28-04-2003 20:58									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by yago Well, whatever, anyway, I can't wait till I see European and American ties cut.

The only thing you said that I agree with

	28-04-2003 20:58									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Just more evidence that the French are duplicitous bastards. This shouldn't really suprise anyone.

	28-04-2003 21:09									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Anti-American and/or anti-Bush news sources would most certainly print it. A little thing called free press.

I'm referring to the fact that the Sunday Times supposedly found the papers. I wonder if they found any folders labelled Washington in the same filing cabinet.

	28-04-2003 21:14									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse There are no clean hands here.

What? You mean the US sold arms to Iraq in violation of the sanctions placed upon it in addition to the Russians!

	28-04-2003 21:19									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by yago I can't wait till I see European and American ties cut.

quote: Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 The only thing you said that I agree with

I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

	28-04-2003 21:20									#36
	Tired of ads?

I love the moralizing in this thread....well, actually, not really.

Here is a simple one: if you come form a country that has never sold weapons, given money, or intelligence to a non-democratic state in order to furthe their own material, or ideological aims, raise you hands!

Any actions that broke UN sanctions were wrong and we have evry right to criticize. Actions that did not break the sanctions, well, you have a right to criticize, but only as long as you acknowledge you are throwing stones in a glass house.

	28-04-2003 21:22									#37
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

What I have to say about these sentiments can;t be said in public. Suffice it to say: Some of the dumbest things said in Poly in a long time.

You guys deserve some sort of collective prize for this..Do we have enough connical hats for you all?

	28-04-2003 21:23									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Here is a simple one: if you come form a country that has never sold weapons, given money, or intelligence to a non-democratic state in order to furthe their own material, or ideological aims, raise you hands!

The difference between the U.S. helping Saddam fight Iran and France helping Saddam fight the U.S. should be very clear.

	28-04-2003 21:26									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Suffice it to say: Some of the dumbest things said in Poly in a long time.

Why? With the Soviet Union gone, we have little to gain from alliance with Europe. More importantly, it seems a shaky majority of Europeans don't want to have anything to do with the U.S., so why don't we grant them their wish?

Europe has the right to unite and work for its own interests; we shouldn't shove America down their throats when they don't want it anymore.

	28-04-2003 21:29									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 The difference between the U.S. helping Saddam fight Iran and France helping Saddam fight the U.S. should be very clear.

And that would be ?

	28-04-2003 21:29									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

own goal

Jon Mioller

	28-04-2003 21:31									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Russia and France?
Oh, NO! Who would have ever thought...?

	28-04-2003 21:32									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor And that would be ?

1) Iran was a theocracy and the U.S. is a democracy.
2) The U.S. was an active enemy of Iran, while France is 'allied' to the U.S.

	28-04-2003 21:32									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 Why? With the Soviet Union gone, we have little to gain from alliance with Europe. More importantly, it seems a shaky majority of Europeans don't want to have anything to do with the U.S., so why don't we grant them their wish? Europe has the right to unite and work for its own interests; we shouldn't shove America down their throats when they don't want it anymore.

Did you know that the US imported 1 trillion dollars worth of capital from Europe sicne 1998? When the Us has to borrow huge Amounts cause its budget deficit is 500 billion, were do you think a lot of that capital will come, from the immense sabings of Americans? And what would happen to all those Europan investors and American investors that bet on the companies of each others to thrive?

I myself don't care for huge economic depressions and a lowering of living standars aound the globe.

If you mean to say: the Us and Europe can lower their military cooperation, fine, CUT TIES, well, NO.

	28-04-2003 21:38									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 The difference between the U.S. helping Saddam fight Iran and France helping Saddam fight the U.S. should be very clear.

You do know the Us gives aid and support to many dictatorships other than we did to Iraq in the 1980's, no?

Plus, the "help" you describe is, well, meaningless. As i said before, what the hell could the French have known about US MILITARY plansd for the invasion of Iraq in sept 2001 when in fact the US had no concrete plans then?

I ams orry, but the "accusations" are nothing mroe than idooticly window-dressing non-issue. Did the French provide Iraq with billions of dolars of aid and satelite infor about US troop locations and movements? If no, then thier aid to Iraq in 2001-03 was uch less than what we gave Saddam in 1983-88.

Come back when you get some real evidence of something that mattered one bit.

	28-04-2003 21:39									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Did you know that the US imported 1 trillion dollars worth of capital from Europe sicne 1998? When the Us has to borrow huge Amounts cause its budget deficit is 500 billion, were do you think a lot of that capital will come, from the immense sabings of Americans? And what would happen to all those Europan investors and American investors that bet on the companies of each others to thrive? I myself don't care for huge economic depressions and a lowering of living standars aound the globe. If you mean to say: the Us and Europe can lower their military cooperation, fine, CUT TIES, well, NO.

Ok, 'ties' can mean a lot of things. I'm talking about intense cooperation on virtually all world matters, and ironclad alliance through NATO. By 'cut ties' I only mean that the U.S. and European nations cooperate only when it is un our mutual interests, and otherwise remain neutral toward each other. Of course I think that we should continue to trade.

	28-04-2003 21:40									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Clearly, Chirac cannot be trusted by anyone. Despite Blair's efforts to patch things up between the US and the French, I don't think this is possible until there is a regime change in France.

Also, note, the cozy relationship and disclosures long predated the Bush presidency.

On another note, I think the Brits ought to arrest, try and convict Galloway not only for corruption, but for treason.

I wonder what Chirac got from Saddam, given his level of support? I think the French people should be highly suspicious given the deals Saddam gave Galloway who was only a back bencher in the UK's parliament.

	28-04-2003 21:43									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 1) Iran was a theocracy and the U.S. is a democracy. 2) The U.S. was an active enemy of Iran, while France is 'allied' to the U.S.

Good answers
Actually, I too think the whole French position of backing Saddam sucked. A reasonable French position would have been to negociate some downsized part of the loot, and just yell against the war without any action, so that Chirac could still hold his dear moral high round, and earn huge popularity among the French.
France should have stopped its effectual opposition as soon as the axis of vassals had formed.

And Jon : this is not CG !

	28-04-2003 21:45									#49
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

Of course not britain--they are my favorite colony

And dont mind gepap--he bashes me everytime I make an appearance.

	28-04-2003 21:46									#50
	Remove this text

that's cruel. jon.

	28-04-2003 22:05									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap You do know the Us gives aid and support to many dictatorships other than we did to Iraq in the 1980's, no?

Of course I do. We supported countless brutal dictatorships to fight against communism around the globe and against Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. That's not comparable to helping a brutal dictatorship fight the U.S. If you were to say there is no difference, you would have to first claim that the U.S. (at least in this case) is as bad as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Plus, the "help" you describe is, well, meaningless. As i said before, what the hell could the French have known about US MILITARY plansd for the invasion of Iraq in sept 2001 when in fact the US had no concrete plans then?

That's one of the reports that the article referred to. Shouldn't you wait until all of the files are seen before making that judgement?

Incidentally, I've heard elsewhere that communications continued until the 19th of March, 2003, but I don't have a link as of yet so I won't try to argue that.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Did the French provide Iraq with billions of dolars of aid and satelite infor about US troop locations and movements? If no, then thier aid to Iraq in 2001-03 was uch less than what we gave Saddam in 1983-88.

Now that's a MUCH better case. You don't have to grill me about 'accusations'; I only started the thread to get peoples' opinions and maybe some more info. If you'll look at my first post I only said that these weak stories are a sign of things that might be found in the future:

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 These stories all broke in less than a day, so something tells me it's just the tip of the iceberg. If true, these (along with anything else that comes to the fore as more Mukhaberat and Foreign Ministry files are analyzed) should smear France and Russia diplomatically for decades.

...and then I politely asked 3 questions. I didn't accuse France of aiding Iraq to the level we did in the 80's; you're assuming I did.

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Good answers Actually, I too think the whole French position of backing Saddam sucked. A reasonable French position would have been to negociate some downsized part of the loot, and just yell against the war without any action, so that Chirac could still hold his dear moral high round, and earn huge popularity among the French. France should have stopped its effectual opposition as soon as the axis of vassals had formed.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, Chirac probably gambled that France could prevent the war, or that Saddam could create a quagmire and win the war, so that his government's connections to Iraq wouldn't be revealed.

quote: Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 Of course not britain--they are my favorite colony

I actually wanted to say it that way, tried to be more diplomatic.

quote: Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4 And dont mind gepap--he bashes me everytime I make an appearance.

Well I like a challenge.

quote: Originally posted by Ned I wonder what Chirac got from Saddam, given his level of support?

Probably just the trade benefits people have been talking about for months. I don't think he is among Iraq's 'undisclosed beneficiaries' or anything.

	28-04-2003 22:33									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I would like the Files to be compiled by someone better than a british equivalent of the National Enquirer, thank you very much. And I doubt much will be found by way of concrete material ssistance form the French government.

Countries can survive being "smeared" politically like Individual can: just look at Henry Kissinger.

quote: Of course I do. We supported countless brutal dictatorships to fight against communism and Islamic fundamentalism around the globe. That's not comparable to helping a brutal dictatorship fight the U.S. If you were to say there is no difference, you would have to first claim that the U.S. (at least in this case) is as bad as communism or Islamic fundamentalism.

Again, the level of support you mention is minor at worst, and as UR said, no more than the Iraqis could read form the NYTimes. Only neough to rile up those rpe-desposed to attacking the French.

As for Evil_Eric: I give people what they deserve.

	28-04-2003 23:03									#53
	Got spare money?

And if we ever met in person Ill be sure to do the same.

	29-04-2003 00:01									#54
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap Plus, the "help" you describe is, well, meaningless.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Again, the level of support you mention is minor at worst, and as UR said, no more than the Iraqis could read form the NYTimes.

So you can find summaries of private conversations between Bush and Chirac, and between American and French diplomats, in the New York Times? Please point me to them, they should be a good read!

Yes, after 9/11 there was speculation all over the media that the U.S. might attack Iraq at some point. But that is VERY different from a nation's government giving Iraq personal assurance that Bush Administration officials were planning on it, based on private communications with said officials. If you were Saddam Hussein, which of these two sources would you trust more, and base your actions on? If you choose the latter source, then you are in effect conceding that France aided Saddam Hussein, and meant to.

quote: Originally posted by GePap As i said before, what the hell could the French have known about US MILITARY plansd for the invasion of Iraq in sept 2001 when in fact the US had no concrete plans then?

As I said before; the communications 2001 were the ones that happened to be in the article. By the way it was written, it looks as though they extended long past then:

quote: The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry (search), kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.

If the author used the words 'every development in American planning' to refer to a few minor murmurs back in 2001, he'd have a lot of explaining to do.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Only neough to rile up those rpe-desposed to attacking the French.

This was a France-bashing thread? When did I ever use the words 'frogs' or 'surrender'? I made a conscious effort to not dis France at all, but the Chirac government's policy toward Iraq. If I ever said 'France' instead of 'the Chirac government' it was only for convenience in typing.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

	29-04-2003 01:16									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Yes, after 9/11 there was speculation all over the media that the U.S. might attack Iraq at some point. But that is VERY different from a nation's government giving Iraq personal assurance that Bush Administration officials were planning on it, based on private communications with said officials.

First of all, if we were telling the French that we were, no matter what, going to attack Iraq, then what the hell was the whole deal with the second resolution bit? If we were telling the French :"war with Iraq is inevitable", then were not the French within their rights to oppose the second resolution, given they would KNOW, according to what you are telling me, that the US was not acting in good faith (ie., did not give a damn about disarmament of Iraq), and would attack anyway?

Besides, it was rather obvious that the Us was going to atatck Iraq no matter what: the Iraqis didn;t need the French to tell them that.

	29-04-2003 01:51									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap First of all, if we were telling the French that we were, no matter what, going to attack Iraq, then what the hell was the whole deal with the second resolution bit? If we were telling the French :"war with Iraq is inevitable", then were not the French within their rights to oppose the second resolution, given they would KNOW, according to what you are telling me, that the US was not acting in good faith (ie., did not give a damn about disarmament of Iraq), and would attack anyway?

Um, the French were absolutely within their rights to oppose the second resolution; where did I say they were not? That's the second time in this thread you've prejudged me.

quote: Originally posted by GePap Besides, it was rather obvious that the Us was going to atatck Iraq no matter what: the Iraqis didn;t need the French to tell them that.

It was obvious to you, not to everybody. Iraq at first could speculate that war was inevitable, but not be sure, and then France's government gave them confirmation. That can hardly be described as 'meaningless'.

	29-04-2003 01:53									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, did you think the US was acting in bad faith seeking a seocnd resolution while it was telling folks like the French that war was inevitable, no matter what?

And so what if the French told the Iraqis: hey, war is inevitable? I am sorry, but it was obvious, and the Iraqis seem to have made very little preparation otherwise.

	29-04-2003 02:00									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I'm American and I agree too (assuming your don't include Britain in 'European').

Most of the people from the UK I know, are pretty rational fellows. So, I don't think they'll go on the American trip.

Ahm, I guess, if it goes on like this,, it's America alone. No Japan, No South-Korea, No Europe.

That would be fine with me.

	29-04-2003 02:07									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, did you think the US was acting in bad faith seeking a seocnd resolution while it was telling folks like the French that war was inevitable, no matter what?

Yes, it was in bad faith. Surprised?

quote: Originally posted by GePap And so what if the French told the Iraqis: hey, war is inevitable? I am sorry, but it was obvious, and the Iraqis seem to have made very little preparation otherwise.

Had Saddam et al thought there was a slight chance that the U.S. wouldn't invade, they might have complied with the inspections regime. If you were convinced 100% that the Americans were going to attack no matter what, would you destroy your weapons? Only to fight an inevitable war anyway, but without them?

Who the hell knows, maybe this was a scheme to trick Saddam into not complying, so the war would happen, so that Chirac could bash the U.S., so that he could be strengthened politically. Maybe not. Hey, maybe France tricked Saddam into not complying, so that the U.S. could have its war, and is actually on our side! Maybe not. There are a million possible explanations for every event, so this is getting kind of pointless when none of us have a damn clue what's going on behind closed doors.

quote: Originally posted by yago That would be fine with me.

Me too.

	29-04-2003 02:11									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Did you know that the US imported 1 trillion dollars worth of capital from Europe sicne 1998? When the Us has to borrow huge Amounts cause its budget deficit is 500 billion, were do you think a lot of that capital will come, from the immense sabings of Americans? And what would happen to all those Europan investors and American investors that bet on the companies of each others to thrive? I myself don't care for huge economic depressions and a lowering of living standars aound the globe. If you mean to say: the Us and Europe can lower their military cooperation, fine, CUT TIES, well, NO.

Those were investments by individuals and companies. Not actions by states. They are just going to where (they think) the opportunities are.