some people can write 10 this kind of articles in one day .

if you check the documentary or transcript you'd realize that its not an article dumbass. rofl

Like BBC lie ?
rofl

[stephane from Paris]

In the 70's USA sold tons of weapons to Iran (planes, hellos,tanks), and as Kilgor said it was OK since the Sha of Iran was proUS!!!!
He was too a great tyran and it was the reason why people prefered Ayatolah than him! When he went away, millions of iranians were in the sreets! So when you give lessons of morality thinks about that!

90% of the iraki's debt for France is due to CIVILS contracts (nuclear reactor, bridges, telecom, oil installations...).
Sadam's was a tyran but most of his sad works were did after the first GW and at this time, no contracts were signed! and he did that under Western eyes!

what US sold? for example the missile technology which was in the missile who killed thousands of Kurds! Or chemical and biological products and stuffs! Ok it wasn't tank or planes!
For example in Italy, germany and UK some big companies were accused to have sold same stuffs! Remember that a german (?) businessman was killed by mossad because he did and wanted to sell a long barrel for strike Israel !! Every Western countries made business with Irak because it was the only secular country in the place and the enemy of Ayatolah's Iran!
Just a thing: a the time when integrist islamists putted bombs in Paris, at the time when France fight against them (more than 20years now), US gave weapons to them in afganistan, and made business with Saudi,Koweit the countries who gave (and give) money to terrorists!

[GrantT]

for example the missile technology which was in the missile who killed thousands of Kurds! Or chemical and biological products and stuffs!

Saudi,Koweit the countries who gave (and give) money to terrorists!

You write those comments as if they are facts can you actually prove them or is it just plain old rhetoric?

[Flagg]

In the 70's USA sold tons of weapons to Iran (planes, hellos,tanks), and as Kilgor said it was OK since the Sha of Iran was proUS!!!!
He was too a great tyran and it was the reason why people prefered Ayatolah than him! When he went away, millions of iranians were in the sreets! So when you give lessons of morality thinks about that!

I, for one, am well aware of the pre-Ayatollah arming of Iran by the US and UK.

A lot of companies made a lot of money!

The Shah was an A-hole...the people spoke...and the Shah was unfortunately replaced with another tyrant of the theological kind.


90% of the iraki's debt for France is due to CIVILS contracts (nuclear reactor, bridges, telecom, oil installations...).

Funny that....French supplied nuclear reactor....and French supplied enriched uranium....useable and convertible into weapons-grade...thank god the Israelis kaboshed that one....both IN France and in Iraq.


Sadam's was a tyran but most of his sad works were did after the first GW and at this time, no contracts were signed! and he did that under Western eyes!

Incorrect.....most of the nasty bits Saddam is accused of was PRE GW I......with help from many nations and industrial concerns he built a massive WMD program......with France as arguably the biggest contributor with it's sale of a nuclear reactor and enriched uranium to Iraq.


what US sold? for example the missile technology which was in the missile who killed thousands of Kurds! Or chemical and biological products and stuffs!

What "missile technology"? There were/are no US made/designed/influenced missiles in Iraq's armoury/order of battle.

However, Iraq did have MANY missiles of French manufacture....including Exocet, Ottomat, Crotale, HOT, etc.

Germany had a pretty good lock on Iraq's need for "agricultural pesticide" production capacity.


Ok it wasn't tank or planes!

Unarmed helicopters only from the US or UK


For example in Italy, germany and UK some big companies were accused to have sold same stuffs! Remember that a german (?) businessman was killed by mossad because he did and wanted to sell a long barrel for strike Israel !!

I think you're referring to Bull...and he was a Canadian if I'm not mistaken....and he got whacked in France....as did the uninstalled reactor core destined for Iraq



Every Western countries made business with Irak because it was the only secular country in the place and the enemy of Ayatolah's Iran!

No.....weapons sales were made covertly to Iran under the Ayatollah.....I believe this was done for a number of reasons...one of which was for Iran and Iraq to bleed each other white leaving little energy, money, enthusiasm for targeting Israel.


Just a thing: a the time when integrist islamists putted bombs in Paris, at the time when France fight against them (more than 20years now), US gave weapons to them in afganistan, and made business with Saudi,Koweit the countries who gave (and give) money to terrorists!

In retrospect it would appear US policy regarding financial support for the Mujihadeen and the dollar for dollar matching by the Saudis didn't consider post Soviet Afghanistan and it's stability...at least they didn't do it for the dollar.......there was no money to be made, only spent.....unlike Iraq.

If it's NOT about the money...and it IS about helping Iraq and Iraqis.....why will France not forgive the debt?

Or was it about just the money?

[Olybrius]

for example the missile technology which was in the missile who killed thousands of Kurds! Or chemical and biological products and stuffs!

Saudi,Koweit the countries who gave (and give) money to terrorists!

You write those comments as if they are facts can you actually prove them or is it just plain old rhetoric?

:cantbeli:

U.S. HAD KEY ROLE IN IRAQ BUILDUP
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

[Flagg]

U.S. HAD KEY ROLE IN IRAQ BUILDUP

I think "key role in Iraq buildup" should be reserved for those that supplied the vast, vast majority of the weapons acquired by Iraq.....and that certainly does NOT include the US.

Name one major weapons system in the Iraqi orbat that was US designed/manufactured/supplied...there was none

[Olybrius]

U.S. HAD KEY ROLE IN IRAQ BUILDUP

I think "key role in Iraq buildup" should be reserved for those that supplied the vast, vast majority of the weapons acquired by Iraq.....and that certainly does NOT include the US.

Name one major weapons system in the Iraqi orbat that was US designed/manufactured/supplied...there was none

I agree, there is huge difference between selling conventional weaponry for the Iran/Iraq war ... and providing chemical arms used against populations... :roll:

[stephane from Paris]

It's a californian company who sold missile guidance technology in the mid 80's! Don't remember the name of the company but the boss of it said that he ask to CIA/NSA if he could say yes to Iraki's order, and he said that he had green light since Sadam's was an allied against Iran!

Yes France sold a civil nuclear reactor to Irak (iIT WAS IN MID 70's when Sadam's wasn't the first leader of Irak so!!!!!)..... and France helped Israel in early 70's to have civilians nuclear capacities but as every body knows military too!
It's a fact , but strangely israelis forget that!
For preGW1 or postGW1, i wasn't wrong as i didn't speak about military but about human rights!!!! It's after GW1 and the abandoning of shiit and kurds rebels that Sadam's did most of his greatest crimes!
btw where were the exocet??????? They were on the SuperEtendart navy plane that we send a few months in the early 80 against Iran!!!!!!!
You speaks about facts? where are the facts about weapons we gave specialy after GW1???????????? NOTHING!!!! Rumsfeld gang should be so happy to find some but NOTHING , like the missile affairs which drop to the water!!

Saudi??????? Hey man do you knows that 90% of extremists Imans here in France are pay by this country? 35 of them had to go home last 6 months because they called muslims to hate West!!!
Where come from the money of terrorists? The saudi's family buy her peace by help terrorists and integrists all over the world, when US companies make oil business with them! THAT'S A FACT.
You still thinks that Bush did this war because he wanted to free iraki's????????? Funny, the subject was too much spoken, so i'll don't add something but it's funny!
Why should we leave all the debt of a rich country (50% is enormous effort) when US don't leave the debt of dozens of poor countries where people don't have enought to eat?????
We are in economic crisis, irak should become a new Saudi when oil can be sold easier, we could delay the debt but certainly not delete it!!!!

[pinkeye]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

Summary: The U.S. provided financial aid, military intelligence, and actual military planning to Iraq at a time when the Reagan administration was well aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. One anonymous inside source told the New York Times that the Pentagon “wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.”
The facts surrounding U.S. covert support for Iraq and its awareness that Iraq had been using chemical warfare against the Iranians, and perhaps the Kurds, offers serious implications to the current Bush administration's argument for 'regime change' in Iraq. One of the main premises of the administration's argument is that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he is 'evil' - referring of course to the allegation that Saddam Hussein 'gassed his own people.'

however, as some have pointed out, many countries supported saddam during the 1980s, directly and/or indirectly. the list of the guilty is quite long, so there is no real point in pointing the finger at any one country. let's just hope our elected leaders refrain from making such egregious errors in the future.

[J-10]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html


1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm)

:roll:

[SOG]

It's a californian company who sold missile guidance technology in the mid 80's! Don't remember the name of the company but the boss of it said that he ask to CIA/NSA if he could say yes to Iraki's order, and he said that he had green light since Sadam's was an allied against Iran!

so we helped a lesser evil fight a greater evil! oh my god, how evil! :roll: wait wait, lemme get this straight. we used a asshole, and convinced him to fight our enemy (and his) for us? wait wait, we gave this guy weapons, to KILL our enemy? wait wait, instead of sending troops over there ourselves and engaging in a costly financial war and loss of US troops, we actually helped a lesser enemy take out and subdue our greatest threat at the time? oh wow, what a blunder!


Yes France sold a civil nuclear reactor to Irak (iIT WAS IN MID 70's when Sadam's wasn't the first leader of Irak so!!!!!)..... and France helped Israel in early 70's to have civilians nuclear capacities but as every body knows military too!

so you state france basically sells nuclear technology to anyone! wow! you actually were willing to sell nuclear technology to opposing enemies! luckily for us france declined to rebuild iraqs nuclear reactor after it was bombed by the israilis for making nuclear arms technology. oh wait, i forgot to use a ! instead of a period. mah bad! its just that you seem so excited using ! im feeling the energy now also!


It's a fact , but strangely israelis forget that!

they forget that france was on the cheap list of many allies to help them with nuclear technologies? or the fact that france sold the technology to thier short list of enemies 1st! wow, such brave and unforgetfull actions, selling technology to your allies! how can they forget the lowest bidder!? gee, how did you ever make it up to them!?


For preGW1 or postGW1, i wasn't wrong as i didn't speak about military but about human rights!!!! It's after GW1 and the abandoning of shiit and kurds rebels that Sadam's did most of his greatest crimes!

but the hundreds of thousands he gassed and killed before..... those dont count? yeah im sure post gw1 he had lots of oppurtunity to kill kurds and shiites with our no fly zone, cruise missles, and rotating forces. i cant believe you care wether he was a greater monster before or after we pushed his **** in! i didnt know one type of murder was greater than another type! please, let me in on this greatest crimes scale!


btw where were the exocet??????? They were on the SuperEtendart navy plane that we send a few months in the early 80 against Iran!!!!!!!

well he has a point there, france began selling iraq weapons when saddam was only vice president, then when he was supreme ruler, and was killing his own people and the enemy, france sold him even more weapons and nuclear technology! but hey, he was right, france was selling weapons to IRAQ alongside the US when iraq was at war with iran.


You speaks about facts? where are the facts about weapons we gave specialy after GW1???????????? NOTHING!!!! Rumsfeld gang should be so happy to find some but NOTHING , like the missile affairs which drop to the water!!


More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations. - Stephen Grey and Jon Ungoed-Thomas, “France’s $150m Deals linked to Iraq Arms”, Sunday Times-London, February 23, 2003.



France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.
* In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.
* France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil. In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
* France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.
* In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.
* More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations. Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
* Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.
* From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

resources - Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.
Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.
Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.
Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2002.
David Gauthier-Villars and John Carreyrou, “France Hopes to Use Old Ties to Land Role in Rebuilding Iraq”, The Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2003.
Stephen Grey and Jon Ungoed-Thomas, “France’s $150m Deals linked to Iraq Arms”, Sunday Times-London, February 23, 2003.
Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China are colored by economic and national interests”, Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.
Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/

what did france have to lose! france is the ****in sweet virgin mary!


Saudi??????? Hey man do you knows that 90% of extremists Imans here in France are pay by this country? 35 of them had to go home last 6 months because they called muslims to hate West!!!

wow, after 30 years of migration your finally taking a stance against the mass of angry hate filled muslims in your country! congrats! any exact figures? hell no!


Where come from the money of terrorists? The saudi's family buy her peace by help terrorists and integrists all over the world, when US companies make oil business with them! THAT'S A FACT.

right, because our nations business and economics depend on oil, and of COURSE, because the US is the only nation that uses oil so we must be the sole sponsor of saudi terrorism in the world! i like how osama's family disowned him because of his views to the west and drove him over the edge to hate us even more! what was thier business again? oil! OMG!


You still thinks that Bush did this war because he wanted to free iraki's????????? Funny, the subject was too much spoken, so i'll don't add something but it's funny!

yeah its extremely funny your basing what americas opinion of the war is based off the news reporting what george bush believes. and because our president said it, we cant think, believe,say anything else!? like my personal opinion of what the war was about "oil" in a well ignored but good thread started by history2004.

oh, well in that case,
In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was "truly fascinated" by Hussein. you know, the guy he had the above economic deals with. does that mean ALL you french are fascinated by this already crowned mass murder? just curious? because your president was appearantly "taken" by him as was your foreign minister!


Why should we leave all the debt of a rich country (50% is enormous effort) when US don't leave the debt of dozens of poor countries where people don't have enought to eat?????

well he does have a point there, we should give up our debt that we arent collecting on, from poor countries because the one france invested in went boom.


We are in economic crisis, irak should become a new Saudi when oil can be sold easier, we could delay the debt but certainly not delete it!!!!

so gw is overzealous on his stance of debt, hey, i think i agree with you, and i think france is very generous in forgiving half the debt. lets kiss and make up. cant wait till you troll the boards again!

[stephane from Paris]

haaaaaaaaa Ok OK i understand, when Sadam's fight against Iran you were happy that he fight for you!!! Did i read correctly? So you says that at this time you don't care that he was a tyran because you used him!!!
Exactly what i means, and now you give lesson to every body! :roll:

You accuse us but you justify for you: excellent!!! You can't use human right and morality only when it's your interrest! It's always or never!

France received and formed israelis father of nuclear program and give some assistance, the rest israelis were enough good to do it!!
Irak was in the 70's THE ONLY peaceful, secular country of the mid east!
Who should know that several years after it was a tyrany?
Like who should know that one day in USA a government put a "patriot act" which send people in prison without rights!

"but the hundreds of thousands he gassed and killed before..... those dont count?"
->You should read that you said in first part of your text!
And the war against kurd was a sad war like he did against Iran under western eyes! After GW1 he killed far more opposants than before!

Thanks for what you quote, you gave a proof that the debt is on civil contracts! thanks! I was right!

For the rest you just prove that only the interrest of USA is important, certainly not free irak, arabs people, europeans country which have problem with muslim minorities due to your foreign politic!
You're not the only country who is in oil business, but USA have nearly the control of Saudi and did nothing !
Why ? because since so long time this situation was not too dangerous, but now the frankestein monster is angry against his creator!

Where did i said this war was just for oil????
it was for oil sure (with the rise of China who will need more and more oil)
it was a war to protect israel
it was a war to help defence industries
it was a war to make pressure on Saudi's (which after sept 11 didn't like how US pointed them)
it was a war to give a "good military chief" style to Bush

And why France didn't want it?
because we have 8% of muslims which see this war as an agression and see B laden as a new Robin hood!
because we knows arabs way of thinking
because the reasons of the war wasn't right (links between AQ and Sadam, WMD....)
because we a secular tyrany than a new ayatolah Iran en Irak
because this war give more power to terrorists way of thinking!

You speak about business but for us a free irak should be a far better business market so this isn't a good reasons for France opposition!

Your problem is that your way of thinking put hate all over the muslim world , travel a little you'll see what i means!
But Bush did all good, every body is happy, the situation is very good and Irakis integrists still waits for a democratic game !

[Trident-za]

OK, this thread appears to have a bit offtrack... so to return to the issue of reducing the Iraqi debt, I would like to ask a question. The following quote:


Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation

... is absolutely true - and if it replace the word "iraqi" with the name of any other country that is currently in debt, its EQUALLY true. So, this cannot be a logical reason to reduce the debt, otherwise the G8 would have to write off everyone's debt, for the same reason.

So, my question is: why should Iraq get debt relief, while all other countries get told to "pay up". Whats so special about Iraq? And, considering that Iraq has more potential resources than a large percentage of the other countries in debt, I would have thought they woul be one of the last to qualify for debt relief.

Comments?

[Haiw]

OK, this thread appears to have a bit offtrack... so to return to the issue of reducing the Iraqi debt, I would like to ask a question. The following quote:


Debt reduction is critical if the Iraqi people are to have the opportunity to build a free and prosperous nation

... is absolutely true - and if it replace the word "iraqi" with the name of any other country that is currently in debt, its EQUALLY true. So, this cannot be a logical reason to reduce the debt, otherwise the G8 would have to write off everyone's debt, for the same reason.

So, my question is: why should Iraq get debt relief, while all other countries get told to "pay up". Whats so special about Iraq? And, considering that Iraq has more potential resources than a large percentage of the other countries in debt, I would have thought they woul be one of the last to qualify for debt relief.

Comments?
Simple politics; if Iraqs ends up a total ****hole the coalition gets the blame, so they gotta make sure the country gets going at least fairly well. No one really looks or cares about the other countries, so unlike with Iraq, hardly anyone will complain if they're just being left at the side of the road.

[seruriermarshal]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html


1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm)

:roll:

Really ? Just some articles , It's not proof .

[Secret Squirrel]

So, my question is: why should Iraq get debt relief, while all other countries get told to "pay up". Whats so special about Iraq? And, considering that Iraq has more potential resources than a large percentage of the other countries in debt, I would have thought they woul be one of the last to qualify for debt relief.

Comments?

Because Iraq has become Bush's bastard child. His original claims for going to war have yet to be proven, so he shifted the argument to liberating Iraq. Now he has to make sure Iraq does as well as it can to support his current "liberation reason" for starting a war.

[J-10]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html


1984. The CIA secretly provided Iraqi intelligence with instructions on how to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [Washington Post 12/15/1986]
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm)

:roll:

Really ? Just some articles , It's not proof .

Yeah, all from "the sources", not proof.

[J-10]

Chirac Unwilling to Forgive More Than 50 Percent of Iraq's Debt
June 10 (Bloomberg) -- French President Jacques Chirac said he's unwilling to forgive more than half of Iraq's debt and sees ``great risks'' in U.S. President George W. Bush's call to increase NATO's presence in the Middle East country.

Chirac said he opposes writing off more debt because Iraq is ``potentially a rich country'' with the world's second-largest oil reserves.

``How would we explain to poor heavily indebted countries or to some highly indebted countries such as Nigeria that we would do in three months more than what we have done in 10 years for the 37 countries that are the poorest and the most indebted in the world?'' Chirac said at a press conference at the end of an industrialized nations' summit in Savannah, Georgia.

U.S. President George W. Bush's personal appeals failed to win agreement from Group of Eight leaders to reduce Iraq's $120 billion of debt and to send more troops to stabilize the country. The stalemate leaves NATO to consider any request on Iraq and the Paris Club of creditor nations, whose members include both the U.S. and France, to find a compromise on debt.

``We had a complete divergence of viewpoints'' with the U.S. over last year's invasion, Chirac said. ``I regret this war, which was neither necessary nor useful.''

Bush told a separate news conference that he doesn't expect the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which France is also a member, to send more troops to Iraq. Chirac said it's too early to consider a Bush proposal to use NATO troops to train Iraqi security forces.

France and Germany have refused to send troops to help the 150,000 that the U.S., U.K. and Italy have in Iraq.

Christian-Muslim `Clash'

``Any interference of NATO in that region bears great risks, notably of a clash between the Christian Western world and the Muslim world,'' Chirac said. He said he has ``deep reservations'' about expanding NATO's role in Iraq and the situation there is ``very worrying.''

Fifteen of 26 NATO nations have some type of support activity in Iraq, a U.S. official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

France supported a UN resolution Tuesday endorsing Iraq's new interim government. ``The only way to restore some stability is for Iraqis to be convinced that they're given back the totality of their sovereignty,'' Chirac said.

Chirac also said France isn't alone in seeking to limit debt relief for Iraq.

``France, and it's not the only country, is ready for a substantial cancellation, that is to say around 50 percent,'' he said. ``We don't want to go beyond that point.''

Oil Prices

Chirac said oil prices, which have risen by about a fifth since the beginning of the year, are a concern for global growth, even as the world isn't facing a new ``oil shock.'' He also said ``sizable'' U.S. trade and budget deficits may hurt growth.

Chirac urged G-8 countries and other economies to increase aid to developing countries. A G-8 goal to cut global poverty in half between 2000 and 2015 by at least doubling development aid to $100 billion a year won't be achieved, he said.

An international fund to fight AIDS may not have all the funding that the ``international community'' has pledged in 2005 and 2006, Chirac said.

Chirac said he failed to persuade Bush that the world is ``really threatened'' by global warming. Bush's refusal in 2001 to endorse the Kyoto accord mandating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is a sticking point with European Union members, which support the plan.

Bush said today that France and the U.S. had excellent relations, and joked about the French president's fondness for American hamburgers.

Franco-U.S. relations are ``cordial,'' Chirac said. ``We can be friends without being subordinate.''

From (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=agvYXK8DRTYg&refer=home)

[SOG]

You accuse us but you justify for you: excellent!!! You can't use human right and morality only when it's your interrest! It's always or never!

i NEVER said we were justified! i simply told you why we did it because you seemed to be skirting the major issue of who iran was to the US at the time. on the other hand, im still not sure why france gave two enemies nuclear weapons capability to the point where one had to attack the other in defense.


France received and formed israelis father of nuclear program and give some assistance, the rest israelis were enough good to do it!!

ok. uhmmm...... yeah.


Irak was in the 70's THE ONLY peaceful, secular country of the mid east! Who should know that several years after it was a tyrany?

how did saddam ccome to power? killing political opponenets and silencing his political opposition and anyone who spoke out against him. oh, and the 70's were real peacefull with him taking care of his "own" population and of course the startinng of minor action against kirds, shiites and the northern tribes. but of course, who would know he was going to be a tyrant? better yet, who would sell him weapons all through PEACEFULL the 70's and 80's?:roll:

Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.


Like who should know that one day in USA a government put a "patriot act" which send people in prison without rights!

oh my, now your trying to say we will be rounded up unjustly and.....? why bring this up? are we changing topic?


"but the hundreds of thousands he gassed and killed before..... those dont count?"
->You should read that you said in first part of your text!
And the war against kurd was a sad war like he did against Iran under western eyes! After GW1 he killed far more opposants than before!
Thanks for what you quote, you gave a proof that the debt is on civil contracts! thanks! I was right!

you are right, because of countries like you and politicians in our country the UN resolution was to "contain" him instead of going in and getting him. geee, wonder why france didnt want us in iraq? so you helped barricade saddam in with your weaponry you sold him for 30 years and let him ravage his own people. congrats, thats something to be proud of.


For the rest you just prove that only the interrest of USA is important, certainly not free irak, arabs people, europeans country which have problem with muslim minorities due to your foreign politic!
You're not the only country who is in oil business, but USA have nearly the control of Saudi and did nothing !
Why ? because since so long time this situation was not too dangerous, but now the frankestein monster is angry against his creator!

we control the saudis? yah, from the prices at the gas pump, i can really tell whos in charge :roll: we are so in charge the saudis jerk the entire nation around the pump everytime they disagree with us.


Where did i said this war was just for oil????
it was for oil sure (with the rise of China who will need more and more oil)
it was a war to protect israel
it was a war to help defence industries
it was a war to make pressure on Saudi's (which after sept 11 didn't like how US pointed them)
it was a war to give a "good military chief" style to Bush

hey, i think its for oil too! wow. a war to protect israel? uhmmm, saddam was fully contained within his boundries by the UN and your trying to pawn israel into this? NO. dont think so. id actually like to see saddam feel his "oats" and attack israel so i can watch israel pound his ass. war to help

defence industries..... yeah, id say 50/50. it was a bonus, but they werent exactly hurting. in fact many top tiere projects (commanche. paladin?, critical of raptor) were axed or re-evaluated so actually it ended up minorly hurting them in bigger contracts.

war to make pressure on saudis? no doubt! they try and control the nation and its politicians through the power and oil industry. we know what some of them or thier country men support against us but hardly all of them are anti US terrorist funding jihadist. maybe after there oil dries up and the money does also theyll go a bit bananas but something tells me they will have a hand in what americans have to use for power next. so no, i dont see the point in biting the hand that feeds you nor do i see major evidence. i see a circle of countries non linked to saudis that seem to be the major sponsor and training points of terrorism. lybia syria egypt iran etc.


And why France didn't want it?
because we have 8% of muslims which see this war as an agression and see B laden as a new Robin hood!
because we knows arabs way of thinking
because the reasons of the war wasn't right (links between AQ and Sadam, WMD....)
because we a secular tyrany than a new ayatolah Iran en Irak
because this war give more power to terrorists way of thinking!

hmm, why did france not want the war, such noble causes you list sir, again you forget:
1. $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.
2. $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.
3. France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.
4. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.
5. France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq.
6. $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.
7. In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.
8. From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

now, lets ask again, why did france not want the war?

oh and i think its 10% muslim
http://www.iifhr.com/Country%20Profiles/France.htm
fun situation you have over there! but hey, lets rag on the patriot act some more.
links to aq and saddam have been brought up and pointed many times on this board as little as a few weeks ago. dont you check your inbox? oh and of course, its just aq terrorist were after. since you seem so fond of "bush"=americas opinion didnt you catch his catch phrase, "war on terror" in which saddam had terrorist training camps and jihad" vests that the regular army didnt use?


You speak about business but for us a free irak should be a far better business market so this isn't a good reasons for France opposition!

the US disrupted iraqs 40 years of dealings with france in both gulf wars, albeit the 1st, momentarily, you lost half your accrued debt owed france, you lost oil contracts that were with saddam not the new nation of iraq, you dont get any contracts to rebuild iraq, and you no longer sell it millions in arms every year. yeah, i bet france loves a free iraq. so much that all those sales are gone now. man your like bush with bull****!


Your problem is that your way of thinking put hate all over the muslim world , travel a little you'll see what i means!

the US's way of doing nothing inccured the 911 incident, by not taking out saddam when we should have because of political pressure and un poltical pressure, and by supporting israel which pissess off muslims to no end. evil, huh?


But Bush did all good, every body is happy, the situation is very good and Irakis integrists still waits for a democratic game ! nobody said bush did all good, he did not. nobody said the situation is good although getting better. i see you are clearly enthused about a democratic iraq!

[stephane from Paris]

i NEVER said we were justified! i simply told you why we did it because you seemed to be skirting the major issue of who iran was to the US at the time. on the other hand, im still not sure why france gave two enemies nuclear weapons capability to the point where one had to attack the other in defense.

I'm not sure that help dangerous country like Pakistan is a good idea! Musharaf is a dictator (ok not a tyran) and most of pakistani's supports integrists point of view! If one day general's are remove and that streets control the country we'll have big problem! West help a country who should become one day a great ennemy! Far more lethal than Iraq.




how did saddam ccome to power? killing political opponenets and silencing his political opposition and anyone who spoke out against him. oh, and the 70's were real peacefull with him taking care of his "own" population and of course the startinng of minor action against kirds, shiites and the northern tribes. but of course, who would know he was going to be a tyrant? better yet, who would sell him weapons all through PEACEFULL the 70's and 80's?:roll:

Who supported tyrans and murderer of their own people in Argentina, Chilea , Turkey (against kurds,islamists and lefties).....???????

Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.

From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

West did business with tons of Tyrans specialy in the 70's and 80's, our and your way of life and economic situation is due to that business!



you are right, because of countries like you and politicians in our country the UN resolution was to "contain" him instead of going in and getting him. geee, wonder why france didnt want us in iraq? so you helped barricade saddam in with your weaponry you sold him for 30 years and let him ravage his own people. congrats, thats something to be proud of.

Did he used our weaponry as you said against US????? It's all old stuff, and nearly nothing was used! Congrats you live in a country who supported and installed tons of dictators, proud of that?
The important thing is still why did Bush wanted this war, how he sold it to public, and what this war should has for result!
I don't speak about morality because our countries did and do plenty of sad things, i speak about WAS THIS WAR NECESSARY and JUSTIFY!!!!
Powell admit that with what he knows now USA certainly not did it!!!!!
Chirac said this war will gave more problem, and the current situation gave him right!





we control the saudis? yah, from the prices at the gas pump, i can really tell whos in charge :roll: we are so in charge the saudis jerk the entire nation around the pump everytime they disagree with us.

Yes you control Saudis, if not never Christians troops should be on this place! 90% of Saudis don't like that situation!



hey, i think its for oil too! wow. a war to protect israel? uhmmm, saddam was fully contained within his boundries by the UN and your trying to pawn israel into this? NO. dont think so. id actually like to see saddam feel his "oats" and attack israel so i can watch israel pound his ass. war to help

Irak forces were totaly inoperant after GW1, soldiers said that their old tank couldn't move! Bush presented Irak as a big menace for World but it was just a menace for his own people!!!! The problem is that muslims word views like that!



war to make pressure on saudis? no doubt! they try and control the nation and its politicians through the power and oil industry. we know what some of them or thier country men support against us but hardly all of them are anti US terrorist funding jihadist. maybe after there oil dries up and the money does also theyll go a bit bananas but something tells me they will have a hand in what americans have to use for power next. so no, i dont see the point in biting the hand that feeds you nor do i see major evidence. i see a circle of countries non linked to saudis that seem to be the major sponsor and training points of terrorism. lybia syria egypt iran etc.

Lybia, Syria and iran were terrorists supports in the 70/80's !!! Now they just have sympathy for freedom fighter as they view them!
Saudi's greatest families still help muslims integrists in the world!
btw when i see how west suck the ass of Khadafi (he was a direct terrorist and he's still a dictator) to have some business: shame!!!!!!!!!!!



hmm, why did france not want the war, such noble causes you list sir, again you forget:
1. $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.
2. $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.
3. France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.
4. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.
5. France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq.
6. $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.
7. In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.
8. From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.

now, lets ask again, why did france not want the war?

For business the easy way was to say: OK Bush make your war!
We should be on the good side and it was evident that we could do more business in the future!

oh and i think its 10% muslim

No it's 8% as we are 62/63 millions and muslims ,according to all specialists, are less than 5 millions!

links to aq and saddam have been brought up and pointed many times on this board as little as a few weeks ago. dont you check your inbox? oh and of course, its just aq terrorist were after. since you seem so fond of "bush"=americas opinion didnt you catch his catch phrase, "war on terror" in which saddam had terrorist training camps and jihad" vests that the regular army didnt use?

Powell and Madeleine Allbright said they never find link between AQ (and islamists terrorists) and Irak! maybee here you'll have better information wow!!!!
The only terrorist camp was in the kurd zone (after GW1), Sadam's killed far more islamists terrorists than US!!!! Integrists (like Sadr) hate him!
You'll say that he supported palestinians, i reply: YES like 98% of muslims in the World!!!!! Are 98% of muslims have a link with AQ????????




the US disrupted iraqs 40 years of dealings with france in both gulf wars, albeit the 1st, momentarily, you lost half your accrued debt owed france, you lost oil contracts that were with saddam not the new nation of iraq, you dont get any contracts to rebuild iraq, and you no longer sell it millions in arms every year. yeah, i bet france loves a free iraq. so much that all those sales are gone now. man your like bush with bull****!

It wasn't french oil companies who sold iraki's oil (for food) after GW1, but US!!!!! Total had just a contract to find oil, and a pass to future if embargo ended!!!!!!
We haven't any contracts to rebuid Irak??? hahahaaha excellent Alcatel is on the place, Total too..... How it's possible???? US gave contracts to foreign firms who gave contracts to french who do the job :lol:
The sale aren't away as you thinks, but if you thinks you all knows i'm OK!


the US's way of doing nothing inccured the 911 incident, by not taking out saddam when we should have because of political pressure and un poltical pressure, and by supporting israel which pissess off muslims to no end. evil, huh?

The problem is that you still don't understand why 911, and now due to Bush options we'll have 20 dangerous years! But like always if it's not in your country you don't care!
A+
stephane
ps: too much time on the net!

[SOG]

I'm not sure that help dangerous country like Pakistan is a good idea! Musharaf is a dictator (ok not a tyran) and most of pakistani's supports integrists point of view! If one day general's are remove and that streets control the country we'll have big problem! West help a country who should become one day a great ennemy! Far more lethal than Iraq.

should we invade pakistan then in search of OBL or should we try and cooperate with them? which would you do? exactly, so why bring it up!? yeah, it would look really good to india if we didnt work with pakistan to kill terrorists but instead invaded it in the search for OBL and of course the radical muslims will love that? but yes, in your eyes all actions are damned.


Who supported tyrans and murderer of their own people in Argentina, Chilea , Turkey (against kurds,islamists and lefties).....???????

great OFF TOPIC POINT! the point was france selling iraq billions in weapons and helping with nuclear technology and you stated it was fine "because it was a peacefull period!? while he was building nuclear weapons to attack israel? yeah, i can see how france would see a multi billion arms build up as a "peacefull period" and not have it followed by a attack or invasion. but nice try changing the topic and pointing at, "hey, you did it too!" again you claiming france didnt know, it was peacefull, playing the dumb innocent country.


West did business with tons of Tyrans specialy in the 70's and 80's, our and your way of life and economic situation is due to that business!

ah, so you were proven wrong, and that france did sell a bad man weapons so of course the only thing you can say is "you did too". right, i know that, but you werent admitting your side. great, ill take what i can.

but nothing france did ONCE AGAIN has affected the world!? come on, what were you doing in vietnam again with your colonies? the fact is any 1st world nation will sell nearly anything non catestrophic to anyone to stabilize our economies and make a buck. we all have, i just love your "were innocent act" in regards to gw2.


Did he used our weaponry as you said against US?????

should i only care if he killed US or allied citizens? thats shallow! "it didnt hurt you, why do you care?" great take.


It's all old stuff, and nearly nothing was used!

thats odd, we blew up a bunch of "old stuff" in the gulf war. nearly nothing was used? oh, ok, that means alot of it would be around then huh? i like the way the media gave the russians this "bad image" as the sole sellers of weapons and vehicles we were blowing up on cnn during gw1. always the cold hearted ruskies that get shafted!

and nearly nothing was used? your right, it doesnt take alot of force to kill your own people. i can see where armored vehicles is a little excessive. that is quite the justification.


Congrats you live in a country who supported and installed tons of dictators, proud of that?

nope never said i was. are you? or again, as you have taken the stance multiple times, "we didnt do anything wrong"


The important thing is still why did Bush wanted this war, how he sold it to public, and what this war should has for result!

that is true. he sold it to the public on a bunch of misinformation and half lies and your countries used his greivous error to exploit YOUR own people into thinking that was the sole reason the US shouldnt go into iraq without detailing and expertly hiding the billions lost as a result.


I don't speak about morality because our countries did and do plenty of sad things, i speak about WAS THIS WAR NECESSARY and JUSTIFY!!!!

but you see from a french standpoint it has a totally different meaning. having the US open up iraq, tear out saddam, leverage what is going to be some of the last oil reserves on earth for the american economy, create competition to opec in the future, and put iraq on the map as a non ****hole. the problem with everything america was doing for its economy and itself was that it was directly against the financial interests of france.

why did saddam attack kuwait? he needed money, they were sufficating him in the oil business, so he attacked them, stole money, and hoped he had leveraged the playing field against opec so he could sell iraqi oil more openly. we have done the same thing by removing him, not his oil rich neighbors.


Powell admit that with what he knows now USA certainly not did it!!!!!

uhmm okay, ill take your word for it.


Chirac said this war will gave more problem, and the current situation gave him right!

short term true. he is such a immediate visionary......


Yes you control Saudis, if not never Christians troops should be on this place! 90% of Saudis don't like that situation!

lol, but saddam was so tolerant of other religions in his reign as stated in another "topic". yeah the saudi's hate the "christians" who put them on the map, guzzle thier fule, and destroy thier own atmosphere. im sure they really hated us when we went into kuwait and bailed portions of opec's ass out of the fire and put a end to horrendous atrocities being commited to thier brothers. actually, the saudis are quite tolerant of us.


Irak forces were totaly inoperant after GW1, soldiers said that their old tank couldn't move! Bush presented Irak as a big menace for World but it was just a menace for his own people!!!! The problem is that muslims word views like that!

right, iraqs forces were so TOTALLY inoperable all that gunfire in gw2 on cnn was just a light show welcoming us in. and the heavy fire that shot down our planes was from....where? yeah..... good god man.

so again bush "bull****ted the world" trying to make them sorry for US. i totally agree, he just wanted world support for a US matter and candy coated his argument as to make iraq a bigger threat rather than a threat to just the US. it was a mistake on his part. it was a menace for US. nice to see you acknowledge that.


Lybia, Syria and iran were terrorists supports in the 70/80's !!! Now they just have sympathy for freedom fighter as they view them!
Saudi's greatest families still help muslims integrists in the world!
btw when i see how west suck the ass of Khadafi (he was a direct terrorist and he's still a dictator) to have some business: shame!!!!!!!!!!!

oh, great comeback to your lying about israel. didnt see that coming. saudis greatest families support terrorism? wow, you know, im going to have to ask for proof where the GREATEST families support..... integrists? people of integrity? oh cool ok. yeah, the saudis support people with integrity. you mean terrorists? again, proof of the greatest families supporting? right.... ill be seeing that sometime soon.....

sorry i cant comment on khadafi as i am not deeply familiar with him. yes, uwsing bad people to have some business, shame! like we all dont approve of chinas ethical treatment and how it treats the properties around it as they are thier own, but im sure no one gets anything made thier.....


For business the easy way was to say: OK Bush make your war!
We should be on the good side and it was evident that we could do more business in the future!

LOL again, 1st your saying france condemned the war for NO economic reasons whatsoever and now your telling me, halving iraqs debt owed, losing billions in weapons sales and trade a year, and yet magically you will recoup this money after the war with "great magical trade sales". i am dying to see these dozens of multi million and billion dollar deals it would take for france to come out better post gw2. again lying with no proof. i showed you what france was making, you say france will be better off after, where? i dont see it?!


No it's 8% as we are 62/63 millions and muslims ,according to all specialists, are less than 5 millions!

well since you live there and have to deal with it ill give you the benefit of the doubt. still no figures on this proposed ejection of radical muslims from france? or was that just a fushwa in showing you care about radical terrorist supporters in your ****ry?


Powell and Madeleine Allbright said they never find link between AQ (and islamists terrorists) and Irak! maybee here you'll have better information wow!!!!

at what time? just curious?
no link? al queda iraq connection.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16099&highlight=iraq+link

oops, howd that get there. damn, must have slipped.


The only terrorist camp was in the kurd zone (after GW1), Sadam's killed far more islamists terrorists than US!!!! Integrists (like Sadr) hate him!
You'll say that he supported palestinians, i reply: YES like 98% of muslims in the World!!!!! Are 98% of muslims have a link with AQ????????

oh, i see, now were changing it to post gw1 iraqi terrorist support. because the pre gw1 doesnt matter.....

i never said he supported pals, i said he supported terrorists. not all pals are terrorists. errr....

again, link above, enjoy the read. good luck on comprendo.


It wasn't french oil companies who sold iraki's oil (for food) after GW1, but US!!!!!

oh really, then why does the UN report differently? lying again. post gw 1 right?

4. French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

who said it was french oil comapanies? it was france itself.


Total had just a contract to find oil, and a pass to future if embargo ended!!!!!!

correct. i stated the same thing.

5. France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq.

whyd you bring this up? a.d.d.?


We haven't any contracts to rebuid Irak??? hahahaaha excellent Alcatel is on the place, Total too..... How it's possible???? US gave contracts to foreign firms who gave contracts to french who do the job :lol:
The sale aren't away as you thinks, but if you thinks you all knows i'm OK!

well you are correct. after gw2 the US was going to cut france out of the picture. when relatitons further soured bush sought to bring in opposing countries to level the relations.

but again, your saying these contracts will add up to pre war involvment sales and france would have been off economically better to support your non arguement that france had NO financial reasons for not wanting the war, yet i dont see this magical money coming in?

you have no stats, no contracts, no figures, deploying in the multi billions. im still waiting, and your still ****ting me! all because you believe, you cant be guilty of the same thing!


The problem is that you still don't understand why 911, and now due to Bush options we'll have 20 dangerous years!

wow, your actually telling me i dont understand why 911 occured, the reasons behind it, and where they came from? horrible assumption on your part.


But like always if it's not in your country you don't care!

and you do? another presumption directed at the current administration, leveled at the whole US? riiiight......


ps: too much time on the net!

well usually you just troll and go. figured this time wed have a chat.

[stephane from Paris]

The difference is that it's USA government and press who last year presents themself has the whiteknight and France as the blackknight!
Since my firts post ,several months ago, i sys the same things!
Business is business, nearly all western countries used dictators, put in place tyrans! I NEVER said that France is innocent, but you (republicans) thinks that all you do is good, all that safe military or economic interrest is OK! You don't care of other people so when i read:" ****ing frogs we free irakis only because it's a just cause" i smiles!

The problem is that your press put tons of lies like we gave weapons before GW2... And your Rumsfeld who says sad comments (with smile) like "perhaps we'll find" "maybe they are not innocent".... no need to have proof, if you says something it will rest a part in mind of people.

<<oh, great comeback to your lying about israel. didnt see that coming. saudis greatest families support>>

Where did i spoke about israel here????? I spoke about lybia, syria....

<<well since you live there and have to deal with it ill give you the benefit of the doubt. still no figures on this proposed ejection of radical muslims from france? or was that just a fushwa in showing you care about radical terrorist supporters in your ****ry? >>

What do you means? a few dozens of imams were ejected!
Hundreds of terrorists activists gone in our prisons since 20 years! It was a hard subject with UK since our service views London's as a heaven for terrorists (it's changing)! We don't need lessons on the war against terrorist since we begun it far before you!

Powell and Allbright made interview for TV's several weeks ago! I didn't read that on the net but i heard and saw it by myself!!!!

If you still thinks that Chirac was against this just for business, you're wrong, last years business leaders aren't agree with him as they expected far more business with a Irak without Sadam's and embargo!

Btw i notice that you understand far more and correctly the situations than most of americans i reads before! You're realist and don't thinks you always do all good, what a news here!

[SOG]

The difference is that it's USA government and press who last year presents themself has the whiteknight and France as the blackknight!

yes and no. the media presented what france simply said and what some american politicians said. aka they got peoples opinions. some of the politicians attacked france. some did not. some people attacked france. some did not. again this ""painting"" of the US government and media as a WHOLE unfriendly entity is purely false. there was a overwhelming amount of coverage of both views on the war.

just because one or two media outlets takes a opposing stance, some take a neutral stance and some take another stance, doesnt mean the whole of the US hates frogs. if i see someone purposefully luring a "single" opinion in front of me, saying its the opinion or this is what 300 million people in america think, then RUN! there is no single opinion. there might be a few major ones, but if your media is telling you THIS is what america thinks, that is horribly wrong, especially concerning the war in which their were a mountain of opinions. i was bombarded with opinions of any and all opposing sides of the war for about 5-6 months about what americans and politicians thought non stop both sides. if you were not, i would SERIOUSLY change your news source.

please understand this, nothing against you, but if that is the coverage you recieved, then your media is seriously jerking you around. i have been flooded with non stop controversial opinion on every news channel including hard right news stations which promote the other sides opinion simply to fight and belittle it.


Since my firts post ,several months ago, i sys the same things!

ah cmon man, so some media outlets or politicians say things you dont like and that paints all of america as hating france? hell nah. dont let it get to you. whoever brought this ""overwhelming"" opinion to you should be run over since it never existed. there has been nothing but constant debate and arguing for months on end here. so some right wingers dont like france over current events, so some politicians dont like things, what else is new?


Business is business, nearly all western countries used dictators, put in place tyrans! I NEVER said that France is innocent, but you (republicans) thinks that all you do is good, all that safe military or economic interrest is OK! You don't care of other people so when i read:" f*** frogs we free irakis only because it's a just cause" i smiles!

that is correct, and france was also protecting its interests through economic sales through iraq. and here in the west we had certain reports of france hiding and quieting its involvment with iraq economically or hiding its billion dollar relationship from its people and from talking to you and you claiming NONE of frances stance on the iraq war came from economics, im beginging to see why.

and if we succeed then will not the iraqis be free? despite all the complaining and belly aching over politics, if iraqi is free in the end, i might crack a smile also.


The problem is that your press put tons of lies like we gave weapons before GW2... And your Rumsfeld who says sad comments (with smile) like "perhaps we'll find" "maybe they are not innocent".... no need to have proof, if you says something it will rest a part in mind of people.

no, our press reported politicians lies, of which niether side had been proven yet. again, knocking the press for simply reporting what the countries leaders are saying. well, you did give weapons before gw2. technically, that is not a lie. however that is michael moore speak and it is dishonest and misleading. however a more accurate statement would be you did not give weapons "inbetween gw 1 and 2".


Where did i spoke about israel here????? I spoke about lybia, syria....

you listed it as a reference to one of the reasons the US went to war it was a war to protect israel it was not a reason, israel was not in any danger, and israel would stomp any middle east country in a war. the fact you mentioned it makes me wonder if your sources are plying the "US is christian so they help Israel" theory. that in of itself is ridiculous and also listing it as one of many factors of this war is really just horrible bias and anti US reaching on behalf of extreme sources.


What do you means? a few dozens of imams were ejected!

thats it? a few dozen out of millions? well if thats all there was then i applaud your efforts.


Hundreds of terrorists activists gone in our prisons since 20 years! It was a hard subject with UK since our service views London's as a heaven for terrorists (it's changing)! We don't need lessons on the war against terrorist since we begun it far before you!

who was giving lessons? i dont remember giving any, do you? if not then why bring it up. it was a simple question concerning numbers.


Powell and Allbright made interview for TV's several weeks ago! I didn't read that on the net but i heard and saw it by myself!!!!

so lemme get this straight. earlier when powell talked of wmd you didnt believe him. now when he talks of aq links you do believe him. would you believe a lying US politician? only when it suits you? even against forthcoming evidence of which a link was provided to you?

see, this is the politicians angle, poltics dont swing your way, you are upset. politics swing your way, your happy. and it was the same politician or government official. democrats think they are impartial to opinions of iraq, yet when confronted with thier own politicians words speaking of iraq as a threat, an immediate danger, something must be done, they balk in disbelief as they as most, are simply led.


If you still thinks that Chirac was against this just for business, you're wrong, last years business leaders aren't agree with him as they expected far more business with a Irak without Sadam's and embargo!

not chirac, i dont believe i brought him up, i said france, of which a large portion is controlled by economic powerhouse and interest in any 1st world country right? so yes im right, i never stated chirac was against business. i do not know chiracs personal stance on the matter. i do know frances financial loss on the matter however and yet again i am told i am wrong, in place of no evidence contrary to my own. yes, IRAQ will do far more business without the embargo, you are correct sir, and chiracs business partner saddam wont be dealing with france as much as before eh? especially with the US's hand in the pie not to mention its immediate allies? now the US is in a position to partially control all this broken trade. not frances ideal business position.

if we are comparing chiracs intentions to bush's then yeah id say chirac is in a somewhat better position. but im having trouble believing france losing a ungodly amount of money has not crossed his radar and reasons for not wanting the war. if you can tell me with a straight face that a former poltician and now head of state would not list losing in the upper billions a matter of economic and national interest aka the actions of the war, im going to fall out of my seat. how can one in politics be so pure even more so as the head of state? sorry, i cannot buy that.


Btw i notice that you understand far more and correctly the situations than most of americans i reads before! You're realist and don't thinks you always do all good, what a news here!

why thank you. i think my hate for all politicians and where the world is headed has caused some objectivity deep down in my soul to have slight common grounds with peoples on all sides. you aint so bad yourself frogman ;)

[stephane from Paris]

yes and no. the media presented what france simply said and what some american politicians said. aka they got peoples opinions. some of the politicians attacked france. some did not. some people attacked france. some did not. again this ""painting"" of the US government and media as a WHOLE unfriendly entity is purely false. there was a overwhelming amount of coverage of both views on the war.


I'm sorry SOG but last years like lot of french, i had a look on internet newspaper (including french and english languages arabs newspaper which are the more liberals of arabs wolrd), US sat TV...
And it wasn't just Fox and other Murdock's media (Murduck is full of hate since french government said no to all his try to do a TV in France, there's always a raison...) who used sad comments (biased infos, no checked infos, racists comments...).
At this time in your country all people who were against this war was traitor/communists/leftist/anti americans.

I used differents news source! And never i saw a racist comment, even in communist press, on american people like i saw in US!


and if we succeed then will not the iraqis be free? despite all the complaining and belly aching over politics, if iraqi is free in the end, i might crack a smile also.


I'm OK if we try to free all people, but Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Saudi aren't freedom countries! It's our allieds so we never mind??? It's not a correct way! If we offer freedom we need to free all these countries and stop doing money with tyrans/kings/generals...
Just an example: 2000 marines in front of Monrovia where civilians were kill by a civil war and lack of food! They called Bush to help them as if marines came every body knows that the war ended imediatly!
And????? Nothing at the time Bush wanted to free people he didn't help them. How many more people died before african's troops came (follow by USMC?


ou listed it as a reference to one of the reasons the US went to war it was a war to protect israel it was not a reason, israel was not in any danger, and israel would stomp any middle east country in a war. the fact you mentioned it makes me wonder if your sources are plying the "US is christian so they help Israel" theory. that in of itself is ridiculous and also listing it as one of many factors of this war is really just horrible bias and anti US reaching on behalf of extreme sources.


Still no link with Israel! i said that now a far higher percent of muslims see terrorists as feedom fighters! Not for Palestinians but in every country in the world where they 're a muslim community! I lived in a town where 40% of people are muslims and it's a fact this war changed the opinion of most of them . Now they always speak about their brothers from tchechnya, Paslestine, Irak, Afganistan....
Chirac was affraid that the war will give the rise of a muslim nationalism which will be a good base for integrists! I'm doing sport with lot of muslims and i can says that in every European country like in the arab world, the situation is now far more dangerous for the future!


thats it? a few dozen out of millions? well if thats all there was then i applaud your efforts.



In France we have around 1000 imams (the guys who speak in mosquee and who are at 98 foreigner and don't knows french language and culture).
A few dozen are out and others are under police eyes! Most of them received money from Saudi's.


who was giving lessons? i dont remember giving any, do you? if not then why bring it up. it was a simple question concerning numbers.

I didn't speak about you individually but about most of americans here since 1 year!






however and yet again i am told i am wrong, in place of no evidence contrary to my own. yes, IRAQ will do far more business without the embargo, you are correct sir, and chiracs business partner saddam wont be dealing with france as much as before eh? especially with the US's hand in the pie not to mention its immediate allies? now the US is in a position to partially control all this broken trade. not frances ideal business position.

If France never opposite it's evident that we never be on black list and that we could do business. Look at Saudi, it's a US market but we still get tons of contracts (military or civil). No man the easier way for us was to not opposite!

I'll add that since last year mid east market are now more open! We never made business here like now! If arabs don't like very much West , they are specially affraid by the US methods.
As you said history will be only judge! As i was in Paris in 80's/90's when bombs striked metros and streets i knows that will happens, and that the next century will be the one of all danger!

[Luxembourger]

and the bashing between french and american relations
goes on . :(

[SOG]

I'm sorry SOG but last years like lot of french, i had a look on internet newspaper (including french and english languages arabs newspaper which are the more liberals of arabs wolrd), US sat TV...
And it wasn't just Fox and other Murdock's media (Murduck is full of hate since french government said no to all his try to do a TV in France, there's always a raison...) who used sad comments (biased infos, no checked infos, racists comments...).
At this time in your country all people who were against this war was traitor/communists/leftist/anti americans.


I used differents news source! And never i saw a racist comment, even in communist press, on american people like i saw in US!

i agreed with you:
my quote: some of the politicians attacked france. some did not. some people attacked france. some did not.
i simply said, not ALL media coverage was "pro war". and your disagreeing with me when i agreed with you? ........ as for impartial media coverage, i watched the evening news for months on end about the war, and for months on end, many pro, and anti war opnion were voiced on the news. im sorry you went on line to...... news sites and found people saying bad things against france. again, i stated politicians and people attacked france. please, understand what you read this time.

wait, you looked at french english and arab news papers or arab news papers in french and english. PLEASE tell me it was not the latter!


I'm OK if we try to free all people, but Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, UAE, Saudi aren't freedom countries! It's our allieds so we never mind??? It's not a correct way! If we offer freedom we need to free all these countries and stop doing money with tyrans/kings/generals...

ah, so you want people to stop being greedy world wide, (impossible) and for no countries to arm any dictators and to magically control ones that would try (impossible) and you would actually be okay, you would even support, if the US went on a continuous non stop campaign to free more counrties? even if they did not want it, as long as the US continued to free countries of all dictators, instead of just ones for political reasons, you would be okay with that?


Just an example: 2000 marines in front of Monrovia where civilians were kill by a civil war and lack of food! They called Bush to help them as if marines came every body knows that the war ended imediatly!
And????? Nothing at the time Bush wanted to free people he didn't help them. How many more people died before african's troops came (follow by USMC?

ah so bush has the sole power to send marines in, while we are at war on two fronts already, and this is bush's fault he did not free them because he alone can? where was the UN? just curious. you know, the multi national organization that sometimes watches instead of particpates? also, you would like to see bush actually engage yet another military attack? the marines were sent as a show of arms to stay the killing. there was no way the politics in the US would let us fully engage and rehab another city at this time. saying so is impractical.


Still no link with Israel!

still no link with israel, still no link with israel, still no link with israel! you said and i quote:

it was for oil sure (with the rise of China who will need more and more oil)
it was a war to protect israel
it was a war to help defence industries
it was a war to make pressure on Saudi's (which after sept 11 didn't like how US pointed them)
it was a war to give a "good military chief" style to Bush

you dont even believe, your own words? ............. we have something in common!


In France we have around 1000 imams (the guys who speak in mosquee and who are at 98 foreigner and don't knows french language and culture). A few dozen are out and others are under police eyes! Most of them received money from Saudi's.

cool. religous zealots suck.


I didn't speak about you individually but about most of americans here since 1 year!

i understand.


If France never opposite it's evident that we never be on black list and that we could do business. Look at Saudi, it's a US market but we still get tons of contracts (military or civil). No man the easier way for us was to not opposite!

right, your saying you get contracts in a US controlling saudi market, so your saying since iraq is now a US market you will get more contracts then before! but, the republicans and bush were angry with france, germany, russia etc, and were going to cut them entirely out of contracts. but, bush decided to let them in on contracts and in turn things in the UN will go easier, but, now they have to compete with all of americas allies who have presidence over the opposing trio. so your saying despite losing a freindly france regime, despite losing multi billion arms trade per decade, and graciously forgiving half of iraqs debt owed you (billions) that you will get more contracts over a american controlled market with america and its immediate allies controlling most contracts and negating billions already owed? again, no proof, odds stacked, lost contracts, no control, on the back list of those controlling, but youll make out better?




I'll add that since last year mid east market are now more open! We never made business here like now! If arabs don't like very much West , they are specially affraid by the US methods.

now your conflicting statements. you stated earlier and i quote:

but USA have nearly the control of Saudi and did nothing!

if we have this "control" over saudi's then why would they open thier market to you? what control? money, business, economics? did this control suddenly lapse and fall into saudi hands for them to graciously give the french? no proof of statements made then nor now?

so the mid east market is now more open because.....US went to war in iraq? and all this new openness is going soley to france? which market, defense/civilian contracts? what made it more open? did tons of contracts "just" expire? speculative wishing? all new contracts are going to france because saudi/arab hates US without any competition or others bidding? i think youd have a easier time finding wmd than explaining.


As you said history will be only judge! As i was in Paris in 80's/90's when bombs striked metros and streets i knows that will happens, and that the next century will be the one of all danger!

well every century will be one of danger simply because no large power or state has ever been without attacks or threats or danger. citing history of course i cannot think of any major power that was without these? maybe its because power corrupts and those in power will always corrupt and good wishing against thousands of years of documented history wont change corruption? all centuries will be one of danger always.