The French – yes, those “cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys,” as their detractors in the United States so pungently called them – were right.
Impossible.
Au contraire.
The French also believed that Iraq had wmds but disagreed that the invasion should take place. Given the corruption at the highest levels of French government, I am surprised at the focus on Bush and his supposed complicity with Halliburton through VP Cheney when it is apparent for the whole world to see that the truly corrupt and coopted country in this whole business has been France from the very beginning. If Paris had said he does not have wmds then okay but that is not what they said and the more we find out about the oil contracts given to high French government officials, we have to wonder where their true interests were, with France or with their private gains? Why have so many Lefties been so thrilled to report on possible Halliburton conflicts of interest in the admin but fail to notice the FACTS of French cooption?
The French this, the French that. All of them? Can you produce any quotes to show that “the French” (presumably you mean the French government) believed this?
France, a xenophobe and opportunist country, is always wrong.
Everybody knew that all the
Youall better pull your head out, cause if you don’t, your brain will still be having sex :no-no:
I LOVE the way people jump to conclusions without having all (or even a small part of ) the pertinent information. :swear:
[quote=“JACQUES CHIRAC on 16 October 2002 in an interview with L’ORIENT-LE JOUR”]What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs. Proliferation of WMD constitutes a threat for the planet at large. Our security depends on our capacity to deal collectively with this major risk. On this topic, no more than on others, our policy is not to spare Iraq: we have always called for the strict implementation of UN resolutions.
Thank you Tigerman:
Am traveling right now so less time, oh no, to hit forumosa.
But I think that deep down the people that are asking for the facts are not really interested in the facts and this one will be forgotten soon when the what about George Bush’s cousin’s sister’s neighbor huh?
Nice try Tigerman, but your quote falls rather short of proving Fred’s assertion.
[quote]It’s funny, in the days after the unanimous Security Council vote on resolution 1441, Dominique de Villepin gave an interview with French radio that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. In defending the French vote he told the audience two things: 1) that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that threaten America, and 2) that the language in the resolution threatening “serious consequences” was understood by everyone involved to mean war. Avoiding war, he said, was the responsibility of Saddam Hussein.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadAr … p?ID=11946[/quote]
[quote]Maybe French President Jacques Chirac was lying when he declared this past February that there were probably weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that “we have to find and destroy them.”
The difference between France and USA-UK about Iraq is easily explainable.
France (as Italy) already had oil contracts with Iraq, while USA-UK had not and so bombarded Iraq for a decade, for obliging it to submit. Unsuccessful, finally played the
[quote=“rscaru”]The difference between France and USA-UK about Iraq is easily explainable.
France (as Italy) already had oil contracts with Iraq, while USA-UK had not and so bombarded Iraq for a decade, for obliging it to submit. Unsuccessful, finally played the ?hard cock option?, straight to Baghdad.
?with the result that now Iraq is becoming an extremist-Islamic space. But oil has been taken over …[/quote]
[quote=“JACQUES CHIRAC on 16 October 2002 in an interview with L’ORIENT-LE JOUR”]Nobody can ignore the fact that the Middle East is a major area as far as oil and gas reserves are concerned. it accounts today for 65% of world reserves and this proportion is increasing, due to the foreseeable depletion of reserves outside the Gulf. Iraq, for its part, holds about 10% of world reserves… That being said, the problem posed by Iraq to the international community is not about its oil capacities.
Shall we quote the US statements in comparision?
Welcome back, Rascal!
Rascal:
Yes, the US was very careful to couch things in terms of may but the French said emphatically did had possessed intended without the softer may or could. I am glad to see that you have finally come around to our position that France and at the time Germany were worthless moral actors and irresponsible world citizens and that the Americans, British and all other civilized European nations were highly deliberate and circumspect in their behavior.
I didn’t know that Chirac was president of the US when he made those statements (which I quoted). Things changed a lot and I was only away for two weeks …
Rascal:
You lost me. Must be that German sense of humor of yours. Something got lost in translation.
I didn’t know that Chirac was president of the US when he made those statements (which I quoted). Things changed a lot and I was only away for two weeks …
[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]Rascal:
You lost me. Must be that German sense of humor of yours. Something got lost in translation.[/quote]
I get it…as in Bush never used the terms “may”, “probably”, “might”, etc… J.C. was not the only president to fully believe that Iraq had WMD’s. There was no “couching” on either side of the Atlantic.
[and with that, ImaniOU’s cameo in the IP forum is finished]
Gosh I cannot believe that I am defending the French but I think that the veil issue is a complicated one that many Western European nations are facing. It is not a simple matter.
For example, how do you guarantee the rights of Muslim women in France as French citizens when it conflicts with the religious beliefs of the Muslim men who want to deny certain citizens’ rights to their wives, mothers and daughters for religious reasons?
Personally, I do not see what the big deal about the veil is but France has always pursued a much stronger policy of forging a national identity than America but at the same time has successfully assimilated large numbers of immigrants. They are trying to do replicate this success with the Muslims from North Africa. Does France have the right to expect certain behavior from its citizens and from those who desire to become citizens of France? I believe that is up to the French to decide and will respect their decision either way.
The big question is: Is the veil a religious symbol or not?
If it is then you should also prohibit people from displaying crosses and any other kind of religious symbols.
Or if you allow one symbol then you should also allow the veil (if it is a religious symbol).
Aeh, I guess those muslim are also French, so which French do you mean?