View Full Version : French give passports to Saddam's Regime
It just keeps getting better. This proves that not only did they not think a military solution was necessary, they actually WANTED Saddam and his torturous regime in place. Any French who still consider us the bad guys just lost their last shred of credibility.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86117,00.html
ivandebono
05-06-2003, 01:53 PM
And you believe these lies? Tell me, what would France gain by doing this?
I'm sure the nearly 1 BILLION cash in US dollars that was taken from the bank by Saddam's Regime, before the bombs started falling has nothing to do with it.
budanski
05-06-2003, 03:21 PM
And you believe these lies? Tell me, what would France gain by doing this?
http://noisedesignlab.com/buddy/chirac_puppetmaster.jpg
ANALYSIS
By Dan Goure
MSNBC
WASHINGTON, - Sigmund Freud is reported to have once exclaimed in sheer exasperation, "What do women want?" The same question can be asked today about France.
ON THE ONE hand, France voted for U.N. Resolution 1441 in November, a resolution that explicitly acknowledges that Iraq had and still has weapons of mass destruction, that it is in material breach of 17 prior disarmament resolutions and giving it a final chance to come clean. On the other hand, the government of President Jacques Chirac not only opposes any effort to declare Iraq delinquent according to 1441, it has organized the opposition to U.S. efforts to bring the current crisis to a definitive conclusion. Paris has lobbied the non-permanent members of the Security Council against the Anglo-American second resolution. It even has declared its willingness to veto that resolution if it achieved the nine votes necessary for passage. France also sought to block NATO assistance to one of its own members, Turkey, forcing the other members of that organization to neutralize France?s obstructionism by moving to an alternate venue. And on Thursday, the French rejected the new British effort at compromise, beating even Iraq to the punch.
It is entirely too easy to ascribe to the French actions motives such as great power envy, an excess of Gallic pride or revenge against an American administration that France feels has paid insufficient attention to French interests. Yes, it is true that Washington and Paris differ on a number of issues, some serious, such as global warming, missile defense, genetically modified agricultural products and the humor of Jerry Lewis. Nevertheless, they must know that their current stance at the United Nations threatens to unleash a political firestorm of global proportions. As former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared in a recent editorial in the Washington Post, "If the United States yields to the threat of a French veto, or if Iraq, encouraged by the actions of our allies, evades the shrinking non-military options still available, the result will be a catastrophe for the Atlantic alliance and for the international order."
SEEKING INFLUENCE
George W. Bush will not yield, and Jacques Chirac knows this. Therefore, he must be willing to endure a direct confrontation with the United States. Indeed, in his recent statements, Chirac seems almost to be relishing such a clash.
- A look at the United Nations
So it is fair to ask, even with some sense of exasperation, what does France want? The answer is straightforward. France wants influence and power. It wants influence over the international security order that is developing in the aftermath of the Cold War. France is no longer a great power; its influence will not come as a result of the size of its military or the robustness of its economy. It will come from imposing on the international system a system of procedures, rules and regulations that will constrain the ability of more powerful states, and particularly the United States, to act without France's assent.
French soldiers leave Abidjan airport in Ivory Coast in January during their most recent African intervention.
Hence, France's attempt to manipulate the U.N. Security Council over the issue of war with Iraq. The goal is to change the council from a consultative body consisting of member states that retain their full sovereignty into a governing institution that alone has the power to decide issues of war and peace. But, of course, one in which France retains its veto.
SEEKING POWER
- NATO's evolution
France also wants power, particularly within the new Europe that is becoming more unified and integrated. It wants that power because with power comes the ability to shape the development of a united Europe in ways that protect and even extend France's particular national and cultural interests. The vehicle for achieving this is the European Union (EU). With power also comes a leading role in Europe and the possibility, however remote, that France can ride a unified European colossus back to great power status.
France's intentions were rendered transparent by President Chirac when, at a meeting of European nations, he responded to criticism of his nation's stance in the Security Council with the statement that the critics should simply "shut up." The smaller states of Europe need only look at the coalition Paris has forged with Berlin and Moscow on the issue of Iraq to worry about their future in a European Union dominated by this new triumvirate. It is clear from France's stance at the United Nations, that if there is an imposing of agenda's to be done, France is the one that is going to do it.
The European Union, so far, has delivered economic power and a measure of political power. Where it falls far short is in the realm of military muscle.
Since the early 1990s, France has been on a crusade to create something called a European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) for the EU. This would be a European policy and program, including military forces, designed to address a range of problems and threats below the threshold that NATO was intended to meet. Countries in the EU such as Britain, Italy and Spain want the ESDP to complement NATO. They are concerned that a European military simply lacks the wherewithal to operate effectively without critical U.S. military assistance. France has always stated in private, and on occasion even in public, that the ESDP and the European military force to support it should be the equal of NATO. Through the ESDP, Europe would speak in NATO councils with one voice, turning that organization from a coalition of 19 equal parties to a balance of power between just two. Of course, the loudest voice in the ESDP would be France's. We have an example of the power of that voice in the recent NATO meetings over assistance to Turkey in the event of war in Iraq.
Behind the desire to shape and control the character of the new Europe is a French desire to cleanse that continent of the pernicious influences of American capitalism and culture. France's opposition to American politics, entrepreneurial capitalism and bold exploitation of science and technology stems from a firm determination to maintain a social and economic order rooted in the past. As one expert on European politics recently noted, the cause of our conflict with France is not a result of what the United States has done that is wrong. Rather, it is a French reaction to what America has done right. Addressing the roots of France's anti-Americanism, Writing in the current edition of
Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead pointed out that: "These causes are not, as perennially optimistic Americans want to think, American shortcomings and failures. For that we must look to American success, American power and America's consequent ability to thwart the ambitions of other states and impose its agenda on the rest of the world."
What France wants - what is at the heart of its stance on Iraq - is what it has wanted since the days of de Gaulle: a Europe whole and free - of America. An Iraq with weapons of mass destruction may be a small price to pay when the prize is Europe.
Dan Goure is a senior defense analyst at the Lexington Institute and NBC News analyst who served in the Pentagon during the first Gulf War.
did you read just the headline or even the text? unknown officials claime that france did something, but they can't say with who and how often. interresting is also the following part of the text: "The report could not be independently confirmed." something to add? any news about wmd? still nothing? ****.
regards
axl
budanski
05-06-2003, 07:00 PM
My, you socs are so impatient. The U.N. was given 12 years to look for WMD. You expect the U.S. to magically present the WMDs without looking like the CIA planted them? This is just as ridiculous as them wanting the Marines and soldiers who were dodging sniper fire and under attack by fedayeen and homicide bombers to ignore those risks and guard the entrance to the museum, where they would have made good targets. Sorry, but I wouldn't endanger one American life to save all the loot in Iraq. Stop jumping the gun, 12,000 troops in a city the population of 6 million takes a little time to get things back in order before the search can be fully implimented. Its better to round up people with knowledge of Iraq's weapons program then to send our own people looking for every nook and cranny within the country.
Why is everyone still talking about WMD? The whole war to prevent WMD was just to bypass the UN to go to war. The only reason why the UN was "looking" for it for 10 years was because it was a means for the US and any allies to go back to war with iraq.
The no-fly zones weren't going to carry on forever. Everyone knew there was going to be another war in iraq unless saddam died or something like that.
MY GOVERNMENT LIED ABOUT WMD AND SO DID THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.. it happens.
The best way to look at this is that by installing its NWO the american government is lessoning the wars in world. It's not democracy it's "freedom" but who cares.. less blood is spilt then it would have been if saddam had accomplished his plans for a greater iraq that streched from the mediterranean to the afghanistan.
budanski
05-06-2003, 09:00 PM
Europe Slips On Greenhouse Targets
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm)
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39170000/jpg/_39170635_snowb_203_bbc.jpg
Cold weather boosted fuel consumption
The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000.
The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.
On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.
The 8% cut is the commitment made by the EU under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement on tackling climate change.
Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.
Two years ago President Bush said the US would not ratify it, and Australia has followed suit.
Lukewarm leaders
There are now doubts about the willingness of Russia to do so, because some of its prominent scientists apparently believe climate change could be beneficial to the country.
It is organising a world climate conference in Moscow in late September, to re-examine the science of climate change.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39170000/jpg/_39170639_hydro_203_bbc.jpg
Hydropower faltered in 2001
The Europeans have all along been the protocol's most enthusiastic supporters, and their faltering performance will be deeply embarrassing to them.
EU emissions of the principal gas covered by the protocol, carbon dioxide (CO2), rose by 1.6% from 2000 to 2001.
Germany, France and the UK saw the biggest CO2 rises from homes and small businesses.
The EEA says the main reasons for the 2001 increase in all six gases were a colder winter in most EU countries, which meant householders burnt more heating fuel.
Coupled with this were higher emissions from transport, and greater use of fossil fuels in electricity and heating.
On the wrong track
The agency says its emissions inventory "represents best estimates and is subject to annual revision".
It says the big 2001 increases in Austria (up 4.8%) and Finland (7.3%) were caused partly by the cold winter, but also by lower rainfall.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39170000/jpg/_39170643_grapes_203_bbc.jpg
The future for a warmer Europe?
This cut hydropower production, and also limited Finnish electricity imports from other Nordic countries.
The EEA says: "The latest figures show that 10 of the 15 member states are heading towards overshooting their agreed share by a wide margin - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain."
Although the EU as a whole is committed to an 8% greenhouse gas cut, individual member states have their own targets.
Up not down
Some of the less developed countries are actually allowed to emit more rather than less: Ireland, for example, is permitted a 13% emissions increase.
The agency says the three countries furthest from keeping to their share of the overall target are Spain, Portugal and Ireland: its emissions in 2001 were 31% higher than in 1990.
Luxembourg showed the biggest reduction of all, cutting emissions by 44% between 1990 and 2001.
It is on course to keep its Kyoto promise, as are Germany, Sweden and the UK. France looks at present likely to fail by a very narrow margin.
The prominent UK global warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott commented: "One of the most galling things about the whole climate change debate has been European duplicity.
"While lecturing everybody else, especially America, on the morality of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it has been abundantly clear from the start that most European countries didn't have a snowflake in hell's chance of meeting their own Kyoto targets."
So the EU did worse than the US on greenhouse-gas emissions?
The Globe and Mail Wednesday, April 23, 2003:
Environment Canada released figures yesterday showing that the United States' greenhouse-gas emissions fell 1.2 per cent in 2001, nearly as much as Canada's.
******* Tue Apr 22:
Canadian emissions of greenhouse gases fell 1.3 percent, mirroring a 1.2 percent decline in the United States. But Canadian emissions remained 26 percent above the 2012 target level set under the Kyoto Protocol. The United States, though it has refused to sign Kyoto, was faring better than Canada. Its emissions in 2001 were 11.9 percent higher than in 1990.
Interesting....... Now what about the ICC....
what do those percentages mean? usa is still the most horrible "exhaust" of the world per person and in total. so don't feel too good ;-)
about wmd. sure i expect them to find stuff fast. this was THE official reason for that stupid war. the use presented so many "proofs" of wmd, but at the moment nobody found something and it also looks like nobody is really looking for it. its such a shame.
regards
axl
budanski
05-07-2003, 09:11 AM
Ya, the percentages mean that the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world's population, uses 20% of its resources, and makes 75% of all the world's goods. No thanks to the U.S. alone has it pushed a higher standard of living for the majority of the world. In my opionion the Kyoto Protocol, ICC, WTO, EU, and UN, all have the same purpose, destroy or weaken America.
You guys can hark all you want about WMD. We still feel good about ourselves freeing millions of people from a repressive regime. In the end of the day, all you guys are good at is talking whilst we take care of our own and others that care.
He219
05-07-2003, 10:26 AM
Axl, what are your specific reasons that made the removal of Saddam's regieme in Iraq "a stupid war"? Are you arguing the rationale for the action or the effect of removing Saddam's regieme? And, Do you believe the Iraqi people now have a chance for greater opportunity and a 'better' standard of life without fear of political persecution?
Cut, do you believe that Colin(Sp?) Powell knowingly gave 'false' testimony to the UN Security Council? If not, how can 'the Government' - wich includes him - have lied. Would you re-phrase your comments as believing that intelligence elements in the British and US governments falsely believed or knowingly misled their governments to the existence of and Iraq's hiding of WMD? Wich one? Are you calling Tony Blair and George Bush a liar? I do know that you see the benefit to the Iraqi people and others in the world community through your previous statements.
Budanski, nice examples why the US should not cater to the self-interest of other nations - rather than our own. You understand that 'others' see the US population as gluttonous and wasteful given our high standard of living. You believe all those international platforms previously mentioned are for the puropose of destroying or weakening America. I believe that they are in the self-interest of other nations looking to 'catch' up with the American standard of life without wanting to know the nuances and sacrafices we would be making. Do you believe we should help them 'catch up' by either reducing our wastefulness or by financing their abilities to catch up whilst they do not support our self-interest such as global security against an anti-american threat? I already know your answer - it's an easy one. 'They' have to understand.
Btw. history usually prooves that US action is for the benefit of the Global Community. Localized self-interest is practiced by all nations. Therefore give us just a little credit!!
p-)
-He219
Btw. history usually prooves that US action is for the benefit of the Global Community. Localized self-interest is practiced by all nations. Therefore give us just a little credit!!
yep, history is written by the victor(s)
if you people ever get a chance to into a foreign country pick up a history book there and you will realise that propaganda starts in the classroom, even in american the self-proclaimed land of "freedom"
budanski
05-07-2003, 01:58 PM
Btw. history usually prooves that US action is for the benefit of the Global Community. Localized self-interest is practiced by all nations. Therefore give us just a little credit!!
yep, history is written by the victor(s)
if you people ever get a chance to into a foreign country pick up a history book there and you will realise that propaganda starts in the classroom, even in american the self-proclaimed land of "freedom"
true.
Its sad they're rewriting the history books in our classrooms. How they try to potray as the founding fathers as evil men and how great civil leaders are. Political correctness is the theme.
Unlike European media, say the French, where a majority of the media is state owned, you get only one side of the story. In America, all the media outlets, with the exception of public stations and publications, are not owned by Uncle Sam. Thats what so great with a free society. When are you guys gonna learn? Socialism doesnt work.
Light Fighter
05-07-2003, 02:54 PM
In this war the US was "damned if we do, damned if we dont" How fast would the countries that opposed this war be to blame the US if Saddam (sp) had done something like attack another country or one of many things. The US took a pre emptive (sp) strike on a country and won. Now the rest of the world is pissed, but o well, when isnt the rest of the world angry at the US :fork:
@he219
here the answers to most of your question: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
why? listen:
in 1998 a groups called "project for the new american century" wrote a letter to president clinton, requesting military operations in the iraq and the removal of sadam. members of pnac, some of them even signed: richard b. cheney, lewis libby, donald rumsfeld, paul dundes wolfowitz, peter w. rodman, john bolton, richard armitage, richard perle, william kristol, zalmay khalilzad. that was long before 911. need more aboud pnac? http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
after the 911 two therories came around first: the palestinians did it and the iraq did it. the cia boss george tenet said that there is no indication for a support of al-qaida by the iraq.
american politicians often used words of hussein kamal about wmd in the iraq. powel did that also at the un the 07.02.. hussein kamal said that the iraq had such weapons. but he said also that they have been destroyed. american politicians say just half of that. http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
and wasn't it powel who presented the letter that should proof the iraq tried to buy nuclear material in africa? how long did it take until somebody took a look at it and found that it was a nice self-made copy, signed by ministre that was not in service, printed on paper of a ministry that did not exist?
he presented so many pictures of bunkers and storages and all that stuff, where wmd should be. why can't they simply go there and show us all that stuff? ah yes, the iraq brought the stuff away. is it that easy? you can be sure that if you had somewhen mwd somewhere, you can still find particles at that place.
enough? or need some more about the piece loving democracy? what about plans to to attack cuba http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_northwoods.pdf
regards
axl
@delta
what country should iraq attack? with what army and what weapons? and why? do you trust politicians or your cia? cia said last july that there is no danger from the iraq against the usa for the future. but in case the usa would attack, the risk of terrorism would rise. and they are damn right.
regards
axl
Unlike European media, say the French, where a majority of the media is state owned, you get only one side of the story. In America, all the media outlets, with the exception of public stations and publications, are not owned by Uncle Sam. Thats what so great with a free society. When are you guys gonna learn?
the french only have one state owned channel. the BBC is state owned but it's widely regarded as one of the best media groups in the world. There were even complaints that it was too pro-iraq from the royal navy.
And in america the news oragisations all suck up to the government which is a so free society.
sometimes the american press appears just as extreme to us as Al-Jazeera does.
Socialism doesnt work
nor does conservatism, you need a mix of both
Light Fighter
05-07-2003, 04:12 PM
What country would they attack if they could have, take your pick. Wasnt it only a decade ago that they attacked Kuwait. Or how about Isreal, because you know everybody just loves Isreal over in that area. Didnt Iraq launch SCHUDs at Isreal once already, I am not sure, its been a while.
What I said was ment not to be taken in a literal sense but more of a "what if". IF Iraq had attacked another country, who do you think the UN would jump on first, Great Britian, the US for not upholding the no fly zone. I mean, hell, the US has become the worlds police force. Go ahead and bad mouth the US for what it did/didnt do. Its just critisism, the US has gotten use to it, its not the first or the last time other countries are not pleased with the US. Just get over it already :backhand:
Saddam could attack any other country after the first gulf war and he wouldn't have because he knew he'd get ****ed by the UN (US+allies).
and the US/UK could not carry on with the no fly zones forever
the war was always going to happen and the sooner it was out of the way the better.
the WMD issue was just bull****, to "legalise" the War in the eyes of international law. It was a **** blatant lie of an excuse and that's what the french and germans were complaining about. But hey, it worked Saddam and iraq are no longer a problem.
The US DIDNT go to war for the oil but it contribute to them going to war. The US could never steal oil from iraq but now at least they will have a friendly government that will trade with them..
(sympathetic governments = new world order theory)
So basically what you are saying is our government completely lied about the existance of WMDs and we will never find them? The last time I checked everything isnt over quite yet, so dont assume that just because we have had false alarms that the media blew out of proportion that they wont find anything in the future.
The US media sucks up to our government? Hardly so. Every country will have certain bias and propaganda in their media but I feel confident to say that our media here is probably the most unbiased toward our country as far as facts and stories go. They may have a patriotic theme in times of war but to even think of comparing them with a station that is 95% propaganda, 5% fact (Al Jazeera) is obsurred.
I agree that either way its a "lose" situation in most of the views around the world. If we did not act as the world police force as we do, we would be accused of being so powerful yet only caring about ourselves. Because we do the right thing by bringing freedom and stability to regions around the world, we get accused of either getting in someone else's business or for the financial or political benefit of our country.
You will find that probably all of our major allies would act the same way we do if they were in our position on the global scale militarily and economically. Its natural for people to resent and hate the biggest and best especially when you live under regimes that starve, torture, opress their people and use all the wealth for their own benefit.
Oh and as far as the oil trading, it is well known France had been a close trading partner with Iraq for years, not to mention providing many weapons and equipment to its military behind our backs.
He219
05-07-2003, 06:40 PM
He219 wrote:
Axl, what are your specific reasons that made the removal of Saddam's regieme in Iraq "a stupid war"? Are you arguing the rationale for the action or the effect of removing Saddam's regieme? And, Do you believe the Iraqi people now have a chance for greater opportunity and a 'better' standard of life without fear of political persecution?
Axl wrote:
here the answers to most of your question: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
Why are to talking at me? Please answer the questions. There are three (3) questions. p-)
Your previous posting stated the following:
1) pnac (sounds like a candybar to me) wanted to eliminate Saddam prior to 9-11. I say this is true.
2)George Tenet knew of no Al-Queda link with Iraq at the time of 9-11. I say that after looking they found what they thought was a link. More importantly, the prospect of a mixing of those Anti-American elements posed more than a credible threat.
3)Hussein kamal is a schmuck that will say anything to suit his interests. Iraq probably destroyed some weapons under UN supervision. But a western-colonial style government with all the institutions following British rule -like Iraq- used lengthy documentation for everything they did. So why would they not have evidence prooving the distruction of WMD? But I guess you believe it is up to US or the UN weapon's monitoring program to proove it for them. The probablility is that they retained some clandestine program - and indeed it would be well hidden.
4)This letter, was is the French DST that dis-prooved it or do you have a copy for me, a link of the evidence showing a forgery, not opinion?
5)Fidel Castro survived every US President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. After the Bay of Pigs, containment was the solution. Why would we alter that policy especially while we are on Fidel Death Watch? Just wait how fast those Casinos will pop up after he bites it!
Answer MY Questions, please. Point for point with an explanation, please. I would like to hear you say something nice for a change - and it won't make you an American-lover either!
p-)
-He219
So basically what you are saying is our government completely lied about the existance of WMDs and we will never find them? The last time I checked everything isnt over quite yet, so dont assume that just because we have had false alarms that the media blew out of proportion that they wont find anything in the future.
I'd go for grossly exagerated.
The US media sucks up to our government? Hardly so. Every country will have certain bias and propaganda in their media but I feel confident to say that our media here is probably the most unbiased toward our country as far as facts and stories go. They may have a patriotic theme in times of war but to even think of comparing them with a station that is 95% propaganda, 5% fact (Al Jazeera) is obsurred.
al-jazzera is no more a propaganda station than abc.
that's what I mean, just because they had more reports about civilians killed doesn't make them propaganda I'd say at most al-jazeera is 20%propaganda (plus 20% BS maybe :P )
I think it comes across as propaganda in the west because they showed stuff like dead bodies which is unnacceptable here but more so there. In india they often have real corpses on tv.
I agree that either way its a "lose" situation in most of the views around the world. If we did not act as the world police force as we do, we would be accused of being so powerful yet only caring about ourselves. Because we do the right thing by bringing freedom and stability to regions around the world, we get accused of either getting in someone else's business or for the financial or political benefit of our country.
You will find that probably all of our major allies would act the same way we do if they were in our position on the global scale militarily and economically. Its natural for people to resent and hate the biggest and best especially when you live under regimes that starve, torture, opress their people and use all the wealth for their own benefit.
I agree every country has it's benifts in mind all rich western countries are unfair in that way. but that's capitalism, and it works! plus we know the alternative.
Oh and as far as the oil trading, it is well known France had been a close trading partner with Iraq for years, not to mention providing many weapons and equipment to its military behind our backs.
many countries are guilty of that including the US and Britain.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.