French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap


Did you know that the US imported 1 trillion dollars worth of capital from Europe sicne 1998? When the Us has to borrow huge Amounts cause its budget deficit is 500 billion, were do you think a lot of that capital will come, from the immense sabings of Americans? And what would happen to all those Europan investors and American investors that bet on the companies of each others to thrive?

I myself don't care for huge economic depressions and a lowering of living standars aound the globe.

If you mean to say: the Us and Europe can lower their military cooperation, fine, CUT TIES, well, NO.

Ok, 'ties' can mean a lot of things. I'm talking about intense cooperation on virtually all world matters, and ironclad alliance through NATO. By 'cut ties' I only mean that the U.S. and European nations cooperate only when it is un our mutual interests, and otherwise remain neutral toward each other. Of course I think that we should continue to trade.

[Ned]

Clearly, Chirac cannot be trusted by anyone. Despite Blair's efforts to patch things up between the US and the French, I don't think this is possible until there is a regime change in France.

Also, note, the cozy relationship and disclosures long predated the Bush presidency.

On another note, I think the Brits ought to arrest, try and convict Galloway not only for corruption, but for treason.

I wonder what Chirac got from Saddam, given his level of support? I think the French people should be highly suspicious given the deals Saddam gave Galloway who was only a back bencher in the UK's parliament.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Darius871

1) Iran was a theocracy and the U.S. is a democracy.
2) The U.S. was an active enemy of Iran, while France is 'allied' to the U.S.

Good answers
Actually, I too think the whole French position of backing Saddam sucked. A reasonable French position would have been to negociate some downsized part of the loot, and just yell against the war without any action, so that Chirac could still hold his dear moral high round, and earn huge popularity among the French.
France should have stopped its effectual opposition as soon as the axis of vassals had formed.

And Jon : this is not CG !

[Evil_Eric_4]

Originally posted by Darius871
I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

Of course not britain--they are my favorite colony

And dont mind gepap--he bashes me everytime I make an appearance.

[Az]

that's cruel. jon.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

You do know the Us gives aid and support to many dictatorships other than we did to Iraq in the 1980's, no?

Of course I do. We supported countless brutal dictatorships to fight against communism around the globe and against Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. That's not comparable to helping a brutal dictatorship fight the U.S. If you were to say there is no difference, you would have to first claim that the U.S. (at least in this case) is as bad as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.

Originally posted by GePap

Plus, the "help" you describe is, well, meaningless. As i said before, what the hell could the French have known about US MILITARY plansd for the invasion of Iraq in sept 2001 when in fact the US had no concrete plans then?

That's one of the reports that the article referred to. Shouldn't you wait until all of the files are seen before making that judgement?

Incidentally, I've heard elsewhere that communications continued until the 19th of March, 2003, but I don't have a link as of yet so I won't try to argue that.

Originally posted by GePap

Did the French provide Iraq with billions of dolars of aid and satelite infor about US troop locations and movements? If no, then thier aid to Iraq in 2001-03 was uch less than what we gave Saddam in 1983-88.

Now that's a MUCH better case. You don't have to grill me about 'accusations'; I only started the thread to get peoples' opinions and maybe some more info. If you'll look at my first post I only said that these weak stories are a sign of things that might be found in the future:

Originally posted by Darius871 These stories all broke in less than a day, so something tells me it's just the tip of the iceberg. If true, these (along with anything else that comes to the fore as more Mukhaberat and Foreign Ministry files are analyzed) should smear France and Russia diplomatically for decades.

...and then I politely asked 3 questions. I didn't accuse France of aiding Iraq to the level we did in the 80's; you're assuming I did.

Originally posted by Spiffor

Good answers
Actually, I too think the whole French position of backing Saddam sucked. A reasonable French position would have been to negociate some downsized part of the loot, and just yell against the war without any action, so that Chirac could still hold his dear moral high round, and earn huge popularity among the French.
France should have stopped its effectual opposition as soon as the axis of vassals had formed.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, Chirac probably gambled that France could prevent the war, or that Saddam could create a quagmire and win the war, so that his government's connections to Iraq wouldn't be revealed.

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 Of course not britain--they are my favorite colony

I actually wanted to say it that way, tried to be more diplomatic.

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 And dont mind gepap--he bashes me everytime I make an appearance.

Well I like a challenge.

Originally posted by Ned

I wonder what Chirac got from Saddam, given his level of support?

Probably just the trade benefits people have been talking about for months. I don't think he is among Iraq's 'undisclosed beneficiaries' or anything.

[GePap]

I would like the Files to be compiled by someone better than a british equivalent of the National Enquirer, thank you very much. And I doubt much will be found by way of concrete material ssistance form the French government.

Countries can survive being "smeared" politically like Individual can: just look at Henry Kissinger.

Of course I do. We supported countless brutal dictatorships to fight against communism and Islamic fundamentalism around the globe. That's not comparable to helping a brutal dictatorship fight the U.S. If you were to say there is no difference, you would have to first claim that the U.S. (at least in this case) is as bad as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.

Again, the level of support you mention is minor at worst, and as UR said, no more than the Iraqis could read form the NYTimes. Only neough to rile up those rpe-desposed to attacking the French.

As for Evil_Eric: I give people what they deserve.

[Evil_Eric_4]

And if we ever met in person Ill be sure to do the same.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

Plus, the "help" you describe is, well, meaningless.

Originally posted by GePap

Again, the level of support you mention is minor at worst, and as UR said, no more than the Iraqis could read form the NYTimes.

So you can find summaries of private conversations between Bush and Chirac, and between American and French diplomats, in the New York Times? Please point me to them, they should be a good read!

Yes, after 9/11 there was speculation all over the media that the U.S. might attack Iraq at some point. But that is VERY different from a nation's government giving Iraq personal assurance that Bush Administration officials were planning on it, based on private communications with said officials. If you were Saddam Hussein, which of these two sources would you trust more, and base your actions on? If you choose the latter source, then you are in effect conceding that France aided Saddam Hussein, and meant to.

Originally posted by GePap

As i said before, what the hell could the French have known about US MILITARY plansd for the invasion of Iraq in sept 2001 when in fact the US had no concrete plans then?

As I said before; the communications 2001 were the ones that happened to be in the article. By the way it was written, it looks as though they extended long past then:

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 have a lot of explaining to do.

Originally posted by GePap

Only neough to rile up those rpe-desposed to attacking the French.

This was a France-bashing thread? When did I ever use the words 'frogs' or 'surrender'? I made a conscious effort to not dis France at all, but the Chirac government's policy toward Iraq. If I ever said 'France' instead of 'the Chirac government' it was only for convenience in typing.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

[GePap]

Yes, after 9/11 there was speculation all over the media that the U.S. might attack Iraq at some point. But that is VERY different from a nation's government giving Iraq personal assurance that Bush Administration officials were planning on it, based on private communications with said officials.

First of all, if we were telling the French that we were, no matter what, going to attack Iraq, then what the hell was the whole deal with the second resolution bit? If we were telling the French :"war with Iraq is inevitable", then were not the French within their rights to oppose the second resolution, given they would KNOW, according to what you are telling me, that the US was not acting in good faith (ie., did not give a damn about disarmament of Iraq), and would attack anyway?

Besides, it was rather obvious that the Us was going to atatck Iraq no matter what: the Iraqis didn;t need the French to tell them that.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

First of all, if we were telling the French that we were, no matter what, going to attack Iraq, then what the hell was the whole deal with the second resolution bit? If we were telling the French :"war with Iraq is inevitable", then were not the French within their rights to oppose the second resolution, given they would KNOW, according to what you are telling me, that the US was not acting in good faith (ie., did not give a damn about disarmament of Iraq), and would attack anyway?

Um, the French were absolutely within their rights to oppose the second resolution; where did I say they were not? That's the second time in this thread you've prejudged me.

Originally posted by GePap

Besides, it was rather obvious that the Us was going to atatck Iraq no matter what: the Iraqis didn;t need the French to tell them that.

It was obvious to you, not to everybody. Iraq at first could speculate that war was inevitable, but not be sure, and then France's government gave them confirmation. That can hardly be described as 'meaningless'.

[GePap]

Well, did you think the US was acting in bad faith seeking a seocnd resolution while it was telling folks like the French that war was inevitable, no matter what?

And so what if the French told the Iraqis: hey, war is inevitable? I am sorry, but it was obvious, and the Iraqis seem to have made very little preparation otherwise.

[yago]

I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

Most of the people from the UK I know, are pretty rational fellows. So, I don't think they'll go on the American trip.

Ahm, I guess, if it goes on like this,, it's America alone. No Japan, No South-Korea, No Europe.

That would be fine with me.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, did you think the US was acting in bad faith seeking a seocnd resolution while it was telling folks like the French that war was inevitable, no matter what?

Yes, it was in bad faith. Surprised?

Originally posted by GePap

And so what if the French told the Iraqis: hey, war is inevitable? I am sorry, but it was obvious, and the Iraqis seem to have made very little preparation otherwise.

Had Saddam et al thought there was a slight chance that the U.S. wouldn't invade, they might have complied with the inspections regime. If you were convinced 100% that the Americans were going to attack no matter what, would you destroy your weapons? Only to fight an inevitable war anyway, but without them?

Who the hell knows, maybe this was a scheme to trick Saddam into not complying, so the war would happen, so that Chirac could bash the U.S., so that he could be strengthened politically. Maybe not. Hey, maybe France tricked Saddam into not complying, so that the U.S. could have its war, and is actually on our side! Maybe not. There are a million possible explanations for every event, so this is getting kind of pointless when none of us have a damn clue what's going on behind closed doors.

Originally posted by yago

That would be fine with me.

Me too.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Did you know that the US imported 1 trillion dollars worth of capital from Europe sicne 1998? When the Us has to borrow huge Amounts cause its budget deficit is 500 billion, were do you think a lot of that capital will come, from the immense sabings of Americans? And what would happen to all those Europan investors and American investors that bet on the companies of each others to thrive?

I myself don't care for huge economic depressions and a lowering of living standars aound the globe.

If you mean to say: the Us and Europe can lower their military cooperation, fine, CUT TIES, well, NO.

Those were investments by individuals and companies. Not actions by states. They are just going to where (they think) the opportunities are.