Since youre all interested in some of the wrong things France has done (got to agree with some of them) I think there are other interesting facts
:
Id like you to explain to me how French corruption and callous profiteering were directly attributable to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis??
So I guess political leaders involved in the Oil for food programme only were from France and Russia right :
Documents such as those unearthed by Britains Telegraph newspaper which show that a top Labour Party member of Parliament who bitterly opposed Tony Blairs part in the war was allegedly on Saddams payroll. The paper reports that George Galloway, an outspoken member of the governing Labor Party, received an annual cut from Iraq's exports under the oil-for-food program worth approximately $585,500.
The latest data provide the most authoritative account to date of Iraq's business dealings. Firms based in Russia, France, Switzerland, Britain and Turkey purchased about $32 billion of Iraqi crude through the U.N. oil-for-food deal, about half of all oil sold by Hussein's government under the U.N. program, according to the list. Four U.S. companies are listed as having purchased $482 million worth of Iraqi crude. The list includes direct sales to Texaco, which bought $28.3 million in oil, and Mobil Export Corp., which paid $152 million. Purchases by Chevron Products Co. and Phoenix came to $140.2 million and $162.25 million, respectively.
Here is an interesting article: http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
Other interesting things :
the above information came), was reduced from a 12,000 page report to only 3,000 pages.
Non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier.
Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing.
All information about the supplies from - and the support of - foreign companies, research labs
and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted.
The permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain are aware of this censorship.
From information gathered from UN diplomats censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the US.
Among the constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support
to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction.
The report makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations
supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990-91.
Guess who authorized all this? DONALD RUMSFELD
Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein - Baghdad December 20, 1983.
Guess who Bush Jr chose to surround himself with, in the present U.S. congress?
The very same men who served under Reagan and his father... including Rumsfeld.
Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. Well, certainly Saddam is an evil man. He used poison gas against Iraqis collaborating with Iran in their decade-long war. And after he did it, the U.S. continued to support him, giving him intelligence information and military equipment (interesting). A principle emissary from the Reagan Administration to Saddam at that time was Donald Rumsfeld. And yes, he has killed political rivals -- some of them for the CIA, who used Saddam to get rid of the previous ruler of Iraq (who wanted Kuwait returned to Iraq). And yes, Saddam has been guilty of human rights violations -- although not nearly to the extent of US allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, until 1990 Saddam was hailed by the United States as the most enlightened leader in the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/i...1030606992&ei=1&en=078f424219c1eb05&oref=regi
There was a time when Hussein was an appreciated ally. During the'80s, Baghdad was regarded as a bulwark against militant Shiiteextremism. According to the principle of "the enemy of the enemy ismy friend," the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations approved theselling of poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, such asanthrax and bubonic plague, to Iraq. At the time, the country wasfighting an eight-year war against Iran.
When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the United States didn't show anyinterest. Things changed, however, in 1982, when Iranian troopsmanaged to enter Basra, Iraq's second largest city. The United Stateswas afraid the Iranian breakthrough might threaten U.S. oil supplies.According to The Washington Post, "The United States would dowhatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the warwith Iran."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even visited Iraq in December1983, offering diplomatic relations to Hussein. In the course of thisnew "diplomatic friendship," Iraq was removed from the StateDepartment's terrorism list in February 1982. Saddam was called uponto perform friendship services, such as the training of severalhundred Libyans who were sent to Iran by the United States so theycould overthrow the Quaddafi government.
When former military analyst Kenneth M. Pollack warned his CIAcolleagues that Saddam was a "very nasty character," nobody paidattention to him. Now the Bush administration justifies their plans to attack Iraq with the argument of Hussein's use of chemical weapons" against his own people." Certainly nobody talks about the chemicals'origins now.
Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. This one is a doozy! The fact is that Saddam has complied pretty well with those resolutions. Sometimes he had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the inspectors, but the job got done. Is Saddam in technical violation of some of those resolutions? Probably. When all his missiles were destroyed, he kept plans and molds so that his arsenal could be rebuilt in the future. But does anyone really think that George W. Bush and his conservative supporters care one whit about the "credibility and integrity of the United Nations"?? You've got to be kidding. If we were the least bit interested in that, the US government would not have spent the last several decades protecting Israel from punishment for their flagrant and continuing violation of UN Resolution 242.
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/iraq2.htm
Here is the authors BIO since you like doing backup checks: http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/bio97.htm
PS: There are shit loads of other things I could point to...
Id like you to explain to me how French corruption and callous profiteering were directly attributable to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis??
So I guess political leaders involved in the Oil for food programme only were from France and Russia right :
Documents such as those unearthed by Britains Telegraph newspaper which show that a top Labour Party member of Parliament who bitterly opposed Tony Blairs part in the war was allegedly on Saddams payroll. The paper reports that George Galloway, an outspoken member of the governing Labor Party, received an annual cut from Iraq's exports under the oil-for-food program worth approximately $585,500.
The latest data provide the most authoritative account to date of Iraq's business dealings. Firms based in Russia, France, Switzerland, Britain and Turkey purchased about $32 billion of Iraqi crude through the U.N. oil-for-food deal, about half of all oil sold by Hussein's government under the U.N. program, according to the list. Four U.S. companies are listed as having purchased $482 million worth of Iraqi crude. The list includes direct sales to Texaco, which bought $28.3 million in oil, and Mobil Export Corp., which paid $152 million. Purchases by Chevron Products Co. and Phoenix came to $140.2 million and $162.25 million, respectively.
Here is an interesting article: http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
Other interesting things :
Full List Of 24 U.S. Weapons Suppliers To Iraq:
"Of course we know the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts."A = nuclear program,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics,
B = bioweapons program,
C = chemical weapons program,
R = rocket program,
K = conventional weapons, military logistics,
U.S. CORPORATIONS:
1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A) 13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A) 13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
USA CENSORSED IRAQ REPORT
According to the German Press Agency DPA, the Iraq weapons dossier report (from which the above information came), was reduced from a 12,000 page report to only 3,000 pages.
Non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier.
Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing.
All information about the supplies from - and the support of - foreign companies, research labs
and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted.
The permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain are aware of this censorship.
From information gathered from UN diplomats censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the US.
Among the constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support
to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction.
The report makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations
supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990-91.
Guess who authorized all this? DONALD RUMSFELD
Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein - Baghdad December 20, 1983.
Guess who Bush Jr chose to surround himself with, in the present U.S. congress?
The very same men who served under Reagan and his father... including Rumsfeld.
Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. Well, certainly Saddam is an evil man. He used poison gas against Iraqis collaborating with Iran in their decade-long war. And after he did it, the U.S. continued to support him, giving him intelligence information and military equipment (interesting). A principle emissary from the Reagan Administration to Saddam at that time was Donald Rumsfeld. And yes, he has killed political rivals -- some of them for the CIA, who used Saddam to get rid of the previous ruler of Iraq (who wanted Kuwait returned to Iraq). And yes, Saddam has been guilty of human rights violations -- although not nearly to the extent of US allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. As a matter of fact, until 1990 Saddam was hailed by the United States as the most enlightened leader in the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/i...1030606992&ei=1&en=078f424219c1eb05&oref=regi
There was a time when Hussein was an appreciated ally. During the'80s, Baghdad was regarded as a bulwark against militant Shiiteextremism. According to the principle of "the enemy of the enemy ismy friend," the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations approved theselling of poisonous chemicals and biological viruses, such asanthrax and bubonic plague, to Iraq. At the time, the country wasfighting an eight-year war against Iran.
When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the United States didn't show anyinterest. Things changed, however, in 1982, when Iranian troopsmanaged to enter Basra, Iraq's second largest city. The United Stateswas afraid the Iranian breakthrough might threaten U.S. oil supplies.According to The Washington Post, "The United States would dowhatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the warwith Iran."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even visited Iraq in December1983, offering diplomatic relations to Hussein. In the course of thisnew "diplomatic friendship," Iraq was removed from the StateDepartment's terrorism list in February 1982. Saddam was called uponto perform friendship services, such as the training of severalhundred Libyans who were sent to Iran by the United States so theycould overthrow the Quaddafi government.
When former military analyst Kenneth M. Pollack warned his CIAcolleagues that Saddam was a "very nasty character," nobody paidattention to him. Now the Bush administration justifies their plans to attack Iraq with the argument of Hussein's use of chemical weapons" against his own people." Certainly nobody talks about the chemicals'origins now.
Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and must be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. This one is a doozy! The fact is that Saddam has complied pretty well with those resolutions. Sometimes he had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the inspectors, but the job got done. Is Saddam in technical violation of some of those resolutions? Probably. When all his missiles were destroyed, he kept plans and molds so that his arsenal could be rebuilt in the future. But does anyone really think that George W. Bush and his conservative supporters care one whit about the "credibility and integrity of the United Nations"?? You've got to be kidding. If we were the least bit interested in that, the US government would not have spent the last several decades protecting Israel from punishment for their flagrant and continuing violation of UN Resolution 242.
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/iraq2.htm
Here is the authors BIO since you like doing backup checks: http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/bio97.htm
PS: There are shit loads of other things I could point to...
:
