Well doesn't everyone just smell like roses now

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

spm1138

Irony Is
Aug 10, 2001
2,664
0
36
43
Visit site
I knew Total were over there sucking up to the old regime trying to get oil concessions before we decided to go in.

Was fairly certain that had something to do with it.

Guess the new regime won't be in any hurry to deal with the French now, eh? :lol:
 

spm1138

Irony Is
Aug 10, 2001
2,664
0
36
43
Visit site
I think we all knew the 45 minutes claim was probably bunkum. I wouldn't be surprised if our "sources" in Iraq exagerated stuff like that to get us to shift Saddam sooner rather than later.

I don't know why Blair leant so heavily on it.

It was Iraq's conventional arsenal and potential for destabilising an already wobbly region that had me worried.
 

JaFO

bugs are features too ...
Nov 5, 2000
8,408
0
0
*what* arsenal would that be ? The americans have a far bigger arsenal ... and they're not even afraid to use it anymore. I find *that* a far better reason to worry.

// ---
So instead of politicians being bribed with oil by Saddam & co ... we've got politicians that used bribes to start a war ("join us now or you won't get any 'support' in the future").

I'm not sure which is worse ... especially given that Saddam & co didn't put up much of a fight after all these years the embargo was in place.
 
Aug 12, 2000
488
0
0
47
Switzerland
It's reasonable to assume that these people prolonged the rule of Saddam and with it the embargo, which caused the Iraqis immeasurable suffering. It's not okay just because noone pulled the trigger. The war really has nothing to do with it at all. I'm actually looking forward to this.

I wonder if Cheney's on the list. :p
 

spm1138

Irony Is
Aug 10, 2001
2,664
0
36
43
Visit site
JaFO said:
*what* arsenal would that be ?

Whatever is left over from killing Kurds, marsh arabs and shiite muslims I suppose.

JaFO said:
The americans have a far bigger arsenal ... and they're not even afraid to use it anymore. I find *that* a far better reason to worry.

Why?

How does Bush going after sh tbag third world dictators and Al Quida terrorists threaten you?
 

Freon

Braaaaiinss...
Jan 27, 2002
4,546
0
0
42
France
www.3dfrags.com
Hmm the french politicians on that list are not very influent right now. Some of them were arm dealers or Saddam's friends. They have nothing to do with France position before the war.
 

jaunty

Active Member
Apr 30, 2000
2,506
0
36
While it's probably true, I can't help but wonder about the somewhat dubious nature of the article.

Nobody from the French or German governments ever "supported" Saddam Hussein, as the article suggests. The line was always "We think Saddam is a bastard, but we also think going to war is a really stupid idea, and no good can come of it." The evidence the independant is citing comes from - in their words - "The US-backed Iraqi Governing Council," not something to be underestimated in this, the year of a US Presidential election, when a certain president is started to get a little flustered about the whole "Sorry.... ummm... yeah...so we're still looking... we'll find them soon. Honest" WMD fiasco.

You want a financial reason for France saying no to the war? Iraqi foregin debt. That's your reason. Iraq owed millions to France for a whole heap of hardware before the war. Because of the war, France isn't likely to see a cent of the debt repaid after the US bullied them into forgiving it "For the sake of the Iraqi people."

While I don't doubt the integrity of the independant more than I doubt any other paper, I think they've been led astray by a somewhat biased source. I'd want to see the original documents and find out alot more about where they came from before I passed judgement on the accusations., because the accusations seem to me to be very well timed to deflect attention from another certain bit of dishonesty regarding Iraq.
 
Aug 12, 2000
488
0
0
47
Switzerland
Here's the Guardian article, FWIW:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134695,00.html

Well timed or not (and I agree it seems almost too convenient), I think it's well worth a look. The ends should not justify the means indefinitely on either side of the fence, and I frankly find the 'soft' stance of many on this issue rather ironic in light of the militant USA bashing over every slightest indication of ambiguity. It seems many have a hard time differentiating between the legitimate stance of being against a war and free-riding on the peace movement for your own profit, on the backs of the Iraqi people.

My favorite fom the Guardian article:

Gilles Munier of a Franco-Iraqi association that promotes French businesses in Iraq admitted to the French newspaper Le Monde this week that his organisation had received gifts of oil but said they were perfectly legal payments under the oil for food programme.

"This is how it worked," he said. "Every company, oil or otherwise, that did business in Iraq thanks to an introduction from an individual or an organisation paid that intermediary a commission on the profit margin he made on the transaction.

The guy could obviously sweet-talk a protection money racketeering outfit into something that sounds vaguely like community service. :lol:

edit: had to change my emoticon. On further reflection, that guy is hilarious. :lol:
 
Last edited:

SaraP

New Member
Feb 12, 2002
935
0
0
The Land of the Governator
jaunty said:
You want a financial reason for France saying no to the war? Iraqi foregin debt. That's your reason. Iraq owed millions to France for a whole heap of hardware before the war. Because of the war, France isn't likely to see a cent of the debt repaid after the US bullied them into forgiving it "For the sake of the Iraqi people."

I suspect that France was also motivated by some desire to keep its own involvement with Saddam out of the limelight; not that other countries didn't supply Saddam, but France was one of his biggest suppliers. The fact that they were providing military (and other) equipment to someone everyone knew full well was a brutal oppressive dictator doesn't play well to the general public, and the continuing allegations that they continued to supply Saddam in defiance of the U.N. embargo makes it look even worse.

So they probably didn't want to make a big deal about "We sold Saddam all these missiles and radar systems and such! We want our money!"
 
Last edited:

Vega-don

arreté pour detention de tomate prohibée
Mar 17, 2003
1,904
0
0
Paris suburbs
Visit site
we didnt gone to war because a "preventive war " isnt in our ideology , and we know what war is, we are a pacific country , who will fight only under attack or under uno operations (peace keeping, or like in the 1st gulf war ).

maybe thats a reason. americans = bellicists who never had a real war since the civil war
 

DarkBls

Inf Ex-admin
Mar 5, 2000
4,551
0
36
France
Vega-don said:
we didnt gone to war because a "preventive war " isnt in our ideology , and we know what war is, we are a pacific country , who will fight only under attack or under uno operations (peace keeping, or like in the 1st gulf war ).

maybe thats a reason. americans = bellicists who never had a real war since the civil war

Sorry don, but this is an official one, not the real one. In fact there was several real reasons. I don't know all of course.
But I know one, from the head of our army. We didn't have enough military ressources to support a war (soldiers, money, working equipment).
The source is a général allowed to siege at the defense minister table.
 

Vega-don

arreté pour detention de tomate prohibée
Mar 17, 2003
1,904
0
0
Paris suburbs
Visit site
SaraP said:
The fact that they were providing military (and other) equipment to someone everyone knew full well was a brutal oppressive dictator doesn't play well to the general public, and the continuing allegations that they continued to supply Saddam in defiance of the U.N. embargo makes it look even worse.

during the embargo : nothing.
before, yes. we are aware of that and most of the french people hate sadam or joke about him and condamn the politicians who sold weapons to him. it was in a time where french politicians where selling weapons, corruption was high , ect.... (80's). all those polititians are out of the game now exept Jacques chirac (this beayatch)
but please dont make me cry with france selling weapons to dictators or oppressive regimes.... (remember chile , argentina, israel , Talebans)
 

Vega-don

arreté pour detention de tomate prohibée
Mar 17, 2003
1,904
0
0
Paris suburbs
Visit site
DarkBls said:
Sorry don, but this is an official one, not the real one. In fact there was several real reasons. I don't know all of course.
But I know one, from the head of our army. We didn't have enough military ressources to support a war (soldiers, money, working equipment).
The source is a général allowed to siege at the defense minister table.

this is a valid reason. but this can be true and the political reason to.
the war was refused for the political reasons.thats a fact.plus the governement would have fallen at the next elections if they gone to war
 
Last edited:
Aug 12, 2000
488
0
0
47
Switzerland
Vega-don, I think you just gave political satire a new face. What an amazing barrage. I literally didn't know people believed in any of that. :2thumb:

Just to relive that moment:

we didnt gone to war because a "preventive war " isnt in our ideology , and we know what war is, we are a pacific country , who will fight only under attack or under uno operations (peace keeping, or like in the 1st gulf war ).

Priceless. We're talking master-class sig-material here.