What Iraqis think of the French government

Hmm - looks like a number of those freedoms do not exist at present:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3990141.stm since Iraq has declared a state of emergency -

Prime Minister has power* to:
Impose a curfew for a short, defined period in areas facing serious security threats
Restrict the freedom of movement, assembly and use of weapons by Iraqis or foreigners suspected of crimes
Cordon off and search an area if its inhabitants are suspected of possessing weapons
Freeze the assets of those accused of insurgency
*Under the National Safety Law passed in July

AND? They are fighting for their freedom and they will do whatever it takes. They are in the middle of a war, what do you think they would do. They are rooting out the scum, the post shows What Iraqis think of France, what does the state of emergency have to do with that? We can also declare a state of emergency if we had to.. It doesn't take away their feelings for the French govt, who would rather keep them under Saddams rule for the interests of their own. They recognize that the French govt will do nothing to help in their liberation.. When they finally have free elections and have a more stable country, they will remember who helped them get to that point and who didn't.. The French can kiss any oil contracts they may have had in the future good-bye. They've cut off their noses to spite their face..

It would have been in their interest not to back Saddam in the lead up to the war. We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now, if it wasn't for the backstabbing countries who had dealings with Saddam and did everything they could then and now to hinder the liberation.

Hohum Xena.

Go on posting your rants against the French or whomever you decide to fixate on.


But please - DO try to explain how on earth you arrive at this conclusion?

"It would have been in their interest not to back Saddam in the lead up to the war. We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now, if it wasn't for the backstabbing countries who had dealings with Saddam and did everything they could then and now to hinder the liberation."

I take it that backing Saddam when the US did was not a problem, just as a for instance? Some might argue that it was THAT backing which really helped to establish him in power - but, it certainly pays not to include facts in a rant...

Oh - and "back-stabbing"? Please justify that one - I would think that coming out - as is its right - and commenting on a proposed invasion of a country (kinda like America did about Kuwait, hmmm?) absolutely publicly - and voting publicly in the UN as it did is hardly back-stabbing!

Or does that have a different meaning where you live?

I'm confused as to why Jaques Chirac has signed a letter which condemns his own country? If there's a logical reason for this then I'll be pleased to hear it.

I don't think he signed it - he just got a copy.

Thanks, D. I've just spotted the CC. My mistake.

I would suggest you read the post again. I didn't come to that conclusion, I am not ranting, it's the Iraqis who wrote the letter.. As for us backing Saddam in the past, it has nothing to do with what we are doing today. In case you didn't know it was US policy signed into law by the Clinton Admin with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that called for "regime change" in Iraq. All the reasons are listed as to why, including the gassing of the Kurds. I'd say 17 resolutions, 12 years of defiance and our US policy, gives us the authority to remove Saddam. Fighting terrorists in the Middle East while and trying to enforce the ceasefire (which he never abided by)was not an option.

Your condescending remarks show your disdain for what our country is doing. Fine, you have your opinion, so do the Iraqis.

As for France being a backstabber, that's just what they were. They weren't taking any "moral" stand, they only cared about the oil for food program.. They were acting in their own interest, because taking out Saddam would throw a wrench in their underhanded dealings with him. Don't you think the Iraqis know what France did? Should they feel good about the fact that they cared more making money from the oil, while the people got nothing but a brutal dictator who tortured and killed his people? With WMD's I might add. Let's talk about facts... less about what your perception is of the situation.

And what do you think of your own country's past position in relation to Hussein, before you take such joy in criticising another's?

You see, this is what gets me about the position of people like you - that you take such delight in criticising the splinter in another's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own. The US's position in relation to Saddam has been execrable for most of his reign. Then - it changes - and Bush decides to go to war - allegedly because of WMD - when there prove to be none, this excuse of liberating the Iraqis comes up. The Iraqis were of no concern when Saddam was being supported by your country.

From this base, you go about criticising others - fine, criticise the French, as may the Iraqis - them, I may listen to. But please do not go about acting as though you speak from a country which has a a high moral ground in this - nor speaking of nonsense like stabs in the back.

You begin to remind me of the myth of the same in Germany after WW I.

Bush was only enforcing a policy already signed into US law.. Sorry, if you cannot understand that.. Saddam never abided by the ceasefire, and did not cooperate with the inspectors. I would have expected any US President to do the exact same thing. If they didn't it would have been irresponsible of them.. Again, sorry you don't agree.. The French are still theives, and scumbags.... They supported Saddam right up until the invasion.. The love affair was over, I understand how upset they would be..





Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) --H.R.4655-- H.R.4655
One Hundred Fifth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
An Act To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

( On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
++++

Xena,
I am quite impressed with the document you posted.
I try to follow what goes on in the Middle East and I was completely unaware of this Act by Congress.
Thank you very much. It is a useful and understandable piece of legislation.
I very much wonder why it wasn't used during the Presidential campaign.
Thanks!

And this, Xena, when all the dreck is stripped away, is your substance:

" The French are still theives, and scumbags.... "

It is this nonsense that I call you on - you rationalize this, and coat it with this and that - but I believe this prejudice is what motivates you.

While the French are no more perfect than Australians and Americans, or any nation, I congratulate you that you have finally been - at least - honest about your motive for posting this stuff.

And I think you ought to be ashamed of that motive and fight it - as others of us fight our prejudices.

But nemmind - at least you have finally been honest.

What the French are supposed to have to do with some act of the American Congress escapes me, BTW.

Ever wonder how many Iraqis would sign a petition againt the US? For starters you could think about the relatives of the thousands (some reliable sources say 100 000) of civilians who have died due to the US "liberation" of their country.

And another thing, these so-called Iraqi bribes that France is supposed to have gobbled up are based on totally unverified accusations by two Iraqis working with the US security services, wonder whose side they are on (bribes to US citizens were left out of the report "for privacy reasons", yeah right!). Iraqis working with the US also said that there were WMD aplenty in Iraq. They will say anything, if they think it is in their interest. And the US will believe them, if they think it is in their interest.