That's a very reasonable expectation. The French sold themselves out in WWII. The French were able to co-exist with most terrorist groups throughout the '70s and '80s. And there is a reason why French systems are so often used by those charitably termed rogue nations.
Saddam bribed Chirac..
- Thread starter Kestryll
- Start date
- Status
That's a very reasonable expectation. The French sold themselves out in WWII. The French were able to co-exist with most terrorist groups throughout the '70s and '80s. And there is a reason why French systems are so often used by those charitably termed rogue nations.
Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israelis bombed some years back? Chirac personally negotiated the agreement to build the reactor and transfer nuclear technology to Saddam. In addition, the draft agreement that Chirac came up with would have fueled the reactor with weapons grade uranium -- i.e., Chirac tried to give Saddam a nuclear bomb.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
That must have been about the same time Ronald Reagan was allowing US companies to sell "agricultural" chemicals to Iraq that he knew they were using to make chemical weapons to use against Iran.
If I were you guys, I'd wait a little to crow about the authenticity of anything from this "independent" Iraqi newspaper. Seems we've had former Iraqi officials selling material like this for a few bucks to make ends meet before. Those turned out to be forged.
As far as Scott Ritter is concerned, if I can get up enough energy to gather some good quotes, I might start another thread to highlight some of his claims from before the war with what we know now. Until then, to make it short, he said pretty much exactly what our inspector Kay is saying now. Only it cost us a couple of hundred billion dollars and several thousand dead GIs and Iraqis to find it out for ourselves. Oh, yea, and not to mention a less stable Middle East. And more risk of terrorism than before the war.
I'm sure there's an up side to this whole thing somewhere.
HunterGatherer
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
I thought you leftys said that kindly ol' unca Sodom didn't have nasty WMDs?
Stand_Watie
Member
ABC is running the list here now.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-3.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-3.html
ojibweindian
Member
Ya know, Malone the war WAS about oil.
All those peace-loving, anti-war countries, and their leaders, were neck deep in crude oil bribes.
Sure, it's all about peace, right?
All those peace-loving, anti-war countries, and their leaders, were neck deep in crude oil bribes.
Sure, it's all about peace, right?
bountyhunter
member
And Regan bribed Saddam Hussein back when we were using him to punish Iran for taking our hostages. We gave Iraq unrestricted trade access to all of our weapons, even the high-tech stuff. That (and the poison nerve gas) is how Iraq won the war with Iran that they were losing before Uncle Sam stepped in.
bountyhunter
member
At Least Quote It Correctly
We said Saddam had no weapons that threatened any US interests (ie nukes) and that was never in doubt. If he had chems, who cares? He has had them since 1982 because he used them on Iran. He also used them on the Kurds and nobody said anything because he was still our ally. The WMD's and killings only became important when he invaded Kuwait and threatened the oil supply.
Point is, chem weapons were not a reason for war. Lot's of countries have them. And they sure are not a reason for a STAMPEDE to war that Bush took at the expense of pissing off the world and most of our allies.
We said Saddam had no weapons that threatened any US interests (ie nukes) and that was never in doubt. If he had chems, who cares? He has had them since 1982 because he used them on Iran. He also used them on the Kurds and nobody said anything because he was still our ally. The WMD's and killings only became important when he invaded Kuwait and threatened the oil supply.
Point is, chem weapons were not a reason for war. Lot's of countries have them. And they sure are not a reason for a STAMPEDE to war that Bush took at the expense of pissing off the world and most of our allies.
bountyhunter
member
You are wrong on that. Do the research and you will find that Iraq was given MFN status and 100% unrestricted trade in all weapons. Iran was heavily restricted for trade and not able to buy the weapons we had. You may recall there was a guy named Oliver North who scammed Iran by offering them som garbage TOW missiles at inflated prices to finance a secret war in Nicaragua. If Iran had unrestricted access to buy arms from us, why would they be looking to buy that junk on the blck market? They wouldn't, and Iran's restriction in acquiring weapons was the juice used to fuel that scam.
You are also wrong in believing US policy in 1985 was to have Iraq get hammered. Saddam was being groomed as the US enforcer for the region who would be kept in line by lots of US $$$ and military hardware which would keep him in power. He became a bad guy when he invaded Kuwait. That was driven primarily by the fact Iraq was essentially bankrupt from the Iran war and needed to intimidate the other Arab states into cutting oil production so the prices would rise. Hussein believed if he took Kuwait it would fighten the other Arab states (primarily Saudi Arabia, who ultimately determines the price of oil). He also believed the US would not defend Kuwait, but he was wrong. We did because his actions threatened the oil supply, but also because Bush wanted to clip the wings off the monster the US had been feeding for eight years who had gone rogue. Bush was the former director of the CIA, and he fully understood the implications of Hussein getting off his leash.
Mike Irwin
Member
"but when Bush pays our Coalition allies and hands them lucrative contracts to follow his lead it's called diplomacy right? riiiiggght."
You're missing a very important point, Jonsey (as is everyone else...)
Prior to the war, Iraq was still under strict international sanctions regarding its oil, how much it could produce, how it could use it, etc., and something tells me that using oil to issue bribes to foreign leaders wasn't on the list of approved activities.
France had agreed to those sanctions after the first Gulf War.
If these reports are true, France was violating strictures to which they AND Iraq had agreed.
France, which has a long history of screaming about violations of international law, in fact violated the very international laws they had pledged to uphold.
You're missing a very important point, Jonsey (as is everyone else...)
Prior to the war, Iraq was still under strict international sanctions regarding its oil, how much it could produce, how it could use it, etc., and something tells me that using oil to issue bribes to foreign leaders wasn't on the list of approved activities.
France had agreed to those sanctions after the first Gulf War.
If these reports are true, France was violating strictures to which they AND Iraq had agreed.
France, which has a long history of screaming about violations of international law, in fact violated the very international laws they had pledged to uphold.
Waitone
Member
THR is great ! Where else can yoy hang and read things never before seen in print.
good point. That reminds me, I also remember reports that we discovered many country's and company's doing business illegally with Iraq. There were something like 14 US company's on the list that was never made public.
I wonder when we'll see these guys prosecuted or even just named?
No one here really thinks that there weren't any US MNC's doing business with Iraq do they? Every one has seen the reports of Halliburton sunsids dealing with Iraq and Iran while Cheney headed the company, granted the truth there will not come out now but what about the others?
Still, it's good that Bush decided that the US would unilaterally enforce the UN sanctions. He must love the UN to go out and help them like that. I wish his decison wasn't so freaking expensive in terms of blood and treasure, but think of all the UN lives and $$ we're helping them save! Why the UN was complaining about us baqsically taking over their world police force is beyond me.
Good thing every Republican in Congress lined up to take a squat over the Constitution and abdicate their Constitutional reponsibilities to the executive branch!
Nice list from ABC, doesn't explain why Turkey rejected Bush's $9billion bribe and took $27m from Saddam, must be them pesky Kurds.
I wonder when we'll see these guys prosecuted or even just named?
No one here really thinks that there weren't any US MNC's doing business with Iraq do they? Every one has seen the reports of Halliburton sunsids dealing with Iraq and Iran while Cheney headed the company, granted the truth there will not come out now but what about the others?
Still, it's good that Bush decided that the US would unilaterally enforce the UN sanctions. He must love the UN to go out and help them like that. I wish his decison wasn't so freaking expensive in terms of blood and treasure, but think of all the UN lives and $$ we're helping them save! Why the UN was complaining about us baqsically taking over their world police force is beyond me.
Good thing every Republican in Congress lined up to take a squat over the Constitution and abdicate their Constitutional reponsibilities to the executive branch!
Nice list from ABC, doesn't explain why Turkey rejected Bush's $9billion bribe and took $27m from Saddam, must be them pesky Kurds.
Scott Ritter? Oh, you mean the pervert:
http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories/storyprint.asp?storyID=105424
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/22/asb.00.html
Ah yes, Scott Ritter, who changed his tune about Iraq very dramatically.
Was he caught in a honey-pot trap in Iraq? Could that explain his 180 degree reversal?
The Boston Globe ran a piece that discussed Chirac's involvement in Osirak:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/030203_chirac.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/030203_chirac.htm
Huh? Saddam's military was primarily supplied by the USSR and France. Their small arms -- Soviet (AKM, RPK, RPG, etc). Their armor -- Soviet (BMP, T72, etc.). Their aircraft -- Soviet and French (Mig-29, Mig-25, Mig-23, Mirage). Their SAMs -- Soviet and French. Their artillery -- Soviet and South African.
The US gave Iraq some help during the Iran-Iraq war, primarily in the form of satellite intelligence (which the Iraqis reportedly either ignored or put to poor use). The US was not a primary supplier of weapons to Iraq.
bountyhunter
member
But, you have to admit it strikes odd that one week Bush is screaming that the UN is "IRRELEVANT" because they won't go to war with him, and the next week he's claiming that the war was necessary to maintain the sanctity and authority of the UN. I know politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths, but that really took some gall.
bountyhunter
member
Actually, the satellite intel was extremely valuable because it pinpointed Irans troops to maximize lethality of chemical gas ordinance sent into them. As far as who they bought from, I never said we were their only supplier.. just that they got some very good high-tech hardware from us and they would have bought more if they had the money.
Your implication is still that we were a primary supplier to the Iraqis. We were not. The US was orders of magnitude less than the French and the Soviets.
You say that we supplied high-tech hardware to the Iraqis. What high-tech hardware was that? Tanks? No. APCs? No. Aircraft? No. SAMs? No. Artillery? No. Bunkers? No. Radar? No.
El Tejon
Member
M1911, well, yes, it was artillery, not directly though. The Christians in Action allowed Dr. Bull's Suid Afrikan guns to be sold to Iraq. Bull went to the BoP for it and then came out an angry man. It took a Mossad bullet to calm him down.
Jitsu, excellent point.
However, we've had to clean cages before. It is never pretty or fun though.
Jitsu, excellent point.
However, we've had to clean cages before. It is never pretty or fun though.Mike Irwin
Member
"M1911, well, yes, it was artillery, not directly though."
Beg pardon?
Dr. Gerald Bull was a Canadian national. He had no ties to the US Government of which I'm aware, and none of the weaponry that he designed that ended up in Iraqi hands was manufactured in the United States.
Not at all certain how any of that constitutes even indirect supply of artillery to Iraq.
Beg pardon?
Dr. Gerald Bull was a Canadian national. He had no ties to the US Government of which I'm aware, and none of the weaponry that he designed that ended up in Iraqi hands was manufactured in the United States.
Not at all certain how any of that constitutes even indirect supply of artillery to Iraq.
- Status
