French Are "Resenting" America's Leadership On Tsunami Relief

Since you’re 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…:

I’d 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 Britain’s Telegraph newspaper which show that a top Labour Party member of Parliament who bitterly opposed Tony Blair’s part in the war was allegedly on Saddam’s 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,​

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)​

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...
 
Your corrupt nation wanted to keep Hussein the murderous tyrant in power, because you were making money. It's simple. Are you retarded?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Your corrupt nation wanted to keep Hussein the murderous tyrant in power, because you were making money. It's simple. Are you retarded?

Interesting article: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2004/1010relations.htm

Thats what you were led to believe (a way to explain why france was against it...) but that has never been proven has it. I'm not denying that French companies were involved (so were american companies) and people tied with the the french government (but than again that also happened in the UK) but where is the final report on this? Has it been proven that the French government was bought to go against the war in Iraq? Get me some proof...please...Real proof not just your wise words.
All this is unfortunate but don't use this scandal (Where countries all over the world and US companies) to expain why some countries were against the war.


"To curry favor around the world, Iraq set up a system in which some individuals and companies were able to profit by manipulating the oil-for-food program. Among those enriched in this process, the report said, were French, Russian and other officials. Administration spokesmen said Friday that the US did not endorse the allegations that anyone was enriched by Iraq's practices, only that Iraq was trying to buy influence and weaken sanctions. "It doesn't say that those transactions were completed," said Richard Boucher, a State Department spokesman. "It doesn't say whether or not governments intervened. It doesn't say whether or not the individuals declined. It doesn't really say what happened."

But that was not the tone adopted by Cheney and other officials caught up in President Bush's shrill re-election campaign. In Florida on Thursday, Cheney said Saddam used oil funds to corrupt "some employees of the United Nations as well as other governments in the hopes that they would work with him to undermine the sanctions."

Oh and do read what I have posted before, I doubt you read it in the 3 minutes it was posted before you replied.
 
Said1 said:
The Global Policy Fourm is a joke. YOU will find everything you want to read there.
I guess you didn't read it than. Why should I believe what you guys are saying ( your sources being US newspapers which obviously won't go against US interest) when you don't even consider outside information?

Yeah I know you're Canadian.

The bottom line is nothing has been proven. I also like the fact that the French Bank BNP Paribas, which administered the programme on behalf of the UN is at the center of all this. It makes sence but I find interesting that Among those to profit indirectly from the contracts was Nadhmi Auchi, a British-based businessman who is 34th in The Sunday Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £898m.
Auchi, who lives in a mansion in Kingston upon Thames, southwest London, owns shares in BNP Paribas through his company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH). He was previously a significant shareholder in Paribas, had a place on a shareholder committee and was an influential figure in the merger of the two banks.
If French banks are involved than how much responsibility can you put on the french government if foreign buisnessmen have influence on commitees
overseing the banks affairs...
http://www.worldthreats.com/Europe/MI6 Probes French To Iraq.htm

Forgot to say that Nadhmi Auchi is one of Saddam's cousin...interesting how France has been investigating into a few scandals led by Nadhmi Auchi , knowing he was a cousin of Saddam. Did Saddam not want to use his money to influence France on this one???


(In November Auchi, 66, was given a 15-month suspended sentence and fined £1.4m by a French court for receiving illegal commissions to help Elf build an oil refinery in Spain. Despite this setback, Auchi, a British citizen who lives in London, is forging ahead with the rebuilding of Iraq, his birthplace. His General Mediterranean Holdings company is claimed to have £1.08 billion of net assets but we hold with last year's valuation, less the fine and legal costs.) (We cut £500m from Auchi's wealth this year following reports that magistrates in France want to question him over his alleged role in the Elf-Aquitaine scandal that has rocked the French establishment. Iraqi-born Auchi, 64, now a British citizen, has protested that he has done nothing wrong. However, given the uncertainty and the fact that his interests include aviation and hotels - areas badly hit by September 11 - we exercise our usual caution in doing our sums. Auchi runs General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxembourg-registered firm with interests in banking, pharmaceuticals and leisure. We can see assets of £75m in four British companies. )
 
j07950 said:
I guess you didn't read it than. Why should I believe what you guys are saying ( your sources being US newspapers which obviously won't go against US interest) when you don't even consider outside information?

Yeah I know you're Canadian.

The bottom line is nothing has been proven. I also like the fact that the French Bank BNP Paribas, which administered the programme on behalf of the UN is at the center of all this. It makes sence but I find interesting that Among those to profit indirectly from the contracts was Nadhmi Auchi, a British-based businessman who is 34th in The Sunday Times Rich List with a personal fortune of £898m.
Auchi, who lives in a mansion in Kingston upon Thames, southwest London, owns shares in BNP Paribas through his company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH). He was previously a significant shareholder in Paribas, had a place on a shareholder committee and was an influential figure in the merger of the two banks.
If French banks are involved than how much responsibility can you put on the french government if foreign buisnessmen have influence on commitees
overseing the banks affairs...
http://www.worldthreats.com/Europe/MI6 Probes French To Iraq.htm


(In November Auchi, 66, was given a 15-month suspended sentence and fined £1.4m by a French court for receiving illegal commissions to help Elf build an oil refinery in Spain. Despite this setback, Auchi, a British citizen who lives in London, is forging ahead with the rebuilding of Iraq, his birthplace. His General Mediterranean Holdings company is claimed to have £1.08 billion of net assets but we hold with last year's valuation, less the fine and legal costs.)


The point you seem to keep missing is that no one said it was France, and only France. We know there were others "possibly" invovled, and the biggest crook of all was Sevan, the head of the oil for food program. There are plenty of other threads discussing many different aspects of all the dirty deals that were going on with Saddam, try reviving one.

Also, many of the papers you listed have articles saying the exact opposite of what you posted, do don't act as if it's the gospel.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Give it up j___, there are mountains of evidence condemning your country.
So is there on behalf of the US but was I here crying about it to begin with like you???
Haven't heard you denying the things I've put down...is that because you can't deny it?
 
Said1 said:
The point you seem to keep missing is that no one said it was France, and only France. We know there were others "possibly" invovled, and the biggest crook of all was Sevan, the head of the oil for food program. There are plenty of other threads discussing many different aspects of all the dirty deals that were going on with Saddam, try reviving one.

Also, many of the papers you listed have articles saying the exact opposite of what you posted, do don't act as if it's the gospel.
Exactly...so where is the real truth??? It's exactly what I'm saying, nothing has been proved of yet...so don't condemn the French Government saying it sided with saddam because of corruption in the Oil for Food program, because nothing has been proven except that french companies (led by foreigners) were involded in it (ain't denying that). It's easy to jump at necks and accuse. I'd just like to get some proof if France really was bribed and influenced by saddam into voting in it's favour. I'm talking about the government because what are companies going to do. Plus the figures talked about don't explain france siding with saddam, they are tiny compared to what the French budget is...I don't see how that would influence France in doing such harm to its relationship with the US.
 
Said1 said:
And BTW, in order to neg rep some one, you need to have some power points. You have 0. Nice try. :p:
Yeah I know but I've given up, everyone is against me...My rep points go up and down...very sad...
But that proves that I'm bothering people by trying to contradict them, they obviously don't like that whether it's true or not. I'm not bothered. I sometime agree and sometimes disagree with people here.
 
j07950 said:
Exactly...so where is the real truth??? It's exactly what I'm saying, nothing has been proved of yet...so don't condemn the French Government saying it sided with saddam because of corruption in the Oil for Food program

I've never said that, although I agree with the statement wholeheartedly.

I'd just like to get some proof if France really was bribed and influenced by saddam into voting in it's favour. I'm talking about the government because what are companies going to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you bring Halburton up a few times??

Plus the figures talked about don't explain france siding with saddam, they are tiny compared to what the French budget is...I don't see how that would influence France in doing such harm to its relationship with the US.

People have been known to benefit personally while acting on behalf of their country, don't be so naive.
 
j07950 said:
Yeah I know but I've given up, everyone is against me...My rep points go up and down...very sad...
But that proves that I'm bothering people by trying to contradict them, they obviously don't like that whether it's true or not. I'm not bothered. I sometime agree and sometimes disagree with people here.

And obviously I bothered you! :p: :mm: :thup: :laugh:
 
Said1 said:
And BTW, in order to neg rep some one, you need to have some power points. You have 0. Nice try. :p:

This buffon tried to neg rep me too! The French excel at being ineffectual.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
This buffon tried to neg rep me too! The French excel at being ineffectual.
Of course I did, you talk crap, as a matter of fact a few people sent me messages saying not to bother replying to you because you talk bull shit all the time...
You probably created another profile to give yourself rep points in order to seem important.
 
j07950 said:
Of course I did, you talk crap, as a matter of fact a few people sent me messages saying not to bother replying to you because you talk bull shit all the time...
You probably created another profile to give yourself rep points in order to seem important.

None of this changes the fact that your nation is morally reprehensible.
 

Forum List

Back
Top