posted on March 26, 2003 09:29:28 AM new
I am disturbed by failure of the media to report certain credible news items that would be supportive of our U.S. position in Iraq. For instance:
Indisputably documented facts reveal that France's president Jacques Chirac has worked closely with Saddam Hussein since the early 1970s. Their meetings might be the reason France is so much against our invading Iraq.
In late 1974, the then Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad to meet with the then No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. Negotiations were on a range of issues, including Iraq's purchase of nuclear reactors. In September 1975 Hussein traveled to Paris, signing an agreement whereby France sold two reactors to Iraq. The purchase included six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. France also agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists - the core of Iraq's nuclear capability today. Later, France sold Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons, including about 60 Mirage F-1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.
The New York Times in 1986 reported Chirac "has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein." In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying he was "truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974." By this time, Chirac was running for president of France and trying to deny his part in the arms sales to Iraq, claiming it was done by the then minister of industry without his knowledge.
Why doesn't the mainstream media regard this as newsworthy?
Reference for the above information came from The Global Intelligence Co. whose Web site is www.stratfor.com.
In addition to France, the United States was friendly with Saddam Hussein and provided him with helicopters and chemicals during the 1980's. That's probably why the position of France was not considered unusual.
Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam
excerpt
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
ed. left out the "c" in excerpt.lol
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 26, 2003 10:31 AM ]
posted on March 26, 2003 09:54:12 AM newWhy doesn't the mainstream media regard this as newsworthy?
IMO, it's because they are more in agreement with France than with the current administrations policies. AND it depends on which media outlet one views. Fox News, very recently, did speak of the same information you've just provided above.
posted on March 26, 2003 09:59:49 AM new
My Point of my posting which I did not make clear, my fault " The Media ignores his Jacques Chirac strong ties to Saddam" Seeing how the world is throwing stones but ignores those who were also in bed with Saddam one time or another.
posted on March 26, 2003 10:21:39 AM new
It is newsworthy - in context. During that time frame, similar alliances existed between Saddam Hussein and many world leaders.
The real world break with Saddam came in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. Before that, he was seen as a stable force in a part of the world that was dangerously unstable.
Yes, the U.S. government probably knew he was a bad actor before that. After all, he took part in an assasination attempt at the relatively tender age of 22 and moved up through the ranks due in part to his skills as a torturer. But when he came to power in Iraq, he was seen as fairly moderate.
Frontline did a special on Hussein in 2000 and conducted interviews with 10 people who had a lot of insight into Hussein. They are archived here and they are very interesting reading.
One of the strong emergent themes is that Saddam had a lot of money in the 1980s and was looking to spend it. As such, he had a lot of friends there for awhile.
posted on March 26, 2003 10:39:29 AM new
In other words, LuckyGiftsandTreasures,if we fault France for association with Saddam Hussein in the 80's it would be like the pot calling the kettle black. LOL!
posted on March 26, 2003 11:22:22 AM newit would be like the pot calling the kettle black. LOL!
I don't see it as funny nor as being the same thing. France currently has not just provided Iraq with verbal support against everything we've been trying to do, they have actively, and publically, worked themselves and encouraged other countries NOT to help us in any way.....in our attempt to force Saddam to disarm and abide by UN sanctions. And France have sold weapons to Iraq that weren't allowed since 1991 under the UN sanctions. The US has never done this to them....an ally. A whole different pot of beans imo.
Editing to restate who sold to whom.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 26, 2003 12:42 PM ]
posted on March 26, 2003 12:32:50 PM new
I could edit my "LOL" just for you, Linda...but it's not even worthy of mention. I was just noting the irony.
France is simply doing what they believe is right at this time.
Major newspapers in American have indeed been critical of France based on their decision not to support this war.
But they have not based their criticism on past history of France with Saddam Hussein.
posted on March 26, 2003 12:49:50 PM new
Yes Helen, your agenda is quite clear. Support all and any country other than your own.
Recent reports have shown some very good reasons as to why France, Germany and Russia have chosen to side against the US. They all have their hands in Saddam's cookie jar....all have financial reasons to support Iraq. And you side with them.....
posted on March 26, 2003 12:54:52 PM new
Fox News is NOT "fair and balanced", in fact, it is the most biased so-called news station on the air. Which is why I don't watch it.
posted on March 26, 2003 02:29:46 PM new
The said on the news France is blocking a humanitarian UN resolution for Iraq because it would "only legitimize the current action."
posted on March 26, 2003 03:10:03 PM new
I heard that since the decision by the United States and England to attack Iraq was made without U.N. backing, France believes that the U.S. should pay for the humanitarian costs of the war rather than the U.N.
But the U.N. will continue the oil for food program.
posted on March 26, 2003 03:16:55 PM new
Oh brother....that's a good one. This Chirac is really one piece of.....
since the decision by the United States and England to attack Iraq was made without U.N. backing, France believes that the U.S. should pay for the humanitarian costs of the war rather than the U.N.
And maybe that's why we didn't get a second vote? Because he was continually stating he was going to VETO it no matter what. He was actively 'working' others to VETO a second resolution too.
posted on March 26, 2003 05:30:01 PM new
Well now, what a can of worms I have opened here.
My Point to the post is that right now Bush and the United States and the brits have a big bull's-eye painted on them being the bully aggressors picking on poor little wee Iraq.
I know the USA,Russia,Brits Germany,and France and other countries not mention love to provide multi aid package and lets be friends then backstab them. The Middle East and Central and South America are the most recentForien policy is a bit** it will also depend on who is in office at the time.
Of course, we have found that a German company built the bunkers for Saddam the Ruskies have been caught red handed teaching the Iraqi to night vision and jammers. I know we have trained the Iraq army and sent some of their officer to the war college. I have my own bone to pick with the brits over Northern Ireland and I really think France should sneek in their right now and kick them off the Island.
