A great article on France, Anyone even know they were also supplying Iran? Al-Queeda responsible for Ricin found there..

[Alistar7]

Iraq itself, despite French efforts to protect Saddam Hussein in the United Nations, has acknowledged that French assistance was a major source of its own biological weapons capability. It also was among the key foreign suppliers of ?precursor? chemicals used in Saddam?s chemical weapons program.

enjoy....

 

[Czar]

Ricin Scare in Paris Is False Alarm

 

[Tab]

When France calls the United States arrogant you know something is very wrong...

Damn French.....

 

[blade]

WHO SHOULD BE NEXT, after the ouster of Saddam Hussein? What evil nation should next be de-fanged or demolished in our urban renewal in the global community of nations?

We should instead go after and disarm an enabler of terrorists that already possesses at least 464 nuclear weapons and has demonstrated an eagerness to put atom bomb capability into fanatical hands in the Arab Middle East.


This nation also helped provide Saddam Hussein with biological weapons and with the chemical weapons he used to kill thousands of his neighbors as well as thousands of fellow Iraqis. Only months ago it was, in violation of international embargoes, helping provide Hussein with fuel for rockets now being used against American and British troops.

This cynical and utterly immoral nation that deserves to be the civilized world?s next target for assertive disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction is FRANCE.

Interesting article. Visit France


Darn it, looks like we are allowing French aid in Iraq.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Czar
Ricin Scare in Paris Is False Alarm

"The next day the ministry downgraded the assessment, saying the traces of suspected ricin were too minute to be lethal."

Still very interesting, whos to say that stuff did not come from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq, linked to AL-Queeda, where not only traces of ricin were found, but also other recipes and dispersion manuals. I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war....

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Czar
Ricin Scare in Paris Is False Alarm

"The next day the ministry downgraded the assessment, saying the traces of suspected ricin were too minute to be lethal."

Still very interesting, whos to say that stuff did not come from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq, linked to AL-Queeda, where not only traces of ricin were found, but also other recipes and dispersion manuals. I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war....

whos to say that that stuff did not come from your backyard

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Czar
Ricin Scare in Paris Is False Alarm

"The next day the ministry downgraded the assessment, saying the traces of suspected ricin were too minute to be lethal."

Still very interesting, whos to say that stuff did not come from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq, linked to AL-Queeda, where not only traces of ricin were found, but also other recipes and dispersion manuals. I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war....

whos to say that that stuff did not come from your backyard

Me, I live in an apt. and have no yard.....

Why did the French feel it was the work of Al-Queeda?

 

[Alistar7]

Thanks for the answer, once again the anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war crowd comes through again....

 

[guigui38]

no people here were not specially anti-us
anti bush perhaps but not anti-american

and for the site anti france i found it funny cause everything is not true or distorted
http://www.usastinks.com/ is not as funny unfortunaltely

for the biological story i d like to remind you that america trained the talibans and so trained bin laden just to remind because bin laden was rumored to be saddam's best friend

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: guigui38
no people here were not specially anti-us
anti bush perhaps but not anti-american

and for the site anti france i found it funny cause everything is not true or distorted
http://www.usastinks.com/ is not as funny unfortunaltely

for the biological story i d like to remind you that america trained the talibans and so trained bin laden just to remind because bin laden was rumored to be saddam's best friend

Saddam and OBL are far from friends, OBL himself called him an infidel and suggested he would not be upset to see Saddam removed.

yes we did train the Taliban, but not Al-Queeda.

We also trained Timothy McVeigh, but not to do what he did....

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Czar
Ricin Scare in Paris Is False Alarm

"The next day the ministry downgraded the assessment, saying the traces of suspected ricin were too minute to be lethal."

Still very interesting, whos to say that stuff did not come from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq, linked to AL-Queeda, where not only traces of ricin were found, but also other recipes and dispersion manuals. I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war....

whos to say that that stuff did not come from your backyard

Me, I live in an apt. and have no yard.....

Why did the French feel it was the work of Al-Queeda?

The fact that traces of ricin were found in nothern Iraq means less than nothing. Every article that mentions ricin also mentions that it is easily made. That's just a random guess you threw out there with no evidence to back it up. There's just as much evidence that it came from a secret CIA plot as there is that it came from Iraq.

Where did you get that the French felt it was the work of Al-Qaeda. It's the author of the article that mentions Al-Qaeda, not the French.

 

[Alistar7]

"France, we are told, has tilted in favor of Saddam Hussein to satisfy the nearly 15 percent of its population that is Muslim and fast-outbreeding the other 85 percent. It fears terrorism from the Muslim world, and blames Al Qaeda for the bottles containing the deadly poison Ricin found days ago in the Paris subway system. (Ricin, ironically, is one of the poisons France developed for military use in its own chemical warfare program.)"

That's where I got the impression the French thought they were responsible.

"I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war...."

That's what I said, I didn't guess or claim anything...

 

[CaptnKirk]

I can understand how RICIN was found in Iraq - Castor Bean Trees they are native to the area,
there would be traces on shoes from simply walking through an area where the plant was growing. (Read to the end of article)

I remember seeing these plants growing just about everywhere I have lived - from California to Florida, Missouri to Texas.
I never considered it to be a Weapon of Mass Destruction, just a plant to avoid eating - like Oleanders or Peach pits. (Full of Strychnine)

The other question is why they were canning them, probably don't make a very good cobbler or pie.
How do they inactivate the posions toxcicity properties when they make castor oil ?

 

[flavio]

That should teach you better than to believe anything you read on frontpagemag.com, but I doubt it will.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"France, we are told, has tilted in favor of Saddam Hussein to satisfy the nearly 15 percent of its population that is Muslim and fast-outbreeding the other 85 percent. It fears terrorism from the Muslim world, and blames Al Qaeda for the bottles containing the deadly poison Ricin found days ago in the Paris subway system. (Ricin, ironically, is one of the poisons France developed for military use in its own chemical warfare program.)"

That's where I got the impression the French thought they were responsible.

"I think it would be incredibly ironic to find that Al-Queeda brought WMD into a country that opposed this war...."

That's what I said, I didn't guess or claim anything...

The article didn't cite any source, but I don't see any reason for them to lie about that, so it's probably true.

"Still very interesting, whos to say that stuff did not come from the terrorist camp in northern Iraq, linked to AL-Queeda, where not only traces of ricin were found, but also other recipes and dispersion manuals"

Those were actually the lines that caused me to write what I did about that being a total guess. I've seen the semantics game played here and it didn't look fun, so whatever you post in response to this subject will be the last word. On to relevancy:

French depravity can no longer be tolerated. From its decades of sheltering convicted child rapist and movie director Roman Polanski, to its complicity with Hitler, to its eagerness to provide socialist ally Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor capable of churning out hundreds of nuclear weapons, barbarian France should now be viewed with disgust by all civilized human beings.

France is morally unfit to be trusted with the kinds of megaweapon technologies that can be entrusted only to mature, adult hands. It is also morally unworthy of holding veto power in the United Nations Security Council.

It's passages like this that cause me to disagree with this being a great article on France. The author has so much distaste for France that he can't even try to be objective. It's pretty one sided and like most opinion pieces, it takes a couple of good points (how they lied to Powell about not vetoing the second resolution), spins a couple of facts to mean something they don't (France wanted Saddam to go into exile. This was a means of preventing war The US also would have backed Saddam going into exile), and launches into tirades like the one above that have no validity.

It totally breaks down when it starts going into tirades about morality. Yes, France is acting in it's self-interest as is every other nation. That's what nations do. France is no less moral than anyone else. In attempting to show how immoral France is, it goes back to 1968 and to Hitler. If you go back in any country's history, you'll find very bad things. Would we be okay with being labeled as immoral in the present because racial equality wasn't law until 1964? The author should have stuck to the present without dredging up history to find more ammo. All of the charges levied against France can also be levied against the U.S.. While he proves the obvious point(obvious because it applies to everyone) that France has done bad things, he doesn't prove or even try to prove that it's actions have been worse than ours. If you say France doesn't belong with the other great powers, then you have to show that it's sins are far worse than the other "great powers". Failing to do this, the conclusions reached about how France should give up it's power because it doesn't live up to some false standard of absolute morality are baseless.

 

[Alistar7]

"French depravity can no longer be tolerated. From its decades of sheltering convicted child rapist and movie director Roman Polanski, to its complicity with Hitler, to its eagerness to provide socialist ally Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor capable of churning out hundreds of nuclear weapons, barbarian France should now be viewed with disgust by all civilized human beings."

but this is all also true. I would agree that France had no interest in Saddam going into exile, they would still lose the money in that instance, their objective was only to ensure he would remain in power.

As far as Ricin's potential to kill, it is one of the top 5 most deadly substances known to man, think it is 3rd actually but not certain so will leave it as a top 5. The article I linkled for you Capn tells how the Ricin is a byproduct of making castor oil, the Ricin is found in the "mash" left behind, at about a 5% concentration. Did not know it's history as a tool for assination.


As well as being easy to make in large amounts, it is highly stable, which makes storage and transport straightforward. While ricin has traditionally been used as a weapon of assassination rather than one of mass destruction, these qualities have made it highly attractive to modern terrorists.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I'll go digging for a link on this later, but it seems to me that there was a KGB type hit where a diplomat was terminated
with a micro-pellet of ricin, and it took a fairly long time to kill him. He kept getting worse and worse and finally scumbled.
Only after the autopsy did they find the Ricin posioning.
I think that there may have been an umberella involved as the weapon for delivery.

Bulgarian Umberella
(Not to be confused with the little Bamboo Umberella that comes with a drink)

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"French depravity can no longer be tolerated. From its decades of sheltering convicted child rapist and movie director Roman Polanski, to its complicity with Hitler, to its eagerness to provide socialist ally Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor capable of churning out hundreds of nuclear weapons, barbarian France should now be viewed with disgust by all civilized human beings."

but this is all also true. I would agree that France had no interest in Saddam going into exile, they would still lose the money in that instance, their objective was only to ensure he would remain in power.

We don't have an extradition treaty with France for statuatory rape.
Link

The U.S. also often refuses to extradite.
Link
Link 2
Best Link , and he is covered under a treaty unlike the others.


I stated my objection to bringing up things from 60 years ago. If they're bad because of "complicity with Hitler", we're immoral because of slavery, and civil rights violations. History that old doesn't reflect on the current country.

France is not Saddam's ally. If making sales between countries makes you allies, then every country in the world is allied to every other one. France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Link for Israel/anthrax/executive order

The rest is not true. The bolded part of his statement is like a sign that says "look at me, i'm not arguing from a point of rationality." His disgust for France causes him to take things out of context and put blinders on regarding to what other countries do. While the parts that aren't senseless insults have some element of truth to them, they're distorted. He leaves out important information like the date of the nuclear reactor sale to Iraq. Most importantly he would have one think that France is more immoral than other countries, when for every thing he accuses France of, the U.S. does comparable things. The fact that his objective is to only demonize France causes him to write an article that does not hold up under scrutiny. All of his "facts" are intended to prove the point that France's immorality makes it undeserving of being among the world powers. The fact that he either didn't look at the record of other world powers, or decided to ignore the violations of everyone other than France makes it a poor article.

 

[yowolabi]

Crazy weather we're having, isn't it Alistar7?

 

[Phuz]

Why is this surprising? Not even because of the two particular countries in question... what goes around, comes around.

Hell, if you want to chew out a country for providing the foundations for potential weapons, look up the Candu Reactor and how widely distributed it was across the world. (including NK)

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"French depravity can no longer be tolerated. From its decades of sheltering convicted child rapist and movie director Roman Polanski, to its complicity with Hitler, to its eagerness to provide socialist ally Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor capable of churning out hundreds of nuclear weapons, barbarian France should now be viewed with disgust by all civilized human beings."

but this is all also true. I would agree that France had no interest in Saddam going into exile, they would still lose the money in that instance, their objective was only to ensure he would remain in power.

We don't have an extradition treaty with France for statuatory rape.
Link

The U.S. also often refuses to extradite.
Link
Link 2
Best Link , and he is covered under a treaty unlike the others.


I stated my objection to bringing up things from 60 years ago. If they're bad because of "complicity with Hitler", we're immoral because of slavery, and civil rights violations. History that old doesn't reflect on the current country.

France is not Saddam's ally. If making sales between countries makes you allies, then every country in the world is allied to every other one. France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Link for Israel/anthrax/executive order

The rest is not true. The bolded part of his statement is like a sign that says "look at me, i'm not arguing from a point of rationality." His disgust for France causes him to take things out of context and put blinders on regarding to what other countries do. While the parts that aren't senseless insults have some element of truth to them, they're distorted. He leaves out important information like the date of the nuclear reactor sale to Iraq. Most importantly he would have one think that France is more immoral than other countries, when for every thing he accuses France of, the U.S. does comparable things. The fact that his objective is to only demonize France causes him to write an article that does not hold up under scrutiny. All of his "facts" are intended to prove the point that France's immorality makes it undeserving of being among the world powers. The fact that he either didn't look at the record of other world powers, or decided to ignore the violations of everyone other than France makes it a poor article.

I'm willing to bet my chances of speaking to a ww2 vet are far more likely than yours of speaking to a US slave....

Given the current and obviously pervasive anti-semitism in France, maybe the connection to hitler runs deeper, lol, ok thats a reach, but it is still happening there today.

My only point was their interest was solely profit motivated, which is fine, then come out and say that, don't suggest you are acting in the interests of the very people your policy is condemning to continous oppression. Then focus on civilian casualties as if they are your main concern and the sole reason you objected. Have you seen the reports of new modern french and german military equipment found at the airport? Charred French missille launching systems....

We have managed to keep our weapons producers from sending goods there, they can to.

 

[etech]

yowolabi

France is not Saddam's ally. ...

If not it was not for lack of trying. From another thread.

Chirac on Iraq: What friends are for
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
"....
Even a cursory scanning of the Internet gives an answer for Chirac's reluctance to undermine Saddam - a personal relationship has existed between the two that extends back beyond 25 years and transcends national interests into personal friendship
...


"France 'facing both ways on Iraq'
BBC Tuesday, 4 February, 2003
"French President Jacques Chirac, heading into a crucial summit with the UK, is publicly opposed to war in Iraq - but in fact is keeping his options open.
France would like to preserve its special ties with Iraq.
It has the closest trade links with Iraq of any country in Europe.
...
The French have also sold the Iraqis fighter aircraft, missiles, radar and other weapons systems worth an estimated $25bn.
...."

Ties with Iraq
IHT Friday, March 7, 2003
"PARIS Polls show that many of the 80 percent of French people who oppose a U.S.-led offensive against Iraq believe America's Iraq policy is driven by its appetite for oil. But similar claims could be made about French efforts to avoid war. .Whether or not France's interests in Iraq are guiding its foreign policy, the country has a clear commercial interest in the maintenance of Saddam Hussein's regime. France's economic ties with Iraq have been close and lucrative in the past. They are profitable at present despite the embargo and, should Saddam survive the current crisis, they would become much more so in the future."

 

[yowolabi]

The first article only has one fact. The sale of the nuclear reactors in 1975. The rest is all unbacked guesses and opinion that Chirac and Saddam are connected now. The most recent connection of friendship it has any evidence of is a letter from 1987. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an executive order calling for closer ties to Iraq. There's a picture of Rumsfield posing with Saddam around that time also. Obviously things change in 15+ years in international relationships. Prove something post 1991, and that'll add something new to the discussion.

France is not Saddam's ally. If making sales between countries makes you allies, then every country in the world is allied to every other one. France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Link for above quote


Second article. More about the same reactors. Talks about pre-1991 arms sales to France. Fails to mention that every country on the Security Council also had pre-1991 arms sales to Iraq. Mentions a French oil company might want an Iraq contract after sanctions. Not suprising info, considering that every oil company will want Iraq contracts after sanctions. Every company who wants to make money that is. The rest is about how France might not be die hard for Iraq after all.


Third article. More about 1975 reactor sales. This is getting repetitive. Yowolabi is getting bored and sleepy, and hopes new information will be presented that happened in the last decade. More about the arm sales to Iraq that everyone engaged in. Talks about how France is tops among trading partners in the West. Good info. Elaborates on French oil company poised to win Iraqi contracts. Mentions that Chalabi likes America better and would give those contracts to America. If one argues that these contracts are big enough for France to be against war, one must also admit that they are big enough for America to be for war, especially seeing how America's leadership is more closely tied to oil companies than Chirac himself is. If etech will stipulate that economic interests played a role in America's stance, yowolabi will stipulate that economic interests played a role in France's stance. Yowolabi has always argued that every country is acting out of self interest. He does not believe one is acting out of morality, while the other is acting out of greed, either way.

yowolabi is so tired of reading repetitive articles and arguing the same points that he's having an out-of-body experience. Will return when he comes back to Earth.

 

[etech]

yowolabi needs to take his meds.

Chirac's Saddam Connection

"French President Jacques Chirac's special relationship with Saddam Hussein goes back almost 30 years. As the French Prime Minister in 1974, Chirac was instrumental in boosting France's diplomatic and economic ties with oil-rich Iraq. Chirac called Saddam Hussein "a personal friend" after Chirac and Hussein finalized the agreement for the construction of a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad; the reactor that was later bombed by Israel.
...
France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The French-Iraqi connection started shortly after France pulled out of NATO in 1966.
...
The Gulf War of 1991 provided little more than a hiccup in French-Iraqi relations. By 1994, France was calling for a loosening of UN sanctions and along with Russia attempting to short-circuit UNSCOM at every step. France pushed to allow Iraq to sell more oil. When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. From 1997 on, France fought to get the UN sanctions lifted entirely.

Last year, under intense pressure from France and Russia, the UN loosened restrictions on high-tech equipment, enabling Iraq to obtain a broad range of equipment with potential military applications; ranging from agricultural sprayers that can be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons to neutron generators that can be used as crude nuclear triggers and are compatible with a known Iraqi design for a gun-implosion type nuclear device.

Hundreds of French firms do business with Iraq. France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq last year under the oil-for-food program; the most of any nation. French giants Alcatel and Renault do a booming business in Iraq, and French oil firms hold contracts with Saddam Hussein's government estimated at over $60 billion for oil exploration and development; oil contracts that cannot be worked until UN sanctions are lifted.
"

yowolabi, would you admit that there is a difference between helicopters and a nuclear reactor in a energy rich nation? Why did Iraq with all of its oil and natural gas need a nuclear reactor?

I do not stipulate that the removal of Saddam was based solely on economic interests. That would be for you to make a case for and prove. You haven't. France clearly has strong economic ties to Saddam and his Iraq.

Your style of writing in that post is quite ridiculous or your forgot your meds.

 

[yowolabi]

First of all, this isn't a news story, it's an opinion piece. Even worse, it's unreferenced. If you have a point you want to make, state your own opinions and back it up with objective factual sources. You can't disprove my point by linking to someone's opinion. That's the same as saying "see, he believes it too, it must be true." Besides, you can keep that up all day without doing any thinking or effort, and you have more opinion pieces than I have time and patience.

Originally posted by: etech
yowolabi needs to take his meds.

Chirac's Saddam Connection

"French President Jacques Chirac's special relationship with Saddam Hussein goes back almost 30 years. As the French Prime Minister in 1974, Chirac was instrumental in boosting France's diplomatic and economic ties with oil-rich Iraq. Chirac called Saddam Hussein "a personal friend" after Chirac and Hussein finalized the agreement for the construction of a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad; the reactor that was later bombed by Israel.
...
France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The French-Iraqi connection started shortly after France pulled out of NATO in 1966.

Pre 1991 stuff is irrelevant. There were no sanctions on Iraq before then. All the countries were cozy with him, including the United States. In 1988 Bush Sr. called for closer ties to Iraq. Either relations until 1991 were okay or we're all corrupt and evil for dealing with him. Pick one, but you can't have it both ways. The US can't be excused for it, but France condemned for it.

The Gulf War of 1991 provided little more than a hiccup in French-Iraqi relations. By 1994, France was calling for a loosening of UN sanctions and along with Russia attempting to short-circuit UNSCOM at every step. France pushed to allow Iraq to sell more oil. When the U.S. and Britain demanded tough controls to ensure the increased oil revenues would not be used to buy arms, the French objected saying such controls would undermine Iraqi sovereignty. From 1997 on, France fought to get the UN sanctions lifted entirely.

I bolded the facts. If you believe something else is factual, provide a real source. It sure seems like France wanted the sanctions lifted. Sounds good to me, considering that their intended purpose was to force Saddam to comply with resolutions. He wasn't complying with resolutions or being hurt in any way, but his people were starving. France wasn't the only nation in favor of dispensing with sanctions. In fact, just about every country but the US was. The UN human rights body also called for the lifting of embargoes. The amount of oil being sold was meeting "only part of the vital needs of the population.'' Selling more oil might have saved lives.

Last year, under intense pressure from France and Russia, the UN loosened restrictions on high-tech equipment, enabling Iraq to obtain a broad range of equipment with potential military applications; ranging from agricultural sprayers that can be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons to neutron generators that can be used as crude nuclear triggers and are compatible with a known Iraqi design for a gun-implosion type nuclear device.

I did searches and couldn't find any links to this. Your opinion piece also did not cite a source. Show me some proof on this and I'll debate it then. Find facts, I won't take somebody's biased unsourced opinion for it.

Hundreds of French firms do business with Iraq. France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq last year under the oil-for-food program; the most of any nation. French giants Alcatel and Renault do a booming business in Iraq, and French oil firms hold contracts with Saddam Hussein's government estimated at over $60 billion for oil exploration and development; oil contracts that cannot be worked until UN sanctions are lifted.

Yes, French firms do more business with Iraq than the US. Russia does also. In 2002 Russia had the most imports. All of this is true, all of this says and proves nothing except Iraq would rather do business there than here. Color me suprised.

yowolabi, would you admit that there is a difference between helicopters and a nuclear reactor in a energy rich nation? Why did Iraq with all of its oil and natural gas need a nuclear reactor?

I do not stipulate that the removal of Saddam was based solely on economic interests. That would be for you to make a case for and prove. You haven't. France clearly has strong economic ties to Saddam and his Iraq.

Your style of writing in that post is quite ridiculous or your forgot your meds.

Yes there's a difference between helicopters and a nuclear reactor. There's a difference between any two objects. They wanted a reactor, there was no reason in 1975 why they shouldn't be able to buy one. Capitalism at it's finest. The French shouldn't have sold weapons grade uranium, we shouldn't have sold arms and chemicals. We sold Iraq anthrax and bubonic plague and toxic pesticides, and pushed for closer relations even after we knew he was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily basis". Using those weapons was a violation of international conventions, and we knew what he would do with the chemicals we sold him. We even gave him intelligence and he put his chemicals to better use. Looking at the end result, he was able to use those chemicals, but never developed a nuclear weapon. Our bad.

Washington Post

I didn't say stipulate that the removal of Saddam was based "solely on economic interests." I have no interest in proving that, since it's not my position. I've never stated that position anywhere. I'll quote what I did say:

" If one argues that these contracts are big enough for France to be against war, one must also admit that they are big enough for America to be for war, especially seeing how America's leadership is more closely tied to oil companies than Chirac himself is. If etech will stipulate that economic interests played a role in America's stance, yowolabi will stipulate that economic interests played a role in France's stance."

Two entirely different things. Funny that you can misquote me when my words are right there. I don't have an agenda. If America does something bad i'll admit it, if France does something bad i'll admit that too. I'm not trying to prove anything, except that France is no more immoral than the United States or any other country. My point is that every country acts in it's self-interest. I didn't start the thread, i'm arguing with the premise of it. The premise that I disagree with is that America is moral whille France is immoral. That's not the case, and you won't find anything other than the someone's opinion to back that up.

If the bolded part about meds is joking, please make that more clear in the future. If it isn't, please leave things like that out of future posts or I won't respond to your post at all. If you want to trade insults, PM me one, and i'll respond in kind.