This has been bubbling around for a little bit, and now Bill Gertz' new book blows the lid off our 'friends' the French.

The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

"No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began.

UPDATE 09.16.04: Mr. Gertz's book, Treachery, can be found here.

France armed Saddam until 92, period. There were no diplomatic relations after that. Remember that it is Pave's favourite spokesman, FoxNews, who claimed that "French-made WMD's" would be found in Irak. Yes, laughable to see how desperate you have been to divert your own embarassment. Remember that the US had no problem whatsoever with France regarding Irak throughout the 80's, in fact, they (and the UK) did a little "trade" of their own, it's no secret.
Posted by zoomerx at September 8, 2004 03:22 PM

[Emphasis added.]

More on this over at ¡No Pasarán!.

DGB

why the suprise????? After all, our 'ally' France was arming the Argies during the Falklands War ...

Nice spin, FreeMarket.

Damian :

And the point is ?

I guess the point would be that FRANCE was violating UN sanctions and was whoring her influence to Saddam Hussein in The UNSC.

That would be the point Stéphane.

Jimmy :

Actually, US did the same, Donald Rumsfeld particularly. US supported Saddam because Iraq was in war against Iran.
Your arguments are supposed to put the shame one us ? What do you exactly want to prove when you say that ?

Instead of making accusations, just say that french are weasels.

I ve ordered the book via amazon; until i read it, i will abstain from any commentary.

By the way can anyone vouch for Bill getz credibility(or lack of it?)

Stephane, tell ya what, point out how Rumsfield helped to sell US weapons to Saddam *AFTER* the UN sanctions of 1991 and then you will have a freaking point. Until you can do that little simple task shut up.

Oh that's right ... the Iran-Iraq war happened *BEFORE* Gulf War I. Please point out what UN sanctions were in place during the Iran-Iraq war.

Cannon :

So, before gulf war I Saddam reign was as awful as before march 2003. I thought you really care about Iraqis well-being, "freedom war" etc... (that's a laugh). Of course it's nice to help Iraqis getting rid of saddam, but :

What about North Korea ?
What about Belarus ?

G.W. Bush wants to continue Reagan's plan to build an anti-missile shield ("star wars" hehehe) which will cost 4 times more than the cost of helping the billions of people who haven't any access to drinkable water.
Where is the priority ? It seems that today it's : blaming my country.

And the point is ?
Posted by Stéphane at September 11, 2004 06:21 PM

Stéphane,

This seems to be your funny new schtick: Without reading the topic you feign confoundment, then post the above tepid question.

If the obvious continues to escape you try clicking over to a less challenging venue, like here. Oh, a bonus, it's in French!

Don't try wasting my time being cute. If you want to advertise yourself here as hopelessly dim, well, of course that's you're business, but if you want to blog with the big boys get your facts straight and try making a principled argument. You might want to start by reading the topic.

DGB

Damian :

Do you know what is great with you Damian ? I don't know if it's when you keep ignoring some serious issues, or maybe if it's your lack of objectivity.

Or your incredible sense of humor. Are you a friend of Bill Watterson ? (guess no)

Stephane I am not talking about what a bastard Saddam was pre gulf war I. He did after all use his non existant WMDs against the Iranians during that conflict. Yes he needed to be removed. Yes we, the US, dropped the ball after GWI.

We are as much to blame for propping Saddam up in the 80s as we are for working with Stalin in WWII. Basically it was a good idea at the time.

BTW you still haven't pointed out one shred of evidence that the US sold any weapons to Saddam after Aug 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

As far as providing the world drinking water. Hells bells everytime we freaking try a humanitarian initiative such as giving $15billion for the global AIDS fight we are alternatively accused of being the "Great Satan" who is trying to actually poison the world by tainting any resulting medicine or derided by freaking do nothing socialist countries who do nothing more than complain how the US isn't doing enough.

Oh Ho France Busted!

Stephane went right past the Dan Rather defence and went to the "hey you guys did it too" accusation.

Notice Stephane accepts on its face without question that the French Government would do this horrible thing (aid and abet a saddistic undemocratic thug).

You ask:
- What about North Korea ?
- What about Belarus ?

There are still diplomatic, economic, and political options for North Korea and Belarus that have not been fully exhausted. War is the last option, as was the case with Saddam and Iraq.

In Iraq, we tried diplomatic measures, but the French helped Saddam circumvent them. We tried economic, but the French helped Saddam avoid them. We tried political, but the French...

War was the last option.

Papertiger :

You're right, the french governement do horrible things. The only problem is that there are strange arguments to argue that french gvt whore himself to saddam. That's all.

Dwayne :

Maybe you're right, proove it. And I will accept everything.

Cannon :

About the AIDS, remember that US gave the 15 billions only to countries which share the moral beliefs of the white house.

"Only to countries which support the moral beliefs of the White House."

And how much has Frogland contributed? Oh that's right it doesn't matter what Frogland does. It's all about the US. Whatever the US does it isn't good enough. Whatever the US doesn't do is not enough.

Still waiting on information how the US sold weapons to Saddam after August 1990 in violation of UN resolutions.

Cannon :

Come down. Who said that ? give me names ?

Still waiting on information how the US sold weapons to Saddam after August 1990 in violation of UN resolutions.

No, the US did not sell anything to Saddam after 1990. It would be nice though, to accept the fact that it did contribute to Iraq's WMD arsenal (gasing thousands of Iranian troops and arguably Kurds at the same time), while turning a blind eye on Saddam's atrocities.

Accept those facts, then you can act like Mother Theresa all you want.

Zoomer,
What gas weapons specifically?

ZOOMERIDIOT!!! Are you wilfully blind or are you naturally a lead paint eater? Reference: Posted by cannon at September 13, 2004 07:44 PM

We are as much to blame for propping Saddam up in the 80s as we are for working with Stalin in WWII. Basically it was a good idea at the time.

Yes we worked with Saddam in the 80s. I have stated that before on this blog. Multiple times. However when the UN sanctions went into place *WE* didn't keep violating them. *WE* showed the UN more respect by trying to get it to enforce its own resolutions than frogland ever considered. *THAT* is the freaking point of this post by Mr. Krempasky.

hey all you slim-deicked euro fools-
Are you guys wrapped up in some fantasy bubble that prevents you from seeing what the hell is going on in this world, factually?
saddams gas was german, as was/is Syria's gas which it just used in Darfur.
Irans reactors have german technology, Iraq's blown-up reactor was french and german, and now the damn german fools want to sell thier un-wanted nuke reactor to china.
That is pitiful.
You euros interfere in the US's dealing with Iran now, and IF you get in the way of the US stopping the mullahs nuke dreams- you will open up a can-of- whoop-ass for yourselves of the likes you've never seeen before.
People have fled your impotent continent for centuries leaving behind

So what's the solution Pato, nuke the crap out of everyone you don't see eye-to-eye with while Bin Laden is still at large and Irak on the verge of a civil war?

Pato :

Iraq's blown up reactor ?

Stéphane,

I realize you are a young weed and, like many French, the history of Iraq only goes back as far as March 19, 2003.

But surprise! Mr. Hussein in fact had himself a spiffy new French Osiris nuclear reactor, which those French wags renamed the Osiraq. The Iraqis dubbed it more prosaically "Tammuz", commemorating the Ba'ath rise to power.

Osiraq was a 40-megawatt light-water nuclear reactor built with French assistance at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center near Baghdad.

Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq and blew it to kingdom come. That was way back June 7, 1981.

You can start reading up on Iraq here.

You may want to consider researching your subject before taking a position.

Regards,
DGB

like many French, the history of Iraq only goes back as far as March 19, 2003.

I think this is the case for many (most?) Americans too, Damian, quite honestly...

Speaking of reactor, look at it in context. Certainly not a wise decision from the French, but remember it was around a time when the US had absolutely no problem with it (certainly nor Mr Rumsfeld), as a matter of fact, the US at the time decried Israel's action.

This is yet again a fine example of pointing the finger at others while ignoring your own little dirty secrets.

Only to countries which support the moral beliefs of the White House.

Are you completely psychotic? You're trying to make care and treatment for millions of AIDS victims out to be an ideological issue? You're not even human - you're some sort of sub-reptile. I'll consider taking that back if you can explain how Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia "support the moral beliefs of the white house".

What about Sudan? Is the reason we've given over 5 times more aid to Darfur than all of Europe combined because Sudan "supports the moral beliefs of the white house"?

And while we're at it, I suppose you need to tell us - just what are the "moral beliefs of the white house" anyway?

It would be nice though, to accept the fact that it did contribute to Iraq's WMD arsenal (gasing thousands of Iranian troops and arguably Kurds at the same time)

No, what would be nice would be for you to either finally demonstrate that it is indeed a fact, or stop insisting that it is. Accept the fact that inculcation is not evocation, ergo repetition will not make it become true.