Thread: Now We Can See Why France Coddles Terrorists

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

What France was saying was "we have several billion dollars worth of oil contracts with Hussein, we're busy violating the Oil for Food program rules, and if you invade Iraq, we'll lose all that money. You can trust us on this because we even cheat on ice skating contests."

Yeah, I'm sure that in FFA little fantasy world, France said that.
In the real world though, as you can check on the UN website, the official reasons given revealed to be true.
If you were a little more informed, you'd also know that a good time before the actual start of the war, everyone already knew the US would go to war (at least here: our politicians, analysts, journalists), and that those contracts were lost. The "corrupt" attitude would have been to side with the US and enter the coalition of the bribed, to get some of those contracts back.

Originally Posted by Latherty

Then it would have been quite easy for the US to offer to preserve those contracts for the benefit of new government in order to clear France's veto. But maybe those contracts were already promised elsewhere?

Why should we offer to help them continue violating an agreement they'd made? It was their corruption, there's no reason to reinforce their corruption by continuing to bribe them.

France has had a long history of double dealing, collaboration, and plain old pants-wetting. Their sorry performance over Iraq is just one more chapter in the Never Ending Saga.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Why should we offer to help them continue violating an agreement they'd made? It was their corruption, there's no reason to reinforce their corruption by continuing to bribe them.

And now FFA will try to explain us how the oil contracts the private French companies had in Iraq were "illegal" or in violation of any agreement...
If you're talking about the Oil For Food program (which had nothing to see with the oil contracts between Iraq and the private companies exploiting the oil pits, as it concerned what Saddam later did with the oil barrels), I think you should first look at your own country before accusing others:
"A report released by US Senate investigators found that the US "was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions," but also occasionally "facilitated the illicit oil sales." Further, the report shows that "US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein's regime - more than the rest of the world put together." The Guardian notes that the report will likely ease pressure from conservative Republicans in Washington who want to see UN Secretary General Kofi Annan resign. "
(US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals' | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited)

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

France has had a long history of double dealing, collaboration, and plain old pants-wetting. Their sorry performance over Iraq is just one more chapter in the Never Ending Saga.

By "sorry performance about Iraq" you mean stating the truth and not wanting to join the US in the disaster of bush's lies? (oh sorry, can't prove he knew his statements to be untrue, I meant "bush's mistakes"). No doubt the US performance over Iraq is great. Life is funny in FFA little imaginary world.

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

Yeah, I'm sure that in FFA little fantasy world, France said that.
In the real world though, as you can check on the UN website, the official reasons given revealed to be true.

You mean the UN that was run by Kofi Annan who's son was making millions off the Oil For Food Program? That UN? Yeah, they're an objective reliable source, aren't they?

Not hardly.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

You mean the UN that was run by Kofi Annan who's son was making millions off the Oil For Food Program? That UN? Yeah, they're an objective reliable source, aren't they?

Not hardly.

I meant the official reasons given by our Foreign Minister in his speech at the the UN. Transcripts are available on their website, and on many others. Nothing to see with the UN in itself.