The reason why France doesn't want to war with iraq

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
uhh i dont think that...

-GTi-VR6_A3

If so, then you have to wonder why the U.S. is still a U.N. member.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by Milliardo


If so, then you have to wonder why the U.S. is still a U.N. member.

nope i dont. the un still has a chance to be a good thing. and technically the us didnt break any un laws they are acting within the realm of 1441. they may not have support from all of the countries or a un coalition bei=hind them but there is no law breaking here...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Cbass]

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3


nope i dont. the un still has a chance to be a good thing. and technically the us didnt break any un laws they are acting within the realm of 1441. they may not have support from all of the countries or a un coalition bei=hind them but there is no law breaking here...

-GTi-VR6_A3

This is a popular misconception in the US. The US is acting outside of the UN, indefiance of the UN, and all nations of the world with the exception of Spain, Britain and Australia.

This is the same thing the US and Britain did after the Gulf War, enforcing "no fly zones" in the name of the UN. The UN never called for, or authorised such zones.

Simply put, the US is an empire. During the Cold war, the capitalist nations allied themselves with the US to protect their own interests, against possible communist subversion and aggression. However, the Cold war is over, and it has been for more than a decade. Slowly but surely, those Cold war alliances are begin to crumble, and so is the American Empire.

The US is not nearly as economically strong as their government would like to have you believe. The US is a country that runs on oil, and as the price of oil rises, profits and business dry up.

The US needs to win this war in Iraq to ensure the survival of the American Empire into the next century.

[1985_BMW318i]

Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991.
The resolution condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq end it immediately

France, England and the US interpretated the resolution to mean that there must be an enforced zone of protection for Iraqi peoples. No that resolution doesn't mandate a no Fly Zone but it has saved countless lives. And while you cannot read it anywhere on the web I can state with all certainty that Iraq fired SAM's at aircraft that had not even entered the "No Fly Zones" But the US has the best trained pilots in the world IMO and its not that difficult to dodge SAM's when everything works as it should

[taranaki]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


France, England and the US interpretated the resolution to mean that there must be an enforced zone of protection for Iraqi peoples. No that resolution doesn't mandate a no Fly Zone but it has saved countless lives. And while you cannot read it anywhere on the web I can state with all certainty that Iraq fired SAM's at aircraft that had not even entered the "No Fly Zones" But the US has the best trained pilots in the world IMO and its not that difficult to dodge SAM's when everything works as it should

That resolution is about Iraq's responsibilities.It saya nothing about who,or how,it is supposed to be enforced.The Pentagon simply decided that it would be in their interests to keep a prescence over the area to challenge Saddam's authority to run his country.The U.S.seems to have a nasty habit of claiming that it is acting on breaches of U.N. resolutions,yet ignoring other breaches by its friends[i.e.Israel],and ignoring the U.N. completely if it doesn't vote the way that the U.S. demands.George Bush's statement to his supposed allies that"you are either with us or against us" is a frightening insight into the closed mind of a totalitarian.The sooner he gets replaced,the safer the world will be.

[1985_BMW318i]

That resolution is about Iraq's responsibilities.It saya nothing about who,or how,it is supposed to be enforced.The Pentagon simply decided that it would be in their interests to keep a prescence over the area to challenge Saddam's authority to run his country.The U.S.seems to have a nasty habit of claiming that it is acting on breaches of U.N. resolutions,yet ignoring other breaches by its friends[i.e.Israel],and ignoring the U.N. completely if it doesn't vote the way that the U.S. demands.George Bush's statement to his supposed allies that"you are either with us or against us" is a frightening insight into the closed mind of a totalitarian.The sooner he gets replaced,the safer the world will be.

Thats where we really differ Naki. I don't see it as a closed mind. The world will be safer when the likes of Saddam are gone. At this point in time we need leaders like President Bush. When future history is written he will be one of the worlds great leaders I'm certain.

[T4 Primera]

Here's some links I found and posted in other threads. However I believe they are more appropriately posted in here for your information/consideration.
World Oil Fact Sheet from the American Petroleum Institue (an industry lobby group apparently)
Iraq: The Struggle for Oil
Oil in Iraq: The Heart of the Crisis
The last link actually assesses the cash value of what is at stake. Something like $3-4 trillion all up!!!

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by taranaki


That resolution is about Iraq's responsibilities.It saya nothing about who,or how,it is supposed to be enforced.The Pentagon simply decided that it would be in their interests to keep a prescence over the area to challenge Saddam's authority to run his country.The U.S.seems to have a nasty habit of claiming that it is acting on breaches of U.N. resolutions,yet ignoring other breaches by its friends[i.e.Israel],and ignoring the U.N. completely if it doesn't vote the way that the U.S. demands.George Bush's statement to his supposed allies that"you are either with us or against us" is a frightening insight into the closed mind of a totalitarian.The sooner he gets replaced,the safer the world will be.

remember france and englad supported the idea as well not just he us. im not sure who i htink is right on this one but id like to be like a DA defending people that arent getting represented.

-GTi-VR6_A3

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by Cbass


This is a popular misconception in the US. The US is acting outside of the UN, indefiance of the UN, and all nations of the world with the exception of Spain, Britain and Australia.

no dude your twisting it. like i said just because other countries dont agree doesnt make it legal or illegal. the law that is written does. and un until they pass a resolution calling for the withdrawl of forces from iraq this is a perfectly legal war. (just being devils advocate here, which in fact im sorry i havnt stated in the whole time arguing in these forums. i may not agree with all of what i say but i am just defending other views. a challenge is alwasy good.)

-GTi-VR6_A3

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by Cbass

Simply put, the US is an empire. During the Cold war, the capitalist nations allied themselves with the US to protect their own interests, against possible communist subversion and aggression. However, the Cold war is over, and it has been for more than a decade. Slowly but surely, those Cold war alliances are begin to crumble, and so is the American Empire.

The US is not nearly as economically strong as their government would like to have you believe. The US is a country that runs on oil, and as the price of oil rises, profits and business dry up.

The US needs to win this war in Iraq to ensure the survival of the American Empire into the next century.

and your complaining??? haha. but seriously i wouldnt say the us runs on oil. well at least not middle eastern oil. we get most of our stuff from reserves then texas then after that south america.

also business has been going ok with the oil prices high. not great i knwo that but its not horrible either.

-GTi-VR6_A3

[T4 Primera]

Some information from the links I posted above:

4 of the 5 biggest petroleum companies in the world are US and UK based with the French one a distant 5th.

Petroleum companies want to "upstream" (meaning be in the business of supplying crude oil) because that is where most of the profit is.

The US and UK companies produce oil at a cost to them of around $15-$16 per barrel.

Oil produced from Iraq will only cost around $1.50 per barrel including research/development and a 15% profit due to it's high quality and easy recovery (because it is close to the surface and pressurised by gas).

It is obvious that whoever gets to develop the Iraqi resources will have an irresistable advantage over their competitors - because they can close to double their profits and/or afford to undercut their competition to the point that they will be losing money by supplying oil. There is the potential to create a virtual monopoly here.

I would urge you all to reads the links I posted above, they provide valuable insight into the high stakes involved in Iraqi oil. Whether or not the governments of the countries involved are motivated by all this is at the crux of the whole issue of the wars in Iraq.

But to sum up for those who won't bother to read the links:

Back when Iraq was supported by the the US and others, Saddam Hussein informed the US that he intended to annex part of Kuwait. The response from the US was non-existent to ambivalent. Saddam interpreted this as an ok and went further by occupying Kuwait entirely.

Sanctions were imposed by the UN to try to get Saddam to leave and finally the Gulf War took place. However, the sanctions were not lifted following the liberation of Kuwait. The US and UK had been shut out of the oil business in Iraq since they nationalised the oil resources prior to all of this occuring.

In years following the Gulf war, France, Russia and China formed agreements with Saddam that they would get to develop the oil resources once the UN sanctions were lifted. The US and UK were still shut out.

During these years, the US and UK opposed lifting of the sanctions while Saddam Hussein remained in power, effectively preventing any development of the oil resources in Iraq by those who had made deals with Saddam. On the other hand, the other members of the UN pushed for lifting of the sanctions, which would have the effect of allowing them to develop the oil resources.

So there we have it. With UN sanctions lifted, France Russia and China get the rights to develop the oil resources. With sanctions in place, the status quo is maintained - nobody gets it. With Saddam's regime deposed and an allied occupying army, it is very likely that the US and UK would get the right to develop the oil resources.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

ahh there is a potential very true i cannot argue that. but it all speculation no matter what side says on what will actually happen if it will ebcome that way or if it will not. IMHO with the mentions of the un taking an active roll in things it still has the option ot mean bith. either the un enforces that fare prices will go thorugh or the UN countries decide hey lets all get some action. and i mean france too.

-GTi-VR6_A3

[T4 Primera]

A link to a piece on who did what regarding sanctions on Iraq.
Sanctions Against Iraq
Please follow the links from this page, at your convenience, to wherever they may lead. I have not read much of the material yet myself, and have not yet even determined the identity of the group that publishes this stuff. However, it does seem that what is written has some basis in fact and evidence and that the information is presented in a less biased manner than many other sources.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

Originally posted by T4 Primera
However, it does seem that what is written has some basis in fact and evidence and that the information is presented in a less biased manner than many other sources.

ahh but good propaganda seems that way as well. we shall see how this sutff reads...

-GTi-VR6_A3

[T4 Primera]

Very true, we shall see how it reads. Although it seems that they publish articles from many sources so it may be that there is material from alternate viewpoints - so don't judge on just one or two pieces.

I found their page which describes who they are - they claim that "GPF is based in New York City and has consultative status at the UN" - here's the link:
Global Policy Forum - Who Are They?

And their homepage: Global Policy Organisation Homepage