There seems to be some intelligence reports that the French may have helped senior Iraqi officials flee to Syria. If this pans out the French might have some explaining to do. Heres the article.
Article
Printable View
There seems to be some intelligence reports that the French may have helped senior Iraqi officials flee to Syria. If this pans out the French might have some explaining to do. Heres the article.
Article
I can't say that's not true but I doubt. What France have to gain with that (if it's true) ? Nothing. A french diplomat can be in the dark side but you know everybody can buy false passport.
I also heard that US have sold weapons to Saddam (fragmentation bombs for example) in keeping with Ronald Reagan then George H. W. Bush. The CIA is tracking the merchant and that's what he says.
Well, this should be true, unless the "French diplomat" was offered a substantial ammount of money, and we all know how much money Saddam and his punks have dont we. They did just pull off the biggest bank heist in world history. ;) What if it was in response to the U.S. going ahead without the consent of the French government? Your right though all politicians are susceptible bribes and corruption, and these type come a dime a dozen.Quote:
What France have to gain with that (if it's true) ? Nothing.
I don't think or my gouvernment is worth than I think. Imagine the consequence if it's true. I doubt it's true because if France was against the war this was not because we are for Saddam but because we don't like the attitude of Bush.Quote:
What if it was in response to the U.S. going ahead without the consent of the French government?
Yes. Last days in France we've got a TV report with an old iraqui minister who explain that in the Saddam's bank (gouvernment bank?) they have the money of all the country and they always pay cash. So if Saddam is always alive he's rich even if the iraqui money is zero. So he can go and pay for his freedom, in Saudi Arabia for example.Quote:
They did just pull off the biggest bank heist in world history
Well, our government is finding all sorts of interesting things inside Iraq including French made missiles, and many documents showing various interactions between Iraq and France leading up to the war. This isnt nessecarily an odd thing though, considering the French government has always had fairly close relations with Iraq. To be fair they are no doubt finding some of the old weapons we provided them during the Iran-Iraq war too. We will just have to see what pans out. If there is one thing ive learned from living in the U.S. though, is that my government always knows much more than they let on, despite all the leaks that you will inevitably recieve on any major issue. ;)Quote:
I don't think or my gouvernment is worth than I think. Imagine the consequence if it's true. I doubt it's true because if France was against the war this was not because we are for Saddam but because we don't like the attitude of Bush.
I wish the Amercains would stop picking on the French just because they didn't want to go to war with "So-Damned Insane"(just a little nick name for him that's easier to spell). I remember the UN being against the war, it's an illegal one. In a sense US is just as bad as Iraq in the sense that they both don't listen to a damned thing the UN says. Canada didn't join the war because the UN was against it. I now the UN seems to be failing like the L or Nations did years ago, but we should fight that faliure and try to give it respect and strength.
Also, Iraq got a lot of it's weapons from the US it's self and were the ones that help get So-Damned in power. So leave the french alone.
Legal war!? We haven't had a legal war since Korea. Even Vietnam was a 'police action'. Our leaders have been going behind our backs for far too long. It's time to make a stand. Our economy is still in recession, despite Bush's promises of a 'war-stimulated economy.' The reason war helped the economy during WWII is because it provided jobs. Sad, but true. Now, with the dominance of electronic banking, money doesn't really exsist anymore.
The best weapon is knowledge. Educate yourselves, and we have a solid chance of making things right.
How do you define a 'legal war' ??
According to informed opinion the "war" against Iraq did have legal backing, because of previous UN resolutions. You'd need to get a bunch of international lawyers together to get their different views on this.
From a technical point of view it was not a "war" as nobody declared war. No country has officially declared war for about 40 years afaik, because there is no point in doing so.
On moral grounds you can argue both ways, but that is not the same as stating it is 'illegal' under international law. If the final US/UK/Spanish resolution had come to the vote, and been lost, then this legal position would have been undermined.
The fact that France was going to veto any resolution obviously prevented this happening.
France is guilty as charged over this, as it had massive trading links with Iraq (oil, missiles etc.) which it now stands to loose. Of course it is not the only country to trade with obnoxious regime (the US has been doing it for years), but in this case France has been caught red handed.
Well the first part of this statement is true, however we did not help Saddam get in power. You could argue we helped him stay in power, but only if the Iranians would have defeated him. And who are you to tell me leave the french alone, this forum is on ethics and morals, and my post is more than valid! No offense Ishbar. ;) If you werent addressing me personally, then i take it back.Quote:
Iraq got a lot of it's weapons from the US it's self and were the ones that help get So-Damned in power. So leave the french alone.
Wars are neither "legal" nor "illegal", because, at this stage of history, there is noQuote:
I remember the UN being against the war, it's an illegal one. In a sense US is just as bad as Iraq in the sense that they both don't listen to a damned thing the UN says.
world government to declare so. A war is a breakdown in diplomatic relations
between nations that gives one or the other or both the excuse to resort to force.
Since neither has jurisdiction over the other, the conflict is not settled by law enforcement, ie. police and courts, but by force. War is, and always has been, extra-legal
since there is no legal structure or government above individual nations.
A war may be legally or illegally waged according to the laws of the participants,
that is, the USA might be guilty of violating its own laws in the way it wages war,
but can only be punished by others if it loses the war.
:cool:
Whatever the outcome I hope that European-American relations are repaired. Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?
I'll second that motion, at first i was angry, but i forgive really easily. We are all nieghbors in this life, whether we like it or not. ;)Quote:
Whatever the outcome I hope that European-American relations are repaired. Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?
And what about the UN ? Ok that's not really a gouvernment but an association of gouvernment. There job is to keep peace, maintain policies, laws etc. Since UN was against a military force, Bush war was illegal. If not why US are in UN ? Why making UN if you don't listen to it and do what you want ?Quote:
rcgreen said
there is no world government
100% agree. The war is past, now Iraq and Iraqis need help to reconstruct THEIR countr. And they need everybody US, UK and UN. The war was 3 weeks but the reconstruction will take much more.Quote:
gold eagle said
Saddam is yesterday's news now, is it possible to move on?
You are quite right that is the aim of the UN.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
And what about the UN ? Ok that's not really a gouvernment but an association of gouvernment. There job is to keep peace, maintain policies, laws etc. Since UN was against a military force, Bush war was illegal. If not why US are in UN ? Why making UN if you don't listen to it and do what you want ?
100% agree. The war is past, now Iraq and Iraqis need help to reconstruct THEIR countr. And they need everybody US, UK and UN. The war was 3 weeks but the reconstruction will take much more.
The problem with the UN is that it has an archaic structure dating back to the original league of nations formed after WWII. The real decisions are made by the security council, which has 5 permanent members (China, Russia, US, UK, and France), and 7 others chosen on a rotating basis from all other nations.
The problem is this is not a democracy. Any of the 5 permanent members can veto any resolution, so an 11-1 vote in favour is not enough. So if any resolution is proposed that affects the economic or political interests of any of the 5 it is vetoed e.g. Israel (US), Iraq (France), former USSR states (Russia), Tibet (China) etc. etc.
This means that the UN is only a talking shop when it comes to really important issues.
To take Iraq as an example - France publicly stated it would have vetoed any amended resolution (because of its economic interests with Iraq), but if there had been a straight majority vote, it is highly likely an amended resolution would have been passed.
To describe the Iraq war as illegal under international law is not correct, as Iraq was in breach of numerous UN resolutions. Same thing applies to Israel, but until recently the US was reluctant to intervene.
Yes and No. France was OK for the war in 1991 so the ecenomic interrest was not the ONLY reason why France said they veto any resolution (in fact we don't have veto since Russia did it).Quote:
France publicly stated it would have vetoed any amended resolution (because of its economic interests with Iraq)
I htink a major reason is Frances/EU's fear of US power, with out the Soviets to keep us in check we have started to throw our weight around, and that scares just about every body. Well that and Frances continueing irelavance in international afferiars...they still want to be top dog and resent the fact the the US is.
This is factually incorrect - Russia did not veto the resolution as it did not come to the vote.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
Yes and No. France was OK for the war in 1991 so the ecenomic interrest was not the ONLY reason why France said they veto any resolution (in fact we don't have veto since Russia did it).
Russia stated it was intending to veto the original resolution - in diplomatic terms this means that it would have supported an amended resolution that protected Russias interests.
France, on the other hand, stated that it would veto any amended resolution under any circumstances i.e. it was not prepared to give Iraq an ultimatum to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors (with say a 3 month timetable).
Quote:
Originally posted here by darkes
How do you define a 'legal war' ??
According to informed opinion the "war" against Iraq did have legal backing, because of previous UN resolutions. You'd need to get a bunch of international lawyers together to get their different views on this.
From a technical point of view it was not a "war" as nobody declared war. No country has officially declared war for about 40 years afaik, because there is no point in doing so.
On moral grounds you can argue both ways, but that is not the same as stating it is 'illegal' under international law. If the final US/UK/Spanish resolution had come to the vote, and been lost, then this legal position would have been undermined.
The fact that France was going to veto any resolution obviously prevented this happening.
France is guilty as charged over this, as it had massive trading links with Iraq (oil, missiles etc.) which it now stands to loose. Of course it is not the only country to trade with obnoxious regime (the US has been doing it for years), but in this case France has been caught red handed.
:thumbsup:
Well said.
Is'nt it funny how when all these ppl talk about 'legal' and 'moral' issues, they seem to dismiss the illegal and immoral acts of Saddam. It seems to slip their narrow minds.... How many resolutions were there??
Oh well, the right path was taken and with minimal losses, both civilian and military.
Regards,
[pong][glowpurple]VB[/glowpurple][/pong]
I believe there were 17 or 18. :pQuote:
How many resolutions were there??
The French Government has a lot of problems to say the least. Not that I'm saying that the U.S. doesn't, but France has been giving almost everyone hell for years and now they are caught helping Iraq. Hmmmmm, who would have guessed it was the French government that did this? I agree with Bballad that the French are just jealous.
What I believe actually happened was at first, because they were in bed with Iraq, France acted all macho and butch and threatened their veto. When this didn't stop the US' well formed plans, they realised that because of their initial attitude, the US was going to crap on them, so to speak. They also realised that NOW they'd be missing out on their tidy little money collections and oil deals. What a shame!
France, you should have joined the Coalition. Hindsight is a woeful experience.....
Ahahah, I laugh. If you think that US win look at what is Iraq for now. All has to be done. Iraqis miss everything (security, food, medecine, work, money, house, ...).
Before spitting on France, it would be necessary to look at what US do with Saudi Arabia. By helping Saudi Arabia the USA directly finances the internationnal terrorism, and Ben Ladden/Al Quaida at first. What the money of oil is used for?
Iraq needs the help of all. The past is the past but if you can't understand that then Iraq is lost.
Im not trying to be a butt here, but i have to ask. Ghostdog would your opinions on Saudia Arabia be the same if it were they whom we were attacking (or liberating)? Your point is right on Saudi Arabia, but i have to wonder if you would be singing the same tune if we attacked them. If your a straight shooter and an independent thinker then i retract my statement. ;)Quote:
Ahahah, I laugh. If you think that US win look at what is Iraq for now. All has to be done. Iraqis miss everything (security, food, medecine, work, money, house, ...).
Before spitting on France, it would be necessary to look at what US do with Saudi Arabia. By helping Saudi Arabia the USA directly finances the internationnal terrorism, and Ben Ladden/Al Quaida at first. What the money of oil is used for?
Iraq needs the help of all. The past is the past but if you can't understand that then Iraq is lost.
This is all moot, anyway.
The issue at hand is whether or not France assisted Iraqi leaders (SoDamn Insane -btw - Ishbar you're welcome) .
I don't hate France or the French anyomre than anyone else but to put it rather bluntly the French gov't has had it's head up it's ass for quite some time now so all they smell is sh*t. (If you know what I mean)
As soon as they come around this bickering will stop, however, if it's found out that they were material in the evacuation of Iraqi leadership then crap is gonna hit the fan, big time. And the fallout from that could very well shake the very foundation of the U.N and all it stands for. IMO
At least it should.
This is not the first time that France has done something like this.
Anyone remember the reports from Bosnia when we were trying to stop Serbia's ethnic cleansing?
It was widely reported that a fairly senior French military officer had leaked sensitive intelligence information to some senior Serb leaders wanted for war crimes allowing them to escape. In other words, they were warned by France that we knew where they were & they were about to be raided by special forces.
As a direct result of this, the US does not share a lot of sensitive intelligence information with most of Europe. The UK is in a different position here, as it is regarded as 'trusted partner' by the US which will not leak sensitive information.
This does have a significant bearing on what happened in Iraq, as the UK would have had access to a lot of information that France & the UN did not have, which partly explains the willingness of the UK to join with the US. The big question is whether or not this intelligence was correct, as you would have expected evidence of WMD to have been found by now.
Well, before we let out troops drink from the Tigris, our troops tested the water and found traces of illegal chemical substances. This doesnt necessarily prove anything, since false positives with this sort of detection equipment are common. However the two mobile weapons lab's we have discovered in the last few days are nothing to sneeze at. Our government cannot find any other use for these types of labs, except for possibly producing beer. My question is, how likely is it that a mobile beer truck is what we have on our hands here? ;)Quote:
The big question is whether or not this intelligence was correct, as you would have expected evidence of WMD to have been found by now.
Right on, KorpDeath. I often wonder exactly what the UN is still around for. It seems to be, as I've said before, the proverbial 'toothless tiger'. You know, all growl, no bite.Quote:
Originally posted here by KorpDeath
This is all moot, anyway.
As soon as they come around this bickering will stop, however, if it's found out that they were material in the evacuation of Iraqi leadership then crap is gonna hit the fan, big time. And the fallout from that could very well shake the very foundation of the U.N and all it stands for. IMO
At least it should.
If you will just look back over the years, the U.N has pretty much been this way since it's beginning. The only real bite they have is in the area of food distribution and humanitarian services.Quote:
I often wonder exactly what the UN is still around for. It seems to be, as I've said before, the proverbial 'toothless tiger'. You know, all growl, no bite.
I still think the UN is functioning as intended, mainly, it is a sounding board for those who otherwise would have no voice and a grand stage for the rest.
I take the Saudi Arabia as example because it's similar to Iraq. France does commercial with Iraq like US does with Saudi Arabia. The differents is that US take at least 50% of his oil with Saudi Arabia. Iraq has a very low extraction of oil. Saudi Arabia is known for his terrorism, for the moment there's no proof that Iraq is a terrorism country. US will never attack Saudi Arabia because of oil. And I'm an independent thinker, I'm here to share my point of view and learn what others think. I don't take all what my president say, if Chirac was not agree with Bush it's because France has a point of view but I sure that relations with Iraq are for something too.Quote:
FrameWork said
Im not trying to be a butt here, but i have to ask. Ghostdog would your opinions on Saudia Arabia be the same if it were they whom we were attacking (or liberating)? Your point is right on Saudi Arabia, but i have to wonder if you would be singing the same tune if we attacked them. If your a straight shooter and an independent thinker then i retract my statement.
I'm sure that France has not assisted Iraqi leaders. If so I change my nationnality. What have French gouvernemnt to win ? Nothing, except to put all the world against France. But a person who work for France (like a diplomat) may have done this. This is not impossible, during WWII french, English and american have help Nazi.Quote:
KorpDeath said
The issue at hand is whether or not France assisted Iraqi leaders
France had a great role in the conflict with Serbie.Création of the agreements of Dayton, creation of the SFOR, 7500 soldier sending.Quote:
darkes said
Anyone remember the reports from Bosnia when we were trying to stop Serbia's ethnic cleansing?
You say there is no evidence that Iraq is a terrorist country right? Your dead wrong Ghostdog, i suggest you explainQuote:
Saudi Arabia is known for his terrorism, for the moment there's no proof that Iraq is a terrorism country. US will never attack Saudi Arabia because of oil. And I'm an independent thinker, I'm here to share my point of view and learn what others think. I don't take all what my president say, if Chirac was not agree with Bush it's because France has a point of view but I sure that relations with Iraq are for something too.
This guy's presence in Iraq. Or can you explain This facility to us?
And about my president, i can fully trust everything he says, and i dont have to think twice about it. Not all nations are fortunate enough to be able to say that. In case you havent noticed Bill Clinton is no longer in office.
True, France did contribute significantly to the peace keeping force in Bosnia.Quote:
Originally posted here by Ghostdog
France had a great role in the conflict with Serbie.Création of the agreements of Dayton, creation of the SFOR, 7500 soldier sending.
But
To elaborate on my original point, on December 15, 2001, Pierre Henri Bunel, a former French military intelligence officer accused of passing on NATO war plans to Serbian intelligence in 1998, was found guilty of treason and sentenced by a military/civilian tribunal. To quote from the news reports at the time:
"The verdict itself and the trial’s proceedings can only deepen suspicions of a high-level cover-up, for fear of exposing the fact that Bunel was not acting alone but on behalf of a section of France’s state apparatus.
The case against Bunel, prepared over two years, ended in a guilty verdict after just two days. The trial had been transferred from a public to a military court to hide the proceedings from the French public."
"It is highly probable that he was instructed to meet with Serbian intelligence by the French secret service and it was only because his activities were discovered by US intelligence that he was arrested."
"Interviewed in December 1999, Jacques Rupnik of France’s Centre for International Affairs explains, 'France does feel this paranoia that America is a hegemonic power in the Balkans... France feels that the US has established itself as the dominant power in the Balkans, and that the French position in the Balkans has been weakened.' According to Dominique Moisi, another leading French Foreign policy expert, 'The incidents of French complicity with the Serbs are so numerous that it must be defined as something of a trend.' "
And secondly:
Questions remain over the French role in the massacre in Srebrenica (July 1995), when 7000 civilians (Bosnian Muslims) were murdered in cold blood by the Serbs.
There were rumours at the time that the French general (Bernard Janvier) in charge of the so called 'UN safe haven' had done a deal with the Serbs.
What is true is that he did not call in air strikes to protect the area, and the Dutch peacekeepers stood by and watched it happen ....
France launched an enquiry into this and concluded that the UN rules of engagement were at fault. Technically, this is probably true, but given that France ignores rulings when it suits them (lots of recent EU cases), this seems rather hypocritical.
In contrast the UK peacekeeping contingent acted robustly when confronted by a similar situation, bending the rules of engagement, because they thought it was the right thing to do from a moral perspective.
No smoke without fire ....
Incidentally, I don't have a grudge against the French people, having spent many enjoyable holidays in rural France, but I do disagree fundamentally with the French attitude to foreign affairs.
Well, what can I say ? Nothing I'm horrified to read that. If you think that a gouvernment tell all the things.Quote:
FrameWork said
And about my president, i can fully trust everything he says, and i dont have to think twice about it. Not all nations are fortunate enough to be able to say that. In case you havent noticed Bill Clinton is no longer in office.
Let's have a break with this funny joke.
Who said anything about government Ghostdog? I said my president, our government is comprised of much more than just one person, and we all know how corrupt politicians can be.Quote:
Well, what can I say ? Nothing I'm horrified to read that. If you think that a gouvernment tell all the things.
And i love how you side stepped my entire point, wont you please address it this time?
You have done nothing to answer my last post. ;)
<edit>
I must admit that is a funny pic. :D
The president is the chief of the gouvernment so if the gouvernment lies, the president lies. For the corruption, if I remember well, the election of Mr. Bush is not very clear. Some says that G. W. Bush and his brother the gouvernor of Florida have made some illegal things. Ok there's no proof but there's big suspicions.Quote:
FrameWork said
Who said anything about government Ghostdog? I said my president, our government is comprised of much more than just one person, and we all know how corrupt politicians can be.
If you speak about Abu Nidal and the "secret terrorist training facility", well a man is not a terrorism organization and for the "secret terrorist training facility", well you can find some usefull weapon training center in USA. The terrorists of 9/11 learned to pilot in USA but this don't do USA an allied country of the terrorists.Quote:
FrameWork said
And i love how you side stepped my entire point, wont you please address it this time?
You have done nothing to answer my last post.
This doesnt make a lick of sense Ghostdog, im not sure if it's because you dont speak good english or what, but that really doesnt make too much sense. :confused: I'm pretty sure the president and the government(although he is the head of it)are two very seperate things, the president doesnt just get the authority to do whatever he wants. There is a major system of checks and balances, it's not like a dictatorship or a monarchy, the president in most cases must get the persmission of congress and the senate to do the vast majority of things he might want to do. <edit> (legislation wise anyway)--( of course there are presidential order's too). <edit>Quote:
The president is the chief of the gouvernment so if the gouvernment lies, the president lies.
Ok, but before you say there is no evidence that Iraq was a terrorist country, check the facts first.Quote:
If you speak about Abu Nidal and the "secret terrorist training facility", well a man is not a terrorism organization and for the "secret terrorist training facility", well you can find some usefull weapon training center in USA. The terrorists of 9/11 learned to pilot in USA but this don't do USA an allied country of the terrorists.
The president choose the persons who will help him to govern, so the majority of the government is for the president.Quote:
This doesnt make a lick of sense Ghostdog, im not sure if it's because you dont speak good english or what, but that really doesnt make too much sense. I'm pretty sure the president and the government(although he is the head of it)are two very seperate things, the president doesnt just get the authority to do whatever he wants. There is a major system of checks and balances, it's not like a dictatorship or a monarchy, the president in most cases must get the persmission of congress and the senate to do the vast majority of things he might want to do. <edit> (legislation wise anyway)--( of course there are presidential order's too)
(First off i just wanna say, im not trying to get into a flame war with you Ghostdog, and im gonna love you no matter what. :p I just disagree with you.)
The President only chooses his cabinet (someone correct me if im wrong), but i believe he can only choose his cabinent and maybe some other officials. The other representatives in Congress and the Senate are all elected by us the American people. There are two senators for each state, and no less than one congressman for each state.Quote:
The president choose the persons who will help him to govern, so the majority of the government is for the president.
I am not in war with you either. I exchange a point of view but I can make mistake.Quote:
(First off i just wanna say, im not trying to get into a flame war with you Ghostdog, and im gonna love you no matter what. I just disagree with you.)
Hey, were both right and wrong in different ways, no worries. ;)