French treachery emerged

The Washington Times

Quote:

---

The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, Chirac helped sell Saddam the two nuclear reactors that started Baghdad on the path to nuclear weapons capability.
France's corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war.
By 2000, France had become Iraq's largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified.

---

Quote:

---

An initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France.

---

Quote:

---

Just days before U.S. and coalition forces launched their military campaign against Iraq, more evidence of French treachery emerged.
In mid-March 2003, U.S. intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with chemicals used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles. The sanctions-busting operation occurred in August 2002, the U.S. National Security Agency discovered through electronic intercepts.

---

Quote:

---

The war in Iraq, which began March 19, 2003, provided disturbing evidence that France's treacherous dealings come at a steep cost to the United States.
On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.

---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...3000-1796r.htm
French connection armed Saddam - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - September 08, 2004

There's been a lot to do about that stuff, and I don't think we'll ever know what really happened. I don't think Chirac is stupid, and I'm pretty sure that if weapons were exported to Iraq after the embargo, it wasn't official. And let's not forget that defense-weapons were perfectly legal to be exported to Iraq during the embargo...

That being said, there's been even more to do about those Rolands... I remember the Polish trumpetting that they found Roland-3's (manufactured around 1995, after the embargo) - then before anyone can take a look at them, they destroy the rockets... and a couple of weeks later apologize to the French for having made up stuff.

There have been no trust-worthy reports about Roland-3's being found - there have been reports about Roland-2's (like the one that shot down the plane). Those Roland-2's went out of production 20 years ago, though (and were supplied to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, when everybody was supplying either one with weapons).

French "treachery"... pfftt... should other countries start complaining when one of their soldiers gets shot by an American-made weapon, and start calling Americans treacherous? It's no secret that France is one of the biggest suppliers to the Middle East (and that's simply because the French specialize in desert equipment) - but that's a long way away from saying that the French government supplied Saddam with illegal weapons during the embargo.

Let's try this again...half-way through writing a response my cursor disappeared so I shut down with the keyboard and now it's back...

Hi Negative,

I agree...but I found the article interesting enough to read and post even though it is a little dated.

When it comes to the American Press I follow the simple rule : take everything with a grain of salt unless verified by a second outside source. ;)

Eg ;)

You would think those persons like, say Micheal Moore, would be interested in things like this. Call it the French Connection. But it wouldn't suite their tastes. That is forging their own reality.

Hi RoadClosed,

Moore got trashed a couple of times by the Canadian Press for fudging/manipulating figures and giving a one-sided slant to his so-called documentaries...which were actually his own perpective disguised as a documentary. :eek:

I never seen any movie he did...was there a disclaimer on the end like : no persons real or fictional were intended...etc...etc...etc...?

Eg ;)

EG > While I totally agree that Moore is biased, Fahrenheit 9/11 is different. I don't care about how he presents it (that's what he gets bashed for), it's the footage that counts. And that's where the argument stops: you can discuss over and over the way he presents it, but when there's footage of someone saying "I don't like Egaladeist" (just an example... it's not in Fahrenheit 9/11 ;) ), I could manipulate that and say "maybe he doesn't like deists" and then present the footage. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that someone said "I don't like Egaladeist". Interpret it any way you want to (and that's what Moore did... he interpreted the footage his way), but the footage is still there. Moore based all of his commentaries on articles (and most of his sources are mentioned). What's wrong with that?
If RoadClosed says in this thread "Egaladeist is a brat", and I quote that and say "Roadclosed said that Egaladeist is a brat", would you attack me for saying that you are a brat? I didn't say that, did I? And that's exactly what the deal is with Fahrenheit... Moore doesn't say it; his sources do.


Oh, and stop saying stuff about movies you haven't seen... it doesn't add anything to the credibility of what you say :p

Hi Negative,

Well...actually...footage can be manipulated too...I've seen it done, but that's not to say that it was in this case.

As for sources...the sources I drew upon to form my opinion were, in my opinion, valid sources...much in the same way I would be able to form an opinion on computers based upon posts I've read of yours without actually seeing you do what you say. I could form my opinion that you are giving accurate and reliable information based upon my opinion of you and not based upon my actual knowledge of computers.

As for my own credibility...I stated my disclaimer that I had not actually seen the movies myself...that does not diminish my credibility, it enhances it. I did not present myself in such a way as to make people assume I was speaking from first hand knowledge.

And no...I wouldn't attack you for quoting another source...which directly applies to this situation :D you are in effect attacking me for applying of another source after I disclaimed actual knowledge :D !

I'm a pain in the a@@ aren't I !

Eg ;)

Quote:

---

which were actually his own perpective disguised as a documentary.

---

What newspaper was that in? :p

And don't come back with "I summarized the article" :D

Hi Negative,

Admittedly this part " disguised as a documentary "was my own addition :D , everything gets it's praisers and detractors and Moore got both up here too...but the one thing most people agreed upon including Moore himself was that the work was slanted in favor of his own take on things...which excludes it from being a documentary which, in theory, is supposed to be a look at the facts from an observors standpoint rather than as a participant...as such I don't consider it a documentary as much as an editorial...maybe they should make " editorial " a new category for movies because basically that what Moore and others like him produce...editorials.

Quote:

---

And don't come back with "I summarized the article"

---

I aim to please! :D

Eg ;)

I could relate Micheal Moore and Fareheit 9/11 to T.A.S.S. They didn't always make stuff up and they used real footage. Moore didn't do anything different from any of his older documentaries that I like. Except use it as his own personal political tool to attempt the sway public opinion. And I am not a Bush lover. He is pissing me off on many fronts, stuff Moore doesn't give a **** about.

It's easy to manipulate someone when you shove a camera in their face on the street. I am still waiting for lower oil prices btw, and WW3. They have reached another record high for barrel prices. If his goal was to control the Saudi family and gain control of world oil then he sucks at it. :p

Calling those things documentary's is like saying Rush Limbaugh is unbiased and provides a daily dose of fair reporting. All those right wing (conservative republican) books are just "documentaries" with real footage in the form of case quotes, soundbytes, and government documentation. In either case, they get your brain thinking so they are probably for the better.

Hi RoadClosed,

Funny you making a comparison with Rush Limbaugh...I remember one article here made the same comparison ( the two extreme points )....and Moore was actually being requested to be sued by the conservative party up here because of his remarks he made here...election violations...but because it was minor...$2000 fine or six mths. in jail or both...they dropped it...or it was dismissed...I don't remember.

People do generally act differently with a camera on them, especially if it's sudden or intrusive, if they're not used to that kind of exposure.

Eg ;)

Hello Egaladeist:

Quote:

---

When it comes to the American Press I follow the simple rule : take everything with a grain of salt unless verified by a second outside source.

---

Just curious - but is it only the American press you need to verify?

Hi KuiXing-2005,

It's the only other source I look at...being Canadian it's unavoidable but to be inundated by the American Media...I'm not saying the Canadian Media doesn't have it's bad side too.

Generally, I don't read the Chinese, Australian, German, etc...etc...etc...Press, so it's not an issue of verification. I don't have to verify it if I don't read it.

Generally speaking, any source of information, whether it's the media or a snitch on the street, can be taken to have more substantial quality if it has been verified by a second independant source rather than taken on it's own or is supported only by inter-dependant sources.

Eg

Regardless of what was found you don't hold up new weapons and internationally embarrass your allies. Just don't sell Iraq anymore Nuke reactors and equipment for the likes. Is that desert equipment?

Hi Imitation,

Obviously, I agree...if there's any truth to the story, and I'm sure there is, you would think that we would learn from past discretions and make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes.

Trading with the enemy...or, a country that can quickly become the enemy, is never a good idea...for obvious reasons...the weapon you sell today may be the weapon that kills your family tomorrow.

Eg

Just remember that Chiraq sold those nuclear plants to Hussein in the 1970's... Hussein was vice president back then, Chiraq was prime minister. Back then, France was one of the only countries that hadn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreements so technically it wasn't doing anything wrong. Guess who's doing (or not doing!) the same thing right now...

Hi Neg,

Well the article does make the claim that the arms trade was going on well after that as well...but it, again, is in dispute about the accuracy of the claims...I'm sure there's some truth to it...there usually is...but how much truth we really don't know...France has been the object of criticism ever since their stand on Iraq 2 so there's likely some bias and flaming involved.

And yes I agree...it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black...America and many other countries have a long history of trading with their enemies or unstable regimes...and having those same countries and regimes use those weapons against our own allies.

Again...Trading with the enemy...or, a country that can quickly become the enemy, is never a good idea...for obvious reasons...the weapon you sell today may be the weapon that kills your family tomorrow.

unfortunately...history keeps repeating itself.

Eg :)

It does seem hypocrtical of our country to have the stance of "Do as I say, not as I do." I love weapons, not just sold to our enemies or even allies - what fun is that? I hate the fact that we are trying to tote a shiny image and have a lot of skeletons and current intrinsic issues we need to deal with first, before offering any other country anything - weapons, troops, resource - anything. The current approach for domestic/foreign policy is obviously flawed and it does not appear to be working.