It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


On France

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:44 PM
Yeah that source is not too good.

I looked up "General Gehlen" and there's not a single bit of actual information about him.

It's all "conspiracy theories" as to how the Nazis still rule the world by manipulating the Cold War and whatever.

Bunch of Bunk as far as I can see. And still he wasn't even a Nazi War Criminal.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:47 PM
I didn't read even the titles: I'm not that bored. But I recommend you to dig yourself in the net. You will be very surprised

I don't care what USA did or did not with nazi war criminal. But I do care for your disrespectful view of France and Germany.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:48 PM
You misunderstood leveller. I said you can only judge a nation on the action of its Government.

The people are not in the equation, I'm certain there are MANY great French, just as I think they called him Shifty during WW2, said "You know, under different circumstances, me and him could have been real good friends" in talking about the Germans.

But the French government's actions are pathetic. And their conduct in WW2, was even worse.

And you can't explain why so many French, over seas facing the Allies, didn't simply "turn coat" to the Free French, instead they actually continued to FIGHT for Vichy France.

Doesn't make sense.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:53 PM

For possible reasons of that behavior, along with USA position in this war, see this thread:

It's a nice one.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 10:30 PM
Oil is not the foundation of the world ecomomy you cannot eat oil.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 10:36 PM
Oil is not the foundation of the world ecomomy you cannot eat oil. Posted by Toltec

Actually, yes it is.

All currencies have to have a hard tangible asset backing it, otherwise you have essentially pretty toilet paper in your wallet.

In the US, Gold is supposed to be the backing for our dollar, hence the US Gold standard. (Which has been totally bastardized). Therefore, our only true option is oil as a hard asset backing to the dollar.

No, you cannot eat oil, but when was the last time that food was ever the backing asset for a currency?

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 11:47 PM

Have you ever heard of Lagardere SCA? No?
Well that may be because it's a French company. OK .. have you ever
heard of Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S.?
Probably not, but Hachette Filipacchi publishes some magazines you may
have heard of: "Elle," "Car & Driver," "Women's Day" and others.
Now it's getting familiar, isn't it? OK, so we have "Car & Driver" which
published by Hachette Filipacchi which is owned by Lagardere SCA which
is a French Corporation. No big deal, right?
Hang on,... we aren't finished yet. It seems that a man who has been in
news quite a bit of late owns about ten percent of Lagardere SCA --
about $90 million dollars worth.

His name? ....Saddam Hussein.
(As reported by the New York Post on Feb. 27,

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 12:14 AM
The US has not used the gold standard since Nixon; oil is a commodity. The commodities market is as a whole, fundamental to the world economy.

Essentially the statement made when we actually went off the gold standard was that the new standard of he dollar was the public trust.

As obscure as this sounds it was in fact the official response.

Realistically speaking commodities shape the world economy. What a country has to trade and or does not have to trade (tangibles) is what sets the net worth. Oil is but one recourse and when did you ever hear of the worlds billionaires, or for that matter the power elite placing all there eggs in one basket?

Beyond that the US actually imports very little oil, the actual problem is with respect to Europe and Japan. They are in fact the largest importers of oil recources.

The effects of a change in those recources affect the US because of how the three economies are actually tied together. What your suggesting is that by converting the standard from US dollars to EU dollars the US would be adversely affected. But how can this be if such a change would expedite (on paper). Oil to economies, which because of such problems, as a complete dependence on foreign oil adversely affect the US economy today?

If France and Germany were staunch supporters of the EU in general; they would have towed the line. Allowing the US to fight this war with there full support. Then later they would have had much more control over the fate of Iraqi oil.

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 01:07 AM
The Gold Standard hasn't been used for decades, which is why we have floating exchange rates instead of fixed ones. The value of a countries currency is determined through trade, in other words supply and demand.

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 01:25 AM
I've been to Europe 4 times and I am of European Background, Italian to be exact.
Unless you have been to Europe, I suggest that your opinion counts for nothing.
I think that French people are Arrogant, though so are allot of Italians, Americans and Australian in that matter.
I don't hate a race for a bunch of idiots. Neither should you.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 09:58 AM
Okay, here are the stats on france and the other countries doing business with Saddam. I didn't want to post all this but all I hear is there is no proof. Yes, there are references with it too, not all are a prestigious and credible as Iraqi TV and Aljazeera so be forwarned. her goes, again, I aoplogize.

… According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq s largest European trading partner.

… Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]

… France s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4] … Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country s reserves.[5]

… France s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq s telephone system.[6]

… From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq s arms imports.[7]


… Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8]

… It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany s firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq. It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9]

… During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10]

… In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11]

… German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein s Al Fao Supercannon project.[12]


… According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq s annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[14]

… According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[15]

… Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980 1988 Iran Iraq war.

… Russia s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16]

… In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[17]

… In April 2001, Russia s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.

… A future $40 billion Iraqi Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[19]

… Russia s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20] … The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]


… According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq s annual imports.[22]

… China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[23]

… In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell meteorological satellite and surface observation equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.[24]

… CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[25]

… According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq s weapons imports.[26]

[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at

[2]Jon Talton, French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle , The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[3]Jon Talton, French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[6]Evelyn Iritani, Hussein s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime, The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002.

[7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981 2001, at

[8]David R. Sands, France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties, The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[9]David R. Sands, France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties, The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[10] Africa Analysis Trade Points Way to Peace , The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.

[11]Faye Bowers, Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests, Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.

[12] Helping Saddam Rearm, The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.

[13]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at

[14]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests, February 26, 2003.

[15]Nelli Sharushkina, Russia Plays the Field in Iraq Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad, Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.

[16]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue, The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[17]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue, The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[18]Scott Peterson, Russia s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month, Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.

[19] Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi Russian Signing, Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.

[20]Dmitry Zhdannikov, Russian s Grim About Working Under Saddam, The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.

[21]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981 2001, at

[22]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at

[23]Trish Saywell, Oil: The Danger of Deals with Iraq, Far Eastern Economic Review, March 6, 2003.

[24]Kenneth R. Timmerman, Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam, Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[25]Kenneth R. Timmerman, Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam, Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[26]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981 2001, at


posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 11:21 AM
Oh yes, those evil foreigners trading with a country we don't like anymore under a UN oil-for-food program. I noticed that no details were given of what the "arms" exports were.

How about if we discuss US hypocrisy?

"By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials."

For a slightly more responsible article try this one...

"In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which outlaws chemical warfare, the Reagan administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses throughout the '80s. In 1982, while Hussein constructed his machinery of war, Reagan removed Iraq from the State Department list of terrorist states. "

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 12:32 PM
Paul Rockwell, a slightly more responisible article? Look if you are going to site sources like this for truth then I have to remove myself from this argument. This is a guy who doesn't back-up any allegations yet tells this stuff for truth. You know what? Once its told for fact long enough, its accepted. Thats not sources I consider.

Not sure how we got away from France's ties with Saddam but yet again, when confronted factual evidence, the best thing to do is change the direction of it altogether. If this thread is about France, then its about France and it's roll in Iraq.

I can debate Paul Rockwell all day long but there is no way to prove him wrong because just as there is nothing to back up his points, which he states as facts, there aren't any documents that will say specifically no either. I'm not talking about articles written by pundits but actual documents of the deal he claims happened. Ya know, you can make up stuff all day long and if someone else reads it and uses it for fact...ah what the hell. never gonna matter anyway. Not to tell you what to do or anything, but I recommend starting a new thread and present this there and lets let this France thing go. Its out on the table for what it is.


posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 04:23 AM
If you're just going to ignore every potential source of information that contradicts your opinion, then we're never going to get anywhere...

How about this source from a website set up for Gulf War Veterans?

"On 08 October 1994, U.S. Senator Donald Riegle (D-Michigan), released previously secret Department of Defense (DoD) documents proving that chemical warfare agents were present during the war and that the DoD intentionally covered up this important information.

The newest Riegle report describes how at least eight U.S. soldiers were awarded Bronze Stars, Meritorious Service Medals, and Army Commendation Medals because they detected chemical or biological warfare agents during the Persian Gulf War. The report also documents how one soldier was awarded a Purple Heart for injuries suffered due to chemical mustard agent exposure blistering."

and then...

"As Senator Riegle's earlier reports prove, chemical weapons were sold to Iraq by American companies from 1985 up to 1990 and chemical storage cites were partially destroyed by U.S. planes during the Gulf War. Now, Riegle has proven that chemical agents were present in Kuwait, that soldiers were injured, and that the DoD has tried to cover-up the reports. Many veterans are contemplating legal action against the makers of those agents that may have made us ill. A lawsuit by 200 vets claiming chemical exposure is pending in Texas. "

My point is, if France had done the selling, these documents would be splashed all over the papers. But because the US did it, all you pro-war nuts decide that it must be lies. It was the French! Well it wasn't.

posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 09:17 PM
I don't recall this being about the French selling chemical weapons to Iraq and you know it. Thsi was about the ongoing deal the French currently have with Saddam for Oil. Thats all I have ever said. I provided proof with references. It was my personal opinion that they were fearful that without Saddam at the helm, the new government would not stand behind delivering the oil they had already paid for. No one accused them of giving him weaponry. He's bought all that he wanted from his neighbors which procured it or much of it from the fallin Soviet Empire and yes, I'm sure from the U.S. too. Now, that we have settled the facts and I've been able to cling onto the subject at hand through your numerous attempts to sidetrack it, can we admit that the fall of Saddam Hussein is not in France's best interest monetarily? Thats all I'm saying. They have already paid for this oil and they fear that they will not now get it. Thats my whole point. Nothing about chem weapons on this post just about in who's best interest it was to keep Saddam in and whether it was motive enough to block the UN reolution from being carried out.

posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 10:00 PM
Dom hypocrites are those who never acknowledge there mistakes and as well, take the necessary action of deal with the problems there mistakes have caused.


posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 04:47 AM
Toltec - I haven't heard George Bush apologising for arming Iraq... ever... once. So I'll assume that we can still count Bush as a hypocrite.

And Astro - My point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Anyway, as far as what would be in France's best interests where oil is concerned...

It was obvious the US were going to attack Iraq, they had huge forces in the region. Economically it would have made a lot more sense for France to come on-side and help with the attack. That way they'd get a slice of the victors cake. The only thing which is guaranteed to make them lose that oil, is an American attack which they oppose. So this whole argument about it being in France's interests to go against the US in starting this war is bogus.

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 05:43 AM
No it's not.
The French gambled and lost.


posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 05:54 AM
I really don't think they gambled on this. It was obvious that Bush would go to war regardless of UN backing. Sure, the US wanted UN backing, or at least a moral victory (more votes for than against), but without that the attack was still going to occur. I really don't think that Chirac would have been so out of touch with the situation as to think that he could actually stop the attack...

The thing is, what Chirac did manage to do was to provide a basis for an anti-US point of view. He's made it difficult for the Americans. I firmly believe that the US is all about maintaining itself as top dog, and France/Germany are all about trying to get Europe up to be top dog. Having the US imposing it's view in all regional conflicts would be disasterous for Europe. So the French gambled and won. The US couldn't even get a "moral" victory in the security council, and that's pushed the US into an "extremist" position.

posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 07:49 AM
keep the Euro from being weakened, by preventing war, and a pro-US Iraq basing reserves on the dollar.

Pretty soon (as the new government is instituted), we'll see the strengthening of the dollar, and a weaker Euro. So, who really "won" here....

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in