As many of us are all aware, the anti-war movement in America likes to use the phrase "No Blood for Oil" as an argument against liberating Iraq. This phrase should not apply to the United States, but instead should be used to describe the current policy of the French! The French have included themselves in the Axis of "Why won't they shut the hell up and get over it?" not because they have a principled objection to war, but because they have an unprincipled dedication to oil in Iraq! (So in other wordsl; no blood for Iraqi oil, unless it means Frenchy gets more of it.)

French companies, with the blessing of the French governemnt, have invested over $60 billion in Iraqi oil concenrs. As such, if and when Iraq is liberted, it is quite possible that Iraq’s plentiful oil supplies will be opened to the free market. This would particularly annoy the cretons in Paris, as French companies would most likely loose the oil contarcts they have obtained, many of which were acquired in violation of United Nations sanctions.

If France is so mad about this war, then maybe, just maybe, they could admit why. (Not for peace! For oil!)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm

Maybe the French should ask Halliburton for a refund

I made passing reference to this in an earlier thread. It shows just why the French don't want to support the UN in this action.

Duh!

Many of our folks here believe that we are after the oil. I would say watch what happens when the dust settles. The US will not stay in Iraq any longer than necessary. It will be relinquished to Iraqi people to run the government. Sure doesn't sound like a war for oil if you are going to leave the country to someone else to run.

There is a difference between allowing your financial interests to influence your decision to seek peace and allowing your financial ambitions to influence your decision to make war.

See, by one policy, life is what it is, and we still have a billion problems to figure out. By the other policy, we have at least a thousand more as people shoot at each other.

If the reports are to be believed, this war has done nothing to break the tyranny. Pakistan reports that seven Ba'ath party members were executed for their failure to appropriately defend Iraq. The point is that while the human concerns and weapons concerns continue, the difference is that today we're blowing up Baghdad, whereas we were not about a week ago.

It seems a tiny difference to the French-haters, but that's the point: It seems people would rather hate the French than focus on finding a solution to the Iraqi issues. We can't simply pretend that the issues will disappear magically once Hussein is dead in the street.

So while you're all waiting for Wyatt Earp to show up at the OK Corral, try focusing on more important issues than further demonizing the people who disagree with you for the crime of being human.

Everybody's got their interests; and yet people seem to get upset when I charge that this war is not and has never been about the Iraqi people. Imagine that ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

This is an interesting perspective on why France and Germany haven't wanted to get involved in this war -- check it out. Here's a video clip from a talk given on January 29, 2003 at a university in New York by Stephen Pelletiere -- who was the senior political analyst for the CIA on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and is now a retired professor at the Army War College.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2097.htm

Originally posted by tiassa
There is a difference between allowing your financial interests to influence your decision to seek peace and allowing your financial ambitions to influence your decision to make war.

See, by one policy, life is what it is, and we still have a billion problems to figure out. By the other policy, we have at least a thousand more as people shoot at each other.


Have you EVER considered that making a deal involves TWO SIDES? If the people don't want foreign financial interests in their part of the world then WHY do the other politicians & leaders MAKE the deal? Why aren't you protesting THEM? We came calling and THEY opened the door!!

Maybe you can't vote there ... maybe you need the USA to help LIBERATE you!

The bunny and the snake

Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth. One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit. "Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt you. I've been blind since birth, so I can't see where I'm going. In fact, since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."

"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you'll have that going for you." "Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you have really long ears, your nose twitches, and you have a soft cottony tail. I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."

"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me." So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone, and no balls.

I'd say you must be French".

You really got 'em good, Red Devil. Bravo, way to show our ever-noble American spirit.

*going to eat some freedom fries* :rolleyes:

Have you EVER considered that making a deal involves TWO SIDES? If the people don't want foreign financial interests in their part of the world then WHY do the other politicians & leaders MAKE the deal? Why aren't you protesting THEM? We came calling and THEY opened the door!! Yeah. Ask British Petroleum.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Lykan
You really got 'em good, Red Devil. Bravo, way to show our ever-noble American spirit.

*going to eat some freedom fries* :rolleyes:

er ..... I'm British :D

Originally posted by CounslerCoffee
As many of us are all aware, the anti-war movement in America likes to use the phrase "No Blood for Oil" as an argument against liberating Iraq. This phrase should not apply to the United States, but instead should be used to describe the current policy of the French! The French have included themselves in the Axis of "Why won't they shut the hell up and get over it?" not because they have a principled objection to war, but because they have an unprincipled dedication to oil in Iraq! (So in other wordsl; no blood for Iraqi oil, unless it means Frenchy gets more of it.)

French companies, with the blessing of the French governemnt, have invested over $60 billion in Iraqi oil concenrs. As such, if and when Iraq is liberted, it is quite possible that Iraq’s plentiful oil supplies will be opened to the free market. This would particularly annoy the cretons in Paris, as French companies would most likely loose the oil contarcts they have obtained, many of which were acquired in violation of United Nations sanctions.

If France is so mad about this war, then maybe, just maybe, they could admit why. (Not for peace! For oil!)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0919threats.htm



Of course, the French get most of their power from nuclear energy. So aside from gasoline & some oil for their small chemical industry, they do not have much of a need for ioil. That some French companies have some interests there is another matter.

The French have included themselves in the Axis of "Why won't they shut the hell up and get over it?" not because they have a principled objection to war, but because they have an unprincipled dedication to oil in Iraq! (So in other wordsl; no blood for Iraqi oil, unless it means Frenchy gets more of it.)

Wow, what a gross and crude over simplification of France's motives. They have a mixture of altruistic and self-serving motivations, just like all the major players. Do you not think that the US hasn't thought about access to the world's 2nd largest oil reserves and the possibility of significantly reducing their dependency on OPEC oil? The government of France is also faithfully representing its people, which are overwhelmingly against war.

Hey, if everyone else can be crude an oversimplistic so can the rest of us. How is it any different from people blaming our actions on oil lust?

Tiassa,

The French can be against this war all they want, I just want them to be against it for the right reasons, not the wrong.

Originally posted by Red Devil
er ..... I'm British :D

*pulling my foot out of my ass*

Well, way to show your ever-noble British spirit then. Tally ho, pip pip and all that. Here, have some liberty bacon and freedom fries.

Nobody can agree on one thing - the obvious!

The USA and GB have consistently said that the Iraqi Oilfields will:

a. continue to be owned and run by the Iraqi people.

b. They will use their oil to rebuild their infrastructure.

c. At all times, the Iraqi oilfields will remain under Iraqi control.

The only people who will lose out on all of this will be (haha) the sneaky French.

It is expected that Iraq's oil will recommence flowing within 3 months and that all oil currency will be placed in the Iraqi Treasury for their use.

OK, your turn cynics....................

The 3 BIG LIES About Iraq


by John Pilger
http://www.rense.com/general27/3big.htm

1 – Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq — the threat of its “weapons of mass destruction”.

Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq’s arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.”

As for Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear threat,” the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance.

Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that “the weapons inspectors are allowed back”. Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.

2 – Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11.

There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, [2002] a New York Times investigation concluded:

“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.”

3 – Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, “is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq.” (British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain).

The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.

Helen Dahlink! You might be interested to know that I don't even read your stupid posts anymore as they are full of horse remains and worse. Would you please be so kind as to DO ONE!

Every time you post another of these Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa posts you insert more toes into that spacious gob of yours............

The only people who will lose out on all of this will be (haha) the sneaky French

Not so sure. If indeed the US lives up to its promise and allows Iraqis to control their own oil wealth, the French have a huge edge.

1. They are familiar with seismic charts and geoligical surveys after ten years of haggling.

2. The INOC (Iraqi National Oil Company) is used to dealing with the French. This is a big plus - look at Libya and the Oasis group.

3. The French government is owed billions. They may adjust payment schedules if French frims get some oil deals. A powerful incentive.

If US oil companies come in it could spark widespread anger. I think the French and Russians have a decent shot at some good deals.

Originally posted by Captain Canada
Not so sure. If indeed the US lives up to its promise and allows Iraqis to control their own oil wealth, the French have a huge edge.

1. They are familiar with seismic charts and geoligical surveys after ten years of haggling.

2. The INOC (Iraqi National Oil Company) is used to dealing with the French. This is a big plus - look at Libya and the Oasis group.

3. The French government is owed billions. They may adjust payment schedules if French frims get some oil deals. A powerful incentive.

If US oil companies come in it could spark widespread anger. I think the French and Russians have a decent shot at some good deals.

As all contractual obligations ended with the invasion, I suspect that the Iraqi people will not look too kindly on the French for failing to come to their aid. The new Iraqi regime would owe France - NOTHING!!

Join the universal campaign to boycott the united snakes of shite and terrorism:

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/boycott_america/pledge.php

Nope! Do ONE!

The French can be against this war all they want, I just want them to be against it for the right reasons, not the wrong.

and id like to see the US in this war for the right reasons... can't have it both ways...

I don't protest this war because I have morals. I don't like the fact that a dictator rules over his people, kills them, tortures them, doesn't follow UN resolutions, and basically does whatever he wants. Eventually you have to mean what you say, and say what you mean.

I don't like the fact that a dictator rules over his people, kills them, tortures them, doesn't follow UN resolutions, and basically does whatever he wants

has saddam posed a real credible threat to mainland US?
yes or no

has saddam used WMD in this war yet?
yes or no

has US broken UN resolutions?
yes or no

is saddam the first dictator who is inhumane?
yes or no

the US has gone ahead with this war without UN approval.. is this an example of 'doin what you want'?
yes or no

i hope u get my point...