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.

 

France - corrupt sanction breakers and Saddam supporters

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ever wondered why the French opposed the removal of Saddam? A principled opposition to war? Concern about the plight of the Iraquis?

no chance!

Cynical, corrupt and hypocritical French politicians and businessmen were making millions from Saddam and wanted the gravy train to continue.


""Saddam bought UN allies with Oil"

www.timesonline.co.uk...

funny - no mention of USA or UK in this article - might be becuase we are principled nations committed to the removal of tyrants, while France is usually in the pay of them?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The only reason that we're looking at this situation in the bad light that we are is because we're guilty of the same thing, just on the other side of the fence.

Americans can be called, in the most basic terms: Hypocritical Judgemental Sheep.

And to be completely honest, we'll go to the same lengths to get rich.

Anyone remember the scandals after WWII, where it became obvious that there were American companies doing business with Hitler throughout the war?

Judgement is an ugly thing.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well I see this way oil is power, the ones that have it wants to use it to obtain power the ones that don't have it will go to the extreme to control the ones that have it, even if means to make enemies alone the way.

Just remember Sadam was a friend of the US until US decided he was the enemy.

Just like Bin-laden friend first enemey later.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
My point was not about doing business - my point was about hypocrisy.

The French pretend they are against the war for moral reasons. But it is so evident that they would welcome Saddam staying on as a mass murderer as he was a close pal of Chirac and the Frnech were milking him for millions!

Besides - there is ample evidence that successive French leaders are corrupt - something one cannot level at US Presidents or UK PMs.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
"Besides - there is ample evidence that successive French leaders are corrupt - something one cannot level at US Presidents or UK PMs."

Classic!!!



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire
My point was not about doing business - my point was about hypocrisy.


Besides - there is ample evidence that successive French leaders are corrupt - something one cannot level at US Presidents or UK PMs.


Tell me of a country that you know that has not done inmoral deals with other countries, if you know of one please let us know.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It is not about morality it is about phoney morality and hypocrisy and lies. The French opposed the removal of Saddam, they argued the UN line must prevail

Yet there is ample evidence they have constantly undermined the UN sanctions regime in Iraq and opposed the invasion because of it yet pretended it was for "moral" reasons.

can you not see the truth? it stares you in the face



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire
Ever wondered why the French opposed the removal of Saddam? A principled opposition to war? Concern about the plight of the Iraquis?

no chance!

Cynical, corrupt and hypocritical French politicians and businessmen were making millions from Saddam and wanted the gravy train to continue.


""Saddam bought UN allies with Oil"

www.timesonline.co.uk...

funny - no mention of USA or UK in this article - might be becuase we are principled nations committed to the removal of tyrants, while France is usually in the pay of them?



Oh noes! Da Frenchiez are TEH EVEL!

Does this mean we have to rename French Bread...Freedom Bread?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
You're missing crossfire's point... he doesn't want to hear about other countries' leaders' misdeeds... he wants to sit in judgement of the French.
And he wants us to bear witness as he burns France at the stake.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Instead of France bashing, why not put your energies into helping to get our soldiers out of Iraq so fewer are blown up? That seems like a more worthwhile way to pass the time then worrying about other countries.





[edit on 3-10-2004 by bushblows]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Exactly my point bushblows US is the last country that have the right to judge other countries after his ill deals in Iraq.

Frances had done nothing to me personaly so I have no reason to bash them and they are not the ones to blame for US invading Iraq or for our troops dying in there.

Whatever deals they had with Sadam US had them too prior to declare him the number one enemy of US after bin-laden got forgotten.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
US removes Saddam and is accused of doing it for oil - clearly not true as USA is pumpling billions into Iraq (cheaper to buy the oil)

France opposes the removal of Saddam and argues for morality and the UN - clearly not true as France was making millions from Saddam

Now of these two scenarios we have one principaled nation and the other a corrupt bunch of liars

And you defend the liars!

And you talk about lives lost? How many more people would Saddam have murdered - would be murdering today if the French view had prevailed?


Still at least they would have still been making a load of cash out of it!

Merde



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
You mean like:

1) Billions of oil dollars are missing, money which never went back to the Iraqis
2) The tens of thousands of civilian casualties
3) The mass looting of artifacts where the invading countries felt it was not there place to intervene
4) The establishment of military bases on historical/holy sites
5) Ignoring the more immediate human rights violations/genocides by other countries
6) US and UK companies involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal
7) The use of DU, which is now in every person in Iraq/Afghanistan, birth defects, illness are rampant.

And wouldn't it make more sense that the US is pumping money into Iraq because they know they are going to a larger amount of money back from it. Look how much money is missing already.

Man, just the widespread amount of DU is enough to make you wonder how concerned the US/UK is over the lives of Iraqis AND their own soldiers.

I'm sorry, but if the US/UK was solely concerned about the mass murders and human rights violations, there are better places to start than Iraq. Obviously, the reason for the war was to get something out of it. No WMDs are there, IAEA inspector Hans Blix admitted he was wrong. What's left? Oil.

I'd recommend not relying on one lone article for your view of this war.

The point is, most, if not all, governments are corrupt and everything they do is in the interest of either the person/people starting the war or of the nation. The US/UK are a long way off from being a personification of Mother Theresa or Ghandi.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire

Now of these two scenarios we have one principaled nation and the other a corrupt bunch of liars
And you defend the liars!
And you talk about lives lost? How many more people would Saddam have murdered - would be murdering today if the French view had prevailed?
Still at least they would have still been making a load of cash out of it!
Merde


No one is "defending" France....we're saying they're not the cause
of our people being slaughtered overseas at present. Which should be
our number one priority.

Quite frankly I could care less what Saddam was going to do to Iraqis.
Have a hunch 99.9 percent of the US population felt the same - prior to
our entering the country, that is. Now you're all "concerned for Iraqis??" lol
Pleeeease!! Few Americans can even find Iraq on the map!

Polls have shown Iraqis have wanted us out for a long, long time.
If you're so concerned about them...why do you ignore their opinion?


Oh but wait....we're supposed to be knocking the French. Sorry.


[edit on 3-10-2004 by bushblows]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
3) The mass looting of artifacts where the invading countries felt it was not there place to intervene

Actually if you think about it his point is the how absolute baselessly false self-serving that statement is.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
6) US and UK companies involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal

Actually again in your zeal you have replace US & UK for France & Russia.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
And wouldn't it make more sense that the US is pumping money into Iraq because they know they are going to a larger amount of money back from it. Look how much money is missing already.

So your think its an investment?




[edit on 3-10-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Exactly my point bushblows US is the last country that have the right to judge other countries after his ill deals in Iraq.
Whatever deals they had with Sadam US had them too prior to declare him the number one enemy of US after bin-laden got forgotten.


Oh Marg, you radical. First you say we should take responsibility for our nation's screw-up THEN you bring up Bin Laden.

I bet you like French wine, too.
Commie.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bushblows


Oh Marg, you radical. First you say we should take responsibility for our nation's screw-up THEN you bring up Bin Laden.

I bet you like French wine, too.

Commie.


Actually I like french wine but I find the french man to soft, but they have done nothing wrong to me so is not reason to dislilke them just because they were doing what US has done in the past.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Jamuhn
3) The mass looting of artifacts where the invading countries felt it was not there place to intervene

Actually if you think about it his point is the how absolute baselessly false self-serving that statement is.


I don't understand what you are saying. We should not preserve the cultural heritage of a nation?




Originally posted by Jamuhn
6) US and UK companies involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal

Actually again in your zeal you have replace US & UK for France & Russia.


www.foxnews.com...


Some investigators believe the vouchers allowed Iraqi oil to be bought at below-market prices, and later could quickly be converted to hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, in cash.

Among the names on it: a British Member of Parliament, the president of a Canadian oil company and the children of political leaders in the Middle East and Asia.

Sales from the United States and the United Kingdom amounted to $376 million.


www.nzherald.co.nz... =3581331&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

BTW, I wonder how many of these companies were Halliburton subsidaries.

www.truthout.org...




Originally posted by Jamuhn
And wouldn't it make more sense that the US is pumping money into Iraq because they know they are going to a larger amount of money back from it. Look how much money is missing already.

So your think its an investment?


Yes, I think the countries opposed to it such as France and Russia were so because of the major market Oil-for-food created. I think the US and UK were lagging behind and manufactured a war to reap their own profits from Iraqi oil. This is currently going on now. None of these countries are innocent.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn


Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Jamuhn
.. felt it was not there place to intervene

Actually if you think about it his point is the how absolute baselessly false self-serving that statement is.


Is it a little more clear that way


Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Jamuhn
6) US and UK companies involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal


Originally posted by keholmes
Actually again in your zeal you have replace US & UK for France & Russia.


www.foxnews.com...


Some investigators believe the vouchers allowed Iraqi oil to be bought at below-market prices, and later could quickly be converted to hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars, in cash.

Among the names on it: a British Member of Parliament, the president of a Canadian oil company and the children of political leaders in the Middle East and Asia.

Sales from the United States and the United Kingdom amounted to $376 million.


I stand by the statement in your zeal you are point the wrong way the US & UK bought that oil...not sold it. That would be the French & Russian profiting. Also some investigatorsisnt that kind of analogous to some doctors thought the patient was pregnant, either they did something or they didn't. it sounds more to me like some partisan whining.


Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Jamuhn
And wouldn't it make more sense that the US is pumping money into Iraq because they know they are going to a larger amount of money back from it. Look how much money is missing already.


Originally posted by keholmes
So your think its an investment?



Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yes, I think the countries opposed to it such as France and Russia were so because of the major market Oil-for-food created. I think the US and UK were lagging behind and manufactured a war to reap their own profits from Iraqi oil. This is currently going on now. None of these countries are innocent.

And the French trying to get sanctions lifted so they could plunder the north for profit would be?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Well, the list of companies involved in dealings came from an Iraqi media source who uncovered them from the Iraq Oil Ministry. So, all the dealings across the different countries pretty much came from the same source. As well, there are examples of US companies profiting from Oil-for-food and even dealings not involved with the program.

My point is directed to the statement that the US is not any fault and that the US went to war to liberate the people. The way the author made it sound is that the US started this war purely in the interests of the Iraqi people, which is definitely not true. If we want to go further with the US, we can start talking about the dealings with Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administration as well.

But presently, I'd say that the US government is pretending to be for this war for moral reasons, which I believe is in untrue.

Do you think the US is hypocritical at times with the way they conduct this war and the reasons they continue to give for it?

[edit on 3-10-2004 by Jamuhn]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join