Chirac" If U.S. Attacks Iraq, We Are Out Of War On Terror"

Fox News | 03-10-03 | my favorite headache

[Mo1]

***yes virginia...
FRANCE sold SADAAM nukes. Or, the fissionable materials to assemble them. This is now a done deal. ***

That would be my guess .. because it might explain the panic attack the Chiric is in

Plus there is this article that is interesting

Kofi Annandersen: Enron-style accounting at the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861683/posts

[RobFromGa]

The French are certainly afraid of something that is hidden in Iraq.

They know Blix won't find it because he has been paid off.

They know that Germany and Belgium won't press for information because they are likely complicit or dirty on their own.

So, Americans and Brits will discover the secrets, and reveal them to the world. I hope they implicate ChIRAQ himself. I'd like to see the man sweat.

As they always say, the coverup is worse than the crime.

[Texasforever]

The French are batting a 1000. This is just the latest in their long line of surrenders.

[kcvl]

02.04.03

Clinton's "toesucker-in-chief"...Dick Morris


Throughout the '90s, France constantly pushed for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq. Bemoaning the fate of the Iraqi people, the French pushed to allow Saddam to sell oil on the global market (the so-called oil-for-food program). When America and Britain demanded tough controls on the funds from oil sales to be sure they did not go for arms, France objected that such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty.

Largely as a result of French pressure, the oil-for-food program was implemented, allowing Saddam to sell 500,000 barrels per day on the open market (about a sixth of his pre-war production).

SNIP


France demanded an end to all sanctions and called for unlimited oil sales by Iraq. Then suddenly Saddam seemed to back down in the face of Clinton's pressure and admitted the U.S. inspectors back in.

Had there been concessions to Saddam? Oh no, said Deputy National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "There's no deal. There's no concessions."

But the French knew better. As Vedrine said, "The Americans bent a little." Pushed by France, the United States agreed to let Saddam increase his oil sales, ultimately letting sales grow to 2 million barrels per day. A concession to Iraq? No way, said Clinton's people: It was a concession to France; we were not giving in to Saddam.

Then, the next year, Saddam barred all U.N. inspectors. The final nail in the coffin of controls on Iraq came in 1999 when, again as a result of a French initiative, all limits on Iraqi oil sales were lifted. With no U.N. inspectors to inhibit him and $20 million a day in oil revenues, Saddam could build whatever weapons he wanted. Courtesy of France.

The only consistency in French policy toward Iraq since the Gulf War has been support for Saddam Hussein to weaken U.N. and U.S. measures against him. To hinge U.S. action on Iraq on French acceptance is like asking for the approval of the old Soviet Union before we moved against communism.

Why is France so pro-Saddam? It's the motive (wrongly) ascribed as behind U.S. enmity toward him: oil. French commercial deals with Middle East terrorist states dominate its foreign policy. It was a French company that risked U.S. sanctions by investing in Iranian oil production and it is French interests that benefit from the tie with Saddam.

SNIP

France needs the United Nations to appear to be in charge, so that the French veto can appear to be important - and France can appear to still be a world power.

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:-0lMUqWMvbMC:www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/68214.htm+france,++saddam+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[kcvl]

Schroeder Welcomes French Proposal On UN Iraq Vote

Monday, March 10 2003 @ 08:55 AM GMT

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told French President Jacques Chirac Sunday, March 9, he agreed that heads of state and government should vote on any draft U.N. resolution on Iraq, a spokesman said. "During a telephone interview on Sunday, the German chancellor welcomed the French proposition that heads of state and government themselves should be present during any vote at the Security Council," the spokesman said, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

The proposal for leaders to take part in any vote was one of several put to the U.N. Security Council on Friday, March 7, in a speech by French Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin. Washington has already rejected the proposal.

But with the threat of war against Iraq looming closer, members of a deeply split Security Council prepared the diplomatic ground ahead of a crucial week in the United Nations. The 15 members of the United Nations' top body were expected to vote Tuesday, March 11, on a British-U.S. draft resolution co-sponsored by Spain, giving Iraq until March 17 to comply with U.N. demands to disarm or face military action.

Amid a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity the draft is met by scant support, as pro-wait camp led by veto-wielding France, China and Russia is gaining momentum against the U.S.-led pro-war camp. The balance further tipped against the U.S.-British side when a top Angolan official said Luanda would not back the resolution, although the non-permanent member has yet to declare its official position.

"We will not back this resolution... because its terms are not accepted by anyone," Deputy Foreign Minister Jorge Chicote told the BBC. Angola, along with Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon and Pakistan, are non-permanent members of the Security Council said to be wavering between U.S.-led demands for military action and insistence by China, France and Russia on additional arms inspections.

The Angolan official admitted that his country has been under tremendous pressure to vote in favor of the United States but denied reports that Luanda has promised to vote for a resolution favoring war in exchange for IMF and World Bank support.

"It is not 50 or 100 million dollars or an increase in aid that will solve Angola's problems," he said. War-ravaged Angola is seeking reconstruction funding from the World Bank and the IMF, both of which are strongly “influenced” by U.S. foreign-policy calculations.

Rally for "NO"

But Paris was meanwhile preparing a diplomatic offensive aimed at the three African members yet to officially signal their position, with de Villepin set to leave later for Angola, Cameroon and Guinea. His tour was to begin just as U.S. President George W. Bush “intervened” personally to stress the importance of bilateral relations to Cameroon President Paul Biya.

While de Villepin made it clear in New York on Friday that France will do all that is necessary to stop a resolution "authorizing the automatic use of force," the Paris government is well aware of the potential damage to its relations with Washington and to the future of the U.N. as an international force.

http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030310085508909

[Robert_Paulson2]

I am positive bush knows this stuff.
It was begun under clinton's watch.
We are faced with the massive cleanup.
the UN is dirty. very dirty.
It cannot be "cleaned up" from such contamination.

It needs to be disposed of.
It is evil, it is obstructionist and it makes trillions off the death and suffering of millions of people.

SCREW THEM and the horse they are riding...

[sheik yerbouty]

That has been my thought for some time. Thank Beelzebubba X42 for that.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

[never4get]

You had posted Chirac would pull out of War on Terror if we invade Irac....Do you actually have an article in which he is quoted in saying that and if so can you send to me? I find this very hard to believe.