THE FRENCH ARE COMPLICIT!

www.washtimes.com...

��A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

We knew it didn't we?

" Vive la France "

Actually, the article itself admits that the parts were sold to a company in the UAE, which then sold them on to Iraq. The UAE is also buying American parts, so should we immediately say "Iraq strengthens air force with American parts" if any should be sold on to Iraq?

More crappy spin from the US media.

You didn't that while IRAN/IRAQ war, Saddam HUSSAIN was supported by amricans ?
You didn't know that USA also supported BinLadin and his Talibans while USSR tryied to incade afghanistan ?

International politic is like that!

Seems like some people need to read the entire article.

Certainly U.S. had arms deals with Irag, in the past. Nans/D.A.R.Y.L./Whatever/Whoever, your credibility is in the crapper, give it up.

Oh, Dom, UAE is also complicit in this case isn't it.
Do some reasearch on Dassault (www.dassault-aviation.com...), you'll find a long-standing relationship with Iraq.

I'm not arguing about whether or not the UAE are complicit. I'm saying that the French *aren't* complicit. Which is the point you were trying to make.

So what if the French sold lots of aircraft to Iraq, so did the US... in the past, as you stated.

that the French are STILL doing it, post-Gulf War...and that THAT is the problem. The UAE (United Arab Emirates) has long been playing both sides of the fence, and shows no signs of doing otherwise... Damned oil blood money...

Gazrok - I understand what he's trying to say. But this article provides no support for the statement that "France is selling arms to Iraq".

However, it does indeed support the two following statements:
a) "France is selling arms to UAE"
b) "UAE is suspected of selling arms to Iraq"

b) is the one where pressure needs to be applied, because lots of people sell arms to UAE...

Dom... I'm sure you are capable of imagining that a direct sale and delivery from France to Iraq would be very obvious and easy to notice. Thus, the need for a middle-man.

The UN resolution is clear, it's the responsiblity of the original supplier to make sure their goods are not ending up in Iraq. Look it up, it's not hard to find.

From the article you posted....

'Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter.
"We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq," she said.
A CIA spokesman had no comment.'

So I would think that if the US suspects this is going on, then the correct course of action is for the US to speak to the French about it *gasp*, and then the French can blacklist the company in the UAE which is buying the spare parts *shock horror*. Rather than the US administration running to the media so that they can put the boot into a country which has the audacity to disagree with the US... I do think that America has handled the whole France issue extremely poorly.

Freedom of speech? or is it Freedom of speech*?

* - unless you disagree with the US

Bush and his buddies have handled everything poorly (understatement).

But resolution 1441 holds arms vendors and their governments responsible if the parts/supplies/weapons fall into Iraq hands. It's very simple and clear on this point. Certainly, a French government press "spokesperson" will react as quoted... this is a low/lower position.

It's long been rumored and suggested that France, Germany, and Russia are secret suppliers to Iraq... it's no surprise they are the most vocal detractors to the prospect of action.

It's simple really, and I'm very surprise someone in the U.S. government doesn't say it like this:

1- Iraq is a conquered nation because of its invasion into Kuwait.
2- Iraq is not living up to its terms of surrender, res. 1441
3- Punitive military action is needed to ensure compliance with the terms of surrender

Simple.

Now Bush ... that's another story...

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Theyre Here]

"1- Iraq is a conquered nation because of its invasion into Kuwait.
2- Iraq is not living up to its terms of surrender, res. 1441
3- Punitive military action is needed to ensure compliance with the terms of surrender"

That's it in a nutshell....

full text of 1441....

english.peopledaily.com.cn...

"10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA; "

...is the closest I can see to anything about limiting arms sales, however I wouldn't be surprised if an earlier resolution which 1441 endorses isn't a fair bit clearer about this.

Any idea where the actual paragraph is that you're quoting?

And I'm afraid I don't generally believe rumours at times like these.

Note that Iraq surrendered to the UN, and the entire war was carried out under UN jurisdiction, not US. Therefore it is up to the UN to decide whether or not Iraq has stepped out of line enough to justify a war.

I'm pretty certain this why the French,Germans,and Russians do not want the U.S. to go into Iraq.
They still deal with Iraq.France also deals with Syria and Iran which makes it easier for them to make deals in the area.Not only will the French lose billiions of dollars but the U.S. will find out that France supports Saddam.After all Chirac does not want regime change,he just want Saddam to behave.

I would think...

Ahh...here it is...Resolution 681 I believe...

"24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequen
t
related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security
Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the
promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals,
or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the
sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military
equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components
and their means of production, for such equipment;

(b) Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not
otherwise covered above;

(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in th
e
production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a)
and (b) above;

(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services
relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support
of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictl
y
in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any
contracts, agreements, licences or any other arrangements;"

TH's comments that the originating states are at fault is pretty much implied here, though not specifically stated as it relates to the use of intermediaries....

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Gazrok]

Nyeff, you found one of my main reason. A war to Saddam will help all the peoples who think that french president, " Jacques ChIRAK The Worm " ( we had " The Blob ", now we have " The Worm " ) must be defeated !

Originally posted by dom
Any idea where the actual paragraph is that you're quoting?

My mistake... It's an earlier 1991 resolution... I said "1441" because that's the current one which is top-of-mind....

Right then... you found it.