French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[DAVOUT]

Have you red the article ? It does not confirm the title at all.

You are not serious; telling the Iraqis on Sept 20 2001 that the Americans contemplated to go to war against Iraq was not really a betrayal : all newspapers were full of that kind of comments.

You probably find that the French bashing is missing to Uberkrux and al.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

You are not serious; telling the Iraqis on Sept 20 2001 that the Americans contemplated to go to war against Iraq was not really a betrayal : all newspapers were full of that kind of comments.

The article clearly indicated that that was one report of several or many:

Another, dated September 25, 2001, from Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W Bush.

From the way it was written it looks like the communication continued up to the beginning of the war:

The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry (search), kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.

If the author used the words 'every development in American planning' to refer to a few minor murmurs back in 2001, he'd probably get in trouble.

Besides, even if it was only the few things referred to in the article, IMO that's worth calling betrayal. I'd bet that when Bush was talking to Chirac on the telephone, he didn't expect his words to eventually be read by Saddam Hussein. That's a betrayal of trust if I've ever seen one.

[DAVOUT]

You SUPPOSE that there are several or many (!), as you supposed there were MDW.

... come partly ...

... may have helped ...

Not serious. It explains why the US official comments are so cautious.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
you supposed there were WMD.

I did?

[Alexander's Horse]

When are you people going to grow up?

The United States also helped Saddam. US companies sold him chemical and biological agents. The US government gave him satellite imagery to help him defeat Iran. And so on and so on.

There are no clean hands here.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
When are you people going to grow up?

The United States also helped Saddam. US companies sold him chemical and biological agents. The US government gave him satellite imagery to help him defeat Iran. And so on and so on.

There are no clean hands here.

I don't care one bit about this because they 'helped Saddam'; that's their right. The issue is their betrayal of our trust. It's also important as a major shift in US-French relations, and could have ramifications for the future of the EU as well.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Darius871



Besides, even if it was only the few things referred to in the article, IMO that's worth calling betrayal. I'd bet that when Bush was talking to Chirac on the telephone, he didn't expect his words to eventually be read by Saddam Hussein. That's a betrayal of trust if I've ever seen one.

This is absolutely silly. You imagine that Chirac, anytime he talked to Bush, call the third secretary of the French embassy in Iraq and instruct him to quote what Bush said.

--------------
Bush : We will attack Afghanistan first then Iraq.

Chirac : Do you want us to help ?

Bush : No, we will handle it alone. We will kick their asses until we catch UBL.

Chirac : UBL in Iraq ?

Bush : You have to understand that those who are not with us are against us.
-----------------------

We must recognize that, if the Iraqis got a transcript of that secret conversation, it does not help them tremendously for the conduct of the war.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

We must recognize that, if the Iraqis got a transcript of that secret conversation, it does not help them tremendously for the conduct of the war.

Sure, that conversation; you took a lot of license. Is it hard to imagine that conversations between major heads of state would contain more important information than that?

[DAVOUT]

You should read what the US President has said since 0911 (in Bush at war by Bob Woodward for instance) and you will have a clear opinion of what a head of state thinks about important things, and what he is able to elaborate in the area of deep thinking.

[Pekka]

I got you both covered, I don't drink American beer because it's basically piss, and I don't use my Russian buttbuzzer, because it doesn't fit into my butt and it doesn't even buzz. Finnish beer German beer English beer And some other beers too

[Spiffor]

It is well known enough that France and Russia had interests in keeping Saddam in power, since he was so generous with his contracts, while a US puppet government would give all the loot to the US.

France and Russia protected their interests, which were opposed to the US'. I think it is morally wrong to support Saddam or any other murderous dictator. But from an International Relations perspective, I don't see how "wrong" that is.

[GePap]

According to the US, the decsiison to go to war with Iraq was not made until 2003..how then could France have told Iraq anyting on Sept 2001? And since the French were NOT in as far as US and UK was planning is concerned, there was little they could say, plus one would think that US and UK intelligence would, if what is being reported as either true or of nay significance, said something to the US and the US woul have made a stink, mch like we did about Russian weapons, though in the end, were any new sales ever found?

[gsmoove23]

This is ridiculous, there is no information in that article that Saddam couldn't have gleaned from the front page of the New York Times, plus there is no reason to believe that these communications are official and not from people working for the French government on the Iraqi payroll. Like that never happens in foreign ministries, please. The term "Friends of Iraq" should tip you off.

As for the Russian documents the article seems to assume that because the information came from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow that the source was Putin himself. This is childish ****, give me a break folks, foreign embassies dole out money for info all the time. I'm curious when the same paper will come out with the article on the communications from the Washington embassy, oh wait, they won't print that will they.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by gsmoove23 oh wait, they won't print that will they.

Anti-American and/or anti-Bush news sources would most certainly print it. A little thing called free press.

[yago]

I don't care one bit about this because they 'helped Saddam'; that's their right. The issue is their betrayal of our trust. It's also important as a major shift in US-French relations, and could have ramifications for the future of the EU as well.

he, he

"trust". Some Americans just can not be trusted. Well, whatever, anyway, I can't wait till I see European and American ties cut.

he, he. And if I have to take sides. The French look better, have better manners and have presidents who actually can read and write.

On the other hand, common-ground between the French and the American president ? Both presidents are corrupt like hell. But what the heck. The American one is a freak on a mission.

Ah, did I mention that South Carolina is French property ?