What Was Iraq Told Before the War? (documents found)

[Gawain 0]

Okay, this isn't intended to "bash" the French. But I believe, if substantiated, this is far worse than supposed protection extended by Hussein to the British official.

The link is to Fox News, but before you freak out, the by-line is the Sunday Times of London, not known to me to be melodramatic. I could be wrong.

To summarize, apparently documents and communiques have been found at the former Iraqi Foreign Ministry which provide outlines of US intentions, policy developments from private diplomatic meetings between France and US dating as far back as 9/25/01, just after the attacks.

Fox News notes that US officials have not seen any of this information, so it is yet to be substantiated.

You can see the article here. or here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ The details of the article require you to register or subscribe to the Times...or something. Anyway, I wasn't willing to.

The only good I can see from this is that US intelligence was using the French as a misinformation conduit, to "sell" the Iraqis a "Bill of Goods". It's not entirely implausible. Certainly we will not learn very much "truth" behind this correspondence if that is the case. If not however, I suspect the "mending" currently underway will be strained to the point that NATOs cohesiveness will be question.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rhino 0]

The French are simply screwed...

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

The French are simply screwed...

CNN is also reporting this. If this is true, they are more than screwed. I hope we reply in a way they now how we really feel. I for one am not supprised. OK if it's true how do you think we should react?

[rhino 0]

What would I do??

Cease ANY trade to and from France. Put sanctions on France until all that are involved are brought up on war crimes by the UN

[Gawain 0]

In all practicality, if this apparent past correspondence is confirmed, the credibility damage will be immense, without a single sanction. This, from an "ego" perspective, will be more painful to France than any economic embargo (The US is only about 8.x% of import and export).

France's image is fed on the world stage of geopolitics. If the world were to bear witness to a member of NATO feeding political and psychological insight about the potential actions the US might take against Iraq, to its adversaries, the public disgrace alone should cause an upheaval in the make up of the EU, NATO and voluntary membership in the UN.

Who needs a war crimes tribunal, the public feeding frenzy will have the impact of Lions feeding on a fresh piece of meat.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

the public disgrace alone should cause an upheaval in the make up of the EU, NATO and voluntary membership in the UN.

How about kicking them out of all three.

[rhino 0]

France who? lol

[FallRate 0]

*bump*

[bodypilot90 0]

no one on the left going to defend the french? Your right, it is undefendable. Some friends they are.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"How about kicking them out of all three."
Just how would a non-member state go about 'kicking' a European country out of the EU?
Its a bit like Scotland trying to get Texas booted out of the US.
Same stands for 'kicking' countries out of the UN, or NATO.

The war in Iraq has already damaged the integrity of the EU, and NATO.

In case you weren't paying attention, the French actually did the 'coalition' a huge favour by vetoing the posibility of a second resolution. If this had gone to the vote, the support for the war simply would not have been there, and votes would have been cast condeming the use of military force. Any subsequent action would almost certainly have been deemed illegal. As it was, the war proceeded on very shaky legal grounds.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[FallRate 0]

Quote

and votes would have been cast condeming the use of military force.

Certainly there would have been such votes. But enough to defeat the resolution? That seems speculative. If it were such a foregone conclusion then the French would not have needed to threaten the use of a veto. Of course, you could argue that this "favor" was intentional and based on the good will of France toward the US and Britain. But you could also argue that shit has a pleasant, nutty flavor, and would probably find it a more tenable position.

FallRate

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Speculative....IIRC there was, and still is insufficient evidence to sway the countries that have power of veto. If you know differently please enlighten me.
Of course the other countries that did not have the veto may have been swayed by the offer of aid packages. However a single veto would have scuppered the legality of any use of force.
Without the second resolution, the argument boils down to the definition of 'serious consequences'.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Nope, i lost my left wing in the last war......

Also, whatever the reason is, who really cares?

If you would like to read all the dirty, underhanded and paranoid actions world governments have done over the last 60 years have a look at www.cryptome.org and their affiliated sites. If even half of what is contained on that website is true we really do live in a very fuked up world, with no real hope at all, and i consider myself an optimist...

Alliances shift, opinions and interests are always going to be like arseholes.....and in the scheme of things these do not matter one thing to someone who cant eat.

Laterz

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Just how would a non-member state go about 'kicking' a European country out of the EU?

I thought the brits would handle this.

Quote

The war in Iraq has already damaged the integrity of the EU, and NATO.

I feel the Un is the one to target on this one. Thier unwillingness to enforce 1441.

Quote

In case you weren't paying attention, the French actually did the 'coalition' a huge favour by vetoing the posibility of a second resolution

well there reason was understandable if you look at it from there point of view. They would lose Billions in debt that Iraq owed them. The would loose more from the lose of "oil for food program" that was corrupt. Lastly they were afraid of what we would find in the paper work found in Iraq (such as above). I believe we will find they were selling them WMD and other outlawed stuff.

Quote

As it was, the war proceeded on very shaky legal grounds.

We will always have the right to protect our shores and the countries of our real friends. And to prevent more mass murders.

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

I feel the Un is the one to target on this one. Thier unwillingness to enforce 1441.

You mean enforce it when we wanted it enforced or is Isreal up to snuff with all the UN resolutions? If not then how come we haven't been hounding the UN to inspect their weapons

[rhino 0]

Probably because Isreal has the displeasure of a 9/11 every month..

You don't want to know how this country would respond if faced with the same behavior.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

I feel the Un is the one to target on this one. Thier unwillingness to enforce 1441.

You mean enforce it when we wanted it enforced or is Isreal up to snuff with all the UN resolutions? If not then how come we haven't been hounding the UN to inspect their weapons

Probably because then the UN will find their nukes and other weapons and documents showing that we supplied them with them (much like the documents found in Iraq related to France).

[Snowflake 0]

All good and well. My point is don't get upset about UN enforcment when it doesn't go our way. They look the other way for Isreal why not Iraq too?

[flyinryan 0]

Just out of curiosity, so what? After reading the document on the Fox news sight I have to ask, why do we care if they told them these things? NONE of these things were that big a secret.

ALSO, did anyone notice that the washington intellegence sourcse found NO institutional link between Iraq and Al Quida?

BASE 853

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Just out of curiosity, so what? After reading the document on the Fox news sight I have to ask, why do we care if they told them these things? NONE of these things were that big a secret.

Because they were suppose to be our friends, choke, choke, puke.

Quote

did anyone notice that the washington intellegence sourcse found NO institutional link between Iraq and Al Quida?

you have a link?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

You mean enforce it when we wanted it enforced or is Isreal up to snuff with all the UN resolutions? If not then how come we haven't been hounding the UN to inspect their weapons

Wasn't aware that 1441 applied to Israel.

[billvon 3,063]

>>You mean enforce it when we wanted it enforced or is Isreal up to
>> snuff with all the UN resolutions?

>Wasn't aware that 1441 applied to Israel.

It's not. Here are the ones that do apply. It would take a while to enumerate just how many resolutions they are still in violation of, but it's a fair bet that they are still ignoring all the ones that call on them to stop killing and deporting Palestinians.

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut andallow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practicesdenying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

[flyinryan 0]

The coment about the intellegence agency finding no link between Al Quida and Iraq is at the bottom of the article.

Now I need to ask again. What does this have to do with the French being our friends or not? They did not give any information that gave the Iraqi's and tactical advantage. The did not tell them anything secret.

Seriously, we need to get over this us against them mentality. The French government disagreed with us, get over it.

BASE 853

[rhino 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/

Case in point... Another today..

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

It's not. Here are the ones that do apply. It would take a while to enumerate just how many resolutions they are still in violation of, but it's a fair bet that they are still ignoring all the ones that call on them to stop killing and deporting Palestinians.

Maybe when they root out the murders in thier ranks. We have time, explain it to us. How did the Arab world help it's brothers in Iraq? Why does egypt want no part of the Palestinians? I'll help you if you don't know but I'll wait on your reply. btw why did the Palestinians refuse to accept a plan to give them a home land a few years back?