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.

 

Chirac : Bush made the world more dangerous

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and removing President Saddam Hussein has made the world more dangerous, French President Jacques Chirac said in a BBC interview.

Chiracs statements show little chance of success for British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to improve Franco-American relations that were damaged by the Iraq war.

"I'm not at all sure that one can say the world is safer," Chirac said. "There's no doubt that there has been an increase in terrorism, and one of the origins of that has been the situation in Iraq,"

"To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," the French President said, but he added that he is "not at all sure that one can say that the world is safer."

www.aljazeera.com...

True words from the world's most popular politician on the world's most infamous politician.

'The grandeur of France is proportional to the stupidity of the Anglo-Saxon leaders'

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Its pretty simple - it *used* to be easy to travel, I did it without fear - now I can get on a plane without someone wanting to strap on rubber gloves and look up my ar*e.

Safer, better - how stupid do you have to be - if you kill sonmeones KIDS, they are gunna hate for generations.

Although I love the US, I HATE the current state of play.

It cant be this hard, in reality, for some stupid gods sake - give the Palestinians some turf.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Why is this even a topic...The french will say anything and everything anti-American (anti-Bush especially)...and this is from aljazeera...another anti-American site...its getting boring to hear junk like this at this point...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   


Why is this even a topic...The french will say anything and everything anti-American (anti-Bush especially)...and this is from aljazeera...another anti-American site...its getting boring to hear junk like this at this point...


Actually it was during an Interview with the BBC..



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
either way...Chiracs a schmuck...and if he by any chance did say something positive about the US...Aljazeere wouldnt show it...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   


Why is this even a topic...The french will say anything and everything anti-American (anti-Bush especially)...and this is from aljazeera...another anti-American site...its getting boring to hear junk like this at this point...


Baseless acusations. Once again, how are the french Anti-American? How is Al-jazeera Anti-American?

This was an illegal injustifiable war, Chirac, unlike many other 'leaders', has been quite public about his case, and in vehemence too.

Deep



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Here is how I feel and what I posted in the ATS story.

The French, sorry maybe I should just say Chirac, sure knows how to point fingers, but they sure don't know how to do much without anyone elses help. Chirac is a coward that tries to do things behind the scenes while keeping a false image of what he stands for. Do you think he might just be upset that all that money Sadam owes him won't ever come.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I think Bush owes a lot to Jacques Chirac. Chirac could just openly characterize Bush as an infantile and incompetent leader or worse, and 90% of the world's opinion would cheeringly support him for openly standing up against Bush's idiotic and incompetent policies.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Bush owes Chirac, are you kidding me?? Chirac owes Bush for not exposing every bit of behind the back actions he has been taking with Iraq when there were sanctions against that country.

Second of all the US owes France nothing as far as I see it. If it weren't for the USA that whole country would be speaking German.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:21 AM
link   


Second of all the US owes France nothing as far as I see it. If it weren't for the USA that whole country would be speaking German.


Oh dear god, I was waiting for that.... we're not going to rehash this old argument are we? If your gonna dig up history, then if it wasn't for the French, you would have all remained subjects of the Crown.

Get over it. if you cannot think of another half-decent argument for hating the French, then don't bother.

As I have stated before, us English fought them for a millenium, and wasn't until 100 years ago we signed a peace treaty (Entente Cordial), so if anyone should have a problem with the French, it should be us, and not you.

And don't get on your high horse about "underhand deals" with Saddam. I think the US is the least qualified nation to start on that line. I actually remember a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, so its a case of pot calling the kettle black there I am afraid.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
First of all it was a mistake to even put Sadam in power. The US did it and then removed him while the French sat back idle and oppossed it. Are you going to try to tell me that Chirac wasn't doing unlawful deals with Irag during UN posed sanctions? Fine skip the arguement about speaking German, and try to deny the fact that France didn't want Sadam overthrown for their own financial interests. You won't hear me saying the US isn't in Iraq for their own oil interests.

You know you are right, I can't hate France, and don't hate France, but I think Chirac is absolute garbage.

I erased my large history overview of France only helping the colonists after they could prove they could win in their own battles such as The Battle of Saratoga. It wasn't until then that they decided to help.

[edit on 11/18/2004 by infinite8]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
Bush owes Chirac, are you kidding me?? Chirac owes Bush for not exposing every bit of behind the back actions he has been taking with Iraq when there were sanctions against that country.

Second of all the US owes France nothing as far as I see it. If it weren't for the USA that whole country would be speaking German.


Claims about chirac having secret deals with Saddam come from the same bogus type of minds that invented Saddam's mushroom clouds. It's israeli and neocon propaganda. If anything, Chirac and 99% of the world's nations prefer the rule of law (UN) as opposed to the rule of force (Bush and israel). This is the point at stake and not bizarre conspiracies about hidden french interests. The french must be extremely powerful if they can convince 90% of the world's population not to listen to righteous US fears about Saddam invading the USA and rather follow shadowy french interests. Just out of interest ... according to you are the french using mind-controlling devices placed on Mars ?



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
One more issue I have with Chirac is that I believe he has a 2 faced approach to this war. Chirac opposes the war while French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin seems to favor the anti Iraq campaign as he stated "We will not use the present crisis to come up with arguments that could tomorrow further deepen the divisions within the international community....Should this situation come about, then we have to close ranks and stand by the United States in the search for solutions."

Where does France stand? Conveniently in the middle. Don't let Chirac fool you. He isn't leaving it alone, too much investment was already made in Iraq. Whether he opposes US action there or not, he won't do anything because he has other agendas that I imagine have been discussed with Bush behind closed doors.

If you believe that Chirac really wants to strongly oppose this and not just try to save face in the world community, you might also believe that the US government knew nothing prior about an incident like 911 happening.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Claims about chirac having secret deals with Saddam come from the same bogus type of minds that invented Saddam's mushroom clouds.

Just out of interest ... according to you are the french using mind-controlling devices placed on Mars ?


Thats funny I don't remember mentioning Sadam and mushroom clouds.

Your last statement I find the most humorous, I can't see where you can go to such an extreme with that statement. Mind control, mars, give me a break.

In addition maybe you remember a UN backed and Sadam signed resolution that forbid many things that he did including the building of long range missles as well as complete cooperation of testing by arms inspectors. Well he certainly failed to allow those things to happen on a regular unhindered basis. What world are you living in? You talk about history and you can't seem to even remember what was agreed to after the first Gulf War.

Oh yah, I guess this (below) was all in my head too, it must have been implanted from those guys on Mars.
------------------------------------------------------
Dramatic new details of France's secret dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime have emerged as part of a fresh corruption investigation into alleged illicit oil deals.
Three executives of France's largest oil corporation have been charged in Paris over claims that they funnelled millions of dollars through a Swiss company in order to bribe officials to gain oil deals in Iraq and Russia.

The disclosure will embarrass President Jacques Chirac as it follows on from claims last week by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam indirectly paid French politicians and individuals to gain support for lifting UN sanctions and influencing French policy. The ISG's claims were dismissed by Chirac as politically motivated.

In the Nineties, French oil companies Total and Elf-Aquitaine won the rights to develop the $3.4 billion Bin Umar project and the vast Majnoon field in southern Iraq. Total, which acquired Elf, had been unable to exploit these fields while the UN trade embargo against Iraq was still in place. US hawks have accused France of opposing the Iraq war in order to protect its vast oil interests in the country. The three Total executives, arrested after raids on the firm's French headquarters on 29 September, have all been charged with complicity in the improper use of corporate funds.

French investigating magistrate Philippe Courroye, who has been probing these payments since 2002, is examining the movements of funds between a Total subsidiary in Bermuda and a Swiss company, Teliac SA. The Swiss firm is alleged to have served as an intermediary for some $20 million in payments by the oil group into offshore accounts in the Bahamas and Cayman Islands between 1996 and 2001. Courroye has not given any details of what oil deals the alleged bribes were linked to. Total's former head of operations, Jean-Michel Tournier, is alleged to have told the French authorities the company used the Geneva-based firm to pay bribes to 'certain beneficiaries' in return for gaining access to reserves in Iraq and Russia.

Total is known to have carried out a sustained lobbying campaign with the Saddam regime with a view to putting itself in prime position to gain from any lifting of UN sanctions. Total confirmed that certain past and present employees had been questioned but said this had been part of an investigation into money laundering which was not aimed against Total itself.

Among the alleged beneficiaries of the money paid out by Teliac is a Lebanese lawyer close to Saddam's former deputy, Tariq Aziz. The lawyer has strong connections with Charles Pasqua, the former FrenchInterior Minister who was named last week in the Iraq Survey Group as an alleged beneficiary of the UN's oil-for-food programme which Saddam used to pay for favours.

Patrick Maugein, whom the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac, is also accused of receiving oil through a Dutch-registered company. The report claims a 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report said Iraq had paid the French Socialist party $1m in 1988.

This weekend it emerged that US oil companies and three American businessmen also benefited from the UN oil-for-food programme. These included Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil. The fact that these companies and individuals received oil from Iraq does not mean they did anything illegal if the individuals and companies received appropriate UN authorisation.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
either way...Chiracs a schmuck...and if he by any chance did say something positive about the US...Aljazeere wouldnt show it...


- Well as stumason tried to say this comes from Chirac's visit to the UK and has been extensively reported on the BBC (they carried the 2 premier's press conference live).

By the way Chirac had many many positive things to say about the USA and the relationships between France, the UK, the EU and the USA.

Unfortunately the level of political thought and 'debate' in the USA seems so widely and generally infantile, blinkered and closed that the many many positive things he had to say will be utterly ignored for the one or two issues France disagrees with the USA over.

.....cos being a sovereign country that has the audacity to freely see things differently to the USA is just unacceptable these days, right?



.....and as for this synthetic 'scandel' the US right are intent on manufacturing to attack the UN over?

How long have they been trying to push this? Via Fox and their usual suspects?! Hmmm, talk about credible, not.


We already know several US companies were involved (Haliburton through it's subsidiaries for one) in side-stepping some of the 'oil for food' program regulations so maybe they should start with the US part of it (call 'Dick' to account?), hmmm?

We have few enough collective organisations in the world we don't need to lose some because the US right can't abide institutions that criticise their 'policies'.



[edit on 18-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
So what is the consensus here? Bush is evil? We should have left Iraq and Saddam alone to continue his tyranny? The US has a , for lack of a better word, superiority complex because, quite frankly, we are the superior nation. This is not egotistical people. This is truth. We have a stronger military and a stronger financial holding than any other nation. So, it is only natural for: 1. Other countires to feel threatened by the USA. We are considered bullies because 2nd and 3rd world countries come to us for help. 2. This is the big one...we are the World's watchdog. When something goes wrong, the USA is asked to help. No offense to the UN, but sanctions can only do so much, and when it comes to real bite, the UN lacks any (fill in the blank.) And the Security Council is not much better off. Saddam laughed in the UN's face in the early 90's, and again in the early 2000's. So, maybe this "You are either with us or against us" attitude may be a bit much for the world to understand, but it really is the world that put the USA in this position. I will bet alot that, if the US had not gone into Iraq when it did, that in some distant future, we could have seen another very bad situation similar to the one we saw in the 40's. As for Chirac and the french, I hope that they begin to realize that this world was never "safe" from terror, and the USA and its allies are eradicating these threats so that we all may live in a safer world. If it wasn't Iraq, it would have been something else. I think it just makes sense for the world to blame the big brother for the downfalls of society.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Of course Elf-Total benefited from oil deals in Iraq. But didn't Halliburton just benefit from very interesting no-bid contracts? And I wonder what share Texaco is going to have on Iraqi oil in the coming years.

It's easy to accuse others of corruption when there is some in your own backyard.

I'm tired of some people acting as though the U.S. is white as snow and righteous in this.

So Chirac may have opposed the war on false pretenses. Well hey, didn't Bush go to war on false pretenses? And I have to wonder what else that administration is hiding...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   


We should have left Iraq and Saddam alone to continue his tyranny?


Sorry, wsn't this war about WMD? Wasn't that a lie? If the above is true, what about Zimbabwe, Somalia, a host of smaller African countries, or the Sudan?

Why aren't we invading them and bringing them "Freedom" and "Democracy"?



The US has a , for lack of a better word, superiority complex because, quite frankly, we are the superior nation


Hmm, not sure about that one. Militarily yes, without a doubt, but that is placing a massive burden on your economy which cannot last forever.

In any other aspect, i would not describe the USA as "superior". We all know how claims of superior status have ended up.....



This is the big one...we are the World's watchdog. When something goes wrong, the USA is asked to help. No offense to the UN, but sanctions can only do so much, and when it comes to real bite, the UN lacks any (fill in the blank.)


Are you? Who appointed you to that role? Do other countries not get asked for help? In fact, I am pretty sure they do. The UK for instance, helps out immensely, especially in the Caribean, and Africa. France also.

The only reason for the UN's "failings" (which I must point out are our failings, as we are the UN) are that big powers have far too much say (the Veto), and serve their own interests. That way, nothing gets done.

Although, on a humanitarian and welfare side, the UN cannot be faulted, with its massive Health, Education and Aid programmes around the world.



As for Chirac and the french, I hope that they begin to realize that this world was never "safe" from terror,


No, nor will it ever be. Terrorism will always exist where a minority, especially one that is oppressed and under priviliged, cannot have its views heard and will resort to violence, or by madmen who just like killing people.

Niether can be solved by blowing more stuff up and killing more people.

It has always, in Europe, been dealt with at a law enforcement level, with minimal military involvement, as it is a judicial matter, not one for the Army to go in and sort out, as this invariably creates more of the same problem.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rrobert5425
So what is the consensus here? Bush is evil?


- Wrong if not actually stupid would be a more accurate adjective IMO.


We should have left Iraq and Saddam alone to continue his tyranny?


- Well what is better? The 5000 Saddam is now reckoned to have killed in his near 30yrs or the 100 000+ killed in 'liberating' Iraq.
You call it.....then tell us all about why the murderous and brutal barbarian is ok when they 'support' the USA.


The US has a , for lack of a better word, superiority complex because, quite frankly, we are the superior nation.
This is not egotistical people. This is truth.


- Isn't propaganda insideous, huh?

Love the 'superior' trip....anyone tried out the 'ubermensh' tag yet?



We have a stronger military


- Maybe, but is it as effective and 'usable' as you think?


and a stronger financial holding than any other nation.


- This is too tragically funny.
You are actually broke and utterly dependant on the capital flow of large daily foreign loans to function on a day to day basis.


So, it is only natural for: 1. Other countires to feel threatened by the USA. We are considered bullies because 2nd and 3rd world countries come to us for help.


- No.
You get considered a threat and bullies when you tell the rest of the world to go to hell and plough on regardless.


2. This is the big one...we are the World's watchdog. When something goes wrong, the USA is asked to help.


- That might have worked post gulf war mk1 in 1990 but you guys blew it and there's no way this Bush administration is going to be seen that way outside of maybe (at a push) 5 countries now.


No offense to the UN, but sanctions can only do so much, and when it comes to real bite, the UN lacks any (fill in the blank.) And the Security Council is not much better off.


- The UN is it's membership.
Most of the UN's ineffectiveness comes from members taking stand-points and using vetos or abstaining votes which undermine a consistent approach.....did someone say the USA and Israel?



Saddam laughed in the UN's face in the early 90's, and again in the early 2000's.


- Well if you say so. I don't.
I saw no fly zones carving 2 major chunks out of his authortity in northern and southern Iraq and a steady screwing down of the bonds which contained him.
It has since come to light that some breeches of the regulations might have gone on.....but when the USA has done investigating the US firms involved (Haliburton for instance as one) you'll let us all know, right?



So, maybe this "You are either with us or against us" attitude may be a bit much for the world to understand,


- Don't worry my friend, we understood it just fine.


but it really is the world that put the USA in this position.


- Don't go blaming the rest of us for the USA's behaviour. Your gov acted in accordance with a 'doctrine' that was already long-written and just awaiting the excuse to be implemented. Go read your PNAC stuff.


I will bet alot that, if the US had not gone into Iraq when it did, that in some distant future, we could have seen another very bad situation similar to the one we saw in the 40's.


- Nonsense. Neither Iraq nor any other ME country is anything like nazi Germany and none of their leaders is a Hitler either.
Funny how this criticism always surfaces from time to time.
It was claimed of Nasser, Sadat, Hussain, Assad....in fact it gets said of anyone who demonstrates at any time independance from US or western interests.

But funnily enough the brutal and barbarian ME leaderships that do not are just fine and dandy, right?


As for Chirac and the french, I hope that they begin to realize that this world was never "safe" from terror


- Jayzuuss this is so ignorant and absurd.....

....and just what would America know about 'terrorism', huh?
Let's have a little plain speaking about this.

Around 2800+ died in the attack on 9/11.
The 'Irish troubles' alone cost 3500+ lives. The French have suffered decades of terrorism, the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch, the Portuguese etc etc.

America hasn't actually had any 'terroism' to speak of beyond a few isolated incidents.
Yes 9/11 was terrible and inhuman and appalling and all the other obvious and true adjectives one might use about it but it was a single 'event'.

In Europe (mainly thanks to the hang-overs of our various empires) we have had decades of terrorism all across the continent from umteen various groups and organisations.


and the USA and its allies are eradicating these threats so that we all may live in a safer world.


- You can't fight a noun or a concept. All this fighting does is contain some of it and breed a lot more of it....particularly given some of the crass and deeply unhelpful tactics US forces have been using on the ground out there.
Eventually the fighting has to stop and the politics begin.


If it wasn't Iraq, it would have been something else. I think it just makes sense for the world to blame the big brother for the downfalls of society.


- No.
It makes sense for us to point out our experience and just how your approach is not actually any help in the long run.....that's what friends do.....till they get sick of being utterly ignored or being given the bird.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   

as mentioned by Otts
I'm tired of some people acting as though the U.S. is white as snow and righteous in this.


From my perspective, i don't think any pro-American individual tries to "paint" the US as pure, wholesome, "white as snow," or as being overly "righteous." Perhaps a few examples would suffice? I think many pro-American's look to do is stiffle the influx of negativity that is directed towards American's in general. See, I have no problem if you, and others, want to chime in and claim that the US or the Bush administration was not 'justified' in going into Iraq, but what I do see happening is the generalization that all or most American's are like Bush, etc., etc. Key word there is "generalizations."

No right-minded pro-American(s) believes that the US is "white as snow" or overly "righteous," the bottom line is that we are defending ourselves from the ever-increasing "generalizations." Example: 59 to 60 million people are stupid for voting for Bush, Etc., etc....

Chirac is anti-US and we know it, you know it, as does most everyone else; even he knows it. This is not Chirac's first anti-US comment's, nor will they be his last. Note please that Chirac was dishing out insinuated condemnation's of not just Bush, but America, as well, prior to 9/11, k?
Chirac making such statements and assertions, as has been noted within this topic, are to further his anti-US agenda.

Strange how that 'agenda' became more pronounced after Mr. Kerry lost the elections, huh? Chirac loves cheese and wine, lets hope that when he meets Condi Rice the first time, that he doesn't make the mistake of making such comments in front of her, but hey, then folks will be justified in their continuation of condemning American's, representive of the greater portion of the US, as thinking their "white as snow" and "righteous"....




seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join