The french did that for two reasons:
First, frence was complicit just like russia in selling precursors and necessary equipment and supplies for saddam to re constitute his program, and was doing so at great profit behind the UN and the US’s backs. France was profiting handsomely for it. its not the first time. France was a co founder of the Isreali nuclear deterrent too, by the way. I dont mind that, but point it out as an example of france being a serious WMD proliferator.
Second, France not only allowed the delay to cover their tracks by allowing the goods to be moved, but it allowed them to sell other things too. Like, perhaps, anti tank missiles, night vision systems, surface to air missiles, and Jamming devices supposedly helpful in disrupting JDAM guidance kis.
A third potential reason is loss of revenue. seeing saddam toppled means they would lose all that under the table money and long term business.
Yeah. gotta love our friends the french. Way to go NATO. The germans arent much better. do a look at what Seimens sells, and to whom. youd be shocked, as i was.
so insofar as the french are concerned, you know why the delay now.
“Second, France not only allowed the delay to cover their tracks by allowing the goods to be moved, but it allowed them to sell other things too. Like, perhaps, anti tank missiles, night vision systems, surface to air missiles, and Jamming devices supposedly helpful in disrupting JDAM guidance kis”
“Perhaps” ? Sorry, but it does sound like innuendo, as if I was saying “perhaps the US intervention was to cover up the deals the US administration had clinched with Saddam. Perhaps, Perhaps”.
The only claim ever made of wrongful deals was about the Roland missiles, and the Poles had to back down from the claim and make public excuses. Given the alacrity of Franco-US relationship at the time, I doubt that, had there been the slightest element of proof, the White House would have refrained from using it. It would have given credence to the claims that France and other nations opposed the invasion for business reasons, and would have reinforced the “Coalition of the Willing” position.
Again, what would have been France’s angle there ? There was next to no deals with Iraq anymore, not after 1991, and if France had wanted to make money in Iraq and invest in “long-term business” then it would have been immensely simpler to join the Coalition. In January 2003, it was clear that Saddam was going down no matter what, so why strike compromising and potentially very damaging deals with a guy who wouldn’t be around to pay for the delivered good three months later ?
As far as theories go, it just doesn’t fly that well.