Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are The French Being Honest?  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2560 times:

The French say that war should be avoided at all costs for reasons of human rights.

I believe that the French are deathly afraid of the Americans, British and others invading Iraq and finding out all of the stuff that France, Germany, and (I hate to admit it, but I have to) Switzerland have sold to Iraq in spite of sanctions. Let's face it, all three of these countries will sell anything to anyone for cash.

Then of course there are all the business advantages that France and others have in dealing with a leader who refuses to deal with American or British companies.

So who believes the French are not being honest about their opposition to a an invasion of Iraq?

Charles

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNASA737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Is ANYONE being honest?



 Sad


User currently offlineAOMlover From France, joined Jul 2001, 1302 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Charles, do you REALLY think that we need another thread about the French position in this forum?
Scroll down, there are dozens of threads about France. Now this is getting to much.
I'm just so tired that as soon as I come in this forum, I see a new thread about how French ppl are bad, etc...


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2459 times:


Colin Powel has been caught lying
Bush has been caught lying
Howard has been caught lying
Blair has been caught lying
Hussein has been caught lying

So what exactly is your issue with the French lying?




ADG


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

AOMlover,

I think that this is a valid question, and has not been approached quite this way on the forum. WHY are the French so against the romoval of Saddam? And not only the French, but others as well. Even Switzerland, my country, has theatened to make GW Bush persona non grata in Switzerland, which would call into question the G8 meeting in Evian this spring. I am deeply ashamed of my own country for stooping this low. Why are they doing this? I think that the government may be hiding something.

Once Allied troops go into Iraq, all sorts of documents and witnesses are going to surface, and at least the American and British governments will find out what nations were breaking sanctions. I think certain countries are very afraid of this.

One big question I have is whether the U.S. or U.K. would ever go public with this information. They might, in order to prove to the world that the opposition was not quite as "righteous" as they pretended, or they might keep it to themselves in order to maintain relations, and only discuss it at top diplomatic levels - for leverage, if anything else.

Charles


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

France being honest? Good question.
I see 2 points.
1/ France is an humanist country, no doubt. They would prefer a diplomatic/peaceful solution, and I think they sincerely believe that a war is not mandatory in the Iraq problem.
2/France has to protect their interests, and an US friendly government in place in Iraq won't be as profitable as a Saddam's one without embargo.

So I would say that they're honest on the fact that peace is better than war, but this would also protect their own interests as well.

I think the only country really honest must be Germany, that's a real pacific country, they've learnt from their mistakes.

On my side, if I have to choose between 2 countries lying, I would support the one against a war rather than the one that is about to launch yet another one.



Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Are they all really against the removal of Hussein or are they against the American method of waging war which leads to massive casualties including their own? Some people really do believe the people of Iraq have suffered enough in the last 12 years.






ADG


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

or are they against the American method of waging war which leads to massive casualties including their own? Some people really do believe the people of Iraq have suffered enough in the last 12 years.

Exactly.



Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

I'm agreeing with OO-AOG on this, they Iraqi people have suffered enough under sadam. I'm for this war becuse of humanitarian rights, free the Iraqi people and allow them to rule themselves. Sadam is a freak, he has killed his own people before just because he didn't like them. Now that's disturbing. Ridding Sadam of the weapons of mass destruction that he supposedly has is just a bonus. I think Bush is going about this all wrong, while getting rid of WMD's is important, I think he would get more international support of he droned on about the humanitarian reasons, rather than the WMD's. Just my opinion.

--dragogoalie-#88--



Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

To Cfalk:

"...and finding out all of the stuff that France, Germany, and (I hate to admit it, but I have to) Switzerland have sold to Iraq in spite of sanctions."

This is an information which I have encountered on this board over the past couple of weeks. It is only partially true. Germany has been the largest supplier of Iraq during the sanctions with 80 companies involved, not France (8 companies). In second place comes the US, with 24 companies involved, 12 of them for the Iraq nuclear program!
(Sources: http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=362566 and others.)

As for your thread, Cfalk, it is very easy to form an opinion based on the information you provided, but please, lets have ALL the information, also when its not favourable to the US. Only then we can all have a real discussion about this item.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Schoenorama

Thanks for the info and link...very interesting. Maybe that's why the US are so sure that Saddam has some more WMDs hidden....probably because those were made and delivered by the USA! Big grin



Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

I think this says a lot

[read more about the leak at the Independent (London) Financial Times, the Guardian (London), and the Associated Press (the only US news outlet to touch the story, albeit in an unrevealing article)]

I remember a certain secretary of defence stating in no uncertain terms that his country has not supplied the Iraqis with anything with a chemical weapon use; but that report, plus previous evidence, seem to indicate the exact opposite. And that statement was made only a couple of weeks ago when directly asked by a reporter at a news conference about the issue.

All countries currently involved in the Iraqi issue are as guilty as one another; and frankly none have the moral highground.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2244 times:

It also should not be forgotten that the US, from 1985 to 1990, exported to Iraq biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application with a total worth of $1.5 billion, according to an investigation of Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut. (Source: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html and other articles at same site).

I suggest you read the whole article. It's very revealing. Guess who provided Saddam with 'Bacillus Anthracis' (yes, this is what you think it is)?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2236 times:

Is the Pope Jewish?  Big grin

User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2230 times:

That was before the war, when it was ok to do so, before Saddam hit the power trip and invaded Kuwait. This is not the issue here, the issue is why did Germany, France and Switzerland continue selling to Iraq after sanctions were imposed?

-Clovis


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2232 times:

Who sold what, before sanctions were put in place, is irrelevant. What's done is done. The question is, where are you today and what do you want to do about it.

Charles


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2221 times:

That was before the war, when it was ok to do so, before Saddam hit the power trip and invaded Kuwait.

Actually, it was DURING the war, it was not ok to do so, and Saddam had already hit the power trip.

Except the fact that the American government supplied biological agents were used against innocence civilian populations in Kurdish areas of Iraq and civilians in general in Iran.

The biological agents were openly supplied to Saddam by the American government, and it was fully known that those agents would be used in direct attacks against Iranian civilians.

But hey, they are only Iranians. Who cares about them?

It has NEVER been morally right for countries to produce biological agents with warfare uses, let alone supply them to other parties; whether they use them or not is also not relevant.

Who sold what, before sanctions were put in place, is irrelevant. What's done is done. The question is, where are you today and what do you want to do about it.

No it is NOT irrelevant Charles. You didn't know that the American government sold these agents, until I showed you some info on the subject (RE: Iraqgate). You didn't seem to condemn the actions of the American government then; and even if you did, that condemnation was nowhere near as loud as your condemnation (as it seems) against the French, Germans and Swiss now.

And it is also very relevant, when you have the ACTUAL person who was largely responsible for Iraqgate saying that the American government never supplied these agents; and that person is a member of the government which is accusing other parties of doing the same thing they have done in the past, and in this case, their actions were responsible for thousands more deaths than the Germans and French have been.

People on these forums admitting that the American government supplied these agents doesn't make a lick of difference. What is needed is the admittance from those people responsible for it. I just can't believe that they still deny that they supplied these agents, when there is much documented proof of it out there.

As to where we are today, and what to do about it. In reality what we say or do isn't going to make the slightest difference to Bush waging his war or Saddam holding out against UN Resolutions.

What you are wanting is a "Who is wrong and who is right" answer, and as I said before, there is no answer to that question. The world is more than black and white than this.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2212 times:

Aviatsiya,

I Understand what you're saying, but it is still irrelevant. Are you familiar with the concept of sunk cost? It simply means that what happened in the past, and the decisions made in the past (frequently erroneous ones) should have absolutely no bearing on the decision you must make today.

We are here today. How we got here is for the historians to figure out. The question is, where do we go from here, based on all relevant options and information.

Charles


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

THAT's funny Cfalk !

Saying The French say that war should be avoided at all costs for reasons of human rights. you are far from honest.
"The French" as you say, said that the war should be the last extremity. I didn't hear anyone saying that it should be avoided "at all cost". Another piece of propaganda ?
Berk !


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

To Cfalk:

"It simply means that what happened in the past, and the decisions made in the past (frequently erroneous ones) should have absolutely no bearing on the decision you must make today."

Then why is your thread titled 'Are the French being honest'?

Over the last weeks France has been critized very much, in the US and British media and also on a.net. About 99% of these critics give me the impression either the writer hasn't done enough research on the subject or he/she is not telling the whole story.

OK, France has done business with Saddam, yes France has oil interests in Iraq, yes Chirac has met Saddam personally. But the same can be said about a dozen other countries, among them the US. Why are their so many US users on this board blaming France for building a nuclear reactor years ago (which was bombed by the Israelis), but nobody blames their own government for providing Saddam with Anthrax and other biological agents in live form, which means they could be reproduced!!

I think you should change the title of this thread to 'Are WE ALL being honest?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Nobody should be blamed for what happened before the Gulf War. Policy before then was legal, even if unwise. After the Gulf War is a Different Story. A number of countries broke sanctions, and criminal charges should await the CEOs of those companies, and should also await the governments of those countries that authorized or promoted such activity.

That list that is being circulated is misleading. For example, I knew Bechtel's Project Manager in Iraq. He's passed away now, but they were doing work on fertilizor plants and some oil work - nothing to do with chemical weapons. In 1990 they were all taken hostage by Saddam. The U.S. governement refused to send in rescue missions, so Bechtel did it themselves. They bribed a whole bunch of people, invaded Iraq in a fleet of 4x4s, bought off all the Iraqi guards, and left with all 50 or so hostages across the Turkish border. Bechtel has not had anything to do with Iraq ever since.

This is not the case for companies like Dassault, Thomson etc.

Charles


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2088 times:


To Cfalk:

"Nobody should be blamed for what happened before the Gulf War. Policy before then was legal..."

Yes, and no. Much of what Saddam received from the West was so-called 'dual-use technology', ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. Also, the US Department of Commerce altered the export licences to Iraq of material to obscure the military functions of these materials, 'before sending the documents on to Congress, which was investigating the affair' of Iraqgate. (Source: http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp)

Also, an article published in 'The New Yorker Magazine' in November 1992 and written by Murray Waas and Craig Unger, stated in its introduction "This article, originally published in New Yorker Magazine, provides a clear picture of the direct involvement of the United States in arming Iraq, providing Saddam Hussein with technology, weapons, intelligence and funding - even in contravention of American law - enabling Iraq to amass the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that threaten the world. While the US does not openly acknowledge its role in arming Iraq, it now prepares to go to war against a monster of its own creation... " (Note that the war mentioned in the last sentence refers to the 'First' Gulf War). (the whole article can be found here: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/111402.htm).

On this same site, I found another interesting thing: the full text, including pictures, of an October 2002 CIA report titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs": http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#09 when you scroll down to the second picture, you'll see the same image Colin Powell used during his UN Security Council presentation. The text under that picture says: "Test of dissemination of BW agents from a modified drop tank carried by a Mirage F1. The drop tank was filled with 1000 liters of slurry Bacillus subtilis, a simulant for B. anthracis, and disseminated over Aby Obeydi Airbase in January 1991. The phote is from a videotape provided by Iraq to UNSCOM."

Don't you think its hypocrital to critisize France for providing Iraq with Mirage F1 aircraft knowing that the lethal loads these aircraft were supposed to carry were delivered by the US? (see reply #12).



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Schoenorama,

SO WHAT!!!

A lot of countries supplied Saddam before the Gulf War. SO WHAT? Some of the even broke the sanctions and sold Saddam weapons while under embargo. SO WHAT! Let the lawyers deal with that. Eventually some people will go to jail (some are already there). The important thing is where we are now and where we are going.

Do you drive by only looking at your rear-view mirror?

Charles


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6751 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2057 times:

Honest ? The French government ain't honest, neither are the Brits, Germans, Iraqis, Russians, Chinese, Australians and whoever else wanna join in this melee. Even the Swiss govt. isn't honest... *I know my one isn't either*

The French is just putting forward a different approach... whether it is right or wrong, we'll see... whether the US view is right or wrong... we'll have to see too...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2031 times:

To Cfalk:

"SO WHAT!!!

A lot of countries supplied Saddam before the Gulf War. SO WHAT? Some of the even broke the sanctions and sold Saddam weapons while under embargo. SO WHAT! Let the lawyers deal with that. Eventually some people will go to jail (some are already there). The important thing is where we are now and where we are going.
"

Then why did you start a thread called "Are The French Being Honest?"

I get the impression you only want to have a discussion about the French honesty on the whole Iraq matter, and, for whatever reason, leave out the role of the US in the whole matter. As soon as I post that the US and Germany are also to blame, you start shouting "SO WHAT".

Honestly, Cfalk, I had hoped your reply would have been a bit more constructive.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
25 Cfalk : I'm just saying that who supplied what to whom and when should be a COMPLETELY seperate issue from the analysis of the situation today and what should
26 Schoenorama : Charles: I don't believe the French Government is acting now to be able to avoid eventual future scandals and neither do I think are the Germans. If t
27 Alpha 1 : I believe the French understand very well what the Iraqi people are going through and over the past years they have been trying to soften the situatio
28 Schoenorama : To Alpha1: No I haven't forgotten, Alpha1 (Please spell my name right! Copy and paste normally does the trick). What I meant with 'softening' was that
29 Alpha 1 : So you agree there are no links (yet) between Iraq and those responsable for 9/11 What part of "agreed" do you not understand? ..yet you state that an
30 Schoenorama : "Are you saying the Security Council SHOULD have a say in how the United States responds to an attck on it's own soil? The attack of 9/11 was an attac
31 Alpha 1 : Once again, where is the link between an attack on American Soil and Iraq? Did I not say that I agree there is not link between Iraq/Al Aqaeda? What p
32 Post contains links Schoenorama : "But I pointed out that the 9/11 attack is NOT the business of the UN, which is what I believe you meant when you mentioned the War on Terror. Or did
33 Post contains links Schoenorama : Alpha1: In case you can't find any articles on the issue I mentioned above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000226/aponline140519_000.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are The French Police Doing? posted Sun Nov 6 2005 19:07:23 by Vanguard737
Proof That The French Are Anti-American posted Thu May 27 2004 00:42:22 by WellHung
I Take It All Back - The French Are Great Too! posted Mon Jul 21 2003 11:17:57 by CHRISBA777ER
The French Are Toast posted Mon Apr 14 2003 19:34:45 by Apathoid
Who Do The French Think They Are? posted Mon Mar 24 2003 06:31:05 by Tsully
Where Are The Calls For Recounts? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:06:56 by RJdxer
You Can't Trust The French posted Tue Nov 7 2006 15:45:13 by QB001
Are The Crown Jewels Displayed In Dresden? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 22:53:54 by Duke
Are The Cardinals The Worst NFL Team? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 05:55:14 by Texan
Official-Nürnberger Bratwürste Are The Best.... posted Sun Oct 1 2006 19:05:41 by Beaucaire