French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[TCO]

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?

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.

Seperate issue from Chiraq sharing confidences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

**** Chirac

Though I am glad that Spiffor totally condemns this duplicitous action. As said before the US backing Iraq against Iran is obviously totally different than France backing Iraq against the US. In the later, France was supposed to be our ally.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


Yes, it was in bad faith. Surprised?

No, you aren't fez or Sloww.

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?

The question is, how do you know he didn't? as of today, the US and UK can't account for any of their claims about what the Iraqis had, none. They have no missiles, chem. shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, mobile bio labs, so forth and so on. As of right now, you can't claim they didn't coopertate as far as disarming went. And to this the fact that no one cares about disarming anymore..everyone now gloats about liberation: would you have denied the People of Iraq their freedom if Saddam had shown the Us and Uk what they wanted (which we know from what you say was irrelevant)?

I still fail to understand how it was duplicitous for the French to state to the Iraqis the obvious. Plus, I again question why the US would have told this to the french at all: it would have made more political sense for the French to reveal it openly, to show the world the US was acting in bath faith and score big points before any war. They didn't.

We could even specualte that by telling the Iraqis it was inevitable, the Baath party begun to pack its bags and thus they were ready to skip town and make the war shorter.... as far fetched, but not any more far fetched,. than your other notion.

[Dinner]

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.

AH: We never at any time gave anyone nor did the government authorize privite companies to transfer any part Saddam's Bio or Chemical programs. All of his chemical weapons (VX, Mustard gas, Sarin, etc) can be made from information free;y availible over the internet or in any good library. The sole item which Saddam did steal from a U.S. university was his original Anthrex culutre; which an Iraqi Scientist who worked at the State owned University in Baghdad convinced a privite citizen/scientist into giving him for reseach purposes. Notice this was never the government which did this it was a University proffessor who was just following normal scientific protical of assisting the research of a supposed fellow acedemic. Sad but true.

P.S. I know people have filled you in on this fact several times before but you have elected to continue spreading lies and half truths. You should stop doing it.

[Sava]

The Jingos are out in force today. One question. Who gave Saddam the ingredients to create his chemical stockpile? Okay thank you.

[Pekka]

Germans?

[Sava]

I'll give you a hint. He's now a feeble Alzheimer's patient.

[Sandman]

No-one had to give them to him, any moderately industrialised country can produce chemicals. And anthrax can be found wherever there's cattle. The question is who gave him the capability to make them.

Note that I still disagree with the confounded idiocy of proclaiming gases and germs 'weapons of mass destruction.'

[Sava]

Sandman

As if guns, bullets, bombs, and missiles created minor destruction.

[Pekka]

Sava, I don't know what you mean. All I know is that German company helped Hussein a LOT and operated on their soil, making chemical weapons. Iraqis have admitted this. Germans have admitted that it's very possible, since they tried to stop the company from operating there, only leading to failure at the time.
Hussein bidded with companies around the world, and German company was lucky enough to win it. German gov however doesn't have so much to do with it, or at least there is no good evidence about it. They tried to stop them actually, but it was too late.

French helped Hussein with nuclear power and even with French's experts were very against it, telling what it will be used for, Chirac himself as prime minister at the time went along and saw himself that it will be done, against wishes of experts and what not.

So, about that alzhaimer, I don't know what you are talking about.

[Pekka]

If gases and germs are considered as WMD's, then every single country has them.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap

The question is, how do you know he didn't? as of today, the US and UK can't account for any of their claims about what the Iraqis had, none. They have no missiles, chem. shells, thousands of liters of Anthrax, mobile bio labs, so forth and so on. As of right now, you can't claim they didn't coopertate as far as disarming went.

My bet is that they destroyed the weapons literally days before the war began and was already inevitable, so that the U.S. wouldn't find anything and would be humiliated before the world. Why? Because captured Iraqi scientists, after fears of reprisal were gone, told us Iraq did exactly that. Considering that, and the fact that Saddam would love to make such a dramatic statement to the world before going down, it's the more likely possibility if no WMD are 'found'.

If Iraq didn't comply throughout the inspections, hoping the U.S. would back down, and then destroyed the weapons right after Bush delivered his 48-hour ultimatum, then the U.S. would be able to say that Saddam did indeed have the WMD, and had no intention of complying. If there were no WMD in the first place, and consequently none are found, the U.S. would make this claim anyway just to save face. Since such a claim couldn't be empirically proven right nor wrong, the U.S. could consider itself right whether the WMD are found or not.

Originally posted by GePap

And to this the fact that no one cares about disarming anymore..everyone now gloats about liberation

...and such talk is utter bull****. If certain people just 'forget' about the original justifications for this war after seeing people cheer our troops, they don't deserve to have brain cells.

Originally posted by GePap

I still fail to understand how it was duplicitous for the French to state to the Iraqis the obvious.

I still fail to understand how you can't see the difference between unfounded speculation by media commentators and willing confirmation by a national government based on private conversations.

Originally posted by GePap

it would have made more political sense for the French to reveal it openly, to show the world the US was acting in bad faith and score big points before any war. They didn't.

...because they are a bunch of scheming bastards with ulterior motives just like the Bush Administration is. Welcome to international politics. They probably had something to gain from keeping this discreet. Also, they probably knew that if they revealed it publicly, the U.S. could simply deny it, and it would be France's word against America's. A lot of people would tend to believe France, but the fact still remains that their claims would not be proven.

Or perhaps they thought releasing it publicly could bring about numerous punishments from the world's hegemon, while if they simply slipped it to Iraq, there was a chance that said communications wouldn't be discovered by coalition forces. Perhaps they incorrectly predicted that Iraq could create a quagmire of Islamic vengeance and win the war, or incorrectly predicted that should the war be lost, the Iraqis would bother to burn all records of said communications with France. Maybe all of the above, maybe none of the above.

Originally posted by GePap

We could even specualte that by telling the Iraqis it was inevitable, the Baath party begun to pack its bags and thus they were ready to skip town and make the war shorter.... as far fetched, but not any more far fetched,. than your other notion.

Very possible. For all we know France was acting in our benefit all along. Maybe not. I don't know jack**** about what's really going on behind closed doors in Washington, Paris, and Baghdad. Don't be so foolish as to think you do either.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb

Two can play that game. I don't smoke American sigaretes since March 23.

Good, I don't smoke them either.
Wait a minute, I don't smoke.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Darius871
It doesn't surprise me in the least, but a lot of naive people (apparently not you two nor I) thought France and Russia were against this war for mostly moral and humanitarian reasons.

WE WERE AGAINST THIS WAR, BECAUSE THIS WAR IS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. When the hell you will understand that USA acted alike Nazi Germany (Poland) or Imperial Japan (Pearl Harbor) or Soviet Union (Winter war)? YOU acted illegaly. YOU broke international laws that humanity created to prevent such bloodbaths as both World wars were. You are agressors. Shame on you.

Now wait a sec, I thought the traditional line was 'Saddam is a son of a *****, but I don't think war is the answer.'

Unprovoced war isn't the answer in any situation.

Now you are saying that you're proud of your country actively supporting him, and being a party to his oppression? Which is it gonna be?

I said that I proud that my country tried to force Saddam to continue cooperation with UN, tried to prevent this war, tried to saved thousands that you killed and tried to protect international laws that you've broken.

It was a DIRECT QUOTE of the London Sunday Times. I merely used a different source's reference to the LST because you can't read the original copy without a subscription. The London Sunday Times were the source, not Fox, grow up.

Grow up yourself. You don't have sense of humor.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Joseph
Good, I don't smoke them either.
Wait a minute, I don't smoke.

Good for you.