It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The French Frogs have been caught red handed

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The French Frogs have been caught red handed, selling millitary hardware to Saddam Hussein. Latest shipment arrived January 2003.

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.

More : Link



AF1

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 12:50 AM
link   
So, the question now is what happens?

Is it possible to use the UN to punish them? The US has already showed that it doesn't regard the UN's abilities. Quite a predicament.



posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 12:50 AM
link   
They may have been caught, but the people of france were not the ones selling the parts. The people are the ones who oppose war. America is very wealthy and dosent need the money as bad. Remember america sold iraq weapons a while ago. So i think other countries have the right to.



posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 12:59 AM
link   
ilovepizza, if France was in war with another country, and that the USA were selling weapons to that nation, we would see a worlwide revolution against the USA !

Bha, the frogs will receive what they disserves.


dom

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Isn't this just old news? The article is dated 7th March!

As far as I knew the French company had just said they were selling to UAE (like the US), and then the company were the ones responsible for shipping parts to Iraq. There doesn't seem to be any point in the article where they actually state that the French company knew the eventual destination of the parts.

It's a bull# article anyway.

"An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said"

Pah!



posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dom

There doesn't seem to be any point in the article where they actually state that the French company knew the eventual destination of the parts.



UAE do NOT have any Mirage F-1 and/or Gazelle Attack helicopters. Are you naive ?

" The french didn't know...".....MY EYE !


dom

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Even if UAE has no legitimate military partners with Mirage jets or gazelle choppers (and I'm sure they do), why should one French company sending arms to UAE imply that the entire French government are complicit?

Isn't it possible that the French are actually right, and that the US is in the wrong over this war in iraq? Isn't it ok for friends to tell you when you're making a fool of yourself?



posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 05:52 AM
link   
No offense to the French, but no, it isn't possible.
The French aren't known for doing the right thing or standing up for righteousness. I'm sure there are plenty of good and decent people over there, but they are wrong.

They've been selling weapons parts to a nation that has been under sanctions for over 10 years and they (Iraq) have remained defiant. This nation they've sold weapons parts too have not come clean about their WMD program, either.

When we sold weapons to Hussein, if you recall, we were fighting the "Cold" war. We did things we wouldn not have ordinarily done, and supported regimes we ordinarily would not have trusted in order to stop a brutal empire from taking over the world. Whatever little spot fires that still exist from those days are worth it.
France, on the other hand, is acting in a self-interested manner.


dom

posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Well as long as 9/11 was worth it, no problems then.

I think it's arrogant to assume that the French simply can't be acting for moral reasons. Perhaps Chirac has just decided that it's time to stand up to the US view of a New World Order with the UN replaced by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield.

Besides, the US have been doing plenty of #ty things for the past 12 years since the cold war ended, including invading Iraq. Actually invading a country without them attacking someone else first. That *never* happened during the cold war, not openly at least.



posted on Mar, 31 2003 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dom

Actually invading a country without them attacking someone else first. That *never* happened during the cold war, not openly at least.


1950 : Tibet
1950 : South-Korea.
1956 : Bulgaria
1968 : Czekoslovakia
1979 : Afghanistan.

Sure, that *never* happened.....


dom

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Tibet : China
South Korea : China in the North, US opposing
Bulgaria : ?
Czekoslovakia : USSR crush democratic uprising
Afghanistan : USSR invade

So wasn't it always the case that the "bad guy" invaded?



posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:32 AM
link   
What do you mean Dom ?


dom

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:37 AM
link   
"Besides, the US have been doing plenty of #ty things for the past 12 years since the cold war ended, including invading Iraq. Actually invading a country without them attacking someone else first. That *never* happened during the cold war, not openly at least. "

You quoted bits of this back at me, and said that invasions have occured. I was pointing out that my message was that the US never invaded any countries during the cold war (openly), it was always the bad guys that did that. So the US are now acting like the "baddies" from the cold war. That's my point.



posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ok, I see.

But you can't compare what the US are doing now with what the former USSR did. If it was the Russians, and not the americans, who were in Irak, the whole Irak would already be anihilated.

The Russians motto was ( and still be ) " bomb them all ".


dom

posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I think Chechnya is the closest comparison, and I really hope Iraq doesn't turn into the US's Chechnya, but I wouldn't be surprised...



posted on Apr, 1 2003 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Vol. 67/No. 8 March 17, 2003


French oil deals
threatened by war on Iraq

BY PAUL PEDERSON
Behind the opposition of the French government to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq lie massive trade deals with Baghdad and investments in the oil wealth of the Middle Eastern country.
French imperialism has profited handsomely from UN-controlled trade with Iraq in the past 12 years of UN-imposed sanctions. Currently French firms account for 22.5 percent of all goods imported into Iraq, scooping up an annual gross profit of $1.5 billion from this trade.

The French oil company, TotalFinaElf, has negotiated oil deals that would give it control over 25 percent of Iraqs oil reserves. French companies have signed 798 contracts for parts and equipment for the Iraqi oil industry.

While the capitalists in Germany lag far behind their French rivals, they still pull in some $350 million in direct annual trade with Iraq.

The Russian and Chinese workers states each accounts for 5.8 percent of Iraqs imports. Russia has signed 862 UN-approved contracts to supply oil industry equipment and parts, while China has signed 227 such agreements.

These deals with Baghdad are threatened by a U.S.-led overthrow of the Saddam Hussein government. The alternative course promoted by Paris, Berlin, and others is to bolster the brutal UN-imposed status quo of economic sanctions and military-backed inspections.


dom

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 03:53 AM
link   
It's lovely to see all these racist Americans trying to bash the French because they didn't cave in to US demands...

The only argument needed to make this article look silly is this. It was obvious that the US were going to go to war with Iraq, what do the French gain by not going in? I'll tell you. They get the moral high ground, and they lose all of their contracts with Iraq because the US will reacquire them. If they fought alongside the US then you can guarantee that they'd keep those contracts.

I'd ask you again to consider the possibility that there might be something other than money which is providing a motive for the French? i.e. being a democratic government and listening to the population, or standing up to the US idea of a NWO with Dubya at the top of it...



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Dom racism or a racist ethic a when a person draws a conclusion that a culture, group or institution are inferior and then generalizes that conclusion to all members of the above.

A good example would be the recent lack of response by a well-known French leader when asked if he hoped the US would win the war. This is not a racist statement but what it is seems obvious.

Since the conception of what is accepted today as the country of France this country has supported its survival. How people feel about France's most recent response in respect to the USA decision to go to war is utter shock as well as anger.

What the above information suggests is that the French Government was motivated to interfere with this war, to support their financial interest. Which should never have been an issue, due to the sanctions they agreed upon when they were originally put into place.

I would say that your conclusions with regard to the NWO are sophomoric and perhaps would make good reading in comic books.

Getting back to the real issue of Iraq using WMD against its own populace as well as Moslems from its neighboring country. How would you feel if you were Moslem and knew that the UN had done nothing? In respect to overthrowing the leader of Iraq, but had used every means in its authority to provide a homeland to the Israelis?

How would you respond to a scenario with respect to the realities of the Iran/Iraq war? In which the combatants were two neighboring European countries?

Saddam Hussein has incredible palaces very opulent, a substantial percentage of the city of Baghdad solely for the use of himself and those who are in the upper crusts of Iraqi government. Where do you think the money came from to do all of this?



A potential conclusion, is that a very serious error was made in the UN and it was not the US or Britan that made it.



[Edited on 3-4-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dom

1) i.e. being a democratic government and listening to the population,

2) or standing up to the US idea of a NWO with Dubya at the top of it...


1) BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We have now the 2003 joke ! Congratulations, you won the 2003 joke award !


2) Huuum, yeah. That's a good possibility.

P.S : Thank again for the joke.




top topics



 
0

log in

join