Is it about US Oil, or French Oil?

A lot of people are under the misconception that the US wants to bust Saddam for the sole purpose or the primary purpose of Oil.

How wrong this is, the US would not make money from Iraqi oil, but lose money only. They would lose money in rebuilding the Iraqi oil feilds, and they would lose money in buying Iraqi oil.

So who is really in it for the oil?

France of course. With hundreds of Oil contracts with Saddam, totalling up to over 25% control of Iraqi oil, all of which would be lost if Saddam the Evil Dictator were to be over thrown. The French deals becoming void and all that would be France's, given to Iraq itself. Which would never negotiate with the country that helped fund the Insane One.

So just how much of a loss is France looking at?

About 60 billion dollars.

Pitty, America tries to do something good once more, and snivelling Frenchmen who talk through their noses and eat snails, have to dare to make us look like "Evil Imperialists" when they are the ones who won't get rid of Saddam because they want the 60billion dollars Saddam has promissed them.

breaking.tcm.ie...

www.themilitant.com...

This could easily be about US oil interests. Instability in the region is not good because it could affect oil supplies, therefore they may think that a democratic pro-US government in Iraq will ensure uninterrupted supplies. Not only that, but it would decrease reliance on Saudi oil. They're very real pluses for this campaign. The cost of oil is not the problem, it's the reliability of the supply.

And don't you think that if it was just about French oil they'd be far *more* willing to go to war? If the French were involved they'd be guaranteed to keep their share of the oil contracts, if the US go it alone then you can guarantee that the US will not allow those contracts to be honoured.

So both your arguments are flawed...

I don't recall much instability in the region until now. Hussein thumbed his nose at the U.N., the U.N. hauled off and did nothing, and all was as usual. France is about to lose Iraqi oil, as Hammerite said, and they aren't happy about that. As a matter of fact, they're going to lose all their under the table business with Hussein.

Hey, Hammerite, you got a problem with snail? Better try it before you knock it! They're pretty good.

You don't recall much instability... Israel and the occupied territories are perfectly stable I guess then, and the Iran-Iraq war was a bastian of stability, as was the Gulf War, that was great for stability. And the rise of hardline Islamists... yeah, 9/11 was great for stability.

And as for your French argument, I just refuted the very point you made in my earlier post. If the French want to keep their oil contracts the best way to do that would be to help the US, since a US attack is inevitable anyway...

if its really for oil (its not.) then why didnt we take and hold the oil fields first time around, when less was at stake?we had full coalition support then, it would have been cake.we pushed iraqis back into iraq ,helped cap the burning fields and left as promised...all justified in my mind.lets really start evaluating solid facts surrounding past events and current situations before we make statements and shout slogans.rep or dem.

funky - Oil definitely pays a part in this conflict. If Iraq was in the middle of Africa and had no oil reserves do you think we'd still be going to war? I'm certain we wouldn't be.

However, that's not to say that I think the US/UK are just going to go in and take over the oilfields. I think what they're trying to do is to ensure a more reliable supply of oil, and to ensure that their money is going to friendly governments when they buy the oil. Generally they're trying to make the Middle East pro-Western. This is the geo-political argument more than the oil argument.

It's silly to say that oil is not involved in the reasoning for this attack, but it's equally silly to say that this is all about oil.

If this African Iraq had a history of harboring WMD, of ignoring UN directives, of threatening to blow neighboring countries to smithereens, of known and proven links to terrorists, of wholesale homicide, and was ruled by a man who believes a dozen palaces are more important than decent medical care, you bet yer bottom we would.

I'd like to remove your point which are unverifyable...

He may have had WMD's in the past, but inspectors haven't shown that he has any in the present.

He has indeed messed about when it comes to the UN.

He's had wars with neighbouring countries.

No proof of current links to direct funding of terrorist activities.

Wholesale homicide... what's that refering to?

He certainly likes his palaces.

So we're left with a ruler who's played with the UN, had wars with neighbouring countries, and has a leader who likes his palaces...

Well, I think we could certainly find some countries like that around the world which we're not interested in fighting at the moment...

I recall a certain North African nation that experienced a few strategic attacks from U.S. forces some years ago. Again, in relation to terrorist support by the government of said country.

It seems as though your argument has little merrit.

Perhaps you may wish to attempt another angle.

WS

is it about U.S oil or French oil?

Its about both. Its not the only reason for the war but it is a major one. Its about controlling the vast oil and gas reserves in the caspian sea and building the connecting pipeline. Part of the pipeline had to go through afganistan, which was impossible with the taliban in power. Draw your own conclusions from that. Putting the pipeline through Russia is Impossible as Russia along with France and Germany are the ones who will lose out when the pipeline is completed. America wants to get it's oil from central asia to counteract the infulence of saudia arabia etc. France Germany and Russia want to stop them. Thats it in very small nutshell, because i cant be bothered to explain it all as its really depressing. If you look up stuff about the caspian sea and pipeline though, you'll see what im getting at.

Winston - I don't think there's a continent on Earth which contains 0 countries that the US has attacked in recent years.

The difference is whether or not the US replace the government against a huge amount of opposition around the world. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that country was attacked by 250K troops + US Navy + USAF + 50K UK troops + UK Navy + RAF?

Australia

Also Antartica

1) You wrong. It's not 25% but 29%.

2) The Worm and his old good friend Saddam has signed a new secret agreement. If The Worm can stop the war, The Worm will have more than 29%. Probably 50%.

I think this war and all wars are about the interest. France interest of being exposed, russia interest of being exposed....USA interest also in oil. Everyone has a stance against Iraq, and it isnt because of what people say! Its becsause of dirty political govt. We all no govts are dirty, than why do we go on letting them to do so? USA will go to war, and they will win in killing many poeple again...they got afgh, now they will have iraq...than oters are next...until there is one govt ruling...we have herd this before, and we know this will be the end..it will be our demise.

A believer in chaos, and no form of govt, of humans ruling and governing themselves i say we overthrow all govts because we the people can.

Orion

but it is all about the oil & the money (POWER) it provides.

Right now in Afghanistan the US Army is protecting the oil companies as they build the pipeline through the middle of that country, and as they explore the central flatlands for oil reserves that have been thought to be there but it was never safe enough to do exploration until now.

You can all speculate on this or that but quite frankly all governments come down to one force that propels them all, money!! Money provided by oil (& natural gas) equates to power!!!

France, Germany & Russia are whining because they've made they're dirty backroom deals with SodamnInsame for many years now, the wackyIraqi provides oil to these countries and they in turn provide his military with WMD's and other such party favors. Bombs, rockets, missiles, tanks and plutonium. And don't forget those wonderful bunkers built by the Germans for the wackyIraqi. It seems the Germans have a deep seeded love for concrete structures like the one der fuher met his end in. Maybe Sodamn should look to history to realize thier lack of affectiveness.

Until the powers of the world are no longer run by the oil magnates (are you listening SHRUB?) an alternative to fossil fuels will never recieve any real opportunity in the world, although many ideas have been generated and proven to work the oil powers squash them and make sure no real funding is ever provided to prove their validity.

[Edited on 15-3-2003 by USMC Harrier]

Me thinks perhaps in respect to this War France's leadership is playing the role of Whore and the problem is, it is to a leader who tried to rebuild Babylon.

UP keep in mind did not mention the French people just who is currently deciding what happens next in respect to that countries policy.

Then why are we not overthrowing the corrupt dictator of this African nation - Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Although I am not aware of Mugabe possesing any WMDs, or having terrorist links, one has to wander why he has been left alone by the West, when his human rights abuses are on a similar level to those of Saddam.

You know, if there is someone on this world interested in creating chaos between all the leading powers in the world, he is certainly succeeding at the moment. US went to war with Afganisthan and Iraq, now they hate France (and french canadians since they speak the same language), Germany and Russia and are threatening of attacking other countries... The new world war will be soon at our door if things continues to escalate like this. We need to start talking about peace like Kerry wants to do or else, we will live in a very dark time...