Full Version: Schroeder and Chirac terrorists?
I just found out that the French gov't and the Germans sold Iraqi scientists nuclear reactors, are they considereed/should they be considered terroists themselves?
CP
CP
Links? Sources?
QUOTE(Danya @ Feb 8 2003, 07:13 PM)
Links? Sources?
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-29-2002-32790.asp
http://www.ramadhan.org/home/category.php?...ID=5857&TagID=2
I like this article even though it doesn't apply.
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003...eployment.shtml
Darcaine
From your second link:
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
QUOTE
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
I knew the french sold them a reactor, but have not heard about germeny doing so (though I know they sold them WMDs, but so did we)
the nuclear reactors were sold back when Iraq was a friend and ally(1981) the osiraq nuclear reactor was being built under supervison of the IAEA, and legally. it was destroyed by israel (ilan ramon, the israeli astronaut, was a pilot on that mission) on july 7, of 1981, and since have no reactors capable of producing plutonium.
those links have nothing to do with the nuclear reactors, I have no links though, but would suggest FAS.org or using a search engine. (here is their page on Iraq's nuke program- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/index.html )
The findings of the IAEA as to the status of the Iraqi weapons program after December 16, 1998 are that:
*There were no indications that Iraq successfully produced nuclear weapons.
*Iraq was either successful or on the verge of being successful at discovering how to enrich Uranium and make an explosive package for
use in a nuclear weapon.
*Iraq was not able to produce more than a few grams of weapons-grade fissile material through its own enrichment programs, far too little for a nuclear weapon.
*There was no indication that Iraq had acquired any nuclear-weapons material abroad.
*There was no evidence that Iraq maintained any capabilities to produce nuclear weapons material of any practical significance. ( http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/A...nTeam/nwp2.html )
the nuclear reactors were sold back when Iraq was a friend and ally(1981) the osiraq nuclear reactor was being built under supervison of the IAEA, and legally. it was destroyed by israel (ilan ramon, the israeli astronaut, was a pilot on that mission) on july 7, of 1981, and since have no reactors capable of producing plutonium.
those links have nothing to do with the nuclear reactors, I have no links though, but would suggest FAS.org or using a search engine. (here is their page on Iraq's nuke program- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/index.html )
The findings of the IAEA as to the status of the Iraqi weapons program after December 16, 1998 are that:
*There were no indications that Iraq successfully produced nuclear weapons.
*Iraq was either successful or on the verge of being successful at discovering how to enrich Uranium and make an explosive package for
use in a nuclear weapon.
*Iraq was not able to produce more than a few grams of weapons-grade fissile material through its own enrichment programs, far too little for a nuclear weapon.
*There was no indication that Iraq had acquired any nuclear-weapons material abroad.
*There was no evidence that Iraq maintained any capabilities to produce nuclear weapons material of any practical significance. ( http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/A...nTeam/nwp2.html )
QUOTE(Danya @ Feb 8 2003, 07:33 PM)
From your second link:
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
QUOTE
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
Actually, we only sold them chemical weapons & a little bit of biological
The Biological & Chemical stuff SHOULD have been destroyed years ago by inspectors
Germany & France supplied Iraq with Nuclear reactors
Maybe--if by "terrorist" you mean "disobedient foreigner."
(I think that the previous posters have covered the substantive issue, here: the U.S. has sold plenty of weapons & provided tons of money to dangerous regimes, when it was convenient. Beyond that, I think this is just about the Germans & French daring to disagree with W ...)
(I think that the previous posters have covered the substantive issue, here: the U.S. has sold plenty of weapons & provided tons of money to dangerous regimes, when it was convenient. Beyond that, I think this is just about the Germans & French daring to disagree with W ...)
QUOTE(saavedra77 @ Feb 8 2003, 10:23 PM)
Beyond that, I think this is just about the Germans & French daring to disagree with W ...)
Actually, no
According to this link:
Iraq's Supplier List
(SEE PARAGRAPH #5 of article)
30 GERMAN Companies supplied Iraq
Only 10 AMERICAN Companies supplied Iraq
Near the end of the article, it talks about some companies & what they provided
QUOTE(goamerica @ Feb 9 2003, 04:54 AM)
30 GERMAN Companies supplied Iraq
Only 10 AMERICAN Companies supplied Iraq
Only 10 AMERICAN Companies supplied Iraq
How many companies is immaterial in my view - it could just as easily mean that the 10 US companies supplied Iraq with 90% and the 30 German with 10%. The fact remains that all these companies (we assume) flouted sanctions restrictions.
QUOTE(Danya @ Feb 9 2003, 12:33 AM)
From your second link:
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
QUOTE
Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German newspaper said yesterday.
I think I covered this one somewhere in another thread. BTW, That headline says German and US in glaring print. Should we be considered terrorists ourselves? Good question.
The difference is we aren't covering our tracks by not going to war to stop this maniac, thereby putting the international community at risk, seems selfish to me.
CP
CP, some people in the International Community have said that there is not an Iraq risk
QUOTE(goamerica @ Feb 11 2003, 09:59 PM)
CP, some people in the International Community have said that there is not an Iraq risk
Colin Powells speeh should have made that notion null and void, his satellite images shows WMD that SH shouldn't have. And they're not just for decoration.
CP
QUOTE
I just found out that the French gov't and the Germans sold Iraqi scientists nuclear reactors, are they considereed/should they be considered terroists themselves?
I wouldn't say they were terrorists, but they are certainly criminals if they broke international law doing this.
QUOTE
Colin Powells speeh should have made that notion null and void, his satellite images shows WMD that SH shouldn't have. And they're not just for decoration.
I'm sorry CP, but as much as I actually support an attack on Saddam Husseins regime, Powells speech was so devoid of proof as to be a joke. His satellite images only showed bunkers, trucks and other vehicles. Everything was labelled but such labels mean nothing since they in themselves are only conjecture.
I do believe Saddam Hussein has hidden stock piles, but I don't believe the photographs, taped conversations and other info Powell presented to the UN proved anything. In fact I was shocked that the USA would even bother to present such flimsy evidence. Its actually made me think twice as to whether Saddam Hussein really is a threat!
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 11 2003, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE
I just found out that the French gov't and the Germans sold Iraqi scientists nuclear reactors, are they considereed/should they be considered terroists themselves?
I wouldn't say they were terrorists, but they are certainly criminals if they broke international law doing this.
QUOTE
Colin Powells speeh should have made that notion null and void, his satellite images shows WMD that SH shouldn't have. And they're not just for decoration.
I'm sorry CP, but as much as I actually support an attack on Saddam Husseins regime, Powells speech was so devoid of proof as to be a joke. His satellite images showed bunkers trucks and other vehicles. Everything was labelled but such labels mean nothing since they in themselves are only conjecture.
I do believe Saddam Hussein has hidden stock piles, but I don't believe the photographs, taped conversations and other info Powell presented to the UN proved anything. In fact I was shocked that the USA would even bother to present such flimsy evidence. Its actually made me think twice as to whether Saddam Hussein really is a threat!
What more do you need?
CP
What more do you need?
Evidence from the UN teams would solidify any doubt of course, but as the case stands now I think the mere fact that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for all the chemical weapons he previously admitted to having is all the evidence we need.
Powells speech did more damage to the pro attack perspective because it made the idea look weaker than it had to.
I understand what Powell was trying to do.
But I think he failed.
Evidence from the UN teams would solidify any doubt of course, but as the case stands now I think the mere fact that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for all the chemical weapons he previously admitted to having is all the evidence we need.
Powells speech did more damage to the pro attack perspective because it made the idea look weaker than it had to.
I understand what Powell was trying to do.
But I think he failed.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 11 2003, 05:09 PM)
QUOTE
Colin Powells speeh should have made that notion null and void, his satellite images shows WMD that SH shouldn't have. And they're not just for decoration.
I'm sorry CP, but as much as I actually support an attack on Saddam Husseins regime, Powells speech was so devoid of proof as to be a joke. His satellite images only showed bunkers, trucks and other vehicles. Everything was labelled but such labels mean nothing since they in themselves are only conjecture.
That's what i thought as well
Whoa...played an audio tape of supposed cheaters
Whoa...he showed sattilite images of things & labeled them being supposed whatever
I support a regime change in Iraq too but COME ON PEOPLE....get some REAL evidence....not just a labeled sattilite image & a tape that could be doctored
The man isn't lying to us, what else could it be? I'm taking his word on it.
CP
CP
Colin Powell is a politician. He may be telling the truth, or lying or he may have been lied to. Either way, his integrity as a man is not the basis by which we should decide whether or not to go to war.
The chances are an attack on Iraq would be a push over for the well armed, equipped and supplied American and British forces, but the possibility exists that the attack may drag out and thousands of Iraqi's and possibly many Americans also could be killed.
Before the decision is taken to actually put this action in motion, I think we need to establish a good reason.
Saddam Hussein's secret stockpiles are a good reason, IF they exist. Colin Powell's personal integrity is not a good reason.
The chances are an attack on Iraq would be a push over for the well armed, equipped and supplied American and British forces, but the possibility exists that the attack may drag out and thousands of Iraqi's and possibly many Americans also could be killed.
Before the decision is taken to actually put this action in motion, I think we need to establish a good reason.
Saddam Hussein's secret stockpiles are a good reason, IF they exist. Colin Powell's personal integrity is not a good reason.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 11 2003, 05:15 PM)
What more do you need?
Evidence from the UN teams would solidify any doubt of course, but as the case stands now I think the mere fact that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for all the chemical weapons he previously admitted to having is all the evidence we need.
Powells speech did more damage to the pro attack perspective because it made the idea look weaker than it had to.
I understand what Powell was trying to do. But I think he failed.
Evidence from the UN teams would solidify any doubt of course, but as the case stands now I think the mere fact that Saddam Hussein has not accounted for all the chemical weapons he previously admitted to having is all the evidence we need.
Powells speech did more damage to the pro attack perspective because it made the idea look weaker than it had to.
I understand what Powell was trying to do.
But I think he failed. Actually I think he made the case he was trying to make. He made them look as if they are hiding something from the UN inspectors.
Darcaine
Those that needed no convincing were more convinced. The rest of us weren't.
Since there is so much anti-French sentiment in the US do you think anyone would care if Al Quada's next target was the Statue of Liberty? They love symbolism. Would we be sorry to lose our famous gift from France?
QUOTE(Danya @ Feb 14 2003, 10:37 PM)
Since there is so much anti-French sentiment in the US do you think anyone would care if Al Quada's next target was the Statue of Liberty? They love symbolism. Would we be sorry to lose our famous gift from France?
That's a silly question
Yes we would care
Besides, i'm sure right now there are SAM's near Lady Liberty at the moment
I know it's a silly question. But it's one that occured to me and I thought I'd share. 
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Feb 8 2003, 07:06 PM)
I just found out that the French gov't and the Germans sold Iraqi scientists nuclear reactors, are they considereed/should they be considered terroists themselves?
CP
CP
France also supplies Iraq with Jet Parts
Link
The US are selling weapons to Israel.
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
Isnt it weird that Bush and the US are so anxious to get the UN to vote a resolution against Irak but couldn't care less when it comes Israel?
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
Isnt it weird that Bush and the US are so anxious to get the UN to vote a resolution against Irak but couldn't care less when it comes Israel?
QUOTE(ericb @ Mar 12 2003, 07:17 PM)
The US are selling weapons to Israel.
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
Isnt it weird that Bush and the US are so anxious to get the UN to vote a resolution against Irak but couldn't care less when it comes Israel?
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
Isnt it weird that Bush and the US are so anxious to get the UN to vote a resolution against Irak but couldn't care less when it comes Israel?
And what does any of that have to do with Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schroeder?
[QUOTE=Jaime,Mar 13 2003, 12:19 AM] [QUOTE=ericb,Mar 12 2003, 07:17 PM] The US are selling weapons to Israel.
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
While this may be a bit off-topic, Jaime, I think it's an important thing to note in this discussion the difference between past UN/SC resolutions against Israel and the present ones under debate against Iraq. If you will allow me, I'll post a bit of UN/SC 101......
There are two distinct types of resolutions that the UN Security Council can pass under the charter of the UN. Chapter VI resolutions which call for the parties to work things out, and Chapter VII resolutions will call on UN members to enforce sanctions against the offending party. Every SC resolution that has been passed that addresses Israel is a Chapter VI resolution, ie. no direct action by member nations, but encouragement for Israel to work things out. The resolutions passed that affect Iraq, on the other hand, including the most recent 1441 are Chapter VII resolutions which call for direct pro-active action on the part of member states, ie. sanctions and in the words of 1441 "serious consequences" should Iraq fail to comply. BIG difference that people need to understand if they are to engage in intelligent debate.
Israel is using those weapons to launch attacks in palestinian territories.
The UN has voted a number of resolution against Israel.
Similar, isn't it?
While this may be a bit off-topic, Jaime, I think it's an important thing to note in this discussion the difference between past UN/SC resolutions against Israel and the present ones under debate against Iraq. If you will allow me, I'll post a bit of UN/SC 101......
There are two distinct types of resolutions that the UN Security Council can pass under the charter of the UN. Chapter VI resolutions which call for the parties to work things out, and Chapter VII resolutions will call on UN members to enforce sanctions against the offending party. Every SC resolution that has been passed that addresses Israel is a Chapter VI resolution, ie. no direct action by member nations, but encouragement for Israel to work things out. The resolutions passed that affect Iraq, on the other hand, including the most recent 1441 are Chapter VII resolutions which call for direct pro-active action on the part of member states, ie. sanctions and in the words of 1441 "serious consequences" should Iraq fail to comply. BIG difference that people need to understand if they are to engage in intelligent debate.
Sorry about messing up the quote stuff. 
I better go read the tutorial I guess.
I better go read the tutorial I guess.
The UN resolutions against Israel primarily denounce attacks in Gaza or the West Bank. Some also call for re-patrination of ousted Palestineans. None of them call for military action against Israel, or even for sanctions.
We supply Israel aid because they are one of our chief allies in the region. They are one of the few democracies in the region. We can denounce some of their actions (i.e. voted for resolutions against Israel) while still supporting them. I don't think we are "turning a blind eye" on their actions (which are primarily retaliatory).
Back on topic, I don't think that Chirac and Schroader are terrorists. They are breaking from their close ties with the US for various political and economic reasons. I actually can't fault them (too much) for that, but then I can't see us helping them too much in the future.
They are being anti-American (primarily anti-Bush), not acting like terrorists.
We supply Israel aid because they are one of our chief allies in the region. They are one of the few democracies in the region. We can denounce some of their actions (i.e. voted for resolutions against Israel) while still supporting them. I don't think we are "turning a blind eye" on their actions (which are primarily retaliatory).
Back on topic, I don't think that Chirac and Schroader are terrorists. They are breaking from their close ties with the US for various political and economic reasons. I actually can't fault them (too much) for that, but then I can't see us helping them too much in the future.
They are being anti-American (primarily anti-Bush), not acting like terrorists.
Hey guys, letme start a new topic, before this gets closed.
CP
CP
William Safire's Iraq-France connection...
William Safire
He tracked down this evidence without CIA help...
William Safire
He tracked down this evidence without CIA help...
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.