Aha! Now the anti-war stance of some countries makes sense

Evidently, there is a rift between Bush and Putin, because Russia sold high tech military hardware to Iraq. As for France, I think their economic interest is bigger than their moral standings. Their non-war stance with Russia and China, both tyranical governments doesn't bode well for France. Germany is a mixed bag, because they have economic interests, but not that much, and their economy is now in the dumps - and getting worse. France may pay dearly in the future for their supposed political stance, and may become voiceless in the future within the European Union. c.i.

But everyone forgets how WE also helped arm Iraq, as did Britain!

Check out http://www.globalresearch.ca

That never was a secret though. The whole eastern bloc was selling weapons and tanks to iraq, the czech and russian governmetns (possibly slovak too, not sure) continued for years after the cold war as well. why would that become a 'secret' or an issue now? everybody knew.

I am opposed to the war based on #1 --

...... High moral principles against an unjust war.

I assure you that I have never sold any illegal weapons to Iraq or any other state.

Most of the *citizens* of the aforementioned countries are in the same position. These governments are just reflecting their views. We are all more worried about the unjust war and its consequences than the opinions of the American military or the current hawkish adminstration.

Many of us believe that killing thousands of people is a bad thing. Many of us feel that diplomacy is better than war. This is a fine moral position although of course you are free to disagree with us.

I will point out that most religious leaders also hold this position. Do you think the Vatican is hiding weapons sales?

There ... I am going back to my french fries.

Everyone is trying to make the opposite side's motivations seem shady. These attempts are usually bull.

Those countries opposed the war because they did not want a superpower to have a blank cheque. Spin that how you want but it's not about the stupid arms deals.

hear hear.

i would suggest that facing an 80+%-majority of your electorate opposed to the war is enough reason for most politicians to act accordingly. even should they not share the conscientious objections, they still want to be re-elected and all that, and rejection of the war against iraq is almost across-the-board in france, from communists and greens to gaullists and the radical right.

the surprise is not that france kept to its stance, but that people like aznar and berlusconi have been brave (or foolhardy, or arrogant) enough to go against similar majorities in their countries' public opinion.

As long as we are diving the true motivations of world leaders... The leaders who are supporting the war are hardly following "high moral principles".

I suspect that Anzar and Berlusconi are simply kowtowing to American economic and military power. They believe (perhaps correctly) that this will improve their status in the future.

I believe that Blair has some sense of principles. Perhaps he believes that Anglo-American power can solve the worlds problems. I suppose that I would call him "brave". I think his political future will be justifiably short.

It seems to me that Chirac occupies the moral high ground. He is supporting peace and diplomacy. He is championing the will of the people of France. I havn't heard of France selling weapons to Iraq.

The French have been right before.

I I suspect these nations opposed the unilateral actions of the United State because they view the system of collective consultation, debate, and consensus as a means of containing the overwhelming power possessed by us at the moment. I doubt that any of them would have been sorry to see Saddam deposed but they fear a world in which a single supper power keeps its own council and act solely on its own perceived interest. A return to a world of self justified unilateral action is a very insecure and dangerous world which we have not really experienced since the early 19th century when Britain could do just about what it pleased. The Congress of Vienna and the system of interlocking alliances it produce was the fist attempt at this sort of "containment". It failed with the First World War. The League of Nations and the UN were further attempts. The current Neo conservative ideologues that seem to hold sway in both the US and Britain seem to be intent on returning to that earlier world.

welcome, acquiunk, and a good post, too.

acquiunk - welcome, what took you so long to get here?

I suppose he was waiting for the right invitation. Welcome at last, Acquiunk.

Acquiunk, of course, you are right. Your reasoning is the most rational response yet. You obviously have a great knowledge of history that is so important to understanding European and Middle Eastern history and the effect it has on today's events.

BumbleBeeBoogie

It seems to me that with the UN, we have a case of too many chefs spoiling the broth. There was never going to be a workable and reasoned answer as to how the Saddam factor would be solved. France and Germany are perhaps sitting back showing a holier than thou attitude on the outside, whilst they are thinking inside like vultures and hyenas. There are a lot very high rolling vested interests in the Iraqis future scenario...........................
When the heat dies down and the UK and the USA have done their self ordained job, there will be a feeding frenzy and the main course will be Mega Contracts of Dollars, Pounds and Euros.
The battle may be over but the dirty work continues.

Oldandknew, well said.

As Mark Twain once said "Sacred Cows make the best hamburger."

BumbleBeeBoogie

All. I hated to give up the other site, but it is becomeing just to poisonous.

.Roger

It was not the invetation, but thankyou for yours, I'm just stubborn and don't like to give up.

Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam
Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam
By David Harrison - Telegraph UK
(Filed: 13/04/2003)

Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph in Baghdad show that Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.

Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.

The documents detailing the extent of the links between Russia and Saddam were obtained from the heavily bombed headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad yesterday.

The sprawling complex, which for years struck fear into Iraqis, has been the target of looters and ordinary Iraqis searching for information about relatives who disappeared during Saddam's rule.

The documents, in Arabic, are mostly intelligence reports from anonymous agents and from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow. Tony Blair is referred to in a report dated March 5, 2002 and marked: "Subject - SECRET." In the letter, an Iraqi intelligence official explains that a Russian colleague had passed him details of a private conversation between Mr Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, at a meeting in Rome. The two had met for an annual summit on February 15, 2002, in Rome.

The document says that Mr Blair "referred to the negative things decided by the United States over Baghdad". It adds that Mr Blair refused to engage in any military action in Iraq at that time because British forces were still in Afghanistan and that nothing could be done until after the new Kabul government had been set up.

It is not known how the Russians obtained such potentially sensitive information, but the revelation that Moscow passed it on to Baghdad is likely to have a devastating effect on relations between Britain and Russia and come as a personal blow to Mr Blair. The Prime Minister declared a "new era" in relations with President Putin when they met in Moscow in October 2001 in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks.

In spite of warnings by the British intelligence and security services of increasing Russian espionage in the West, Mr Blair fostered closer relations with Mr Putin, visiting his family dacha near Moscow, supporting the Russians in their war in Chechnya, and arranging for the Russian president to have tea with the Queen.

Mr Blair was surprised and dismayed when Mr Putin joined France in threatening to veto the American and British resolution on Iraq in the UN, but continued to differentiate between President Putin and President Jacques Chirac.

The Prime Minister refused to join the French, German and Russian leaders in their summit on Iraq this weekend, but still regarded Mr Putin as an ally in global politics.

The list of assassins is referred to in a paper dated November 27, 2000. In it, an agent signing himself "SAB" says that the Russians have passed him a detailed list of killers. The letter does not describe any assignments that the assassins might be given but it indicates just how much Moscow was prepared to share with Baghdad. Another document, dated March 12, 2002, appears to confirm that Saddam had developed, or was developing nuclear weapons. The Russians warned Baghdad that if it refused to comply with the United Nations then that would give the United States "a cause to destroy any nuclear weapons".

A letter from the Iraqi embassy in Moscow shows that Russia kept Iraq informed about its arms deals with other countries in the Middle East. Correspondence, dated January 27, 2000, informed Baghdad that in 1999 Syria bought rockets from Russia in two separate batches valued at $65 million (£41 million) and $73 million (£46 million). It also says that Egypt bought surface-to-air missiles from Russia and that Kuwait - Saddam's old enemy - wanted to buy Russian arms to the value of $1 billion. The Russians also informed Iraq that China had bought military aircraft from Russia and Israel at the end of 1999.

Moscow also passed on information of Russians who could help Iraqi politicians obtain visas to go to many Western countries.

The name of Osama bin Laden appears in a number of Russian reports. Several give details of his support for the rebels in Chechnya. They say bin Laden had built two training camps in Afghanistan, near the Iranian border, to train mujahideen fighters for Russia's rebel republic. The camps could each hold 300 fighters, who were all funded by bin Laden.

Training materials found at the complex give insight into the Iraqi intelligence gathering methods. One certificate shows that a Rashid Jassim had passed an advance course in lock-picking.

Other papers found at the headquarters include reports on the succession in Saudi Arabia and on US-Yemen relations.

The intimate relationship between Baghdad and Moscow is further illustrated by copies of Christmas cards - in the Christian tradition - sent by Taher Jalil Habosh, the head of the Iraqi intelligence service, to his Kremlin counterpart.

Russia has been a key ally of Baghdad since the 1970s and was one of Saddam's main arms suppliers. The Iraqis are understood to owe Moscow more than £8 billion for arms shipments. Russian oil companies had longed to forge links with Saddam Hussein to help develop Iraq's vast oil reserves.

Any confirmation appearing anywhere else, BBB?