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

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

You know how everyone seems to think its only the US who's after Iraq's oil

Well the only person in the UN who has met Sadamn Hussain is Jacque Chirac the French President.
Not only that but what he did was set up a business deal for iraqi oil. Thats the only reason he doesn't want a war because a Regieme change wouldn't help his cause because he already has the oil

i really hate all this crap

[taranaki]

This information has already been presented inthis thread

[Stefanel1]

It's not false, France has interests with Iraqi oil. But, that's not a reason not to do war (and many presidents, UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, etc. met Saddam, and sold him weapons, and all kind of stuffs.).
If France went with the USA and the UK in war with Iraq, they'd have the same advantages and could share the benefits with his English, American (etc.) friends.

[Cbass]

This is true, but to say that France is doing this only for oil is akin to saying the US is doing this because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, it's a farce.

With the economic and political success Europe has been enjoying, the members of the EU, with the exception of Britain, are quite content with the world economy. When the US invades Iraq, it's going to shake things up, and not just a little.

The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil, and now that they're going to be getting most of their oil from Iraq, the world oil market is looking like it's going to collapse. We have a global economy now, and what the US is about to do is going to cause a lot of problems for everyone. This war is a very bad idea for everyone except for a few wealthy businessmen in the US, who stand to make a ridiculous profit from this, and the investors in their companies.

[Darth Cypher]

Basically, it's ok for anyone else to do anything for the oil but not the US. Is that what you are getting at? Sounds like it to me. Some members of the EU are with us you know. So what is thier stake into our alliance?

[Cbass]

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Basically, it's ok for anyone else to do anything for the oil but not the US. Is that what you are getting at? Sounds like it to me. Some members of the EU are with us you know. So what is thier stake into our alliance?

The US has invaded Iraq in DEFIANCE of the UN. If you haven't noticed, the European countries that "support military action" support the notion of working through the UN, not the US.

[Shortbus]

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
You know how everyone seems to think its only the US who's after Iraq's oil

Well the only person in the UN who has met Sadamn Hussain is Jacque Chirac the French President.
Not only that but what he did was set up a business deal for iraqi oil. Thats the only reason he doesn't want a war because a Regieme change wouldn't help his cause because he already has the oil

i really hate all this crap

Actually I don't believe we are after their Oil, sure it is a perk but it is supposed to be controled by the UN after Saddams regime is taken out of power. Then the UN will use the oil money to fund aid and rebuilding for the Iraqies right?

I don't know, thats just what they keep saying.

[Cbass]

Originally posted by John


Actually I don't believe we are after their Oil, sure it is a perk but it is supposed to be controled by the UN after Saddams regime is taken out of power. Then the UN will use the oil money to fund aid and rebuilding for the Iraqies right?

I don't know, thats just what they keep saying.

That's really rich... Iraq is going to have an "interim" government, which is Bushese for puppet government. All of the profits from the sale of oil will be spent on rebuilding Iraq of course.

What they don't tell you is that the profits will be nonexistant, because the oil will be sold to US oil companies at little above cost. That was the whole idea.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by Cbass
This is true, but to say that France is doing this only for oil is akin to saying the US is doing this because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, it's a farce.

With the economic and political success Europe has been enjoying, the members of the EU, with the exception of Britain, are quite content with the world economy. When the US invades Iraq, it's going to shake things up, and not just a little.

The US is the worlds largest consumer of oil, and now that they're going to be getting most of their oil from Iraq, the world oil market is looking like it's going to collapse. We have a global economy now, and what the US is about to do is going to cause a lot of problems for everyone. This war is a very bad idea for everyone except for a few wealthy businessmen in the US, who stand to make a ridiculous profit from this, and the investors in their companies.

Anyone see any pattern in this, and where it all leads to? It might be contentious, it might be really nothing more than a hunch, but did not Nostradamus say that the AntiChrist will rule over Babylon? Even Fundamentalist Christians know about this (ironically, Bush says he is one). Cbass, I like how you analyze things. I am just sad that not too many people will believe what you post, since they'll either flat out reject your notions, or will make believe that it's not possible. Yet, like what I said in another thread, ask yourselves this questions: which nation has the power, the authority, the resources, to dominate the world? Which nation has full control and dominance in all aspects--politically, culturally, religiously, morally? Which nation has a leader which, at his very word, have nations falling at their feet? Any fool cannot point to Bin Laden, nor Saddam, nor Kim Jong-Il, nor any other leader. No other leader, or nation, have all these things, and unless there will be another who would rise to do all these, then there's only one answer, and the way things look, it seems that both the Bible and Nostradamus are right on the mark. Let him who hears, hear.

[dolla_bill0913]

No ones taking over the world, what are you talking about. Can anyone say off topic. Lay off the Cocoa Puffs!

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
No ones taking over the world, what are you talking about. Can anyone say off topic. Lay off the Cocoa Puffs!

Actually, the U.S. is a de facto empire, its dominance is such that it has a virtual strangehold of the world in every aspect that I have pointed out. The only thing left is for Bush to proclaim that to be de jure, or in concrete reality. As it stands now, though, the U.S. does not need to march into each nation, with its presence very much visible in most nations. And as I have noted, Bush has shown that the U.S. can bend the will of the body that's supposed to govern over it. There is no doubt then that the U.S. has taken over the world in such an unprecedented, and subtle, manner.

[1985_BMW318i]

Bush has shown that the U.S. can bend the will of the body that's supposed to govern over it.

And just which body can govern over the US? Certainly not the UN. See that would have to come up for a vote before the US Citizens and I'll promise you we would not allow that.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

milliardo would you leave that nastra DUMBASS stuff in the philosoiphizing area please.

and saying that france is doing what it is doing only for oil is like sayong the us is doing what it is doing only for oil. not for WMD's

-GTi-VR6_A3

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
And just which body can govern over the US? Certainly not the UN. See that would have to come up for a vote before the US Citizens and I'll promise you we would not allow that.

The U.N. has every right to govern the U.S.--not govern as in take over, if that's what you mean, but it does have jurisdiction when it comes to any action done that would affect other nations, such as war, embargo, sanctions, etc. To say that the U.N. would not hold of the U.S. places the U.S. over and above the U.N.--which technically is wrong, but in reality the U.S. has been doing for a long while now. Why would it even come up for a vote when the U.S. has agreed, as one of the U.N. founding members, to uphold and obey the U.N. charter? To now say that it should first come up for a vote is ludicrous, as it would mean the U.S. does not recognize the U.N., in which case being a member there would only be a charade, and it would be better for the U.S. to simply leave that body and go on its own. It is tragic U.S. citizens now think the U.S. can do what it pleases, without the consent nor the approval of the world community.

[GTi-VR6_A3]

uhh i dont think that...

-GTi-VR6_A3