The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD and had no
connection to Al Qaeda. Who are these incredibly well informed, perceptive
and honest people?
Yes, I'll have more French fries, thank-you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500438.html?referrer=emailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's strong
opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the stability
of the region, where every country is now worried about its security and
independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for expansion."
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: I'll have the freedom fries thank you. Re: The Visionary Chirac |
07 Jan 2007 05:42:56 PM |
|
|
First of all, there were AlQaeda connection as the report on 9-11
demonstrated. Second, Saddam shipped his WMD to Libya as the sat photos
demonstrated. And Third and most importantly, all this is non-important, the
UN resolution called for the lifting of the ceasefire were there any
violation of any one of the clauses, NOT if Saddam had or didn't have WMD or
did or did not have any connection with these terrorists. This was not the
reason the US went to war, the prez spelled out that it was because of the
UN resolution breaches, the rest was secundary intelligence report that were
deemed trustwhorty. But anyway, the French betrayed the West by pretending
that refusing to endorse the alternative US resolution to change the lifting
of the cease fire into one of regime change meant that the original
resolution was not valid.
The lies that ensued were all based on the corrupted deals with Saddam, but
gave ammunition to all the enemies of the US, especially thos who parasited
the Arab medias, which in turn who fueled terrorism by unjustly justifying
it.
The only ones who were decisional in the Security Council were still only
those who respected their signatures. But the others, hell, even the
Secretary General had a stake with Saddam, and proved his bad faith by
refusing to answer why his son was still using the Cadillac SUV Saddam gave
them, last year, were those that the (supposedly unbiased, but in fact
turned out liberal), media, listened to., Again, one of the mistakes the US
administration did was to have a PR team that was worth nothing. Still, they
expected the world to see through the charade but unlike what the allies
expected, even with time, this perception wasn't corrected, truth didn't
prevail, but it doesn't change the absolute legality of it, just the
perception, which goes to show that all is perception. Of course, after that
betrayal , everything that could go wrong went wrong. No need to dwell on
the past sequence of events since.
After the latest incredible (almost summary) execution, with the terrorist
warlord Muktadar el Sad'r name used to taunt Saddam all the way to his trip
to hell, the Iraqi governement has lost any credibility, and it is no use
for the US to try to uphold any kind of law and order under such a
governement that is now clearly a puppet of Iran. Soldiers should come back
home ASAP under such circumstances given that they are (unjustly) targetted
by everybody even if they get reinforcement first to try to quelch AlQaeda
before doing so. Problem is that without the US there, Iran will take over
the country and the Saudis will be stuck trying to protect the Sunnis there,
but that scenario would mean a triple advantage for the American tax payer.
A good analysis of this scenartio is spelled out there:
http://www.energybulletin.net/23410.html (although to say that they weren't
invited doesn't mean that they weren't requested to act despite the inuendo,
as I pointed out previously):
1. Repatriation of military and US money would stop being wasted there (on
people who don't care about the noble task the US is doing there), and
2. The US (and World) consumer could see oil prices drop dramatically. And,
3. Iran would know its pain, which is my personal favorite.
Hard to resist under the circumstances even thouigh the hawks will feel
compelled to stay there to do their part as if they hadn't do more than
anyone else in the world... Such is honor. But the US public is not as loyal
to honor, and are fed up, so it is a scenario that might come to pass since
the dems control both the house and the senate.
J.
"John Lemke" <jflemke@locallink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
d_2dncSKmofTiALYnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@locallink.net...
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD and had no
connection to Al Qaeda. Who are these incredibly well informed,
perceptive and honest people?
Yes, I'll have more French fries, thank-you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500438.html?referrer=emailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's
strong opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the
stability of the region, where every country is now worried about its
security and independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for expansion."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: I'll have the freedom fries thank you. Re: The Visionary Chirac |
07 Jan 2007 06:08:02 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
First of all, there were AlQaeda connection as the report on 9-11
demonstrated. Second, Saddam shipped his WMD to Libya as the sat photos
demonstrated.
Oh, this is all new information. Remember folks you heard it
from Jean first !
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: I'll have the freedom fries thank you. Re: The Visionary Chirac |
07 Jan 2007 06:34:21 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns98B1AE4B7E917rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Jean Guernon"
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
First of all, there were AlQaeda connection as the report on 9-11
demonstrated. Second, Saddam shipped his WMD to Libya as the sat photos
demonstrated.
Oh, this is all new information. Remember folks you heard it
from Jean first !
Old information.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: I'll have the freedom fries thank you. Re: The Visionary Chirac |
07 Jan 2007 08:42:31 PM |
|
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........
oh, do I hear the hairy Green dwarf again??...jeezuz *****!!....please wake
me
up when Jeano's through babbling.....thank you.....zzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:4Afoh.116318$rv4.84807@edtnps90...
First of all, there were AlQaeda connection as the report on 9-11 After
the latest incredible (almost summary) execution, with the terrorist
warlord Muktadar el Sad'r name used to taunt Saddam all the way to his
trip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500438.html?referrer=emailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's
strong opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the
stability of the region, where every country is now worried about its
security and independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for
expansion."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?LsK3OirCqMKoKjrCty7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuICDimaUgeWVwcGVycywgeWVzIHNpcmVlIHllcyBpbmRlZWR5IGRvLCBpdCd6IHlvdXIgZGVhcmVzdCBvbGQgVW5jbGUgV2FsbHkgaGVyZSwgSE9PUk9PICEgIC7CtzoqwqjCqCo6wrcuIOKZpcKpwq7ihKI=?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
05 Jan 2007 09:27:46 PM |
|
|
Gooday John !!! .=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7.=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7.=
=E2=99=A5
Did U have a good New Years' ?!??!
HOOROO .=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7.=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7. =E2=99=
=A5
UNCLE WALLY .=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7.=C2=B7:*=C2=A8=C2=A8*:=C2=B7. =E2=
=99=A5
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD and had no
connection to Al Qaeda. Who are these incredibly well informed, percepti=
ve
and honest people?
Yes, I'll have more French fries, thank-you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010=
500438.html?referrer=3Demailarticle
On Iraq, Chirac suggested the problems there today justified France's str=
ong
opposition to the invasion in 2003.
"As France foresaw and feared, the war in Iraq caused upheavals whose
effects have not yet finished unraveling," he said.
"The venture exacerbated the divisions between (Iraqi) communities and
undermined the very integrity of Iraq," he said. "It weakened the stabili=
ty
of the region, where every country is now worried about its security and
independence. It gave terrorism new terrain for expansion."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
05 Jan 2007 10:37:32 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 07:54:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of course, that's
assuming the above is an accurate translation - we can't be sure because
you don't give a source, just a date.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 11:35:53 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winte=
r of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of course, that's
assuming the above is an accurate translation - we can't be sure because
you don't give a source, just a date.
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though the
link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not make
this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that the
English translation above is fairly accurate:
JACQUES CHIRAC: Il s'agit en effet de r=E9pondre =E0 la menace
potentielle que repr=E9sente l'Irak, avec le risque de prolif=E9ration
des armes de destruction massive. Le r=E9gime de Bagdad a utilis=E9 de
telles armes par le pass=E9. Aujourd'hui un certain nombre d'indices
peuvent laisser penser que, depuis pr=E8s de quatre ans, en l'absence
des inspecteurs internationaux, ce pays a poursuivi des programmes
d'armement.
http://www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/aujourdhui/politique/polsujet7.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 12:57:43 PM |
|
|
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though the
link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not make
this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that the
English translation above is fairly accurate:
JACQUES CHIRAC: Il s'agit en effet de r=E9pondre =E0 la menace
potentielle que repr=E9sente l'Irak, avec le risque de prolif=E9ration
des armes de destruction massive. Le r=E9gime de Bagdad a utilis=E9 de
telles armes par le pass=E9. Aujourd'hui un certain nombre d'indices
peuvent laisser penser que, depuis pr=E8s de quatre ans, en l'absence
des inspecteurs internationaux, ce pays a poursuivi des programmes
d'armement.
http://www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/aujourdhui/politique/polsujet7.htm
Yep. In basic form, Chirac says,
"In effect it's all a matter of the response to the possible threat
which Iraq poses in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Baghdad Government has used arms such as these before. Today, there are
various indications that lead us to believe that for almost the last
four years..in the absence of International arms Inspectors, this
country (Iraq) has been engaged in a programme of armenent" The
unspoken implication is that he meant the rider of 'with such weapons'
to be added..but he didn't actually say that.
Ah...Just seen your translation Woodsy. Yep..That's about right. The
above is the same but with French style altered in order to make easier
reading in English.
Steve...This is an accurate translation of the extract from that
speech.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:21:43 PM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though the
link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not make
this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that the
English translation above is fairly accurate:
JACQUES CHIRAC: Il s'agit en effet de r=E9pondre =E0 la menace
potentielle que repr=E9sente l'Irak, avec le risque de prolif=E9ration
des armes de destruction massive. Le r=E9gime de Bagdad a utilis=E9 de
telles armes par le pass=E9. Aujourd'hui un certain nombre d'indices
peuvent laisser penser que, depuis pr=E8s de quatre ans, en l'absence
des inspecteurs internationaux, ce pays a poursuivi des programmes
d'armement.
http://www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/aujourdhui/politique/polsujet7.htm
Yep. In basic form, Chirac says,
"In effect it's all a matter of the response to the possible threat
which Iraq poses in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Baghdad Government has used arms such as these before. Today, there are
various indications that lead us to believe that for almost the last
four years..in the absence of International arms Inspectors, this
country (Iraq) has been engaged in a programme of armenent" The
unspoken implication is that he meant the rider of 'with such weapons'
to be added..but he didn't actually say that.
Ah...Just seen your translation Woodsy. Yep..That's about right. The
above is the same but with French style altered in order to make easier
reading in English.
Steve...This is an accurate translation of the extract from that
speech.
Thank you. I like your translation better than the one I had previously.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 01:08:57 PM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
Oops. I just noticed it was Steve who asked for the translation..not
you Woodsy.
Either way..That's what Chirac said.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 01:45:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:08:57 -0800, Werewolfy wrote:
Werewolfy wrote:
Oops. I just noticed it was Steve who asked for the translation..not
you Woodsy.
Either way..That's what Chirac said.
Werewolfy
Thank you, Wolfy. Much appreciated.
BTW, are you having bizarre weather where you are? The US is going nuts,
weather-wise. Where I am it's in the 50s F (12 degrees C)! 0-o And the
ground has not frozen at all. VERY bizarre! (Our frost line, or how far
down the ground gets frozen solid, is typically in the 2.5 - 3 ft range
where I am, which we certainly won't make this year!) According to the
news, the cherry blossoms are coming out in Washington, DC - which
typically doesn't happen until April.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 04:00:44 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
BTW, are you having bizarre weather where you are?
Yes..we are Woodsy. For January it's very mild. In fact, all winter has
been mild..only a couple of nights with frost, and that's rare.
I haven't checked on where the Gulf Stream is in latitude this
year..just presumed it to be in a favourable position to give the UK a
mild winter. That doesn't apply to the US though, and if your weather
is unusually mild..that is odd.
Today it was wet and 13 c..tonight will be semi clear and down to 5c.
For January, that's well above normal.
Actually, the mildness of the winter combines with my taxidermy
interest, and prevents my usual impulsive.'I'm off to wander' thoughts.
The cold is normally the driving force..I hate it. Being mild, I
haven't found the urgency to vanish..well, not yet anyway!
You're right..it is an odd winter.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 01:39:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:35:53 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of course, that's
assuming the above is an accurate translation - we can't be sure because
you don't give a source, just a date.
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though the
link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not make
this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that the
English translation above is fairly accurate:
I didn't think you made it up, I just wasn't sure where you got the
translation from or in what context the statements were made. Thanks for
posting the original. It does seem that he was encouraging the use of
inspectors rather than claiming for certainty that Iraq was building WMDs
and must be stopped.
Woods
JACQUES CHIRAC: Il s'agit en effet de répondre à la menace potentielle
que représente l'Irak, avec le risque de prolifération des armes de
destruction massive. Le régime de Bagdad a utilisé de telles armes par
le passé. Aujourd'hui un certain nombre d'indices peuvent laisser
penser que, depuis près de quatre ans, en l'absence des inspecteurs
internationaux, ce pays a poursuivi des programmes d'armement.
http://www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/aujourdhui/politique/polsujet7.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:25:28 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:35:53 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of course, that's
assuming the above is an accurate translation - we can't be sure because
you don't give a source, just a date.
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though the
link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not make
this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that the
English translation above is fairly accurate:
I didn't think you made it up, I just wasn't sure where you got the
translation from or in what context the statements were made. Thanks for
posting the original. It does seem that he was encouraging the use of
inspectors rather than claiming for certainty that Iraq was building WMDs
and must be stopped.
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD
programs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:50:41 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:35:53 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the
Winter of '03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD.
Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number
of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in
the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- From an interview with Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had
he known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the
facts, he would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of
course, that's assuming the above is an accurate translation - we
can't be sure because you don't give a source, just a date.
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though
the link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not
make this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that
the English translation above is fairly accurate:
I didn't think you made it up, I just wasn't sure where you got the
translation from or in what context the statements were made. Thanks
for posting the original. It does seem that he was encouraging the use
of inspectors rather than claiming for certainty that Iraq was building
WMDs and must be stopped.
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD
programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:51:55 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:35:53 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the
Winter of '03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD.
Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number
of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in
the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- From an interview with Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had
he known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the
facts, he would very likely have spoken quite differently. Of
course, that's assuming the above is an accurate translation - we
can't be sure because you don't give a source, just a date.
Okay, I went back and looked it up in the original Francais, though
the link no longer appears to work. However, I assure you I did not
make this up. Maybe Wolfy can translate it for you and show you that
the English translation above is fairly accurate:
I didn't think you made it up, I just wasn't sure where you got the
translation from or in what context the statements were made. Thanks
for posting the original. It does seem that he was encouraging the use
of inspectors rather than claiming for certainty that Iraq was building
WMDs and must be stopped.
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD
programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
Yes, and then Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:02:48 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD
programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
Yes, and then Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors.
So we're good then. Chirac saying there was a lack of evidence
about weapons programs was his way of supporting resumption of
weapons inspections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:13:48 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD
programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
Yes, and then Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors.
So we're good then. Chirac saying there was a lack of evidence
about weapons programs was his way of supporting resumption of
weapons inspections.
Where did Chirac say there was a lack of evidence? In fact, he said
there were indications that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs. How
could you possibly twist that into "lack" of evidence? Sheesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:57:24 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168139628.096878.94970@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing
his WMD
programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
Yes, and then Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors.
So we're good then. Chirac saying there was a lack of evidence
about weapons programs was his way of supporting resumption of
weapons inspections.
Where did Chirac say there was a lack of evidence? In fact, he said
there were indications that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs. How
could you possibly twist that into "lack" of evidence? Sheesh.
Hey, weasel *****, where is the independently verifable evidence that Saddam
had a WMD program? 'Indications' are far from it...let's start wars and
keep 'em going on 'indications', 'suspicions,' 'guesses,' 'possibilities,'
ad nauseam. And that's all you and your ilk have to show the families and
friends of tens of thousands of dead and maimed military personnel and
civilians. What a comfort to them! You and your butt buddies are a
disgrace.
I wish we could put your sorry ***** into the killing fields of Iraq,
junior, and take that smirky veneer of pseudo-academic war-justification
debate off your snotty face, but unfortunately we can't have that
pleasurable experience. But, we do have events politically and militarily
closing in on you and your fellow rightwing fanatical weasels and it will
be like heaven when this war comes to an end, Bush and Cheney are gone,
and drips like you slither off into the cracks to hibernate and nurse your
psychic wounds until the next stupid leader comes along and starts another
gloriously stupid war.
And when you keep naming Democrats who supported failed war intelligence,
I guess you actually think that justifies your rightwing ***** buddies'
support of the same thing. "Gee, look liberals and Dems, you were also
just as wrong as we were on the Right! So there, nah, nah, nah..." Great
mature rational argument to justify all the dead and wounded, Stevie...you
cold-*****, obsessive, stupid *****.
The reason I put a photo with your name on it on my site showing a guy
shooting a .45, fantasizing about capping Ahmadinejad, is a representaton
of the truth as I see it about you. Behind all the pseudo-intellect,
social/political appropriateness, and Jesus strokin', rests the killer,
the torturer, the fascist *****, the lil' tricky monster of human
evil...and all with that creepy smirk on your face. ;)
Stuff it, junior!!! LOL!!!
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:30:38 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
No, he said various indications were that Saddam was continuing
his WMD programs.
Yes, so it appears Chirac was advocating for resumption of
weapons inspections.
Yes, and then Saddam failed to cooperate with the inspectors.
So we're good then. Chirac saying there was a lack of evidence
about weapons programs was his way of supporting resumption of
weapons inspections.
Where did Chirac say there was a lack of evidence? In fact, he said
there were indications that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs. How
could you possibly twist that into "lack" of evidence? Sheesh.
When the quote says 'in the absence of international inspectors'
one naturally assumes there is lack of evidence. You have trouble
thinking ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 11:10:34 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the Winter of
'03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat
Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime
did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors, this country has continued armament
programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently.
The point of Chirac's quote is that HE wasn't sure Saddam did not have
WMD (John Lemke's post seemed to imply that he WAS sure).
Of course, that's assuming the above is an accurate translation - we
can't be sure because you don't give a source, just a date.
If you really care, you could look it up for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:13:36 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the
Winter of '03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD.
Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of
evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the
absence of international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October
16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently.
The point of Chirac's quote is that HE wasn't sure Saddam did not have
WMD (John Lemke's post seemed to imply that he WAS sure).
So Chirac had no evidence that Saddam was NOT reconstituting his
weapons program. You're not going to win any journalist awards with
this information. Bush and company used this 'lack of evidence' as
their excuse to launch an invasion. It was a presumption of guilt
until proven innocent.
Of course, that's assuming the above is an accurate translation - we
can't be sure because you don't give a source, just a date.
If you really care, you could look it up for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:30:11 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the
Winter of '03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD.
Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of
evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the
absence of international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac, October
16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts, he
would very likely have spoken quite differently.
The point of Chirac's quote is that HE wasn't sure Saddam did not have
WMD (John Lemke's post seemed to imply that he WAS sure).
So Chirac had no evidence that Saddam was NOT reconstituting his
weapons program. You're not going to win any journalist awards with
this information. Bush and company used this 'lack of evidence' as
their excuse to launch an invasion.
Actually, if you read Wolfy's even more accurate translation (more
accurate than the one I posted previously), you'll see Chirac said
various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs.
It was a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
As Democratic Senator, and Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Jay Rockefeller said, we could not afford to wait for
further proof -- because to wait for further proof could put Americans
in danger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:48:56 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:37:32 -0800, Steven Douglas wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
The French Ambassador to the UN, speaking in the UN twice in the
Winter of '03, also explained to us that Saddam no longer had WMD
JACQUES CHIRAC: "What is at stake is how to answer the potential
threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD.
Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number
of
evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the
absence of international inspectors, this country has continued
armament programs." -- From an interview with Jacques Chirac,
October
16, 2002
Sounds like he was clamoring for inspectors so that those who were
concerned about WMD production could feel a bit more at ease. Had
he
known that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of the facts,
he
would very likely have spoken quite differently.
The point of Chirac's quote is that HE wasn't sure Saddam did not
have
WMD (John Lemke's post seemed to imply that he WAS sure).
So Chirac had no evidence that Saddam was NOT reconstituting his
weapons program. You're not going to win any journalist awards with
this information. Bush and company used this 'lack of evidence' as
their excuse to launch an invasion.
Actually, if you read Wolfy's even more accurate translation (more
accurate than the one I posted previously),
They both said the same thing... they talked about lack of
information from 1998 - 2002 (and Cheney thought Saddam could
build a nuclear infrastructure in 4 years, ha !). Talk about
a lack of intelligence... Cheney and Bush personify that.
you'll see Chirac said
various indications were that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs.
It was a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.
As Democratic Senator, and Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Jay Rockefeller said, we could not afford to wait for
further proof -- because to wait for further proof could put Americans
in danger.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 01:56:23 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors,
Those international inspectors returned BEFORE the
invasion, as you know. They were no longer "absent."
Seriously, you must be retarded because you chose a
quote that actually DESTROYS your position.
For example: A way your quote could be ACCURATELY
paraphrased would be, considering the presence of
international inspectors, there was NOTHING to lead
ANYONE to believe that Iraq had WMDs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 11:07:45 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Today, a number of evidences may lead
to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of
international inspectors,
Those international inspectors returned BEFORE the
invasion, as you know. They were no longer "absent."
Yes, I know. But then Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:01:16 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yes, I know. But then Saddam refused to
cooperate with the inspectors.
I'll let you in on something. Perhaps it will lend you
insight into people like me, help you to understand
where we're coming from, and why we keep clashing
with you. Who knows? Maybe you can even agree
with us on a lot of things, and incorporate that into
your comments...
Way back in 2002 we witnessed Bush take Iran,
erase the 'n' and replace it with a 'q' in order to
arrive at "Iraq."
Get it? Bush turned "Iran" into "Iraq."
Was Iraq trying to buy uranium from Nigeria?
No. But Iran was.
Was Iraq trying to buy parts for a nuclear centrifuge?
No, but Iran was shopping for such parts. Heck, they
had even gone further. Already, before that time, Iran
had managed to buy the blueprints to a nuclear
centrifuge, as well as an entire working centrifuge.
Did Iraq have Al Qaida ties?
No. There were many Islamic militants in Iraq with
Al Qaida ties, but they were all fighting to overthrow
Saddam, and they were all supported by Iran.
Anyhow, do you have any idea how easy it is to fake
a lack of cooperate with the inspectors?
Damn easy. In fact, it's much, *Much* easier to fake
a lack of cooperation with inspectors than it is to
fake intel (which we all know Bush did), or to erase
an 'n' and replace it with a 'q' and not have every
English speaking person in the world notice.
So "lack of cooperation with inspectors" isn't compelling.
In fact, it's irrelevant. As it is SO much easier to fake
than all the stuff we know for a fact that they faked, there's
no point in even considering it.
It's meaningless.
How do you fake a lack of cooperation?
Like I said, it's easy.
Let's say the United States entered a wolrd-wide
treaty to ban the use, the stockpiling & the research
on nuclear weapons. Let's say as part of this treaty
every country agrees to inspectors. Let's say China
wanted to fake a lack of cooperation from the U.S.
Well, research, design & even a lot of testing for
nuclear weapons can be done entirely on computer.
Also, documentation/communications on such projects
can be entirely electronic. So if China wanted to fake
a lack of cooperation from the United States, they could
do so as easily as.... say.... identifying the NSA building
as the super-duper secret location of U.S. nuclear
weapons development.
So, AT THE VERY LEAST, in order to "cooperate" with
such inspections, the United States would have to
reveal 100% of our signals intelligence efforts, capabilities,
research & collected data.
Because, any document in any draw in any room in any
NSA building "Could" (in theory) be related to the use,
the hiding, the building or the development of a nuclear
weapon. So we'd have to open all that up TO THE WORLD.
And every hard drive & floppy disk could likewise hold
information related to secret U.S. efforts to use, hide,
build or research nuclear weapons. So the inspectors
would also require access to all accounts on all computers.
So the U.S. would be stuck with deciding between revealing
some of our greatest, most important (and strategic)
secrets, or appearing like we weren't cooperating with
inspectors.
If Bush wanted to fake a lack of cooperation on Saddam's
part, all he had to do was identifying the likely locations
for Saddam's most sensitive (or even embarrassing)
secrets.
And, oh, one more thing: The Bush administration itself
did identfy the exact WMDs they claimed Saddam had,
as well as their precise location. Bush did this BEFORE
the war. The Bush administration identified a small,
short-ranged flying drone as one of the WMDs, and short
ranged tactical ballistic missile (which Iraq was allowed
to have under the terms of the cease-fire agreement) as
another such WMD. When that happened -- BEFORE the
war -- the whole WMD question immediately became
irrelevant. We knew, by the Bush administration's own
words, that by "WMDs" they meant "No WMDs."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 08:27:17 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yes, I know. But then Saddam refused to
cooperate with the inspectors.
I'll let you in on something. Perhaps it will lend you
insight into people like me, help you to understand
where we're coming from, and why we keep clashing
with you. Who knows? Maybe you can even agree
with us on a lot of things, and incorporate that into
your comments...
Way back in 2002 we witnessed Bush take Iran,
erase the 'n' and replace it with a 'q' in order to
arrive at "Iraq."
Get it? Bush turned "Iran" into "Iraq."
Was Iraq trying to buy uranium from Nigeria?
No. But Iran was.
Actually, the British government stands by its claim that Saddam tried
to buy uranium from Niger. As for the rest of your lengthy post, I
stopped reading long before it ended -- I'm starting to think you
really are Doc after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: The Visionary Chirac |
06 Jan 2007 09:24:29 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168136837.429015.211470@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
Yes, I know. But then Saddam refused to
cooperate with the inspectors.
I'll let you in on something. Perhaps it will lend you
insight into people like me, help you to understand
where we're coming from, and why we keep clashing
with you. Who knows? Maybe you can even agree
with us on a lot of things, and incorporate that into
your comments...
Way back in 2002 we witnessed Bush take Iran,
erase the 'n' and replace it with a 'q' in order to
arrive at "Iraq."
Get it? Bush turned "Iran" into "Iraq."
Was Iraq trying to buy uranium from Nigeria?
No. But Iran was.
Actually, the British government stands by its claim that Saddam tried
to buy uranium from Niger. As for the rest of your lengthy post, I
stopped reading long before it ended -- I'm starting to think you
really are Doc after all.
Stuff it, Stevie !!! LOL!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
