For France and Russia that is. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-095811-8865r Looks like they may both have some real incentive for keeping Saddam in power.
Was there ANY doubt by ANYbody that the French and Russian opposition to military intervention was at the VERY least a partial function of their...ahem...unique economic interest in an Iraq run by the current regime?? Not that that's necessarily a driving factor in their "let inspections work" position...but it HAS to figure in.
Of course it is in the financial interests of France and Russia to oppose the war. But it isn't a matter of a few billion dollars. This is about the very economic future of these nations. If Iraq were to come into the American sphere of influence and stay there, we have basically doomed Europe. Of course they are going to fight back. And the UN is not their only weapon.
Does ANYBODY believe that attacking Iraq and bringing it under american control does NOT have anything to do with OIL! Duh! domingo
Right???? Contracts to Russia for below market prices so they can resell at a tidy profit? Contracts to France for exclusive exploration rights -- also a below market prices -- once sanctions are lifted? Contracts that probably have force majeureclauses? Glad you're not MY lawyer!!!
Of course. But how can you say this - or even read the article - without realizing that those oil contracts will be awarded to US companies. The article flat-out said it! If it's a motivation for France and Russia, it has to be a motivation for us, or we'd tell the Iraqis jockeying for position to keep the existing contracts, or award new ones to France and Russia, and they'd both then be on board. The fact that the hawks around here can willfully overlook the pink elephant in the room is absolutely amazing.
What? The United States government doesn't have a monopoly on lust, greed, evil and hypocrisy?!? Call your loved ones! Talk Universal off the ledge! Shout it from the rooftops!
Wrong. Kurd PM: French, Russians to lose Iraq oil WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored," Barhim Salih, a leading Iraqi Kurdish official, said in Washington Friday, just before a series of high-level meetings with Bush administration officials. "A new Iraqi government should not honor any of these contracts, signed against the interests of the Iraqi people. The new Iraqi government should respect those who stood by us, and not those who stood beside the dictator," added Salih, who is prime minister in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government that controls Iraq's eastern Kurdish area. Russian and French oil corporations have each signed draft contracts with Iraq, to come into force only when the United Nations sanctions are lifted, for exploration, development and exploitation of the country's energy resources -- which geologists believe may be the world's second largest after Saudi Arabia. The value of the draft contracts, if fully taken up, is estimated to have a potential of more than $20 billion. Although there have been dark hints that French and Russian opposition to a second U.N. resolution in the Security Council could have economic consequences, this is the first clear threat from a leading opposition figure from inside Iraq that their oil contracts will not be honored. "France and Russia should make a decision where they stand," Barhim Salih added, speaking to U.S. policy experts and reporters at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations Friday. "We would rather see them stand with us. They cannot have it both ways."
Re: Re: Maybe it Really IS About Oil Exactly. And not only that...the fact that this article headlines that a person is the Prime Minister of a nation that doesn't exist makes me question if this isn't a NewsMax affiliate or something. Plus...the article doesn't have a damn thing from the nations that the fool who started this thread is imputing motives to, makes this thread an exercise in right wing, know-nothing circle-jerkery. I mean, the opening post of this thread reads like something from someone who didn't actually read the article!!! And even then, the person can't see the obvious other side of the coin!!! Unbelievable!!! Would this be a good time to recount why the liberals around here condescend to the conservatives?
I don't think a new Iraqi regime should be forced to honor a contract made by the previous regime, especially if it isn't beneficial to the state. However, any company should be free to make proposal to the new regime, and then the government can choose the best contract. If it's a fair bidding process, every company will have an equal chance AND the Iraqi government will get a good chunk of cash. Will this happen though? Not in a million years.
Re: Re: Re: Maybe it Really IS About Oil If you're talking about me superdave you really need to take a chill pill. First of all, this article has nothing to do with liberal or conservative views of anything. It's a news article moron. It's the first time anyone involved with this thing has actually come out and publicy said France and Russia are going to take an economic hit if Saddam gets booted. Yes, it backs up those who think the stance of France and Russia may at least in part be motivated by economics, but its also about an angle that I don't believe has been reported on to date. Just trying to help us all maybe understand what's going on here a little better. I didn't write the story, idiot. Spin it whichever way you want, which you and others obviously will.
Wait, I didn't know this. First of all, the US and the UK could veto lifting sanctions into eternity. Second, the Prime Minister of Kurdistan is going to have a bigger problem, once we green-light the Turks annexing his territory. This guy isn't exactly in a position to say anything about a new Iraqi government. Third - so? I thought we didn't care about the oil. I thought this was only about regime change. If we're now about punishing people who did business with Saddam, when is Dick Cheney going to jail? Fourth - since when do "the Iraqi people" benefit from freaking oil contracts? Anyone think the Saudi people or the Kuwaiti people benefit from their countries' oil contracts? Fifth - does this mean we're now going to give Russian and French companies the chance to bid on Halliburton's rebuilding contracts that have already been signed? This whole thing gives hypocrisy a new meaning...no, actually, the old meaning works perfectly well. Next, we'll be hearing the Wall Street Journal's editorial page claim that France has been secretly giving Iraq WMD...oh, they are already?
Is this twisted logic? There have been plenty of people howling that we should leave SH alone until he attacks the US and we can prove that it was SH who attacked. Additionally, the howlers have stated that the US is immoral because it has oil interests in this issue. Well, waiting for SH to attack first is not smart. It has been shown that France and Germany have economic reasons for not removing a dictator from power that is a threat to the free world and has already disregarded UN requests for inspections for 12 years, what does that show? To me, it shows that they are not forthcoming when they speak to the UN. To me, it shows that they don't have much regard for the Iraqi people. They would be very willing to take in the $$$$ with SH in power mutilating his own people. To me, it shows that they are probably very desperate. If the US frees the Iraqis from SH and is able to assist them to govern themselves in a free society, I would think that they would make some fairly lucrative $$$$ deals with the US post-SH as they would see the US as an ally. Why would Germany and France not join the US and be an ally to Iraq and enjoy the lucrative $$$$ deals that would also await them? Obviously, they have other motives, which I would assume are not pro-US and probably not pro-Iraq. Will the media start to harange(sp) the French and Germans on these issues? Nah.
Is this the reason for war ? Isn't it nice that US oil companies are backed up by the most powerful military in the world? If you can't beat them with contracts, beat them with bombs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe it Really IS About Oil And that "anyone" is the "Prime Minister" of...wait for it now...not France, not Russia, but "the Kurds." So it doesn't say jacks*** about Russia or France's reasoning on this. And given that there's no such thing as Kurdistan, why is this guy's office any different than Jesse Jackson Sr.'s position as shadow senator from DC?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe it Really IS About Oil Because this guy actually does more work to "build a nation" instead of dividing one? That and Jesse gets more play from the ladies? I had hoped the Dems could expalin this one for years. Will the real Jesse Jackson, Jr. please stand up?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe it Really IS About Oil Because this is someone who apparently is going to play a significant role in the new Iraqi government assuming Saddam gets the boot. Obviously it's just one person saying it to the press, but because he said it, we know at the very least that it's one of the issues being talked about.
Actually, according to international law, the new regime would be required to fulfill lawful contracts made by the old. The only legal way a new government could get out of the old contracts with France, Russia, and China would be to argue that they were in some way unlawful. Otherwise, the new regime would be bound by the same boundaries and international committments (including the Security Council resolutions unless they were recinded) as the regime it replaced.