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.

 

French caught with hand in the cookie jar.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
John Kerry's most beloved ally that he condemes Bush for not bring into the Iraqi war has been caught with thier hand in the cookie jar. In Kerry's world honesty and integrity do not have a place to call home. I would rather have the coalition we have now than having the French involved.

---

Saddam Hussein subverted the United Nations oil-for-food program in a bid to bribe French and Russian officials and companies, in the expectation that the two permanent members of the Security Council would use their influence on behalf of Iraq.

The report was based in part on Iraqi intelligence documents, FBI interrogations of the imprisoned former dictator, and interviews with former regime officials, including such close confidantes of Saddam's as former deputy prime minister and foreign minister Tariq Aziz.

Among the findings contained in the report, the ISG said that:

-- Before the oil-for-food program was launched, Iraq paid $1 million to the ruling French Socialist party, with the money handed by Baghdad's then ambassador to Paris, Razzaq al-Hashimi, to the then French defense minister, Pierre Joxe.

-- Saddam personally approved the funding of foreign activists campaigning for the abolition of U.N. sanctions against Iraq.

-- He focused on France, Russia and China in his bid to win support for a lifting of sanctions and opposition to a U.S. war.

-- "Saddam sought favorable relations with France because France was influential in the Security Council."

-- Iraqi intelligence officials "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac" including two of his "counselors."

-- Aziz awarded several French "individuals" oil vouchers in return for using their influence to help lift the sanctions.

-- According to Aziz, the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure future oil deals once sanctions were abolished. French, Russian and Chinese oil companies were pursuing lucrative oil contacts in Iraq.

-- At one point, in 2002, Iraqi intelligence considered the chances of giving financial support for an (unnamed) candidate in France's presidential election.

-- Saddam learned as early as May 2002 that France would veto U.S. plans to go to war.

-- A memo to Saddam said intelligence officials met with a French lawmaker who had "assured Iraq that France would use its veto in the UN Security Council against any American decision to attack Iraq."

www.cnsnews.com...\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041007a.html



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
France has no business being on the security council.
They are a nothing country. Their time has come and gone.

Chirac is a death partner to Saddam. The blood of the
thousands of Kurds murdered by Saddams and his WMD,
the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddams regime,
and the thousands who were raped and maimed by Saddam ...
this is all on Chirac's soul as well.

It's sad that no one seems to care about the blood for oil
deals that France and Russia had with Saddam. It's in vogue
to (falsely) accuse America of trading blood for oil but the
fact is that it was France and Russia who were really those
who were trading blood for oil.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Except for Napoleons brief reign the last time the french were a force in world affairs they were known as Gaul



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Except for Napoleons brief reign the last time the french were a force in world affairs they were known as Gaul


Ain't that the truth, hehe....

Still, who by now doesn't know that France, Germany, and Russia were totally in bed with Saddam?

However, that doesn't change the fact that our CIC's decision to "go it alone" (the current "alliance" is with our one true ally-Britain, and a bunch of countries who are debtors, and just looking to get some of that debt knocked off) has resulted in our country being seen as Imperialistic, and being reviled, by those we used to call friends...as well as generated new enemies. It even spurred two old enemies to ramp up their nuclear programs, and we are now looking at two NUCLEAR members of Bush's "axis of evil".... Good plan!
I'm not sure we, or the world, can survive 4 more years of this....



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Do you honestly think that Iran and North Korea would not have pursued Nuclear weapons under a Gore Administration? Are you that addeled by your hatred of Bush that you are blinded by that both of these countries started thier programs under the Clinton administration. You condeme the coalition we have but want us to vote for Kerry because he said he could get the French involved, A lie by the way, they won't join even Kerry is elected. Our country can not afford 4 years of apeasement that Kerry is suggusting. His Global test is a sign of weakness that the terrorist know they can defeat by buying off certain countries.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
So it sounds to me like Saddam felt that our invasion of Iraq was imminent. Maybe he purposely got rid of his WMD arsenal in order to make fools of the administration, knowing that likely that would be the cause for war. I still think its obvious that France, Russia, and Germany were enjoying some pretty good deals on crude from Iraq, so they had an internal interest to oppose our invasion to begin with.

I don't see what this has to do with the Kerry campaign, though. Someone explain that one.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The Kerry campaign has stated that we went to war for the wrong reason, at the wrong time, with the wrong coalition. He wanted us to wait on the French, Germans, and Russians to come on board. He (Kerry) has stated that we should be going after terrorist not Saddam. What most people don't realise is that when the Taliban fell, the terrorist were given safe haven in Iraq. UBL and Saddam were united in the fact that both hated American and our freedoms. we are infidels according to them, and as such are not worthy to live. Getting rid of Saddam was right and justified. Kerry supported this in several of his different stances.


E_T

posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Chirac is a death partner to Saddam. The blood of the
thousands of Kurds murdered by Saddams and his WMD,
the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddams regime,
and the thousands who were raped and maimed by Saddam ...
this is all on Chirac's soul as well.
US was propably most biggest creator of Saddam's Iraq which was created as counterforce against Iran.

Also after Gulf War Episode I in 91 Bush senior urged kurds to rise against Saddam promising support but instantly betrayed them and let Saddam's army to slaughter them!



Vice President Dick Cheney was, until last year, the CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil field services company. Halliburton, through its European subsidiaries, sold spare parts to Iraq’s oil industry, despite U.N. sanctions.
www.opensecrets.org...

So maybe you should clean up your own affairs before condemning others.







posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
This thread is going to the debate (mud pit) forum.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Do you honestly think that Iran and North Korea would not have pursued Nuclear weapons under a Gore Administration?


Big difference between pursue and achieve....


Are you that addeled by your hatred of Bush that you are blinded by that both of these countries started thier programs under the Clinton administration.


Perhaps you enjoy having a man who is borderline retarded, leading the nation, and representing us to the world... I do not enjoy it.


You condeme the coalition we have but want us to vote for Kerry because he said he could get the French involved


No, I condemn the "coalition" because to call it such is a complete fantasy... I too doubt that Kerry could ever get French troops there, but there are other ways to involve the international community, which would lead to a much more stable and secure Iraq. With just us there, it is a near impossibility...


Our country can not afford 4 years of apeasement that Kerry is suggusting


Our country can't afford 4 more years of multiple front warfare with no end in sight...


The Kerry campaign has stated that we went to war for the wrong reason, at the wrong time, with the wrong coalition.


That is actually a fact. The reason we gave was WMD, we found none, therefore the reason was wrong. The time was likewise wrong, as had we waited for the inspectors, we would have learned about the absence of the WMD and would have never invaded. The wrong coalition is also correct, as nobody else even thinks of it as a "coaltion", at least not in the sense of Gulf War I.


He (Kerry) has stated that we should be going after terrorist not Saddam.


You disagree with this?


What most people don't realise is that when the Taliban fell, the terrorist were given safe haven in Iraq.


First I've heard of that...most fled into Pakistan or the Afghan mountains. Is there a source for this? I am intrigued. Most foreign terrorists and mercs came into Iraq AFTER the invasion, because the CIC was more worried about securing oil wells than the borders....


Getting rid of Saddam was right and justified. Kerry supported this in several of his different stances.


Agreed, and there was a right, and a wrong way to do this. We went about it the wrong way.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
The Kerry campaign has stated that we went to war for the wrong reason, at the wrong time, with the wrong coalition. He wanted us to wait on the French, Germans, and Russians to come on board.


I understand this. The Germans, the Russians, and the Frogs would have never joined the 'coalition of the willing', because they wouldn't want to give up the kickbacks they were getting from Saddam. That makes sense. Personally, I don't want to go to war with the Frogs, not because I have a petty, unjustified prejudice against them, but just because they're Frogs. No. Actually they're just losers. I've worked with the French military (grunts, anyway) and neither I, nor anyone else was really impressed with their ability. Same with the Germans. We'd go to Hammelburg for MOUT training, and at night, they're drinking Hefes and rockin' the ganj across the hall from us. And then the next day they're scheize until noon, and unsafe as well. And as for the Russians, I really believe that they still have it in for us, and it's just not transparent yet.


He (Kerry) has stated that we should be going after terrorist not Saddam. What most people don't realise is that when the Taliban fell, the terrorist were given safe haven in Iraq.

This is very true, however, there were a lot of places in the region where they were given safe haven as well, but that's not the point. I fully understand the strategic advantage of hitting Iraq first in the fight against Jihadists. Iraq was already beat down from the Gulf War. It only makes sense that we would go there first. We had superiority in all areas, a head start, if you will. Where I fault Bush is in his execution and planning of the maneuver. First, and most importantly, if he was already planning to spend so much cash, he should have spent about a half a bil on securing the borders and the ports. What the hell was that deal with wanting to open the borders and naturalize all the already illegals? Stupid, is what it was. Secondly, while homeland defense was actually happening, he could have gotten some good, credible, even possibly prescient intel on the target, and made a better plan with solid contingencies for problems the administration had to know were possibilities. Namely, the very ones we're encountering now. Had we only given some intel to the Congress that Iraq had indeed provided safe haven and training grounds for terrorists, that would have been reason enough to go, and Congress would have agreed. And we would have done it right with right purpose. The biggest flip-flop of all in this goatfich was when Bush cried "WMD" to congress, and then 3 days later we were caught up in "Iraqi Freedom". Shortly followed by a big bungling "Mission Accomplished sign. I'm sayin' cocky, overconfident moron, who's probably spent more money now that the very Democrat he's calling a 'tax and spend liberal' could spend if he tried in the same four years. Rose colored glasses he wears when he looks at the world. A symptom of being a rich little kid who is used to getting his way. The world doesn't give a damn about George W. Bush.


UBL and Saddam were united in the fact that both hated American and our freedoms. we are infidels according to them, and as such are not worthy to live.


This is absolutley true. They may not have liked each other, but under the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' clause, which so many liberal Americans began to call the US Government on, applies to these people as well. They would have absolutely helped each other. But even another thing to consider is the fact that the US Government has really screwed Saddam personally over the years, and he had a vendetta against it. Religion, Jihad, infidels, well that could be a good front, but did anyone ever really think that Saddam was all that religious? He had a full lenth feature film made of himself, for himself, for Christ's sake! You know what they say about graven images. Anyway, I think the fact that Saddam hated the US for screwing him over makes him more dangerous to us than any faked religious belief. Of course, he would use the Allah thing to get a good rise out of his people, and all the people around him, as he claimed to be of great Imami lineage. That's probably some crap.


Getting rid of Saddam was right and justified. Kerry supported this in several of his different stances.


Again, I absolutely agree. Saddam had to go as soon as possible, but as Kerry has actually always supported the war, and I believe always will, he believes as I do, and that is to say that we agree that this war was about as effed up as a football bat. It was planned horribly, and I thnk when Bush is gone, his Generals will attest to that at length, in books, which they will sell. It was executed horribly because he refused to listen to those very commanders, including Gen. Powell, to whose advice he should have been heeding rather than Sec. Rumsfeld's. That's a god damned no brainer. You're going to listen to the man that brought the world 'aspartame'? Fine. And now, as obvious as it has become that there was and is so much wrong with how the war has been carried out, Bush still 'sticks to his guns' and rides the stance that "Saddam is an evil-doer". Agreed, but dammit, he had the best military in the world, and the support needed in the war on terror to have this Iraq thing done in a year and a half, probably just a year, if only he'd done it well. You know, it doesn't even surprise me. The man has pretty much failed or only met a mediocre standard in anything else he's done in his life. I'll bet he was a waste of a pilot. I'd like to hear what some of his wingmen would have to say about that. I voted for the man, but once I learned how much he's sucked at everything else he's done, and the glaring lack of experience or success he's got, I feel like a deuche having done so.

Ok, I gotta stop. I'm starting to feel like putting small holes in things from great distances.

I would like to say something in defense of Bush, now that I had a smoke and I'm not so worked up anymore.

Any president that was in office when September 11th happened would probably appear to be a loser in the areas of economy and job decline. And maybe, had 9/11 not happened, No Child Left Behind may have worked a little better, but that's just speculation. I think it was just bureaucratic musical chairs made of money. I believe we have more cause to blame Osama bin Laden for our money woes than Bush. Bush is still a close second, though. $200 billion to take out Iraq? They only had like 3 tanks left, and their entire Air Force was destroyed. Really. We can do better than this.

You know what? I just apologized for Bush, and it didn't feel good. I'm never going to do that again. He's a god damn clown shoe.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Perhaps you enjoy having a man who is borderline retarded, leading the nation, and representing us to the world... I do not enjoy it.


I think you are a little bit wrong on your assestment of the President's Intelligence. Please provide the information that you have to prove this. Please tell me your educational background that would allow you to be able to judge someone's intelligence. Have you ever given a stanford-binet test and what are your qualifications for the analysis of that test. Please tell me, are you a fighter pilot, have you gratuated form Yale and Harvard, or are you just another democrat who is full rhetoric but have no substance? I am amased that a "borderline retard" could be a fighter pilot, graduate from Yale and Harvard, own a baseball team, and get elected President.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
DeltaChaos, You are obviously in the Army and should know that no war goes the way it is planned. I agree with you about the Frogs. I was a sigint analyst working out of King Faud airport during Gulf war 1 and found that the French intelligence officers were some of the most dumbest people on the earth. I also have been stationed in Germany and dealt with my german counter parts, and I can tell you that they much prefer to drink than to do any real work.

You views that the President as being an over-confident moron that the world hates is simply not the truth. What is the basis of this, is this your opinion or do you have information that can back this statement up.

I have spent 20+ years in oversea's locations around the world, and I can tell you that the majority of the people I have run into like Americans and like our President. You can't honestly believe that Kerry will spend less than the President.

As an Intelliegence Analyst I can tell you that the war was prosecuted by our generals and president to the best of thier ability. We may have the best army in the world, but remember in 1776 the British had the best army in the world at that time and they were defeated by a rag tag army. War does not go the way we plan it. Weapon systems do not always work as well as we like due to several things including climatical conditions in which they work.

I can also tell you that when we made out the ATO for the next day strikes that we had to take into account what the weather was like and what effect it would play on our choice of weapon system and what load the plans would carry.

Your assesment of the Iraqi military might and thier Air Force are inaccurate. During Gulf War 1, Saddam learned right quick and shut down his Air Force. They were moved and burried out in the desert.

You talk about the President's lack of experience and feel bad for voting for him, but you want to vote for someone who gutted our military and intelligence agencies. Someone who never shows up for his duty. A man who sided with the enemy in Vietnam and turned his back on Americans.

Kerry met with the Viet Cong twice in Paris, while in the Naval reserve. He adopted the talking points that the Viet Cong provided him and actively advocated them in the U.S.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   

think you are a little bit wrong on your assestment of the President's Intelligence. Please provide the information that you have to prove this. Please tell me your educational background that would allow you to be able to judge someone's intelligence. Have you ever given a stanford-binet test and what are your qualifications for the analysis of that test. Please tell me, are you a fighter pilot, have you gratuated form Yale and Harvard, or are you just another democrat who is full rhetoric but have no substance? I am amased that a "borderline retard" could be a fighter pilot, graduate from Yale and Harvard, own a baseball team, and get elected President.


The fact that there are enough "Bushisms" to fill 2 calendars, with one for each day and then some, is one key indicator... I'm amazed that a man could graduate from an Ivy League school and still be unable to speak the English language. As for HOW he graduated, owned businesses (which he then ran into the ground), etc., you need look no further than daddy's checkbook and connections. As for my qualifications, let's just say I wouldn't have a problem joining Mensa, but I feel no need to be validated by others in that regard. It might also interest you to know that I am a registered Republican, not a Democrat. George Bush Sr. is a man I admire greatly. Unfortunately, the apple fell far from the tree...and then rolled down a hill.....


Someone who never shows up for his duty


Somehow missing some Senate votes pales in comparison to basically going AWOL....


[edit on 7-10-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
DeltaChaos, You are obviously in the Army and should know that no war goes the way it is planned.

Right, Murphy's law in effect at all times, but come on. You, being a military man like me, knowing exactly what we're capable of, do you really believe that we're doing well right now? First, with proper purpose and intent as the basis for invasion, the public wouldn't have as much room to question the motives, and second, our soldiers would have clear knowledge of the mission. What a slap in the face to all of us who were asked to seek out and destroy weapons of mass destruction, only to find out 3 days after boots were on the ground that we had to somehow pull a democracy out of this sad country's asss. And at the behest of the people, and the congress, who also were under the impression that the WMD was the primary purpose. We could have found out that there weren't any WMD with 3 more months of inspections and good intelligence work. What a mistake. Murphy's law has little to do with the gross and obvious failures of this engagement. Pisss poor planning produced pisss poor results. It works every time.


You views that the President as being an over-confident moron that the world hates is simply not the truth. What is the basis of this, is this your opinion or do you have information that can back this statement up.


I'm sorry. Did I say the world hated Bush? If I did, yes, then that was of course just my opinion. I do clearly remember saying that I hate Bush. And that, of course, is just my opinion. But in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, "I think his record speaks for itself".


You can't honestly believe that Kerry will spend less than the President.


After the president has turned the largest surplus in history into the largest liability in history, yes, I think I can assume with a great degree of certainty that Kerry would not even know what to do with that much money.


As an Intelliegence Analyst I can tell you that the war was prosecuted by our generals and president to the best of thier ability.


Yes. To the best of their ability. I'll literally bet you $100 that when Bush is out, or the Generals are out, whichever comes first, they will tell America that Bush sent them in unprepared, hastily, and without a sound plan. For Christ's sake, Rummy just told us the other day that the intel was incredible, and we had no good reason to assume there were WMD there. Then Bremer slipped up a few days later and came out with the fact that all the leadership agreed that we went in with too few troops in the beginning, and that they knew it then. That is in no way representative of the best of our ability. If we did this to the best of our ability, we would be back by now. Which military are you in?! Oh, that's right, you're an analyst. Analyzing. Pick up a rifle sometime.


We may have the best army in the world, but remember in 1776 the British had the best army in the world at that time and they were defeated by a rag tag army.


As an American history lover, I can tell you that the British had the best army in the world at the time in Britain. The garrison they kept in the colonies had been there for years, away from their families and their homeland. Reinforcements, should they have to call for them, would require well over six weeks to cross the Atlantic to arrive. And other than the commerce shipments from other lands, they had no internal combat support chain by which to refit and reload. King George too, was overconfident, and as a result we ate his lunch for him. Serves him right for not having a plan should some insurgents rise up and shoot them from behind trees. Which brings me to another point. We had been fighting the natives for a good 150 years, and had learned guerrila tactics, which were superiour to that 'everybody stand out in the open, and we'll take turns shooting at the enemy' crap. The Brits lost because their leadership had bad intel and no contingency plans.


Weapon systems do not always work as well as we like due to several things including climatical conditions in which they work.


Bombs work just fine, wind or no wind. Off by 4 meters? Oh well, target neutralized. Better luck next time. When you draw a bead on a target 500 meters to your front, and get bent because you miss, then come talk to me about wind sheer and barometric pressure.


During Gulf War 1, Saddam learned right quick and shut down his Air Force. They were moved and burried out in the desert.


And migs buried in the desert are a threat to us how? You're just going to give Iraq the benefit of the doubt on everything, right? Even if those planes were in the air, I still wouldn't have under-estimated the effectiveness of the Iraqi military, as we would have hit them before they could have even seen our fighters.


You talk about the President's lack of experience and feel bad for voting for him, but you want to vote for someone who gutted our military and intelligence agencies.


The exact reason that I voted for Bush was because of how dilapidated the military had become through the Clinton years. And what's the first thing Bush does? He signs an omnibus appropriation that cuts $1.2 billion out of the veterans budget. Followed a few months later by a budget reconciliation bill cutting it again by another $900 million. And then he wants to cut the hazardous fire and separation pay for the soldiers who are fighting in his bungled attempt at being a war president. THIS is what Bush has done for us lately. THIS is the result of his tax cuts. Had Bush's plan to take away pay from YOU AND ME, not been met by such stiff opposition from the people and the congress representative of them, you would be none too happy would you. Here I think you need to re-train your focus on facts that mean something to your station in life. Your commander in chief has screwed you, and attempted again to screw you. Just because he's at the top of the chain of command does not in any way mean you shouldn't closely examine his intents and means. On the contrary, you most certainly should. He's your daddy. There's people working for Bechtel, Rockwell, and Halliburton over there driving a god damn truck making $75 an hour. Why does this seem wrong to me? BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THE WORK. WE ARE DYING. Sorry for screaming. He wants to give them that much of OUR tax money, and cut OUR pay? Again, what military are you in. Oh the Air force, right. Sorry.

As for Kerry, I'm not pleased to admit that I feel that when I punch his chad, I will only be punching the chad for the least stupid of two morons. Why this is sad is because apparently, America really believes that these two knuckleheads are the best we've got. Hell, we nominated both of them. I'll tell you what. I'll bet there are a million born leaders in the countrywho would be better for the job than these two that exist in the lower-middle class. The problem is they'll never be elected, or even seen by anyone, because they don't have 20 million dollars to spend on a campaign. THAT's un-American.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

As for Kerry, I'm not pleased to admit that I feel that when I punch his chad, I will only be punching the chad for the least stupid of two morons. Why this is sad is because apparently, America really believes that these two knuckleheads are the best we've got. Hell, we nominated both of them. I'll tell you what. I'll bet there are a million born leaders in the countrywho would be better for the job than these two that exist in the lower-middle class. The problem is they'll never be elected, or even seen by anyone, because they don't have 20 million dollars to spend on a campaign. THAT's un-American.


Yep, and exactly why I'm voting for Kerry vs. Badnarik (my personal fave)...this election is too important for a "throw-away" vote...*sigh*.....



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Don't worry people now that we took the evil Sadam and his cronies hands out of the cookie jar, now US can hold the entire jar to himself and shared the cookies with Mobil, Texaco and Chevron.

We sure have a lot of cookies to go around if we just convince the iraqi people to like us more. Darn those savages they dont understand that all we want is their rich oil lands.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Marg, you know just as well as I do that mobile, texaco and chevron will not profit from the Iraqi oil. that just pure rhetoric on your part. I do find it amazing that people would vote for someone that a lot of Americans, especially the military conciders a traitor.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Pretty convenient the names of US companies and individuals involved were left off the list under US privacy laws eh?



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
That's one decorated traitor....


Where are Shrub's medals? Oh yeah, you don't get them when you go AWOL,


Bah, this is pointless...both candidates are lousy choices, and we're screwed either way, it's just a matter of degree....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join