Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 02:27am

Shaidar Haran wrote:
neoolong wrote:Maybe I phrased it wrong then. I meant that they were more on their own side which meant siding with Saddam.
Well, the fact is at least that they were nominally on Saddam Hussien's side. That would of course make them not on our side.

And the fact is that they're on an different side on a lot of issues.

Having different views on certain issues doesn't necessarily make you enemies though.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-30 02:35am

neoolong wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:
neoolong wrote:Maybe I phrased it wrong then. I meant that they were more on their own side which meant siding with Saddam.
Well, the fact is at least that they were nominally on Saddam Hussien's side. That would of course make them not on our side.

And the fact is that they're on an different side on a lot of issues.
Having different views on certain issues doesn't necessarily make you enemies though.

Taking payoffs to violate a UN sanction that you yourself endorsed is pretty retarded, though.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 03:02am

Yes, but saying that you might have different views on say, genetically modified foods, doesn't necessarily make you enemies. That's my point.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-01-30 03:21am

Master of Ossus wrote: Perhaps in the headline?

Let me rephrase it.
Are there actually facts in the article which show that Chirac was bribed ?
Because I don´t see them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-30 03:26am

Thinkmarble wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: Perhaps in the headline?
Let me rephrase it.
Are there actually facts in the article which show that Chirac was bribed ?
Because I don´t see them.

Frankly, in an article like this, the fact that the article itself doesn't explicitly mention Chirac taking bribes outside of the headline itself is irrelevant. The article is brief, and alludes to high-ranking French officials taking bribes. Since the title specifically names Chirac, it's obvious that he's one of those officials. There are also other officials in several other governments with similar titles, but these are not named, either. I'm not sure what the point of your statement was.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-01-30 07:51am

A new update and more confirmation......

Jan. 29 — ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result.

and

All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003. They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods.

The document was discovered several weeks ago in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

and

List Includes Prominent Names

Among those named: Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri, an outspoken opponent of U.S.-Iraq policy, who received a contract for 10 million barrels of oil — about a $5 million profit.

The son of the Syrian defense minister received 6 million barrels, according to the document, worth about $3 million.

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, was also on the list to receive 19 million barrels of oil, a $90.5 million profit. A

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Inve ... .html[url]

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-30 08:22am

theski wrote:
List Includes Prominent Names

Among those named: Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri, an outspoken opponent of U.S.-Iraq policy, who received a contract for 10 million barrels of oil — about a $5 million profit.

The son of the Syrian defense minister received 6 million barrels, according to the document, worth about $3 million.

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, was also on the list to receive 19 million barrels of oil, a $90.5 million profit. A

you mean to tell me Saddam bought a British MP for $90 million ? Holy Fuck!

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-30 08:46am

This George Galloway thing again? It was a forgery back then, it's probably a new, improved forgery (with more names) now, brought to you by your friends at the INC.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-01-30 08:49am

Col. Crackpot wrote:

you mean to tell me Saddam bought a British MP for $90 million ? Holy Fuck!

This is George Galloway we are talking about, he has publicly been in Saddam’s pocket for some time, he was finally kicked out of the Labour party when he urged British Soldiers to mutiny and campaigned for Iraqis to rise up and attack the coalition.

That being said the Christian Science Monitor has already made this allegation against Galloway but they retracted it when they discovered the evidence was a forgery, which makes me somewhat suspicious of these new documents.

The telegraph also made the accusation but I don't think they retracted it, last I heard Galloway was taking them to court for libel.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-01-30 09:02am

If these documents do hold true, boy oh boy, did the world become more interesting.

If they don't hold true, the forgers should be executed as enemies of world peace.

Hey, and if the US did invade France, the French are fucked. Like the American's would bail them out this time

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-30 01:39pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:you mean to tell me Saddam bought a British MP for $90 million ? Holy Fuck!

I think the article misplaced a decimal. A barrel of oil can be sold for about a $.50 profit. Gallaway, according to the article, was getting 19 million barrels. I think the article meant to state he was going to profit to the tune of about NINE million; not NINETY million.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-30 03:32pm

neoolong wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:
neoolong wrote:Maybe I phrased it wrong then. I meant that they were more on their own side which meant siding with Saddam.
Well, the fact is at least that they were nominally on Saddam Hussien's side. That would of course make them not on our side.

And the fact is that they're on an different side on a lot of issues.
Having different views on certain issues doesn't necessarily make you enemies though.

For fuck's sake stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.You might have signed onto the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rehtoric but I haven't.

I did not say the US and France were enemies, what I said was that we were no longer allies and that we had largely become rivals. Right now there's no reason to believe that there's anything more than the simple divergence of US and French policies and objectives.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 05:22pm

Shaidar Haran wrote:
neoolong wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote: Well, the fact is at least that they were nominally on Saddam Hussien's side. That would of course make them not on our side.

And the fact is that they're on an different side on a lot of issues.
Having different views on certain issues doesn't necessarily make you enemies though.
For fuck's sake stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.You might have signed onto the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rehtoric but I haven't.

I did not say the US and France were enemies, what I said was that we were no longer allies and that we had largely become rivals. Right now there's no reason to believe that there's anything more than the simple divergence of US and French policies and objectives.

Fine, it doesn't make you not allies either though.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-30 05:58pm

Full list:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Inve ... 129-1.html

Remember that list in the oil ministry: It's breaking now :evil

Saddam’s Gifts
Document: Saddam Supporters Received Lucrative Oil Contracts

By Brian Ross

Jan. 29 — ABCNEWS has obtained an extraordinary list that contains the names of prominent people around the world who supported Saddam Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result.

All of the contracts were awarded from late 1997 until the U.S.-led war in March 2003.
They were conducted under the aegis of the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was designed to allow Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian goods.

The document was discovered several weeks ago in the files of the Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

According to a copy obtained by ABCNEWS, some 270 prominent individuals, political parties or corporations in 47 countries were on a list of those given Iraq oil contracts instantly worth millions of dollars.

Today, the U.S.Treasury Department said that any American citizens found to be illegally involved could face prosecution.

"You are looking at a political slush fund that was buying political support for the regime of Saddam Hussein for the last six or seven years," said financial investigator John Fawcett.

Investigators say none of the people involved would have actually taken possession of oil, but rather just the right to buy the oil at a discounted price, which could be resold to a legitimate broker or oil company, at an average profit of about 50 cents a barrel.

List Includes Prominent Names

Among those named: Indonesia President Megawati Sukarnoputri, an outspoken opponent of U.S.-Iraq policy, who received a contract for 10 million barrels of oil — about a $5 million profit.

The son of the Syrian defense minister received 6 million barrels, according to the document, worth about $3 million.

George Galloway, a British member of Parliament, was also on the list to receive 19 million barrels of oil, a $9.5 million profit. A vocal critic of the Iraq war, Galloway denied any involvement to ABCNEWS earlier this year.

"I've never seen a bottle of oil, owned one or bought one," Galloway said in a previous interview with ABCNEWS.

According to the document, France was the second- largest beneficiary, with tens of millions of barrels awarded to Patrick Maugein, a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac.

Maugein, individually and through companies connected to him, received contracts for some 36 million barrels. Chirac's office said it was unaware of Maugein's deals, which Maugein told ABCNEWS are perfectly legal.

The single biggest set of contracts were given to the Russian government and Russian political figures, more than 1.3 billion barrels in all — including 92 million barrels to individual officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin.

Another 1 million barrels were contracted to the Russian ambassador to Baghdad, 137 million barrels of oil were given to the Russian Communist Party, and 5 million barrels were contracted to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Also on the list are the names of prominent journalists, two Iraqi-Americans, and a French priest who organized a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister.

The following are the names of some of those who, according to the document, received Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (2 separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million

France

Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million

Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia
The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States
Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa
Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan
Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon
The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar
Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad
Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil
The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)
The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine
The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-30 07:00pm

Could a mod split off the Oil Contract Discussion and the French Military Defeats discussion?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-30 07:23pm

Except, of course, imperial Habsburg Austria was once one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-30 07:25pm

Nathan F wrote:Could a mod split off the Oil Contract Discussion and the French Military Defeats discussion?

Done

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-01-30 08:06pm

Funny, no Germans in there

But then again, we've basically built all his bunkers, so I guess we've had our due profit out of Iraq.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-30 08:30pm

neoolong wrote:
Shaidar Haran wrote:For fuck's sake stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.You might have signed onto the "if you're not with us, you're against us" rehtoric but I haven't.

I did not say the US and France were enemies, what I said was that we were no longer allies and that we had largely become rivals. Right now there's no reason to believe that there's anything more than the simple divergence of US and French policies and objectives.
Fine, it doesn't make you not allies either though.

Actually, yes, it does. If two nations don't share the same goals, the same interests, or the same policies then why exactly call them allies? Why exactly would you call the US and France allies?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 09:33pm

So the USSR and America weren't in any way allies during WWII? They only had about one thing in common.

Just because you have differences of opinion, including major ones, doesn't mean that you still can't be allies.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-31 01:44am

neoolong wrote:So the USSR and America weren't in any way allies during WWII? They only had about one thing in common.

Just because you have differences of opinion, including major ones, doesn't mean that you still can't be allies.

No, it doesn't if there's sufficient cause to over ride those differences such as your analogy. The thing is, with out the Cold War, there isn't anything like that not that the French were particularly good allies even then. But whatever things were, this is more than a decade later and things have definitely changed.

Just what's holding the countries together save nostalgia?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-31 03:49pm

Yes, but up until now, if this is confirmed and all that, there wasn't really that much cause to go around saying that the US and France weren't at least nominally allies, just look at the economic interests going back and forth.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-01-31 07:47pm

neoolong wrote:Yes, but up until now, if this is confirmed and all that, there wasn't really that much cause to go around saying that the US and France weren't at least nominally allies, just look at the economic interests going back and forth.

Allied means military support, usually. I seriously doubt that we would have done a whole lot had France been invaded by someone again during the time that they were so vehemntly opposed to Iraq.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-31 07:54pm

I think you're quite wrong. I have trouble thinking of a first world nation we would not defend.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-01-31 08:44pm

neoolong wrote:Yes, but up until now, if this is confirmed and all that, there wasn't really that much cause to go around saying that the US and France weren't at least nominally allies, just look at the economic interests going back and forth.

And look at the economic conflict not to mention the nasty fights over EU rules and such. A little bit of mutual interest does not an ally make.