The France/Syria/China Connection.....

[Wombat]

Wrong how?

[RedRed]

If I was Saddam - I would have given the order to make the wells burn..... Pre empt any potential 'special forces' capture/defense..... I cant understand why he hasnt done it by now....

I would be chargeing up any Chemical or Bio agents I had for a last ditch defense of Bagdhad.... any I couldnt get ready - I would be offering to ANY passing terrorist.... Any Uranium/Plutionium stocks I had would already be 'dirty bombs' waiting for deployment.... - even the UN & US dont believe he has NUKE capability......

He has already promised to globalise any attack on his soil - dont you think he is capable?

RedRed

[RedRed]

Sorry - I didnt expect you to respond so soon....

You said in an earlier thread that you expected the French and Russians to join in the invasion - you were wrong....

RedRed

[RedRed]

Wombat, you said.....

'The inspectors' job would NEVER have been finished. Iraq just kept building better hiding places.'

where is the proof? most of the US & UK alligations re NUCLEAR capability were proved to be fabrications.....

'The inspectors were spied on and delayed constantly (and the last time there were inspectors they were simply kicked out). '
inspectors were kicked out when the then chief weapons inspectors complained that most of his staff were either MI5 or CIA - not before!

' The interviewing of scientists who have been issued death certificates, and are bugged, aren't worth a damn. Iraq made sure the inspectors were worthless.'
And where did you get this from? that wasnt the story from Hans Blix?????

' No, fighting a war in the summer is good for the troops. The high sun and heat drastically reduces the effectiveness of most chemical and bioagents.'
Not the stock answer from the planners I have read.... the risk of having to wear CHEM/BIO suits precludes effective fighting... added to that the fact that the demands of 250,000 troups is GREATER than Kewaits capacity to provide clean drinking water precludes this in summer.....

' Iraq's war machine has been in motion. SCUDs have been deployed over the weekend, etc. You're right, we should wait until they have all their defenses up and start firing on Israel.'
Well 'D'uh!' What have we been doing? I wouldnt be shocked if they launched pre emptive rocket attacks on the alliance muster points..... it would be sensible - if it was do-able.....

' Like the missiles people keep stumbling across, and the test ranges?'
CRAP - the al-sammoud II missiles were in the inventory delivered to the UN.... the range was A LITTLE out - but not much.....

'So they can just keep building up, and funding other efforts indefinitely?'
Iraq is at less than 50% of the strength it was before gulf War i...... Dont kid yourself.... The US spend MORE than 26 TIMES per annum than the ENTIRE 'AXIS OF EVIL'.......

'So far, these countries haven't invaded anyone else recently, nor threatened to, nor pissed on the UN.
'
watch N. Korea...... you can only threaten thes boys off so much..... threaten them and remember there are already 50,000 US troops in south orea...... they have already said that should the US start a buildup near them simmilar to Iraq that they will 'launch pre-emptive strikes' against its agressors..... As N Korea has never belonged to the 'Nuclear Anti-proliferication Pact' - it is technically doing NOTHING WRONG!!!!!

'No, we're using the same reasoning that got us involved in World War I. You're welcome.'
no your GOVERNMENT IS NOT useing ANY reason at all!...

' I doubt it. It's more likely that Santa Claus is a drag queen.'
of course it has.... there are probably several ex-minuteman missiles sitting on a denyable freighter - waiting to plant (J/K).... There would be too much face lost if there was no chem/bios found - so there WILL BE.... of that I have no doubt..... The DOUBT will be whether they are 'planted' or not....

RedRed

[SpiralDragon]

Gurm:

i wasnt offended or dunted... i just realised that you where right.... at least as far as the picture goes..


well at this time it is pointless to say "stop the war" .. we are past the point of no return.... all we can do now is pray for the many lives that will be lost becuse of two grown up men (sadam and buch) who cant stop acting like spoiled brats....


GURM: as far as those vox pops comcerning anti-war sentiments... i would agree with you and also add its the same with the people who are for it...

[Gurm]

Originally posted by ex RedRed
Wombat, you said.....

'The inspectors' job would NEVER have been finished. Iraq just kept building better hiding places.'

where is the proof? most of the US & UK alligations re NUCLEAR capability were proved to be fabrications.....

How much proof do you need? They just moved SCUD launchers into position. SCUDs are forbidden according to resolution 1441. The very fact that he has them and the inspectors didn't find them shows that he had some pretty good hiding spots.

As for nuclear capability... perhaps he doesn't have it yet. But he's been caught several times in the past year trying to smuggle plutonium into the country. C'mon. Wake up! You don't use that stuff to clear out your sinuses!

'The inspectors were spied on and delayed constantly (and the last time there were inspectors they were simply kicked out). '
inspectors were kicked out when the then chief weapons inspectors complained that most of his staff were either MI5 or CIA - not before!

No. Incorrect. If you look at the timeline, the inspectors were kicked out ONE INSPECTION after we took the advance inspection schedule away from the French. Oops! First real surprise inspection and Saddam kicks all the inspectors out. Only AFTERWARDS did the chief inspector say that his team was infiltrated.

' The interviewing of scientists who have been issued death certificates, and are bugged, aren't worth a damn. Iraq made sure the inspectors were worthless.'
And where did you get this from? that wasnt the story from Hans Blix?????

Blix has said, in an interview with Time, that the scientists were full of it. That they were obviously being threatened, and guided by their "handlers". And that he wishes he had made that more clear in his reports. Go read it - it's a good article.

' No, fighting a war in the summer is good for the troops. The high sun and heat drastically reduces the effectiveness of most chemical and bioagents.'
Not the stock answer from the planners I have read.... the risk of having to wear CHEM/BIO suits precludes effective fighting... added to that the fact that the demands of 250,000 troups is GREATER than Kewaits capacity to provide clean drinking water precludes this in summer.....

Yeah, it's safer in terms of biohazards but riskier in terms of heatstroke. If I were the planners I'd want this DONE by the end of May.

' Iraq's war machine has been in motion. SCUDs have been deployed over the weekend, etc. You're right, we should wait until they have all their defenses up and start firing on Israel.'
Well 'D'uh!' What have we been doing? I wouldnt be shocked if they launched pre emptive rocket attacks on the alliance muster points..... it would be sensible - if it was do-able.....

*sigh* But you're missing the point. He claims that he DIDN'T HAVE ANY SCUDS. Whoops!

' Like the missiles people keep stumbling across, and the test ranges?'
CRAP - the al-sammoud II missiles were in the inventory delivered to the UN.... the range was A LITTLE out - but not much.....

Not this many, man. Read up on it. He said they had a couple dozen of the things. We found 4 that weren't accounted for. Then he produced one more. THEN we found a few dozen more. Faced with a rather obvious lie he offered to dismantle some of them - as he began producing more on a different assembly line.

'So they can just keep building up, and funding other efforts indefinitely?'
Iraq is at less than 50% of the strength it was before gulf War i...... Dont kid yourself.... The US spend MORE than 26 TIMES per annum than the ENTIRE 'AXIS OF EVIL'.......

Their buildup has been secret due to the dubiously watchful eyes of the UN. However, their funding of terrorist efforts has been less secret.

'So far, these countries haven't invaded anyone else recently, nor threatened to, nor pissed on the UN.
'
watch N. Korea...... you can only threaten thes boys off so much..... threaten them and remember there are already 50,000 US troops in south orea...... they have already said that should the US start a buildup near them simmilar to Iraq that they will 'launch pre-emptive strikes' against its agressors..... As N Korea has never belonged to the 'Nuclear Anti-proliferication Pact' - it is technically doing NOTHING WRONG!!!!!

North Korea is full of bravado. You would be too if you were the underdog with nothing to lose. Don't worry about North Korea. IF (and this is a VERY BIG if) China doesn't handle the situation, then it will be addressed.

'No, we're using the same reasoning that got us involved in World War I. You're welcome.'
no your GOVERNMENT IS NOT useing ANY reason at all!...

That sort of statement just displays your ignorance of history and the situation. IIRC we've had that argument before. You need to go read a good history book. You really do.

' I doubt it. It's more likely that Santa Claus is a drag queen.'
of course it has.... there are probably several ex-minuteman missiles sitting on a denyable freighter - waiting to plant (J/K).... There would be too much face lost if there was no chem/bios found - so there WILL BE.... of that I have no doubt..... The DOUBT will be whether they are 'planted' or not....

We've already seen them. The SCUDS are illegal. The sheer numbers of Al Samouds are illegal. But the nastier stuff is there. We've seen it on satellite, we just can't present the evidence. Don't worry about it.

- Gurm

[Dr Mordrid]

Yup. The "normal" SCUDS, of which he had 20 at the end of GWI and has been producing more since, have a range of 600km; 450 km more than the max allowed.

This however does not take into account the SCUD varients, many of which have multiple stages and ranges of >1200 km. Some of these are a standard SCUD with an Al Samoud 2 w/modded engine as a 2nd stage.

Dr. Mordrid

[efty]

He claims that he DIDN'T HAVE ANY SCUDS.

The source of that information is the american government. I guess that is a reliable source of information.

[Brian R.]

If you have another more credible source that contradicts that information, disclose it...

[Gurm]

efty,

What are you claiming isn't true?

Are you saying:

1. That he did NOT claim to not have SCUDs?

(In which case I refer you to his weapons disclosure document sent to the UN, which contains no reference to any SCUDs...)

2. That he doesn't HAVE SCUDs?

(In which case, I refer you to Associated Press and Reuters photographs of the SCUDS lined up to strike Israel at this VERY MOMENT!)

- Gurm

[R.Carter]

Originally posted by Wombat
So just because he's been doing wrong for 12 years, we should never put him on the spot?

No. It just kind of makes it obvious that there is apparently no immediate threat for Iraq to any of its neighbours or the region. Since there is no immediate threat it makes it kind of hard to make a strong case for the use of military force at this time.

Originally posted by Wombat
Newsflash: Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions before 1441 was even written.

Last I heard, being in violation of a U.N. SCR isn't a justification for someone to attack you with military force. War is only sanctioned in self defence or if the U.N. Security Council resolution is passed explicitly authorizing force.

As well, there are many countries that are currently in violation of various security council resolutions. So I can't see that as being a strong justification for war.

Originally posted by Wombat
The inspectors' job would NEVER have been finished. Iraq just kept building better hiding places. The inspectors were spied on and delayed constantly (and the last time there were inspectors they were simply kicked out).

As far as I know, there were no delays or interfence from the Iraqis in the current round of inspections.

In fact, Hans Blix has stated that inspectors "did not ascertain any of the scenarios alleged by Powell, in that Iraq officials were moving proscribed materials inside of outside of Iraq aming at concealment".

It should be pointed out the UNMOVIC and IAEA have their own sources for satellite imagery and they also use helicopters for surveillance.

There were issues with interference in the past, but that's old news.

As to allegations of spying in the current inspections I don't recall Hans Blix or others stating this was the case. That the sound recordings produced by Powell of telephone conversation weren't very convincing.

In fact the recordings only seemed to show that Iraq didn't want it's December 7 declaration to be found inadequate, not that they were actively trying to conceal weapons from UNMOVIC.

The 26/11/02 sound quality was very poor and two senior officers say al-Kindi company was said to have been "evacuated".

The 20/1/03 recording in which two officers discuss "forbidden ammo" and that there are orders to "clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas."

This seems to be more about them making sure that weapons inspectors didn't find any materials that were undeclared by accident in the December 7 statement than anything else. The officers are talking about "the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo." Like the chemical rockets that were found on January 16, 2002 by UNMOVIC that occured FOUR DAYS PRIOR to this recording being made. Dunno. It seems to me that they were just trying to make sure that they sure that they had infact disposed of any forgotten stuff and were not trying to hide stuff from UNMOVIC.

Now, according to SCR 687 / 1441 the unilateral destruction of prohibited weapons and their remnants is prohibited. However, if the concern is more with Iraq's retention of weapons than formal observance of SC resolutions, then Iraq's attempts to dispose of any remaining parts of chemical rockets should not be interpreted as being equivalent in security terms to retaining stocks of weapons.

Also, it is my understanding that the original weapons inspectors were kicked out was that the CIA was interferring with the U.N. weapons inspectors. They got caught spying for the United States and so they were forced to leave Iraq.

So it would seem that the Iraqis were not the only ones interferring with U.N. weapons inspectors in the past.

Originally posted by Wombat
The interviewing of scientists who have been issued death certificates, and are bugged, aren't worth a damn. Iraq made sure the inspectors were worthless.

Again, the allegations made by the US of death threats against scientists; creating false death certificates; being placed under house arrest; not a single one of these claims have been backed up by any evidence that I have seen. Nor have the U.N. weapons inspectors lent any credence to them.

Actually, there were several scientists interviewed and recently they were interviewed without handlers present. From what I recall they had nothing really of any interest. Even the ones that the US specifically indicated should be interviewed.

Hans Blix also stated that he had no reason to belive George Bush's allegations that Iraqi intelligence officers were posing as scientists. I imagine it would be rather easy to detect if someone was posing as a scientist who really wasn't.

Originally posted by Wombat
Telling the inspectors would just tell Iraq what we knew. The inspectors are completely bugged, and the last time the inspectors were in Iraq, it was proven that the French were feeding the information to Iraq.

Well, the US don't have to tell them everything. All they need to do is tell them one single piece of evidence that can be proved. Like the site of an underground bunker full of VX nerve gas or where a single SCUD is hidden. It should be possible to do so in a fashion which the potential risk of alerting Iraq is minimized. Or are you saying the Iraqi intelligence apparatus is so good that this is impossible?

Doing this would easily provide the needed proof and evidence to convince the world that military force against Iraq was justifed. It would solve all the problems, right?!?!

Yet the fact that this wasn't done (or it was done but the info proved to be bogus) kind of leads one to believe the US intelligence is rather weak or non existant. They don't have any real hard proof just a lot of suspicions.

You have Powell on Feburary 6, 2003 telling the Security Council that "We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes ... We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."

You're telling me that if Powell had been able to show any real solid evidence of either of these claims that he wouldn't have done so to the Security Council? It would have greatly strengthed the claims of the U.S.

Instead he provided these photos of the al-Taji ammunition storage facility that showed a small shack and a truck adjacent to the bunker. Powell claimed that this was a "signature item" for chemical weapons. Come on! A photo of a truck and a shed by themselves reveals nothing about the contents of a bunker.

Powell claimed that the materials at al-Taji was moved on December 22, 2002. Now, just why the #$^@ didn't the US provide this information to the U.N. Weapons Inspectors?

After all, the inspectores were in the country since November 27, 2002. It's just mind boggling. Why didn't the US allow for an independet inspection to check if its allegations about the contents of al-Taji were genuine or not?

Sadly, I suspect that there is a strong reliance on Iraqi defectors to provide intelligence. Not sure how reliable such sources of information really are given the quality of the what Powell has publically disclosed so far.

Originally posted by Wombat
So they can just keep building up, and funding other efforts indefinitely?

No. In a few months the inspectors would have completed their work and come to some kind of conclusion. It wouldn't be indefinite or drag on for years and years. Despite claims to the contrary the weapons inspectors indicated that it wouldn't take forever to come to any kind of a conclusion.

Originally posted by Wombat
If he'd gotten rid of them, it should be documented in the report. It's not.

Well, last I heard Iraq was actually turning over documents related to their destruction and also taking inspectors to sites where the desctrution of these weapons had taken place. Think there is just some remaining issues with some reagents and anthrax.

So perhaps this wasn't documented yet since the inspectors weren't given time to complete their report and / or review the documents that were given to them.

Dunno.

Fact is so far the US and its allies have failed to provide any solid evidence to justify their war and most of the evidence presented has so far been bogus or ambiguous.

Sadly, I guess that truth is the first casuality in war.

I mean, the State Departments annual report on terrorism, released April 30, 2001 stated that the Iraqi regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack" since 1993. Yet now the US is trying to link Iraq to 9/11. Well, Did Mohamed Atta Meet an Iraqi Spy in Prague?

You tell me!

As to the issue of SCUD missiles and launchers, there are only two SCUD missles that are currently unaccounted for.

Given that the US interecepted those SCUD from N. Korean going to Yemen I can't see how Iraq could easliy smuggle more into Iraq or mange to hide them from satellite, planes or human survelliance at this point. Has US shown recent photos of any SCUD missiles?


Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

[RedRed]

excellent post. Real facts. not speculation about 'conjecture-missiles' with extra rockets on the top!

RedRed

[Joel]

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by The Heritage Foundation

February 28, 2003 | |

France
According to the CIA World Factbook, France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2] In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner.
Roughly 60 French companies do an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad annually under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated a deal to develop the Majnoon field in western Iraq. The Majnoon field purportedly contains up to 30 billion barrels of oil.[4]
Total Fina Elf also negotiated a deal for future oil exploration in Iraq’s Nahr Umar field. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s reserves.[5]
France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[6]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[7]

Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[8]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[9]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[10]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[11]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[12]

Russia
According to the CIA World Factbook, Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[13] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[14]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[15]
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[16]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[17]
In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft company received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion.
A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[18] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[19]
Russia’s Gazprom company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[20]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[21]

China
According to the CIA World Factbook, China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[22]
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[23]
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import–Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell “meteorological satellite” and “surface observation” equipment to Iraq. This contract was approved by the U.N. oil-for-food program.[24]
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[25]
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq’s weapons imports.[26]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[2]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle”, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[3]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.

[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[5]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.

[6]Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, November 11, 2002.

[7]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I...1982-2001.pdf.

[8]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[9]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Verdana,Arial,Helvetica, February 20, 2003.

[10]“Africa Analysis—Trade Points Way to Peace”, The Financial Verdana,Arial,Helvetica: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.

[11]Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.

[12]“Helping Saddam Rearm,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.

[13]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[14]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, “Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests,” February 26, 2003.

[15]Nelli Sharushkina, “Russia Plays the Field in Iraq—Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad,” Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.

[16]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[17]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.

[18]Scott Peterson, “Russia’s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month,” Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.

[19]“Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi–Russian Signing,” Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.

[20]Dmitry Zhdannikov, “Russian’s Grim About Working Under Saddam,” The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.

[21]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I...1982-2001.pdf.

[22]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[23]Trish Saywell, “Oil: The Danger of Deals with Iraq,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 6, 2003.

[24]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[25]Kenneth R. Timmerman, “Rogues Lending Hand to Saddam,” Insight on the News, March 4, 2003.

[26]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I...1982-2001.pdf.

[Wulfman]

French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest.

makes we wonder who is number 1 and 2. I guess it would have been mentioned if it was germany, russia or china...

sidenote: lots of pupils were demonstrating here this morning, main location: the american embassy. I hardly managed to get to my lectures (uni is only some meters from there, the noise was quite annoying). they were chased away by the police/guards after some threw eggs...

mfg
wulfman

[Schorsch]

Originally posted by Wulfman
makes we wonder who is number 1 and 2. I guess it would have been mentioned if it was germany, russia or china...

If you follow the link to the CIA factbook, you'll find the following numbers for Iraq:

Exports - partners:
US 46.2%, Italy 12.2%, France 9.6%, Spain 8.6% (2000)

Imports - partners:
France 22.5%, Australia 22%, China 5.8%, Russia 5.8% (2000)

Which leads to the question:

Who Benefits From NOT Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power?