To all French citizens and appeasers...

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
http://www.queensjournal.ca/article.php?point=vol131/issue1/features/lead2

This website has the number you presented and it takes note of conventional weapons, and that it says that Iraq acquired biological weapons. If they did, where are they now?

More importantly in the article you referenced:

Where did Iraq get its major conventional weapons? Who really armed Iraq?

The answer may surprise you.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between the years 1973 and 2002, only one per cent of Iraq’s imported major conventional weapons came from the U.S. By contrast, 57 per cent of Iraq’s imported weapons came from the USSR, 13 percent came from France, and 12 per cent came from China.

These countries were the three largest suppliers of weapons to Iraq during this time period. The U.S., commonly believed to be a key supplier of weapons to Iraq, was actually the 11th largest supplier.

 

[maria5583]

Right, then way attack Iraq in 2003 if the weapons were destroyed as Hans Blix insisted?

 

[maria5583]

Where in that does it say WMDs? Conventional weapons are NOT WMDs?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
Right, then way attack Iraq in 2003 if the weapons were destroyed as Hans Blix insisted?

How convenient of you to forget the part where Blix stated that Iraq still refused to fully cooperate. And how about the chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 that disappeared and to date still haven't been accounted for - even after repeated requests from UN inspectors. And the fact that both Blix and Kay have stated Iraq was in material breach of resolutions.

I see you like to pick out what supports your lame argument and ignore the rest. Figures.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
Where in that does it say WMDs? Conventional weapons are NOT WMDs?

I'll repeat myself - ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE????????

Where did I, or the article, make a reference to the french pussies selling WMD to Iraq? I didn't!!

Do you have comprehension issues?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by maria5583
No maybe you should learn how to read and in engage in a mature conversation without childish name calling. Those numbers are for conventional weapons NOT weapons of mass destruction. Do you even know the difference? And yes buddy the war Iraq is an illegal war because there are certain regulations that a country must take into consideration before engaging in a war. It needs a UN approval, which the U.S. did not get. And the reason why there are no charges is simply because there is no world government, only a world court and the U.S. continues to claim immunty, time will tell if they will be charged with anything. So what country cares more about money then doing the right thing? Although, the U.S. hasn't been Iraq's major trading partner in CONVENTIONAL weapons, it was the U.S. that armed Iraq with WMDs, which it did no longer have in 2003 when they invaded. So who cares more about money than doing the right thing.

Anyone who thinks that any action not approved by the UN is illegal needs serious help. First things first, the laws of this country are voted on by OUR citizens and only those laws are ones to which we owe allegiance. The UN is a voluntary organization- led by a man who has no idea how to lead his own nation, much less one as important as the US. WE wrote the guidelines for them and we are intimately familiar with their tenets. You can spout off about an illegal war all you want, but you have absolutly no facts to back up your statement.

Furthermore, it's quite remarkable (and laughable) how so very often people claiming that the US violated UN policy are calling for punitive action about that but over a decade went by in which Iraq did not comply with UN orders and yet these same people think Iraq should have not suffered the consequences set forth by the UN.

You have no original thought, no credibility; only opinion. You are certainly entitled to it but no one with a brain is swayed.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
Dude, why would coventional weapons pose a threat to the U.S.? If that is the case, we should be really be watching out for the U.S. and not Iraq. You arguments lack convincing power because you insult people without really providing arguments, maybe you should brush up on your political science instead of calling people names, because if you did you would see that it is an illegal war and many of your presidents are war criminals.

You truly are an idiot!

Where did I state that conventional weapons were a threat to the US? I simply (I guess not simple enough for a simpleton like you) stated that the french pussies were more interested in their billions of dollars in arms sales to Iraq than they were in preventing terrorism.

Sure, war criminals. Typical canadian idiot that makes ludicrous, baseless claims that cannot be backed up.

 

[maria5583]

I wasn't saying that you said that France sold Iraq WMDs, I said that the U.S. sold Iraq WMDs? Read carefully please! Futhermore, Blix said in 2003, not in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq,, he has even condemned the U.S. publicly in 2003 before the war started for not taking his report to heart. And the reason why some weapons are not accounted for is because we saw the very last ones destroyed on television with the supervision of UN weapons inspectors (remember that), before the war even started. To which Bush replied "They are just deceiving us." How convienant!

 

[jimnyc]

My apologies to those Canadians that are capable of comprehension and common sense.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
I wasn't saying that you said that France sold Iraq WMDs, I said that the U.S. sold Iraq WMDs? Read carefully please!

Then why have you repeatedly ask me about something I never stated?

Futhermore, Blix said in 2003, not in 1998 that there were no WMDs in Iraq,, he has even condemned the U.S. publicly in 2003 before the war started for not taking his report to heart. And the reason why some weapons are not accounted for is because we saw the very last ones destroyed on television with the supervision of UN weapons inspectors (remember that), before the war even started. To which Bush replied "They are just deceiving us." How convienant!

And again, for those that can't comprehend - BLIX STATED IN HIS REPORTS TO THE UN THAT IRAQ WAS IN MATERIAL BREACH OF RESOLUTIONS. THIS WAS IN 2003. HE FURTHER REPORTED THAT THERE WERE CHEMICALS THAT WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998 THAT WERE UNACCOUNTED FOR TO DATE. HE REPORTED THAT THEY REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR WHEREABOUTS DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS.

Can you comprehend now?

 

[maria5583]

Yes, right. then what is the harm of selling Iraq convential weapons? Right? But selling WMDs which the U.S. did in the 1980s is immoral especially when they are claiming to be so self rightous now!!!!Yes, I know it's hard to believe but many of your "wonderful" presidents are war criminals. Read a book!Once again you have proven yourself as rather the classless American with your name calling.

 

[Said1]

url]www.ploughshares.ca/content/BRIEFINGS/brf952.html[/url]

Record Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994


Bucking a global downward trend, Canadian arms sales to the Third World jumped more than 40 per cent in 1994 to reach an all-time high, the latest government records show.

While other weapons suppliers experienced a drop in Third World shipments, during 1994 Canada was able to boost military sales to its largest Third World buyer, significantly increase sales to several Pacific Rim countries, and improve on 1993 sales to about three-quarters of its developing country customers. Beyond the official trade, Canada exported equipment for Third World military end-use that did not appear in the government report because the shipments did not require export permits.

Meanwhile, the 1994 record of Canadian arms sales to human rights violators or countries in conflict did not improve, and Canadian weapons continued to reach repressive regimes and embattled governments in spite of government guidelines designed to restrict such shipments. In sum, during a period when Canada was also increasing resources and personnel for peacekeeping missions, the 1994 arms export figures paint a sorry picture of the first full year of the current government's export controls.

In a survey published in the September edition of the Ploughshares Monitor, Project Ploughshares analysed the latest trade figures published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in its report, "Export of Military Goods from Canada: Annual Report 1994." The major findings of the survey were:

Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994 reached a record high of $342.6 million. The 1994 total is a jump of $100 million, or more than 40 per cent, above the 1993 total.
Since 1987 global arms sales to the Third World have dropped by three-quarters. During the same period Canadian military exports to developing countries almost tripled. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2.)
The US Congressional Research Service recently ranked Canada as the seventh largest arms supplier to the Third World for the four year period 1991 to 1994.

If military end-use defined Canadian arms exports, the value of 1994 sales to the Third World may have been 15 to 30 per cent higher than the reported total. If deliveries of "dual-purpose" goods such as the Bell 212 helicopters shipped to the Thailand Army last year were included in official military export figures, Canadian arms shipments to the Third World may have approached half a billion dollars in 1994.
Canadian arms sales to the Third World in 1994 were more than two and half times arms sales to Europe, traditionally the largest Canadian weapons market outside the US.

In 1994 more than half of all non-US Canadian military exports (and three-quarters of Third World exports) arose from one contract, the supply of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) by General Motors of Canada to the National Guard of Saudi Arabia. In 1994 LAV shipments to Saudi Arabia totalled $255.7 million, up $43.8 million from the 1993
delivery value.

In 1994 eight Third World nations imported Canadian military goods worth at least $1 million more than their 1993 imports. A total of 25 developing countries received higher values of Canadian military goods in 1994 than in 1993.

Of the 34 Third World customers for Canadian arms in 1994, 18 were involved in significant human rights violations. Eight recipients were sites of major conflict in 1994 and three more were "flashpoints" where minor conflicts may escalate. According to Canadian export control guidelines, Canada "closely controls" arms exports to human rights
violators and to countries involved in, or threatened by, hostilities.

More than half of the 1994 Third World recipients of Canadian weapons did not report to the UN Register of Conventional Arms. The Canadian government meanwhile has stated it will press "UN member states to make use of [the Registry]."

In the period 1993 to 1994, during which Canada's total non-US military exports increased 48 per cent, the number of Canadian peacekeepers posted abroad increased 52 per cent.

The recent growth in Canadian arms sales to Third World countries underlines the need for a review of Canadian export control
policy. The changed geopolitical environment and broader security context that the Liberal government acknowledged in recent
foreign policy statements have yet to be reflected in new export controls. As demonstrated by the number of Third World
recipients of Canadian arms that are involved in human rights violations or conflicts, and the number of sales of "dual-purpose"
materials to overseas military customers, the existing controls are not up to the realities of today's world.

In the interim the government could regain lost credibility on its export control practices by taking immediate steps to reduce Canadian military industry dependency on Third World sales. It could begin by more rigorously applying existing export control guidelines, such as those concerned with human rights and hostilities, that are relevant to today's international security dynamics. It could introduce new guidelines, such as mandatory participation in the UN Arms Register, that would contribute to global arms trade restraint.


[

 

[jimnyc]

Here's some more from Blix's report that you conveniently left out.

IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONS REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL

The heads of the weapons inspections regime in Iraq reported to the Security Council today that procedural cooperation in the disarmament process in Iraq continued to improve in recent weeks, and to date they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but many banned weapons remained unaccounted for and that could only be resolved through Iraq’s “immediate, unconditional and active” cooperation.

The outstanding questions remained, however – well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated.

Cooperation on substance required more than the opening of doors, he added. In the words of resolution 1441, it required immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament.

In his earlier briefings, he had noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq, he said. As examples, he had referred to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX, and long-range missiles. The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, had missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. That was perhaps the most important problem. Although he understood that it might not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it was not the task of the inspectors to find out. Iraq itself must squarely tackle that task and avoid belittling the questions.

 

[maria5583]

THERE ARE NO WMDs in IRAQ when the U.S invaded, that is all I am saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am not saying that there never were. Of course there was, the U.S. sold them WMDs.

I can't believe that in a country full of smart people, you can't seem to understand that you were fooled into a war by your leader and you don't have to analytical skills to comprehend that! That is a very sad thing! No wonder many people including educated Americans, which you probably aren't, think American's are extremely ignorant!!!!!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
Yes, right. then what is the harm of selling Iraq convential weapons? Right? But selling WMDs which the U.S. did in the 1980s is immoral especially when they are claiming to be so self rightous now!!!!Yes, I know it's hard to believe but many of your "wonderful" presidents are war criminals. Read a book!Once again you have proven yourself as rather the classless American with your name calling.

Can you please take your time when responding, I can't stand reading posts by people that are illiterate.

Call them war criminals all you like. Rants from retards without facts really don't bother me.

 

[maria5583]

Blix's report that you provided only strenghts my views. The man wanted more time to investigate and the U.S. wouldn't give him it and just decided to attack.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
THERE ARE NO WMDs in IRAQ when the U.S invaded, that is all I am saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am not saying that there never were. Of course there was, the U.S. sold them WMDs.

I can't believe that in a country full of smart people, you can't seem to understand that you were fooled into a war by your leader and you don't have to analytical skills to comprehend that! That is a very sad thing! No wonder many people including educated Americans, which you probably aren't, think American's are extremely ignorant!!!!!

Jesus, you're going to call me uneducated now - when you can't spell any better than a 3rd grader? LOL

The analytical skills of the inspectors and intel agencies around the world were enough for me. They all came to the same conclusions, idiot.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by maria5583
Blix's report that you provided only strenghts my views. The man wanted more time to investigate and the U.S. wouldn't give him it and just decided to attack.

Sure, completely ignore what you said about Blix and weapons earlier. Next time read the resolutions and inspection reports before making a fool of yourself.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by maria5583
There are so many inconsistencies in this post that I don't even know where to begin. For the record I am not French, I am Canadian, but I feel that I have to say something because some of these claims are outright ridiculous. First off, France like Canada have always been great allies of the U.S., make no mistake about that. But your best friends are the ones that tell you that you are making an ass out of yourself, and that is what the U.S. has been doing with this war. Iraq is on the verge of a civil war, which the U.S. can't control. The United States have lost many young men and women and killed many others and will continue to do so until they leave Iraq. And for what? WMD, that have not been found, and will NEVER be found because Iraq did NOT have WMD. They had them in the 1980s because the U.S. sold them WMDs NOT France. France has been acitve in the war against terrorism as has Canada but both countries know that this is an illegal war because it has no UN approval and that's why the U.S has not received the support that it expected, not because France and the rest of the world is anti-American. Although France is a ally of the U.S. as is Canada, it does not always have to agree with American polices because it might be hard to believe, but the U.S,. is NOT always right.
Consequently, these claims that France should help the U.S. because the U.S. helped France are ludicris because the truth of the matter is that France was in serious danger because of the Germans as was the rest of the world, including the U.S. And although I feel indebted to men and women like your father, because he truly is a hero, inspite of the desperate pleas from the Allies, the U.S. only joined the war after the Allies were seen as about to lose the war to the Germans, and the U.S. had invested so much money of them, and if the lost they knew they would never get the money back. Futhermore, Iraq did not pose any danger to the U.S. because it did not have weapons of mass destruction nor would it have had 3 by 2005 because they are very difficult to acquire. Only about 8 countries have them because they are seen as very destructive and are very difficult to build and even the richest countries in the world can't build them, let alone Iraq, and they are even difficult to acquire from other countries because countries are extremely careful with them. Although, the French have vandalized American properity, American's have done the same to French interests. Oh, and by the way, French fries are not from France but from Belguim!Huessin did NOT establish terrorist organizations that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard in my life, who comes up with these things? Huessin's regime was secular in ever sense, and although he was an evil dictator that killed many people, there are worse dictators in the world. Ask Mr.Bush for their numbers, he is really good friends with them.

Maria, (nice name by the way) I must first say that I respect your stance on defending the French. I mean, we've been doing that for over 100 years.

Richard Perle points out in his book, "An End To Evil," (I know that word "evil" doesn't rest well with liberals when talking about terrorists) that your president, Jacques Chirac, often tells a story of how he came to the US to study at Harvard... and how he learned more from his weekend job serving sodas at a Howard Johnson's off campus. In 1953, it would be inconceiveable for a young Frenchman from a good family to take a job in France as a waiter... it was in America that good old Jacques got his first glimpse at equality. He was not the first, nor the last, European to be reinvigorated in his democratic ideals by the American example.

We have spent an entire century defending Frenchman and Europeans from imperialists, Nazis, and Soviets. Ironically enough, the first NATO member to be attacked, was us, on 9/11. We were attacked by al-Qaeda, a lone terrorist group, in a world with many terrorist groups. To think that the War on Terror starts and ends with al-Qaeda and bin Laden, that is a short, and wrong definition of terrorism. Saddam Hussein funded terrorist groups. He sponsored terrorist networks. And he sheltered terrorists.

Abu Abbas, the leader of the PLF, was given shelter in Iraq. Abu Nidal, the leader of the ANO, was given shelter in Iraq. Abdul Yassin, an al-Qaeda operative and plotter of the 1993 WTC bombing, was given shelter in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative and Ansar al-Islam leader, as given shelter in Iraq. Groups with ties to al-Qaeda, such as the MEK, PKK, Abu-Sayyaf, and Ansar al-Islam, were given sponsorship from Iraq. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, were given funds from Iraq. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's #2, went to Baghdad in 1991. The secular Baathists had to work with radical elements for their very own survival.

Saddam was a terrorist. He slaughtered 750,000 of his own people. He was a threat as a state sponsor of terrorism. In regards to the WMD, well... Russia, the UK, China, France, as well as the other 10 nations in the Security Council, thought there were WMD in Iraq. Italy, Spain, Poland, etc etc.

Almost every Democrat thought there was WMD in Iraq. The reason for this is SADDAM VIOLATED 17 RESOLUTIONS 333 TIMES REGARDING HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. He lost billions, on purpose... he used them, he admitted to using and having them, he detained inspectors, he kicked them out.

And according to FRANCE and GERMANY, he would have had nukes by 2005.

When the Soviet Union was sending nuclear missiles to Cuba in 1962, the US Sec. of State went to France to show them photos of this. The French leader threw the pictures aside and said, "If America says it is true, it is and America has the support of France." Today? Today French officials wouldn't comment if they wanted the US to win the war! They bribed African governments to veto our resolutions. French citizens vandalized American GI graves... the same Americans that died on French soil liberating you.

France's opposition to the war wasn't noble and peaceful. It was financial and cynical.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Oh, and of course the US supported the Baathists in the Cold War, as they were a staunch anti-communist and anti-Iranian force. Of course... we didn't support his gassing of the Kurds, but yes, we did in fact turn a blind eye.

We had to. It was during the Cold War. Had we not supported Afghan rebels (OBL) and dictators (such as Saddam) communism would have taken over the Middle East.

We're trying to right that wrong. Our enemy now is a different ideology than communism.