French block airlift of British troops to Basra

The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry British troops to Basra, a ban that will be seen as reflecting Paris's opposition to the occupation of Iraq.

Thanks to The Dissident Frogman for the link.

Do not forgive and forget. This country is not with you anymore.

*spit*

give me ONE good reason for France to lend a hand after insulting it, going past its recommendations for months and attempting at seizing any interest it has in Iraq at your only profit? I highly doubt that France will forgive and forget, either.

---"give me ONE good reason for France to lend a hand..."---

Ok, how about a signed contract.

Thibster, here's one. How about honor.

Whoops, sorry silly me. That's a concept that some French individuals hold but that their country and culture have been unfamilliar with for over half a century.

Kal

Honor? What honor is there is lying to the planet? Crafting gross evidence of so-called WMDs? Securing the oil resources of Iraq in no time while its people is still starving to death? Dis-ing the UN and international law in general and beg its help thereafter without a blink? Claiming to have liberated a country and ignore the legitimate rise of a people against ocupants? You're fairly one-sided on this!

No country has honor. Countries have interests. Although they ALL tried to conceal it behind alledgedly honorable intents. It has always been so and the US hasn't quite reverted the trend. On the contrary. France's only problem is that it doesn't have Fox News to supports its lies, so fewer people buy it.

give me ONE good reason for France to lend a hand after insulting it

It's not lending a hand, it's voluntarily blocking the UK troops, hence endangering their lives AND not respecting a signed contract. FROM A SO-CALLED FRIEND AND ALLY.

But what the hell? The French wanted the coalition to fail anyway! The coalition didn't fail so let's try to help them lose a little bit more men.

France is siding with the bloodiest dictatorships on earth. Six months ago, they stood by Saddam in front of the civilized world. The peace camp just wanted Saddam to stay to secure their arms and oil contracts.

They chose to stand by the enemy. Now, they just have to assume it.

They won't forgive and forget? So what? What has France to offer the world? A broken aircraft carrier? A long-past glory? Arrogance? Or a crook for President?

France's only problem is that it doesn't have Fox News to supports its lies, so fewer people buy it.

I suggest you open your eyes. Indeed, France has NO Fox News because French News TV reports are ALL supporting the lies of the government. Two TV channels out of the 4 biggest are state-owned and during the war they reported the info of the Iraqi minister of information as truth. And what did Le Figaro wrote? That press wires from Baghdad were more credible than press wires from Washington. Yeah, right! We saw that!

I don't know what kind of ideal image you have of France, but I'm afraid you may be disappointed. It's just a mirage.

Honor is when you sign a contract and live up to its terms.
Like this Bin Laden fellow attacking America in several different corners of the globe in order to get the kaffir to leave Saudi Arabia, and America not leaving until the no-fly zone was no longer necessary to keep Saddam in check (despite the cost in American lives and treasure).
Then leaving as we had said we would once the job was done. Fulfilling the contract.

Dishonor is when you do not fullfill the terms of your contract. Like when the French refused to live up to the provisions of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.
Dishonor can also come if you seek to renegotiate a contract once a bargain has been reached. Like when France agreed to a settlement with Libya for a downed French airliner with the stipulation that trade sanctions would be lifted in the U.N. Then, after seeing the deal another country recieved from Libya, French renegging on lifting U.N. trade sanctions until a new deal could be made.

But of course your not serious are you Thibster.

"The peace camp just wanted Saddam to stay to secure their arms and oil contracts."
Nonsense: with the embargo, no arms could be sold to Irak, and oil companies couldn't invest in Irak.

"they reported the info of the Iraqi minister of information as truth." Either you are lying, either you couldn't understand that this minister had become a kind of funny attraction, even for the leftish "guignols de l'info".

"I don't know what kind of ideal image you have of France, but I'm afraid you may be disappointed. It's just a mirage."
That's our country, Carine. I'm proud of it, proud of its attitude during your war, proud of what it is, and so on. I'm not saying that everything is perfect in France: it would be far, very far from truth. But I'm glad to be French.
I'd like to return you your last sentence. You really have an ideal image of the USA. And using any opportunity to claim your hatred towards your country is also a kind of mirage.

Nonsense: with the embargo, no arms could be sold to Irak, and oil companies couldn't invest in Irak.

Denial. That's your choice. Not surprising.
We have discussed about this problem over and over here. Search for the posts I'm talking about yourself, I'm not going to repeat myself just for you.

Either you are lying, either you couldn't understand that this minister had become a kind of funny attraction, even for the leftish "guignols de l'info".

Either you weren't watching France 2, France 3, and TF1 during the war. I don't need to lie, unfortunately.

That's our country, Carine.

So we have to be blind?

I'm proud of it, proud of its attitude during your war, proud of what it is, and so on.

And so on? Let me guess.
Proud of our country standing by a tyrant? Proud of demonstrators holding Saddam's portraits in the streets of Paris? Proud of demonstrators beating up Jews, burning American, British and Israeli flags? Proud of 9/11 commemorative monuments being vandalized? Proud of military cemeteries being desecrated? That's what France called being "pro-peace"?

I'm not saying that everything is perfect in France: it would be far, very far from truth. But I'm glad to be French.

Fine with us. If you recognize yourself in your government's policy. I don't. Should I keep quiet?

I'd like to return you your last sentence. You really have an ideal image of the USA.

And where can you see that? I rarely talked about the US here but in relation with France (because I try to stay on-topic). I doubt you could know exactly what "image of the USA" I have.

And using any opportunity to claim your hatred towards your country is also a kind of mirage.

First, check what mirage means, okay?
Then is endangering British troops, the troops of an ally, just "any opportunity" for you?

Btw, I have already stated the rules to comment my posts (I am referring to your second message that I'm about to delete).
You can check here.

Your second message was completely off-topic. You did not comment on the French blocking airlift of British troops to Basra. You are welcome to do so. But your other message has nothing to do here.

Discipline and relevance.

And don't come whining about censorship, okay? Just keep on-topic and follow the rules and you'll be fine. This is NOT a forum.

Btw, it was not only off-topic, it was of the worst kind of fiction and propaganda. You have to stop daydreaming Mr. Un Français (who doesn't even dare leave a valid e-mail address).

If you're sooooo proud, why don't you leave your name and e-mail address?

The French government has told an airline that it is not to ferry British troops to Basra

Funny, this charter airline company is called "Corsair".
http://www.corsair.fr/corsair/contentDestinations.ts?menu=1&submenu=3

It is traditional for Great Britain to have troubles with French corsairs... nothing new since centuries ;D

Right or wrong, France opposed the war. These flights sending 1400 guys to Iraq is just a part of this war. Then this move from the French government preventing a French company to provide service for this war is simply coherent. One time is not use, unfortunately coherence is not that usual from French govt...

It's not lending a hand, it's voluntarily blocking the UK troops, hence endangering their lives

It sounds a bit too dramatic, Carine. Do you really think that Great Britain and US cannot find in the following minuts a replacement to ship their troops for this Corsair's A330 ? ;) This has no more than a "symbolic" meaning.

Transport ministry officials were reported yesterday as saying the move had nothing to do with safety but was a result of the intervention of the foreign ministry.

In another hand, I cannot understand why we do not tell simply that we don't wish to provide sevices for a war we opposed.

This is quite usual from French (and may be most others) governments. A kind of principle in political matters : "Whatever we do, never tell the real reasons, If we don't lie, we are not smart..."

give me ONE good reason for France to lend a hand after insulting it, going past its recommendations for months and attempting at seizing any interest it has in Iraq at your only profit? I highly doubt that France will forgive and forget, either.

Although I endorse the French opposition in this war, this war is now going on. And now, it is just a part of war against terrorism. In this war ALL NATIONS are on the same side facing fundamentalism
This means that the PRIORITY FOR BOTH of our govts should be joining against the REAL worldwide threat. No way to succeed if we don't accept to forgive and forget some "details" from both side.

Bon ap'

Pierre,

Right or wrong, France opposed the war. These flights sending 1400 guys to Iraq is just a part of this war. Then this move from the French government preventing a French company to provide service for this war is simply coherent.

Not really if France's official policy is to be a "friend and ally" of the US and the UK and to favor a victory of the troops of the coalition. Preventing an "ally" from sending more troops to Basra to support the troops already there, is acting against them. You do know what it means in times of war, right?

One time is not use, unfortunately coherence is not that usual from French govt...

Indeed. But this move is not coherent considering France's official policy, not towards the war but towards their so-called "friends and allies".

It sounds a bit too dramatic, Carine.

I'm not the only claiming Iraq is a quagmire though.

Do you really think that Great Britain and US cannot find in the following minuts a replacement to ship their troops for this Corsair's A330 ? ;)

Do you have any idea of the cost of such a "replacement"? And every minute counts in this kind of situation.

Finally, once again, I'm not the only claiming the US is begging for imminent help.

This has no more than a "symbolic" meaning.

Indeed. Very symbolic. France took sides.

In another hand, I cannot understand why we do not tell simply that we don't wish to provide sevices for a war we opposed.

Perfidy. The very reason why Pave exists, Pierre. And we do not "provide services". Corsair signed a contract with the UK. The French government shouldn't intervene.

Although I endorse the French opposition in this war, this war is now going on. And now, it is just a part of war against terrorism. In this war ALL NATIONS are on the same side facing fundamentalism

Is France's "symbolic" move really proving France wants to fight "fundamentalism"? Or the opposite?

No way to succeed if we don't accept to forgive and forget some "details" from both side.

Big "details" then.

Carine
I don't need to lie, unfortunately. =>Yes, unfortunately, you didn’t understand anything at what you saw. Your problem.

Proud of our country standing by a tyrant? Proud of demonstrators holding Saddam's portraits in the streets of Paris? Proud of demonstrators beating up Jews, burning American, British and Israeli flags? Proud of 9/11 commemorative monuments being vandalized? Proud of military cemeteries being desecrated? That's what France called being "pro-peace"?
=> Here we are : propaganda. You quote the acts of non representative individuals and pretend it to be general. Here is a poll, published on a site against the anti-Semitism: http://www.antisemitisme.info/sondageuejf.htm -sorry, that’s in french, but maybe Carine could translate it, if she dares saying the truth for one time. The conclusion of this poll is “il faut admettre avec les analystes de ce sondage que «les jeunes Français ne sont pas antisémites». Il y a même des domaines où leur réponse se fait déferlante. » “we must admit with the analysts of this poll that the young french peoples are not antisemites/There even are some (questions) for which their answer is overwhelming”. Note that 87% of the French population think that the attacks against the synagogues are “shocking” . Demonstrators with SH portraits in Paris, like the ones burning A,GB and I flags are not representative of the vast majority of the French population. Not to speak about the vandals you quote, who couldn’t even write proper French…
I could also have answered you by quoting the burning of the “French cleaners” –vandal act isn’t it- (http://www.modbee.com/columnists/jardine/story/7445217p-8362852c.html)
Or the burning of French flags in America. I don’t think American are proud of the “freedom fries” story (it seems that they are about to withdraw it….pathetic !)
However, here’s the opinion of the American majority (Fox news poll, you will like it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88778,00.html see question 6: 2/3 of Americans want to restore tights with France)

I doubt you could know exactly what "image of the USA" I have.
=>At least, you think they attacked Iraq only because of soul nobility. Wake up!!

Then is endangering British troops, the troops of an ally, just "any opportunity" for you? => Clear evidence, thx. I don’t see what was the danger for these troops. You are just dramatizing. France is only staying neutral, being coherent with its former position. And you are diverting it to your propaganda.
Concerning the “mirage”, I was speaking about an “illusion”: spreading hatred towards the State that educated you, enabled you to grow up in good circumstances (most of humans don’t have that luck), just to feel as if you were important in the eyes of WW2 nostalgic nationalists.

Yes, unfortunately, you didn’t understand anything at what you saw. Your problem.

Oh yeah. Considering your posts, the level of your English and the level of the insults you left, in French, for me, here, an hour or so ago, I have no doubt about your understanding.

Here we are : propaganda. You quote the acts of non representative individuals and pretend it to be general.

Again, related to Mr. Levitte?

Here is a poll

Oh, yes! A poll! Polls are great and state facts, it's well-known. Polls are always to be trusted.

Your poll is one year old, btw. But, apprently there are other interesting articles in the website you refer to. I don't have the time to read them now, but it doesn't appear to me they are really supporting your point. Anyway...

I could also have answered you by quoting the burning of the “French cleaners” –vandal act isn’t it-

This has already been discussed here. Again.

Or the burning of French flags in America.

Source?

At least, you think they attacked Iraq only because of soul nobility. Wake up!!

What did you say? No oil interests for France in Iraq? And I'm the one being naive, right?
I never ever pretended oil wasn't a strategic tool and shouldn't be secured because mad men like saddam could blackmail the West with it.

You are the one thinking France stood for peace. And this is ridiculous.

I don’t see what was the danger for these troops. You are just dramatizing.

Of course, you don't see. Pff...

France is only staying neutral

No it is not since the government intervened. Learn the meaning of the words you use!

Concerning the “mirage”, I was speaking about an “illusion”: spreading hatred towards the State that educated you, enabled you to grow up in good circumstances (most of humans don’t have that luck), just to feel as if you were important in the eyes of WW2 nostalgic nationalists.

Oh please....

Please permit me to go off this topic for just a moment. Most of our French visitors seem to have the impression that some horrendous calamity will befall them if they were to leave an active e-mail link. Allow me to introduce Pierre. He is an intrepid Frenchman who risks the unknown and has an e-mail.

Pierre, I'm curious, have you suffered a "horrendous calamity"? If you have what was the nature of the affliction?

Oh back on topic: I have considered burning a Mexican flag. I can't see the point of burning a French flag. Your supporters are so far away they will never see it. The ex-pat Frenchmen over here all must find America's position agreeable. If not they move to Quebec.

Thibster, don't be an idiot. Just because you claim that France and the UN lied to the world about Iraq's WMDs doesn't mean they lied. You obviously have forgotten that was their opinion also.

As to honor, France should allow its companies to honor their contracts with a country whom they owe a debt of honor and blood. But they have a history of forgetting such things when convenient.

No country has honor. Countries have interests.

Nope, some do, though I admit it is often only when it can afford it. Britain and Austrailia certainly do. They could have jumped on the anti-America boat along with France but chose not to. They chose to support their longtime friend and ally whilst France choose to ignore its debt of blood and stab the US in the back.

France's only problem is that it doesn't have Fox News to supports its lies, so fewer people buy it.

That is a problem. Don't worry, one day you may have a news outlet with a moderate stance and a diverse view. Until then you're stuck with what you have. But then you could never believe that since you buy the leftist party line and don't ever watch it.

Kal

Hey France:
Nonsense: with the embargo, no arms could be sold to Irak, and oil companies couldn't invest in Irak.

Hmmmmm. It seems you're quite out of touch with reality. French and Russian equipment was found that post-dates the sanctions. Helicopters, Rolands and MiGs. Not to mention TotalFinaElf DID have investments in Iraq to develop new oil fields, though the development itself was not to take place until after the sanctions were lifted.

That's our country, Carine. I'm proud of it, proud of its attitude during your war, proud of what it is, and so on.

Entirely fine. I have the same attitude towards my country. Problem is our countries have diametrically opposed goals in this (and several cases) and your country has sought to undermine mine for quite some time. It has probably cost the lives of American servicemen. That is the kind of thing you support and that's fine, but I'll oppose you, of course.

Kal

Kal:
"French and Russian equipment was found that post-dates the sanctions. Helicopters, Rolands and MiGs."
=>Really ? Show me a link then.

"they (France) owe a debt of honor and blood."
=>Well, it took 135 years approximatively for the USA to refund their blood debt. Just let France that time, OK ?
Concerning honor, you are the one that is "out of touch with reality": the french public opinion was already opposed to that war, and then Mr Rumsfeld insulted us (France and Germany) speaking about the old Europe. This was the point of non-return. Honor isn't to follow someone who offended you,against your will. On the contrary.
And things are not getting better (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030903/afp/030903043915int.html)

I could also have answered you by quoting the burning of the “French cleaners” –vandal act isn’t it-

I thought we put that myth to rest already? Also, on the off chance Mr. Jardine hadn't bothered to check the overwhelming majority of "hate" crimes against muslims in the US have proven to be false claims. So far only 35 out of 3,000 claims showed enough validity to pursue investigations and none of those panned out.

As to the French Cleaners, Mr. Jardine is a journalist, and as such can't be bothered to learn the facts about the case and doesn't even know that it is a resteraunt and that other than his OP-ED there is no other documentation of the attack.

Do a google search and see what you find. A Lexis-Nexis search might prove useful, but I don't have access to it.

Or the burning of French flags in America.

You'll have to source that. I know they poured French wine down the gutters, but then they can get better from California and Oregon anyway.

However, here’s the opinion of the American majority (Fox news poll, you will like it:

It also shows that a majority believe that France has seriously damaged its relationship with the US. It also disagrees with everyone I know personally (all of whom feel France has acted as an enemy). It was a poll of 900 people. Something like 80,000 people who watch Bill O'Reilly feel that France has become an enemy by 80+%. Before you dis him, remember that he is THE most popular news personality in America and his moderate and independant views tend to be mirrored by most Americans (though leftist keep trying to paint him as a Right-Wing attack dog).

Then is endangering British troops, the troops of an ally, just "any opportunity" for you? => Clear evidence, thx. I don’t see what was the danger for these troops. You are just dramatizing.

Conjecture. If, prior to a military ground action your preparatory air bombardment goes home without completing its mission, then it is likely that more casualties will be incurred. France has failed to perform the missions it agreed to in the past and has jeopardized American and British personnel before Iraq. They failed to provide the offensive force they originally promised in the First Gulf war, but thankfully, we had the British with us and they actually count for something.

France is only staying neutral, being coherent with its former position. And you are diverting it to your propaganda.

Someone has already dealt with part of that.
As to the second part, France was NOT neutral. France's interests co-incided with those of Saddam Hussein and so France opposed any enforcement of the UNSC resolutions dealing with Iraq.

Kal

France: =>Really ? Show me a link then.

Watch the news. It was broadcasted here in the US. Unless the French media is biased they too would have broadcasted it. It's difficult for me to believe that you hadn't heard of it.

=>Well, it took 135 years approximatively for the USA to refund their blood debt. Just let France that time, OK ?

Not really. The French had already killed the men we owed the most to. We did managed to plead for the life of Lafayette's wife though. By the way, you forget that France's alliance with the new US was because they planned to go to war with Britain (which they did, four months after allying with the US) and that it took 2 1/2 years before any French troops finally saw action (all 5,500 of them) in the US and that until that point there were two failed French naval engagements. Other than Lafayette's ex-slave army the only real contribution to America's revolution was in the Naval blockade during the last battle of the Revolution. Oh, and the French killed Lafayette too. You should consider that debt paid in full with interest by 1920. Now why don't you work on the latter debt.

Concerning honor, you are the one that is "out of touch with reality": the french public opinion was already opposed to that war, and then Mr Rumsfeld insulted us (France and Germany) speaking about the old Europe. This was the point of non-return. Honor isn't to follow someone who offended you,against your will. On the contrary.

I've long ago conceded that France has not been a friend to the US for over a decade. It just took the recent Iraq war for Americans to finally pull our heads out of the sand and realize it. French actions during the first Gulf War didn't stop us from looking at France as a friend, and neither did their action in Kosovo or Afghanistan, but their recent actions have forced America to come to grips with the fact that France has not been a friend and has been an extremely poor ally for many years.

And things are not getting better

Entirely fine with me. I don't think we should reward any of the European nations for failing us when we needed their help and for continuing to fail. Frankly I don't see why we should continue to support NATO when only Britain has lived up to its part in providing militarily. Though what concern France has for NATO is moot since they long ago abandoned their allies and have yet to prove that NATO should accept them back as full allies.

Kal

Just "heard" an interview on abu dabi T.V. with Baghdad Bob.
I quote:

How did Iraq deal with members of the UN Security Council?

Al-Sahaf:

We would contact any country which becomes a temporary member of the Council. We would send them delegations and materials to make our positions clear to them. More and continuous contacts were carried out with the three permanent members of the Council, France, Russia, and China. They were also given preference in oil contracts and trade to keep them as close as possible to the Iraqi side.

Screw America For Oil

forgot the link to baghdad bob interview

Kal, I'm still expecting the link on french weapons. It really smells like propaganda...

Secondly, Lafayette hasn't been killed. Check one of his (countless) biographies.
Concerning the french casualties during your independance war, I can't find anything relevant (I don't have so much time either) however, I can propose this:http://www.patriotresource.com/battles/yorktown/page8.html
It's about the decisive battle at Yorktown: about as many French fighters as American (8800 and 11133). French casualties were twice the american (253 and 125), which shows who were the most involved in this battle.
However, it took 3 years in 1917 for the US to take part to the conflict: similar to the French support for your independance war.
And many civilians deaths, due to the U-boot, as well as commercial losses.

I suppose you understood my point about honor(Your answer had nothing to do with my words).
I don't support NATO either.

A point for papertiger:
Al Sahaf is one of the greatest clowns I've ever seen. By the time that 250 000 american troops were at Iraq's frontiers, war couldn't be avoided. AND THE WINNER WAS OBVIOUS. France only refused to give this war a fallacious justification (remember, it was about WMD), it was a matter of credibility for the UNO. Had Bush choosen another reason, not a pretext, and the things may have been differents.

Kal,

Forget Un Français: he comes with no links or invalid links, stories that are months old, that we already discussed about time and time again. And now he is asking for a link that everyone saw everywhere. Oh, and he seems to really believe Chirac opposed the US for the sake of peace and... honor I guess.

He's just not worth you're precious time, trust me :)

"Al Sahaf is one of the greatest clowns I have ever seen"

As papertiger said his testimony is suspect. Still the war is over. Al Sahaf is safe and sound. He is addressing an Arab media news outlet.
Basicly he has nothing to fear or gain by telling the truth. The big shocking secret he reveals isn't hard to believe either.
France, Germany, and Russia bought off by Saddam to take his part in the United Nations. Is this such a shock? I don't think anyone is suprized by this announcement. Only a Frenchman would feign to be shocked by this, and only to keep up appearances.
Al Saraf most certainly puts the lie to the French position being based on their concern for the Iraqi people. Which is also not a shock to anyone following the details of French actions.
The only shock was the French expressing "concern" for the Iraqi people at all. I mean they cared so little about the piles of Saddams murders.

In a recent study, brown capuchin monkeys trained to exchange a granite token for a cucumber treat often refused the swap if they saw another monkey get a better payoff - a grape.
Instead, they often threw the token, refused to eat the piece of cucumber, or even gave it to the other capuchin after viewing the lopsided deal, said Emory University researcher Sarah Brosnan.

Monkeys and Frenchmen have this in common.

(sigh)

Mr Mayeau, you didn't understand my point. What I was saying is that by the time 250 000 american troops were gathered at Iraq's borders, Saddam Hussein's reign was finished. So he could do whatevever he wanted, it was useless. Who cared about his promises when he won't be able to accomplish them ? Certainly not us, French.

Our attitude wasn't influenced my their proposition, so Mr Al Sahaf is wrong (one more time) if he thinks he had this power.

I propose you a link that may be very enlighting about the french opinion. It's in french, but surprisingly, "L'humanité"'s analysis is very acurate (see also the figaro's analysis/I only read the 2 first):
http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=etranger/20030110.OBS5118.html&host=http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

Here is a report about the american pressure on France and Russia about oil (in French):
http://www.infocrise.org/article.php3?id_article=24

however, I can propose this:http://www.patriotresource.com/battles/yorktown/page8.html
It's about the decisive battle at Yorktown: about as many French fighters as American (8800 and 11133). French casualties were twice the american (253 and 125), which shows who were the most involved in this battle.

Hmmmm. I'm betting that figure includes Lafayettes forces then, because the the French force under Rochambeau was 5,500 (though I have read a figure of 6000 once, but that one was on the net).

However, it took 3 years in 1917 for the US to take part to the conflict: similar to the French support for your independance war.

It took quite some time for the US to build a decent standing army, as it did in WWII. Both times it was America's fault for not pursuing a strong peacetime military. We're doing much better now. Either way, I'm sure we could have sent a symbolic force consisting of several thousands, but unlike the Revolution France and Britain required a sizable force.

You'll also recall that France's idea was to put all the Americans under their command as individual replacements for their own combat losses. This being unacceptable we needed to field a full force, which we did.

And many civilians deaths, due to the U-boot, as well as commercial losses.

Yup. You'll also recall that had France fielded a large peacetime force and fought Germany pre-emptively (as it again failed to do several decades later) countless lives could have been saved.

Secondly, Lafayette hasn't been killed. Check one of his (countless) biographies.

As I recall the US sent a delegation to plead for Lafayette's life but was too late. The delegation did sucessfully lobby for the life of his wife.

Kal

Kal, you are mistaking about Lafayette.
Here is a link towards one of his biographies (in English):
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/FRENCHREV/Lafayette/bio.html

-What a movie it could make !-

un francais

I took a look at your link. There are several opinions and I couldn't cherrie pick out what you were refering to. Oil has been shipped through the Syrian pipeline from Iraq since the beginning of the sactions. Illicit un monitored Oil outside the UN Food for Oil program. Where did it go?
Some ended up on the beaches of Cannes and also on the Atlantic coast of France. It was being shipped in obsolete single hulled tankers that wrecked or leaked. I can't remember which. Prehaps you remember? Why would obsolete tankers be heading to France full of Oil? So many unanswered questions.
Al Saraf gives us his answer. Strange that it is now we hear Al Saraf branded a Liar by Frenchmen. When he finally says something sounding believable.

Once again, Mr Mayeau, you didn't understand me. Once again I try to make myself clear.

I didn't say that Al Sahaf lied about the contracts he proposed to UNO permanent member. On the contrary, I'm sure he's telling the truth. On that point, I think we will agree.

However, this shows his stupidity. How can he think that his propositions could buy the permanent members' position ? It was clear that the war will happen (Bush couldn't really send 250 000 troops back in the US). So it was clear that he and SH wouldn't steer Irak anymore.
Hence his promises are unvaluable.

Had France position been a concern about oil and we would have negociated our support with the future winner -The USA, even if now, I believe that they will lose- (Moreover, upsetting the world first economy isn't a good idea if your motivations are ecomical).

I hope you can now understand my point. Take your time, and read my former posts on it once more.

I also remember that you once spoke to me about the bombing against UNO in Bagdad.
Here is my vision about this:

This bombing is a warning: the terrorists (I said terrorists, not Iraqis) don't want the UNO troops to come into Iraq instead of the US army.
Invading Iraq created a scene where the american army -the main target for these terrorists- is exposed, reachable, in the middle of a very hostile region (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia(...)'s populations are widely hostile to the USA).
So now, anti-US terrorists gather at this scene, to deliver the fights they've longly desired .
And they are quite likely to win this fight:
* Your troops are getting nervous -far from home, in a land where they can be attacked at any time and anywhere, boredom in this land is also an enemy-
* American support for this war is lowering if I consider recent polls. The number of dead soldiers is already seen as unacceptable by too many.
* These casualties will very likeky be more and more heavy as the terrorist groups will be more and more organised, gain more and more knowledge on how to fight your army
* It's costing (too?) much money
* Iraq's population -kurds excepted- is 40% sunnites and 60%Shiite. The former ones were the reigning minority: they should hate you.
Among the other ones, many would like Iraq to become an islamic republic, close to Iran:this can't be accepted by the USA, and so US troop are an obstacle for them too.
(...)
So a UNO intervention -especially if muslims soldiers are involved- could frustrate these terrorist and their dreams of victory.

I understand your talking about this year only. Al Sayaf and I am refering to an ongoing policy of Iraq that dates since the end of the Gulf War.

Among the other ones, many would like Iraq to become an islamic republic, close to Iran
We have reason to believe even the Iranians don't want an Iranian "republic" like they have in Iran (and so do you, or is it everyday thing self emolations in the streets of Paris)?
American support for this war is lowering if I consider recent polls. The number of dead soldiers is already seen as unacceptable by too many.
300 dead soldiers and polls drop in America.

Tell me how much have Chirac's polls dropped after the 15,000 dead in France?

The only place UN occupation is popular is in the evil ungrateful callous hearts of your countrymen.
And the odd few opportunist would be dictators that parrot your catcalls from the sideline.

A last, we agree on the Al Sahaf matter.Well.

"We have reason to believe even the Iranians don't want an Iranian "republic" like they have in Iran (and so do you, or is it everyday thing self emolations in the streets of Paris)?"

Of course, ALL "Iranians don't want an Iranian republic like they have". French population hate this republic (so do I). But the peoples you refer to are members of an opposition group that is on the european terrorist groups list. They emolate themselves to protest against the arrest of their leaders in France (which was the strict application of the attitude defined by EU about the terrorists organizations).I could say a lot about that, but it's not the point and I have too little time.

I don't know about Chirac's polls. I left France before the heat wave. Clearly, lessons have to be drawn from what happened. However, this has nothing to do with the Iraqian matter. I wonder why you wrote about it. Are you in a childish "my country is better than yours because (...)" logic ? That's really useless.

The polls about the american support to war are somehow worrying for us (I mean french, american, and any other occidental peoples). It raises the question of how strong democracies and republics are when facing a military threat/challenge. The fragility of the pretexts (euphemism) for the american attack are also a reason for that. Surely the main one, but not the only one.

Courtasy of the dissident frogman's wonderful website. But it looks like to me that France outsold China in Arms sales to Iraq...I'll be damned. But Russia was the top supplier.
http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/bureau/000113.html

Mashiki Amiketo

En Francais
From what I read You say Saddams favors ie: Oil, a ready customer for French arms, Future contracts to repairing infrastructure, have no relation to the French position towards Iraq?
So all these constant contacts, preference in oil contracts and trade were a waste of valuable resource by Saddam. The French had their mind set to back the Dictator no matter the murder and suffering of his people.
Or more precisely to screw over America no matter what the issue.

Yes En Francais that clears it up. Crystal clear now.
How does this differ from what I have said right along? Oh! You claim the French position didn't have anything to do with the Oil.
So how much of the illicit Oil shipped from Syria did your government turn back after noticing that it was from Iraq and not under the UN Food for Oil program?
For that matter why is France fighting the return of funds that are kept by the UN Food for Oil program?
Why is France fighting against the end of the Food for oil programs Nov. expiration? These are the acts of a country keenly interested in Oil.
French position had nothing to do with Saddam giving out Favorable Oil contracts? Really?
I don't think you are aware of your countrys position, or you are extremely naive.
Iraq Oil was the first concern. Screwing America might have been the second. The welfare of the Iraqi people didn't even make the radar screen.

"Not obstructing" is not the same as "helping".

sheesh! They really have scraped bottom, havent they?