Thank you for continuously providing me with fuel for the liberal crap I face here at college. 

That graph helps shows something else that's not obvious--it offers insight into Iraq's invasion into Kuwait 12 years ago.

Iran was up to its ears in debt to the USSR when it bought tons of weapons for the Iran-Iraq war. It was in such debt Iraq's oil exports alone wouldn't be able to start paying the bill...but Iraq plus Kuwait's oil production would.

And with that reason--not some made-up thing about Kuwait being the long-lost 19 province--in hand, Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait, and the rest is history.

BRAVO!!!

PLEASE LIBERATE US !!!
PUT OUR CHIRAK IN GUANTANAMO, ANYWAY HE WILL END UP IN JAIL!!!

A "NOT-MANIPULATED" FRENCH

There's a nice website in French and English : www.revue-politique.com

also chirak.blog-city.com

Exceptional!  Can't wait to direct everyone I know to this site!  Keep up the good work.

Very informative chart. I used the same research at an anti-war rally in Chicago. I was trying to persuade a few protesters as to why Russia and France were so adamently against the use of force as well as pointing out to them that France was actively lobbying to have the UN Sanctions lifted from Iraq BEFORE resolution 1441 was passed.

I talked 15 protestors into leaving the march to go home and study some more history.

Nice, clear illustration of the politics behind the rhetoric. Merci!

Hmmm.......very interesting.  Perhaps I should copy this chart to a sign and take it to the next local peace protest.  Too bad we don't see more of this kind of stuff in the mainstream media.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but what are you trying to say with this chart?  Sure, I see France, Russia, and China as being the big contributers to Iraq's weapons cache and I understand the relationship between that and their opposition to our war, but there are some on that list (like Poland) that have made big contributions to Saddam's arsenal and are still helping us.  I also see many countries that have never made a weappons sale to Iraq (Germany, Canada, et al) and they are STILL opposed to our invasion.

What IS your point?

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but what are you trying to say with this chart?  Sure, I see France, Russia, and China as being the big contributers to Iraq's weapons cache and I understand the relationship between that and their opposition to our war, but there are some on that list (like Poland) that have made big contributions to Saddam's arsenal and are still helping us.  I also see many countries that have never made a weappons sale to Iraq (Germany, Canada, et al) and they are STILL opposed to our invasion.

What IS your point?

Exceptional information.  This is the first article I have read but I will continue to get my information here.  Thank you for letting the sun shine through.

Ah, avoiding war at any price.  Hmm, That's what most of europe was doing in the 1930's.  Oh, wait, that didn't turn out too well.  Next time France gets conquered, I say let it stay that way.

But we are not going to war in Iraq b/c of Russian tanks and AK-47s. Rather it is the biological weapons that are the real issue. And look who provided the "key component" for the Iraqi biological weapons program:
"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Link to quote in previous post:Washington Post article

If it was the Americans that provided him with the tools for chemical and biological weapons, then that is one more reason for the Americans to deal with him.  They made a mess; they need to clean it up.

I think your chart is confusing as well. The top graph looks as if you are tyring to state why Russia, France, and China do not support to War in Iraq because they gave the weapons to Saddam in the first place. But then the bottom calls the US and UK "Bloodthirsty Warmongers". So I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

I think you should have a graph of how many people Saddam has killed for expressing their opinions against him. Obviously a right you exercise and value. Do you think you could have a Website like this in Iraq against Saddam and stay alive? I think not. But obviously it is more important that you have your freedom of speech than the Iraqi people. This is the only point I see you making here.

Merci beaucoup. Enfin un francais qui a ecoute a la raison. J'espere que plus de francais trouvent la verite.

I found another set of numbers, on page 22 of this paper, which more or less back up those of SIPRI. They are listed in dollar amounts and cover from 1973 to 1991. Some countries were in different orders; example the US sold $5 million and the UK sold $330 million in arms. Russia (USSR) was still by far the largest purveyor of arms to Saddam Hussein with China, France and Germany all coming in distantly behind, but many hundreds of times ahead of the "warmongering Americans."

http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeXiraq122898.pdf

--Todd
Ulsan, Korea

Well done!  I found some similar numbers in this paper on page 22.  They are listed in dollar amounts.  The US actually sold a lot less than either Germany or Britain according to this person's analysis. 

http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeXiraq122898.pdf

To those who don't understand the charts: it is very simple. One of the arguments constantly recited by anti-American protesters is "Well, America was responsible for arming Saddam. If he is a monster, America is responsible for giving him more military power."

That claim is just factually untrue and this chart helps demonstrate that.

The graph reinforces what many learned, concerned Americans had already figured out.  The nations most insistant about diplomacy and most opposed to decisive action had the most to hide with regards to their dealings with a brutal, aggresor regime (Baath).  Presumbebly these same nations have the most to lose, as any outstanding debts owed to them for warmaking materials are likely to go unpaid.  To we Americans, this kind of behavior and nefarious diplomacy is no surprise coming from Russia and China...but shame on Chirac and the French government !!  This site, seemingly constructed by a Frenchman, reminds us all in the "free" world that we must constantly be watchful over those who purport to represent us and must be ever watchful of their motives...  Vive la liberte du pense!!  (did I embarrass myself and my old french teacher here??) 

During the two-thirds of this time period, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania were part of the Soviet-Communist sphere.  Together, they account for two-thirds of Saddam's weaponry.  I've been quite upset with the French.  I'm not buying you guys products but, thank God, there's somebody like the Dissident Frogman!

This chart only gives part of the picture.

Iraq is the 56th country with which France has commercial ties, and I don't believe that France would risk alienating the world's superpower just to save a few flimsy commercial contracts. The US buys 40% of Iraq's oil and France only 8%.

The reason to France's opposition to the war is elsewhere. It has 6 million people of Arab decent and basks in very strong ties politically and commercially with the Arab world generally. It could not support this war for political reasons not commercial ones. Hope this clears the issue for you.

As for weapons, it is no worse than what the US did when it installed the Ba'ath party in what a CIA agent famously said as being the CIA's best coup.

Your chart only gives part of the picture. Check your history again, and more importantly go study the geopolitical landscape France is under, very different to the US.

"It could not support this war for political reasons not commercial ones."

The only reason those "political reasons" exist is because Chiraq has been doing PR work for Saddam Hussein by falsely portraying this war as an imperial conquest. France supported the Gulf War in '91 because, just as we are now, we were furthering the interests of Arab *people*. Try not to confuse people with states.

If the French regime has political ties to brutal dictatorships, that's just as bad a situation as commercial ties, if not worse.

As a seeker of truth, these numbers don't suprise me. I've heard a lot about France and Russia's ties to Iraq, and I've seen data on oil trade and various other imports/exports to Iraq from these countries that are very simmilar to this chart. As this clearly discredits the arguments made by France and Russia, I don't believe it extends, as many here seem to believe, to all war protesters. I've been adamantly against the war since the concept of re-invading Iraq arrived a very long time ago durring the Clinton administration, but I've never sold weapons to Iraq. I oppose it because I think it's the world's responsibility to eradicade despots, and I wasn't convinced by Bush's rhetoric concerning alleged weapons of mass destruction (not to say they don't exist, but I don't remember being presented with any evidence other than the fact that they had some 10 years ago). It's too bad assholes like the French and Russian government make real liberals look bad.

"If the French regime has political ties to brutal dictatorships, that's just as bad a situation as commercial ties, if not worse."

I don't believe all arab regimes are what you call "brutal dictatorships". Cheap rhetoric? Indeed.