Saddam Hussein at a nuclear reactor in France in 1975. Jacques Chirac is at right in the glasses. Saddam wanted a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. France supplied its Osiris reactor which was named Osirak (Osiris + Iraq]. It was being erected when it was destroyed in a Sunday strike [June 7, 1981] by the Israelis, timed to save the lives of the French scientists helping with the construction.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/847338/posts excerpt: "Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that simply may signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leaderâs behavior. " NOTE: the content comes from StratFor, an independent security consulting firm, but was picked up by Rush Limbaugh et al, for obvious reasons...
Chirac has a 'thing' for brutal blood thirsty dictators: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2787479.stm BTW, to all those wide eyed and bushy tailed youngsters out there protesting "the war" because they believe in "No blood for oil", I would like to ask them if they know that the French stand to gain more than any other country from Saddam remaining in power? Do they know that the French have major concessions in the incredibly rich Majnun oil field of Iraq? That before nationalization they were partners with the Iraqi oil company? That they are major debt holders of Iraq? etc. etc. So yes, it is about oil. France's whining about the potential of losing lucrative oil deals with a mad man who has the blood of thousands on his hands. And they have the audacity to play the 'peace' card. Revolting.
US and British controlled around 75% of the oil before Iraq nationizated it. French had a very small %. The only way the french can get that oil is if the UN sanctions are lifted. Russia and China also have deals with Iraq. the only ones left out where the British and US. Now if we do not goto war and UN inspectors succeed France,Russia and China will be pumping oil. if we goto war and force a regime change those contracts are probably out the window.
In the 80's, Saddam was a very good client : during the war against Iran (the real "evil" country at that time, remember the 79 US embassy hostage crisis), he was buying weapons from ALL Western countries, including : => lot's of Mirage fighters from the french (like the one showed by Powell video end of Jan in the UN) => or US helicopters : about 125 Hughes / Bell / Huey (the same one than the one used in Vietnam !) were delivered in 83-84, after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. Some even say these are the same helicopters which were later used for gas attacks against the Kurd population in northern Iraq in 1988... The most "annoying" part against the French or the US (from an ethical point of view) is that, at the same time, it was already known that Saddam had already used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Shipping weapons (even "conventional" one) to a dictator when you know he is simultaneously using chemical weapons is really playing with the devil. I guess both US and France, at the UN, were much more "quiet" about these activities (than today)... But the "weirdest" part in this story is that the US envoy who was meeting Saddam in 83-84 (and being involved in these choppers sales) was .... Donald Rumsfeld himself.. this is quite crazy : 20 years after, you find back the same protagonists. It would have been as well very hard to imagine, back in April 1991, that you would replay the gulf war 12 years after... (By the way, it looks like somebody forgot to end the job at that time) Anyhow, today both France and US want to take control of the Iraqis oil fields, except their governments have different views on how to achieve that. Eddy Please : if anyone has other pic of western politicians with Saddam, post them in this thread !!! I think we could get a nice gallery of "old" friends ...
From what I understand, a PRECONDITION made explicit by all these governments (Russia, France, China) in support of war is that if the current Iraqi regime is replaced, the CURRENT oil contracts with these countries would be honored by any new regime. nitro
There is no way the USA will agree to honoring existing contracts, given that the reason the US is gonna attack is to remove the French and Russian hold over Iraqi oil... with Saddam out of the way and a US puppet in power, the Russian and French contracts are void, and the USA and UK in effect get those contracts... Saddam could turn over all of his weapons of mass destruction tomorrow, and the US would still attack... this war is primarily about snatching the oil contracts away from France and Russia by removing Saddam... all honest and rational war mongers should concede this...
No war can be holy warns the archbishop ... The Archbishop of Canterbury says the leaders should lay off "heavy artillery of a religious kind" in their speeches The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, yesterday warned Tony Blair and President Bush to tone down their moral rhetoric in the drive to war with Iraq. The archbishop, who this week issued a joint statement with Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor doubting the moral basis for a war, told his first press conference at Lambeth Palace that the leaders should lay off "heavy artillery of a religious kind" in their speeches. Both President Bush with his "axis of evil" soundbites and the prime minister in his recent campaign to provide a moral justification for the conflict have become increasingly messianic in tone as they strive to persuade sceptical electorates, he said."There is no war that is holy and good in itself and to bring the heavy artillery of a religious kind, to say that is the only way of resisting evil, is something that has to be watched out for." Dr Williams insisted that other alternatives to war, including the maintenance of a UN presence in Iraq, had to be explored before military intervention. He refused to commit himself to supporting a war even with a second resolution. "I think Christians generally would hold that unless other means of resolution had been exhausted, it would be hard to justify any pre-emptive [military] action. It does not look as if we have exhausted all the possibilities yet," he said. Dr Williams is to be enthroned as 104th archbishop at Canterbury Cathedral next Thursday as the final stage of his appointment which began last July with the announcement that he had been chosen to succeed Dr George Carey. Dr Williams said he was in regular contact with the prime minister but declined to give details of discussions between them. He knows he leads a church largely united in its opposition to war, in a wider religious community sharing similar views. Blair takes moral case to Vatican Tony Blair will cap a week of intensive campaigning for the moral case for war today when he becomes the first prime minister for more than 30 years to have an audience with the pope. The encounter will bring together two of the leading protagonists for and against conflict with Iraq. Pope John Paul II, 82, who is ill with Parkinson's disease, has emerged as the voice of the moral argument against war. Mr Blair has been the cheerleader for those prepared to use force to oust Saddam Hussein. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,900746,00.html
When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company's Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with "Hitler revisited." And make no mistake, this wasn't a case of hard-nosed realpolitik â the rationale for Rummy's cuddly overtures to Saddam back in '83 despite his almost daily habit of gassing Iranians. That, we were told, was all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." No, Cheney's company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait. After Scuds had been fired at Tel Aviv and Riyadh. After American soldiers had been sent home from Desert Storm in body bags. And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam. Of course, American businessmen are nothing if not flexible. So his former cronies at Halliburton are now at the head of the line of companies expected to reap the estimated $2 billion it will take to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure following Saddam's ouster. This burn-and-build approach to business guarantees that there will be a market for Halliburton's services as long as it has a friend in high places to periodically carpet bomb a country for it. In the meantime, Halliburton, among many other Pentagon contracts, has a lucrative 10-year deal to provide food services to the Army that comes with no lid on potential costs. Lenin once scoffed that "a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman." And, while the man got more than a few things wrong, he's been proven right on this one time and time again: From Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel helping arm Saddam back in the 80s, to the good folks at Boeing, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin and Loral Space whose corporate greed helped China steal rocket and missile secrets â and point a few dozen long-range nukes our way. Clearly, our national interest runs a distant second when pitted against the rapacious desires of special interests and the politicians they buy with massive campaign contributions. Oil and gas companies donated $26.7 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans during the 2000 election and another $18 million in 2002. So does it really come as any surprise that Cheney's staff held secret meetings in October with executives from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips â and yes, Halliburton â to discuss who would get what in a post-Saddam Iraq? As they say, to the victors â and the big buck donors â go the sp-oil-s. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15213 I got to hand it to them, IT'S THE FRIGGIN PERFECT business model, courtesy of the US taxpayer. First allocate budget, buy the weapons build them bombs, then carpet bomb the place, and finally go in re-build and pump the oil. Worked pretty damn good with Afghanistan. UnoCal got the oil/gas and good ole Halliburton rebuilt/maintained the pipelines.. Not bad not bad at all.!!! Ahahaha and now Halliburton to provide food services with no lid on cost for 10 years: My tax dollars at full work