I Have A French Economics Question

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)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.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

They didn't know is a rather disingenuous argument. 3% uranium would have been sufficient for the nuclear reactor that France was selling to the country with so much oil and gas. There was only one use for weapons grade uranium.

Are there legitimate uses for anthrax spores? Is there any legitimate use for weapons grade uranium?

And to claim that we didn't know that he was going to use the chemical and biological agents we sold him for weapons is also disengenuous. We knew who he was and what he was capable of.

Edit: I'll be happy to admit that the French knew he wanted to try to develop nuclear weapons, if you admit that the US knew he wanted to develop biological and chemical weapons.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)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.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

They didn't know is a rather disingenuous argument. 3% uranium would have been sufficient for the nuclear reactor that France was selling to the country with so much oil and gas. There was only one use for weapons grade uranium.

Are there legitimate uses for anthrax spores? Is there any legitimate use for weapons grade uranium?

And to claim that we didn't know that he was going to use the chemical and biological agents we sold him for weapons is also disengenuous. We knew who he was and what he was capable of.

Edit: I'll be happy to admit that the French knew he wanted to try to develop nuclear weapons, if you admit that the US knew he wanted to develop biological and chemical weapons.

You asked for the proof modern weapons were still being sold, there it is, at least address the post.

According to Saddam, of the companies who supplied dual use chemicals, the ones who were diverted to WMD programs broke down as follows, 2 in the US, 19 in the EU, 14 from Germany, with France being one ofthe largest in quantity.

We knew he was doing this, but at that time we were not worried about that stuff winding up in the hands of terrorists that were unfriendly to the US, suffice it to say our relationsip with Saddam changed and became adverserial AFTER we sold them those. Their sales continued almost until this war.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)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.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

Has the US EVER denied it's invlovement with Saddam? nope. And we wer hardly the main suppliers for his arsenal. At least we are willing to accept our responsibility in the matter and correct the mistake. Maybe we should have sold out the IRaqi people and made deals with Saddam and sold him weapons we BANNED ourselves by signing UN resolutions?

Has France denied they sold him reactors in the 70s? I wouldn't bring up the US activities in the 80s, if people who are against France would stop bringing stuff up from the 70s, like etechs post which mine was a reply to.

As far as being the main suppliers, who cares? If we felt it was okay to sell him anything at all, then we can't blame anyone else for selling him things. This relative morality stuff is pointless. We robbed a bank, but they robbed 20, so they're evil. Once we show that we're not above robbing a bank, we have no grounds to criticize others for the same action.

Selling out the Iraqi people is just rhetoric. Saddam was always a dictator. If selling weapons to a dictatorship or a country with human rights violations is evil, then yes, we have done that too.

Proof that France sold him weapons after the resolutions were passed and signed?

There is a link on one of threads, I will try to find it again, they found the charred remains of MODERN french launchers, anyone have that link handy?

We have never denied our involvement, and we certainly did not sell him weapons after we signed the resolutions.

What about the Russian anti-tank munitions and night vision, illegal and modern, the German GPS jamming equipment, illegal and modern, the Chineese Seersuckers, illegal and modern.

Don't forget we were fighting Soviet tanks, kali's on the ground, but thankfully the mirage jets were not in the air. Supposedly France was still supplying parts for those until 3 weeks before the war.

Here is that link

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. forces discovered 51 Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms manufacturers, in two military compounds at Baghdad International Airport. One of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND 2002, which he took to mean that the missile was manufactured last year. The charred remains of a more modern Roland-3 launcher was found just down the road from the arms cache. According to a mortar specialist with the same unit, radios used by many Iraqi military trucks brandished MADE IN FRANCE labels and looked brand new. RPG night sights stamped with the number 2002 and French labels also turned up. And a new Nissan pickup truck driven by a surrendering Iraqi officer was manufactured in France as well.


I am EAGERLY awaiting your response to this.

I see the link. Where is the evidence that the French government was complicit in this. If you start from an objective perspective, you see that the fact that Iraq had French weapons doesn't mean that it was illegally sold to them by the French government. It hasn't even been proven that most of those things came after 1991. "It looks new" is not evidence. According to the first people on the site, many places looked to be housing WMD, and none have been proven true yet. I didn't realize silverware, Nissans, cigarettes, and underwear were banned. As for the Roland 3 missiles, the only legitimate item that they've proven shouldn't have been there in the article, as the spokeswoman said, they could have been bought on the black market.

To say that the French have sold banned items after the resolution, you have to prove this to be true. French items in Iraq, does not equal France knowingly sold items to Iraq. There is absolutely no proof of this.

 

[Alistar7]

Go ahead and speculate on their origin or the route they traveled to get there. The fact is the companies that make that stuff are closely involved with their own governemtns who keep a very close eye on what is made and where it goes. Undoubtably they will be traced to arms brokers, etc. it is done that for that very reason. I know for certain they didn't create a paper trail to prove their complicity.

By your assumptions these were purchased on the open market and nothing could be done, if that is the case why are no AMERICAN weaopons being found? They could have bought those too, they are far superior, onlymakes sense to buy the best that you can. How is it in one of the largest, most free, countires made sure their MASSIVE amounts of military productions companies did not sell products that would up there, but France could not even with such a limited number.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)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.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

They didn't know is a rather disingenuous argument. 3% uranium would have been sufficient for the nuclear reactor that France was selling to the country with so much oil and gas. There was only one use for weapons grade uranium.

Are there legitimate uses for anthrax spores? Is there any legitimate use for weapons grade uranium?

And to claim that we didn't know that he was going to use the chemical and biological agents we sold him for weapons is also disengenuous. We knew who he was and what he was capable of.

Edit: I'll be happy to admit that the French knew he wanted to try to develop nuclear weapons, if you admit that the US knew he wanted to develop biological and chemical weapons.

You asked for the proof modern weapons were still being sold, there it is, at least address the post.

According to Saddam, of the companies who supplied dual use chemicals, the ones who were diverted to WMD programs broke down as follows, 2 in the US, 19 in the EU, 14 from Germany, with France being one ofthe largest in quantity.

We knew he was doing this, but at that time we were not worried about that stuff winding up in the hands of terrorists that were unfriendly to the US, suffice it to say our relationsip with Saddam changed and became adverserial AFTER we sold them those. Their sales continued almost until this war.

I have never not addressed a logical argument addressed to me, unless I was done for the night. Please have patience and realize that I'm also doing other things. If you prove me wrong in something, i'm not going to run and hide, I'll admit it and move on.

Like I said, I'll admit they sold more than we did. Maybe they just had better prices than us. Once we show that we weren't morally above selling him those products, we have no grounds to criticize someone else just because they were more successful at it. I haven't seen proof that they did continue to sell him products after the resolution banned it. Bookmark this post. I have no interest in blindly defending France. If we can prove that the French government knowingly sold him banned weapons after the resolutions were passed, i'll denounce France as an evil and hypocritical nation for claiming the moral high ground while they secretly armed a man they had publicly agreed shouldn't have them.

 

[Alistar7]

Well that link is fairly damning, those are very new weapons.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Well that link is fairly damning, those are very new weapons.

I don't think that the two of us need to have the same argument over and over again. We can realize when we've reached a standstill and give up the rest to differences that can only be resolved if one of us changes our core position. We've reached such a standstill.

I've already addressed the newness of the weapons. It's only damning because you already believe the worst of the French. If you start from the position that you don't believe anyone violated the law unless it's proven, then it's not damning. Here:

"It looks new" is not evidence. According to the first people on the site, many places looked to be housing WMD, and none have been proven true yet. I didn't realize silverware, Nissans, cigarettes, and underwear were banned. As for the Roland 3 missiles, the only legitimate item that they've proven shouldn't have been there in the article, as the spokeswoman said, they could have been bought on the black market.

It's something that should be looked into as to how the Roland 3 missiles arrived at Iraq. I'm sure we will. France said they don't even make the Roland 2 missiles anymore. If they were in a sealed box and recently opened, wouldn't they still "look new"?

If new evidence comes to light proving France's complicity in this, you can bash me over the head with it. Or if you can find a new argument why France is morally inferior to us, i'll find evidence where we did something as bad or worse. Ultimately, I believe that premise is untrue, which is the only reason I continue to argue it. I also believe that it's dangerous to really believe that other countries are inferior to your own. That's the worst part of nationalism and is what makes wars possible. If you recognize your own countries faults as well as others, I find that to be more healthy. That way you work to improve your country and make it superior, which can be done peacefully.

But as long as you continue to criticize other nations...

I'll be there.

Wherever they's a fight with unclear reasons...

I'll be there.

Wherever they's a cop beating up a guy...

I'll be there. (shamelessly ripped from The Grapes of Wrath)

Yowolabi, the defender of the French (since they usually do such a poor job themselves) :wine:

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Americans seem to have a strange obsession about France

Go seek some medical help for it

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

Did you ever respond to my last post in the thread you posted about France's immorality?

It can not be shown that France is any less moral than we are. If you don't like them because their interests conflict with ours, fine. But don't try to make it seem like we're morally superior to them.

Why is Iraq our nemesis? They haven't done any more to us than they've done to France. It's not like Iraq attacked us, and the French started defending them. If anything, Iraq is Kuwaits or Irans nemesis.

Proof of France's illegal activity?

Yes I just answered and saw this. I do take time to jump back into real life occasionally, is that ok? lol


I will say this, when they start finding NEW MODERN US weapons I will give them the full benefit of the doubt. We have far more producers of weapons, better quality ones, you would want a FEW of each if only for weakness studies, yet we managed to make sure none of ours wound up there, as far as we know today.

 

[AndrewR]

Only the blindingly naive believe that the French government was unaware that some of its most modern weapons were being sold to Iraq, not to overlook aviation spare parts. Even if the weapons and parts went through a Middle Eastern arms dealer, the French still have some complicity because they sell their weapons indiscriminately in the Arab world to bolster their reputation as much as their bottom line.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some invoices with "janvier 2003" for the date.

 

[freegeeks]

Only the blindingly naive believe that the French government was unaware that some of its most modern weapons were being sold to Iraq, not to overlook aviation spare parts. Even if the weapons and parts went through a Middle Eastern arms dealer, the French still have some complicity because they sell their weapons indiscriminately in the Arab world to bolster their reputation as much as their bottom line.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find some invoices with "janvier 2003" for the date.

The US has the same reputation for selling arms to corrupt dictators.
Statement like this are just hypocrit and are proof of the disease of selective memory on the part of some americans.

 

[Moonbeam]

We should hang the French and then try them.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should hang the French and then try them.

I'll hang YOU if you post in one of my threads again.:Q

 

[Moonbeam]

Alistar7: Go ahead and speculate on their origin or the route they traveled to get there. The fact is the companies that make that stuff are closely involved with their own governemtns who keep a very close eye on what is made and where it goes. Undoubtably they will be traced to arms brokers, etc. it is done that for that very reason. I know for certain they didn't create a paper trail to prove their complicity.
------------------------
Funny, Reagan didn't remember a thing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We should hang the French and then try them.

We could demand congressional hearings and get Ollie and Cap and Co. to testify about the affect of selling arms to potential bad guys.
The result would be to rename Christmas turkey.... Christmas wales

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Alistar7: Go ahead and speculate on their origin or the route they traveled to get there. The fact is the companies that make that stuff are closely involved with their own governemtns who keep a very close eye on what is made and where it goes. Undoubtably they will be traced to arms brokers, etc. it is done that for that very reason. I know for certain they didn't create a paper trail to prove their complicity.
------------------------
Funny, Reagan didn't remember a thing.

Adnan Kashogie (spelling) was one of our best movers of arms.
Poor Reagan He couldn't hear what they were asking... he thought they said "cars for hotdogs and jelly bellies"

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

The French learned from the best -- the USA.
The USA has a nice history the last 50 years of supporting dictators and tyrans. Do I have to make a list????

You have a disease that a lot of Americans have -- selective memory

Is that anything like the selective honesty disease that the French government has?