|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#402
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote: I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many of them consider him worse than Hitler. He's certainly his equal as a military strategist. :-D Pat |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:32:10 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: That has nothing to do with the case under discussion. Yes, it does. Chirac is corrupt. The Oil for Food (and palaces, and weapons) thing was just part and parcel of the corruption. Leaving alone the fact that Chirac has never been accused of getting any personnal money out of it ( it's party money we're talking about ), there's a huge flaw in your logic. A distinction without a difference. Let's apply it to US, shall we. Cheney worked for Haliburton. The war in Iraq was just a part and parcel of that work. See how ridiculous it is. Yes, that is indeed ridiculous, since it's not analogous in any useful way. Each such aregument weaken your case. Sorry, but your simply saying so doesn't make it so. That type of argument can only weaken your position, as it shows you have nothing better to say. And I suggest you don't get into this, as there is quite a lot to say about GWB. laughing I suppose that a of Europeans enjoy fantasizing that. After all, many of them consider him worse than Hitler. LOL; I don't know how many european you call 'many'. It is all of 20 or do you even go to 30? I saw lots of signs and puppets to that effect in the "peace" marches leading up to the war. Again, you should not trust Fox news blindly. And you shouldn't bllindly assume that I get my news from Fox News. Such as? Nothing factual of which I'm aware. Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed. That's not a fact. Got anything else? Is George Bush going to be indicted when he leaves office? Chirac probably will be. What "illegal money" is that? The one we are speaking about for the last 4 message or so. The billions of $ which 'disapeared' since the US takeover. 8 billion of which Bremer was grilled over in congress. You know, the one he said he would be 'shocked' if it was ever 'proven' part of would have ended in AQ hands. That doesn't make it illegal. It only indicates incompetence (as bureacracies are wont to be). If there were any real provable illegal activity here, you can bet that the press, on both sides of the pond, would be all over it. I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to you. Small bills only, please. No, of course it wasn't lost. It went into someone's pockets. That doesn't make it illegal. You see absolutely no relationship. I see that absent 911, we would not have gone into Iraq, or attempted nation building (which George Bush opposed on September 10th). Again nothing to do with the argument. Of course it does. The point is that we had many reasons to remove Saddam, and one need not invoke corruption as one of them. The French, on the other hand, had one main reason to keep him in power. He was bribing them to do so. So, you had lots of reasons and the french had only one. No, as I said, they also got to put a finger in America's eye. Ridiculous. Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac beside. Oh, this is ridiculous. "Perhaps Chirac's deepest friendship has been with Saddam Hussein.[30] The two first met in December 1974 when Prime Minister Chirac visited Baghdad to negotiate trade agreements, including the delivery of a nuclear reactor[31] later destroyed by an Israeli air raid in 1981. When Hussein visited France the following September—his only visit to a Western country[32]—then-prime minister Chirac said, "I welcome you as my personal friend. I assure you of my esteem, my consideration, and my affection."[33] Resigning from government in 1976, Chirac founded the Rassemblement pour la Republique, which would soon become France's largest political party. There remain persistent rumors that Hussein helped finance the party, supported by allegations by Lebanese arms merchant Sarkis Soghanalian[34] and by various Iraqi politicians. In 1992, Saddam reportedly threatened to expose French leaders who had earlier accepted his largesse. "From Mr. Chirac to Mr. Chevènement, politicians and economic leaders were in open competition to spend time with us and flatter us," the Iraqi leader reportedly said. "We have now grasped the reality of the situation [of France's support for the 1991 Gulf War, a betrayal in Saddam's eyes]. If the trickery continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the French public."[35] According to an aide, Chirac's friendship with Hussein was such that he would stop for a night in Baghdad whenever he traveled between Paris and Asia.[36] Baghdad rewarded Paris for its loyalty. Throughout the 1980s, Iraq bought US$25 billion worth of arms from French concerns, including Mirage fighters, Super Etendard aircraft, and Exocet missiles.[37] The Iraqi government also picked French companies to build Saddam International Airport in 1982.[38] The relationship between Chirac and Hussein went beyond the norm in Franco-Iraqi relations. When Chirac again became prime minister in 1986 after a decade out of power, the relationship once more blossomed. The following year, reports surfaced that Chirac had offered to rebuild the nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel in 1981. In 1994, French oil companies Total and Elf won contracts worth billions to develop southern Iraqi oil fields upon the lifting of the sanctions regime.[39] When Chirac became president in 1995, his government began lobbying the United Nations to ameliorate if not lift sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.[40] The United Nation's Oil-for-Food program, inaugurated in 1996, allowed the Iraqi government to sell its oil in order to purchase food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies.[41] Saddam Hussein rewarded Chirac's government for his support. France quickly became Iraq's chief trade partner, a position it maintained until 2003.[42] Hussein's investment in Chirac proved fruitful for the Iraqi leader. In 1998, when asked how patient he was prepared to be with Saddam Hussein, Chirac responded, "When it comes to humanitarian affairs, France's patience is limitless."[43] In the months preceding the 2003 Iraq war, French resistance to sanctions or military action against Baghdad grew. According to The Sunday Times of London, French officials regularly "kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war."[44] In January 2003, a French company sold aircraft and helicopter parts to Iraq for its French-made Mirage fighters and Gazelle helicopters.[45] On October 26, 2003, rockets struck the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad during the visit of U.S. deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz. Subsequent investigation showed these to be French-made Matra SNEB 68-millimeter. The pristine condition of those left behind suggested manufacture after the imposition of sanctions.[46] Several French officials benefited personally from their close ties to Baghdad. Documents unearthed in the wake of the Iraqi regime's collapse suggest that French officials accepted lucrative oil vouchers from the Iraqi government in exchange for diplomatic favors. According to the September 2004 Duelfer report, titled Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, said he "personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments." Aziz told his interrogators that both parties understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift U.N. sanctions or through opposition to U.S. initiatives within the Security Council."[47] Also, according to an Iraqi intelligence service memo, a French politician met in May 2002 with an Iraqi official and "assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC [U.N. Security Council] against any American decision to attack Iraq."[48] Among the French officials indicted are several members of Chirac's inner circle, including Charles Pasqua, his former interior minister. A May 17, 2005 report released by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded, Documents created by the Ministry of Oil during the Hussein regime and interviews of high-ranking Hussein regime officials conducted by the Subcommittee provide substantial evidence that Charles Pasqua was granted oil allocations for 11 million barrels of oil from the Hussein regime under the Oil-for-Food Program in return for his continued support.[49] Documents reveal that the Iraqi government also gave fourteen million barrels of oil to French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom it considered "a conduit to French president Chirac."[50] The French judiciary has begun investigating leads on the Maugein connection.[51] While citizens of many other countries are involved, few are as senior or as well connected to their governments as the Frenchmen involved. The level of oil-for-food contacts reflects both the high-level of Franco-Iraqi ties, as well as Saddam Hussein's belief that the Chirac administration was an easy target for a campaign of influence." http://www.meforum.org/article/772 So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home. |
#404
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... So why are you now blaming the *French* for this? I'm blaming the *French* for being a fair-weather ally. France behaves to the US much like NASA behaves to ESA. France didn't kill them, but *did* contribute to their deaths. |
#405
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ... : : : Henry Spencer wrote: : : Hints: (1) France was not the only US ally that refused to cooperate. : (2) There was no particular rush, yet the US insisted on going ahead at : once rather than taking the time to talk one of its allies around. : : The trick would be to have gotten Andorra to host a visiting F-111 group : for a airshow on the day of the attack. : :Or you simply do what Henry suggested and let the US Navy handle the :bombing. At the time we had lots of Navy planes on aircraft carriers that :could carry bombs, right? Not quite right. You get one squadron of A-6 aircraft per deck. Typically two carriers in the Med was a lot (I think we may have actually gotten three in there at this point in time). Anything else that dropped bombs was much shorter ranged and had much smaller payloads. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
"Hyper" wrote:
:On Mar 2, 5:02 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : :Check Bush Doctrine. : : Check reality. You'll be better served than by your current 'head up : the ass' approach. : :You should take your own advice here. Done. See you in 30 days if you manage to pull your head out of your ass and reenter our current reality. plonk -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#408
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 23:12:09 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de news: ... Let's begin with the fact that he lied to start a war which caused tens to hundreds of thousands of innocentspeople to be killed. That's not a fact. Got anything else? What do you claim is not a fact? That bush lied? Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your English is excellent, it's probably not your first language. Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be the case). That he started a war? Yes. That's not a fact. Saddam started that war, back in 1989. It never really ended, until he was removed from power. There was simply a long ceasefire, during which he continued to violate its terms, and seventeen Security Council Resolutions relating to it, and shot at our aircraft that were attempting to enforce it. or that tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people died because of that war? Tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people were dying under Saddam's regime. That's no longer happening. Did you weep for them? It happens in wars. Is George Bush going to be indicted when he leaves office? He definitely should be. That's not what I asked. And even before leaving office. ; No, that's what impeachment is for. Sitting presidents can't be indicted here, for the same reason that the prosecutors won't be able to properly deal with Chirac until he leaves office. That he won't be is an accusation against USA. laughing For what? Chirac probably will be. I doubt it. The most judges want him for these days is to hear him as witness. Dream on. I you really think the money was trully lost, I've got a tower to sell to you. Small bills only, please. No, of course it wasn't lost. It went into someone's pockets. That doesn't make it illegal. So the money was not lost; It's just unaccounted for, in the pockets of unknown people, for unknown reasons and without anything to show for it. And this was billion in US tax money. But it's not illegal. Are you sure you're not interested in buying the Eiffel tower? Oh, and if Saddam was bribing Pasqua ( who is the highest-level french politician to be suspected of collusion in that scandal - as someone near him was caught - ) to try to influance french foreign policy, he was even more of an idiot than I think he was, as Pasqua had been out of power circles for half a dozen years by then - and not a friend of Chirac beside. Oh, this is ridiculous. You are again trying to distort what I said. Are you trying to turn this in a flamewar to hide the weakness of your arguments. Nope. Sorry. I'm making arguments. With citations. I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he been an ally since the mid-90s at the latest. Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part: Documents reveal that the Iraqi government also gave fourteen million barrels of oil to French businessman Patrick Maugein, whom it considered "a conduit to French president Chirac."[50] The French judiciary has begun investigating leads on the Maugein connection.[51] While citizens of many other countries are involved, few are as senior or as well connected to their governments as the Frenchmen involved. The level of oil-for-food contacts reflects both the high-level of Franco-Iraqi ties, as well as Saddam Hussein's belief that the Chirac administration was an easy target for a campaign of influence." I stated nothing about past friendship between Saddam and Chirac. No, I did that. You know, just to strengthen my case. That's how arguments (as opposed to trolling) work... And while you're at it, you could add Cheney to the list of Saddam's past friends. Really? snip fox level propaganda. "fox level propaganda"? What in it is false? It didn't cite Fox News. Not once. It cited the Duelfer Report, though. Did you read it? So your thesis is that the war in Iraq was ginned up solely to steal oil and enrich Halliburton? Why do that? Why not declare war on Venezuela? It's a lot closer to home. You really are not getting it, are you? I'm not saying Iraq was invaded to enrich Haliburton ( though that was certainly a consequence ). I'm showing that the idea is as ridiculous as the one that the Oil for food scandal had an impact on the stance of the french government against that invasion. Dream on. |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
|
#410
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Mar 1, 8:33 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jordan wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "Russian crap its deployment could bring down on Europe's heads." Are you seriously trying to argue that Russia would be insane enough to respond to the deployment of a defensive ABM system by launching an atomic war against Europe? Not launching an attack; just starting to redeploy a whole pile of IRBMs aimed at Europe. "You want to defend against something? We'll give you something to defend yourself against. If I were you, I'd suggest getting around 500 of those ABMs." Given that the main purpose of the Polish-based interceptors would be to protect against attacks by future nuclear-armed _Muslim_ powers, how is this an argument against deploying them? Seriously -- if the Russians don't actually intend to attack Western Europe, what difference does it make whether they have a lot of missiles pointing that way? The one difference it possibly _could_ make, of course, relates to an accidental missile launch. But since an accidental launch would probably consist of one or a few missiles, this is actually an argument _for_ ABM deployment, since ABM deployment in that case would make the difference betwen an embarassing scare and a hideous tragedy. - Jordan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 03:12 AM |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 02:19 AM |
Outer Space Treaty | John Schilling | Policy | 24 | May 24th 06 03:14 PM |
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 7 | April 2nd 05 08:02 PM |