horvendile
Regular
John Reynolds said:
Isn't UN basically financially broke?
France, now wants to control the post saddam iraq.
- Thread starter Sxotty
- Start date
Isn't UN basically financially broke?
The US has committed to it now, there is no turning back, they will be there for the next decade trying to sort things out. They have a responsibility to see it through, whatever the cost. If they were smart, they would welcome all the help they could get. It shouldn't be some kind of greed mentality over dividing the booty or getting paid for their services.
Himself said:
Ill explain my emoticon, all though it sums up my thoughts about the bolded part of your statement. This isnt a game where when you kill the boss, you get a treasure chest and then divide it up among your party. This is real life, in which some have actually given theirs up. And other discuss what we should or should not do around a U shaped table (UN).
The US isnt there to make money from this endavour, it will actually cost a hell of alot more than what will be gained financially. But the money that will be spent could go to buy:
==food from: the US and coalition OR france, germany....
==building materials from: the US and coalition OR france, germany....
blah,blah,blah, you get the point.
If france, germany and those not in the coalition want to donate their services then I have no problem with them. If they expect money in return I think we should seriously consider telling them to go back to their cafes to drink themselves silly.
later,
Its amazing how you can accuse France of only caring about some minor ten year old unsigned contracts but when US companies are reported to likely get the bulk (about half) of the reconstruction and oil exploration and exploitation in post war Iraq in a typical 50-50 deal that may result in trillions of dollars in new business we get the excuse its not about the money.
Here's a clue... 2 trillion dollars is a lot more than 40 billion. France does less than 0.3% of its trade with Iraq... its not about trade its about the legal ramifications of 1441. 1441 was intentionally left vague by all parties who help write it. It was expected at the time that new resolutions later on would deal with the specifics. If you were to go on parole and told you would suffer 'serious consequences' if you failed to honor that parole you wouldnt expect a guy to walk in and shoot you in the knee as that being the serious consequence...
Here's a clue... 2 trillion dollars is a lot more than 40 billion. France does less than 0.3% of its trade with Iraq... its not about trade its about the legal ramifications of 1441. 1441 was intentionally left vague by all parties who help write it. It was expected at the time that new resolutions later on would deal with the specifics. If you were to go on parole and told you would suffer 'serious consequences' if you failed to honor that parole you wouldnt expect a guy to walk in and shoot you in the knee as that being the serious consequence...
Pax, before I comment on your post, can you provide a reliable source to your 2 trillion figure. Is that figure the total value of iraqi oil, over how many years will that figure add up to 2 trillion? One? Ten? 100? Please I beg to provide something more reliable than most sources posted by the antiwar movement. Ill believe the bbc, cnn, msnbc, washington post, weekly standard, newsweek, ....
Thanks,
Thanks,
Pax I think I found your source, but ill wait for you to post where your getting those ridiculous numbers. The source I found was extremely amuzing. Im suprised that at some point in the article they didnt mention what would happen if UFO landed.
later,
The source I found was extremely amuzing. Im suprised that at some point in the article they didnt mention what would happen if UFO landed. later,
Silent_One
Newcomer
Himself wrrote:
I agree with with you as far as what I quoted you as saying. Iraq will need as much help as possible if there is going to be any chance of stability in the long run. The more countries are willing to help the better. If countries like France are so concerned with the plight of the people they should be willing to help as soon as possible. In fact they should start helping now.
The US has committed to it now, there is no turning back, they will be there for the next decade trying to sort things out. ......If they (we) smart, they (we) welcome all the help they could get (my additions
I agree with with you as far as what I quoted you as saying. Iraq will need as much help as possible if there is going to be any chance of stability in the long run. The more countries are willing to help the better. If countries like France are so concerned with the plight of the people they should be willing to help as soon as possible. In fact they should start helping now.
epicstruggle said:Pax I think I found your source, but ill wait for you to post where your getting those ridiculous numbers.
later,
There are plenty of sources from this winter & last fall that mentionned info garnered from Powell's powwow with oil execs and the iraqi opposition leaders who'll likely get in power. But since any source not deemd sufgficintly conservative is dismissed out of hand by you guys I dont bother anymore with tyhings too specific.
Im sure you'll find this info on foxnews in 'some form'...
However I dont keep regurgitating the lie that the war is about business for France or the US. I just retort to the false claims about France only caring about some tiny business transactions. At Davos the american delegation was pounced on by business interests all around over its war efforts as being bad for business.
If you can get it thru your head that its not about money for France I wont retort thats its about money for the US either. But if you want to talk money the figures, Ill tell ya right now, will point to the US conflicts of interest way ahead of France...
@pax, I didnt think you would show your source. Lets make more numbers up then. Frances president has taken millions of dollars worth of bribes from saddam and his sons. Source, we dont need sources, trust me. You cant prove me wrong, can you? I can show you pics of chirac and saddam, maybe they were boyhood friends.
Back to facts:
Its estimated that about 40-50 billion dollars will flow to US companies yearly from the oil revenues. Same as is going to france RIGHT NOW. And let me tell you something pax, for the US 40 billion is a smaller percentage than for france. I guess the FRENCH really do have more invested in keeping oil contracts than the US.
For the french its either for the oil money or for hidding their sales of chemicals to iraq.
later,
Lets make more numbers up then. Frances president has taken millions of dollars worth of bribes from saddam and his sons. Source, we dont need sources, trust me. You cant prove me wrong, can you? I can show you pics of chirac and saddam, maybe they were boyhood friends.Back to facts:
Its estimated that about 40-50 billion dollars will flow to US companies yearly from the oil revenues. Same as is going to france RIGHT NOW. And let me tell you something pax, for the US 40 billion is a smaller percentage than for france. I guess the FRENCH really do have more invested in keeping oil contracts than the US.
For the french its either for the oil money or for hidding their sales of chemicals to iraq.
later,
Typical contracts in the area are 50-50. Lets be conservative at 25$ a barrel and say half the *known* fields are given to us companies as was reported... there are minimum 250 billion barrels of oil.... and 90% of the country hasnt even been explored yet unlike other local states like saudi arabia... Thers a very good chance Iraq will in fact be the leargest world producer in 15 years or so.
You can find this info anywhere on the web easy... Ill show you a link to pbs or bbc and you'll laugh it off as a left wing conspiracy so whats the point...
Of course we havent seen any contracts signed yet so its pretty moot to say France or the US want to profit. Frances' economic interests in Iraq are minor next to the US... 0.3% vs 40%... or do you think the us isnt the most important trading partner in the whole world?
France doesnt get 40 billion in trade a year with Iraq. France has currently NO SIGNED contracts and hasnt had any since 1991. The agreement for a 40 billion upgrading of oil fields in Iraq was to last about 10 years. Stop reading foxnews its just entertainment ;P...
You can find this info anywhere on the web easy... Ill show you a link to pbs or bbc and you'll laugh it off as a left wing conspiracy so whats the point...
Of course we havent seen any contracts signed yet so its pretty moot to say France or the US want to profit. Frances' economic interests in Iraq are minor next to the US... 0.3% vs 40%... or do you think the us isnt the most important trading partner in the whole world?
France doesnt get 40 billion in trade a year with Iraq. France has currently NO SIGNED contracts and hasnt had any since 1991. The agreement for a 40 billion upgrading of oil fields in Iraq was to last about 10 years. Stop reading foxnews its just entertainment ;P...
pax said:
what are you saying, that:
40% of all our trade is from Iraq.
40% of Iraqs trade is with the US.
I think this is what you want to say:
The actual figure of all Iraqi exports (oil) is 16 billion of which 46% is US and 10% is france. And of all imports is 11 billion of which 25% is from France. Now are you telling me that a few billion dollars is a bigger deal to the US or to France.
Come on pax, your smarter than this. When I asked for proof I did say I would accept sources from the bbc. Please, clarify your 2 trillion figure with a source. Because I think your just trying to grasp at straws now.
later,
cmon no Im saying frances trade with the US is about 40% vs 0.3% with iraq... look at the context
straws... Initial estimate of iraqi oil reserves is 250 billion barrels. Typical deals in the middle east are 50-50 in terms of sales of oil in a privatized system (Iraq had nationalized its oil in the 60's)... Reports from last fall showed powell meets with iraqi oppostion accompanied with oil execs. France was invited but refused. General agreement came out fomr those meets that US oil would get 50% of redeveloppment contracts in a liberated Iraq. So 125 billion barrkes extracted under current standard contracts would goive us oil 50% of gross per barrel price...
This may be a liberal figure as we have no singed contracts only verbal agreements. But at 30$ a barrel at 50% for the developper at 125 billion barrels gives 15x 125 billion... do the math... and do the google...
Iraq is 90% unexplored... There is huge potential for new oil finds in the country...
Saying that and its my last post as I post on 3 other groups I wont lag on this issue any longer as the Iraqis may indeed never privatise their oil and keep it in a nationalized system after all...
The reports were not official declarations from Powell from those meetings only reported by those who attended and afterwards declared that Iraq would need ot privatise their oil in order to modernise it asap.
Bit of a fallacious excuse if you ask me as nationalized oil could do fine with mere technical help from western oil firms... Iraqis are hard negociators. Arabs have millenia experience in trade. The west only gets 'good' deals when it has some corrupt gov in power like saudi arabia...
straws... Initial estimate of iraqi oil reserves is 250 billion barrels. Typical deals in the middle east are 50-50 in terms of sales of oil in a privatized system (Iraq had nationalized its oil in the 60's)... Reports from last fall showed powell meets with iraqi oppostion accompanied with oil execs. France was invited but refused. General agreement came out fomr those meets that US oil would get 50% of redeveloppment contracts in a liberated Iraq. So 125 billion barrkes extracted under current standard contracts would goive us oil 50% of gross per barrel price...
This may be a liberal figure as we have no singed contracts only verbal agreements. But at 30$ a barrel at 50% for the developper at 125 billion barrels gives 15x 125 billion... do the math... and do the google...
Iraq is 90% unexplored... There is huge potential for new oil finds in the country...
Saying that and its my last post as I post on 3 other groups I wont lag on this issue any longer as the Iraqis may indeed never privatise their oil and keep it in a nationalized system after all...
The reports were not official declarations from Powell from those meetings only reported by those who attended and afterwards declared that Iraq would need ot privatise their oil in order to modernise it asap.
Bit of a fallacious excuse if you ask me as nationalized oil could do fine with mere technical help from western oil firms... Iraqis are hard negociators. Arabs have millenia experience in trade. The west only gets 'good' deals when it has some corrupt gov in power like saudi arabia...
pax, most of your assumptions lie in ignorance. You make statements about the future which you know nothing about. This is not your typical 50-50 deal. Unless you have documentation to prove other wise. The country of Iraq will need initially a very heavy dose of cash, and I would doubt that the US would not take that into account. On top of that if you take more oil out of Iraq what will happen to the price per barrel will sharply drop. It might go below 20/barrell. So your figures are full of assumptions, ontop of that you have no idea when we will start pumping this oil up. Ive seen figures that estimate between 20-40billion a year from oil revenues will come our way(oil companies way), but even they make sure that they inform the reader that these are all unknowns. The cost of the war has been estimated from 100billion to 300 billion. So we are definetly going to be at a loss for a long time.
What I hate about what your saying is that oil is a primary motivator for this conflict. It might be more of a motive to france than it is for the US. Please dont throw numbers you cant back up.
later,
What I hate about what your saying is that oil is a primary motivator for this conflict. It might be more of a motive to france than it is for the US. Please dont throw numbers you cant back up.
later,
heres a tease a reprint from a washington times article... http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache...i+opposition+meets+oil&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
now go google! ;P
now go google! ;P
Ok again you are taking things out of context. Im not pushing the idea the war is about oil or business... im simply showing plainly info that contradicts your statement that opposition to the war is about oil and business...
I point out the small business deals that France has with Iraq as its the current whippin boy for you guys. And I also point out the *possible* business indicated last fall by Powell's meets with the iraqi opposition and accompanying oil execs. Those meets also occured without powell and public declarations by the iraqi opposition such as in the article I list often described that us oil would gain... Statemenst now are very sensitive on the issues and everyone concerned claims Iraqs' oil will be for Iraqis. I think that will be so not because of real US intentions but because of the fact Iraqis are hard nosed dealers. Kuwait was expected to privatise its oil after 1991. It never did. It simply would have lost too much...
This doesnt mean however I believe any of this is the main reason for war anymore than I believe the tiny business France does with Iraq has anything to do with its opposition.
The French are concerned with international legal issues. The US is concerned with potential wmds making their way into terrorists hands. The US has failed to make that case for most countries and people in general to believe (and I dont care how many third world countries they list in their coalition of the armtwisted and bribbed... er I mean 'willing').
The numbers dont lie... Ive seen anywhere from 112 to 250 to 400 billion barrels of oil in Iraq. The estimates are vague because 90% of the country is unexplored. 112 billion is bare minimum. Im looking for info on the 50-50 standard contract for middle eastern oil deals like the ones in Saudi arabia but havent found it yet. But Iraq is one of few countries with nationalized oil. Saying 1 or 2 trillion is no more like saying 40 billion is pure profit... of course in that there will be plenty of costs and things to pay off as taxes and such. Even if France were to see its deal of 40 billion over 10 years honored it would by far never cover the loss of trade it has already suffered by loss of business with the US. The contract would still be tiny over ten years of overall trade. Your argument that that unsigned contract that has languished over 12 years of sanctions and is spread out over a decade is what makes France act the way it does makes your case laughable as a presentable motive...
Tho that remains to be seen I would bet a few million americans avoiding things French could spell serious economic trouble for their trade. France took a hell of a gamble in resisting US political desires... But its concerns over the international legal ramifications are real and I generally agree with them. As much as international law is full of holes and subject to interpretation any law that exists is important in that it must be upheld. It important for its own sake and for the basis for new laws that must eventualy be created to plug some of those holes... Right now America is skirting legality and is seen as being more about thr law of the strongest than the law of legitimate conerns... but its is a tought case no doubt... Post war Iraq may prove the US case. But it will be severely scrutinized which explains the ealry deployement of French specialists as the war liberates iraqi territory we'll possibly soon see them at work along with others to investigates sites of wmds...
Exports:
$307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002)
Imports:
$303.7 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html
40 billion of gross business over 10 years is barely a drop in the bucket...
I point out the small business deals that France has with Iraq as its the current whippin boy for you guys. And I also point out the *possible* business indicated last fall by Powell's meets with the iraqi opposition and accompanying oil execs. Those meets also occured without powell and public declarations by the iraqi opposition such as in the article I list often described that us oil would gain... Statemenst now are very sensitive on the issues and everyone concerned claims Iraqs' oil will be for Iraqis. I think that will be so not because of real US intentions but because of the fact Iraqis are hard nosed dealers. Kuwait was expected to privatise its oil after 1991. It never did. It simply would have lost too much...
This doesnt mean however I believe any of this is the main reason for war anymore than I believe the tiny business France does with Iraq has anything to do with its opposition.
The French are concerned with international legal issues. The US is concerned with potential wmds making their way into terrorists hands. The US has failed to make that case for most countries and people in general to believe (and I dont care how many third world countries they list in their coalition of the armtwisted and bribbed... er I mean 'willing').
The numbers dont lie... Ive seen anywhere from 112 to 250 to 400 billion barrels of oil in Iraq. The estimates are vague because 90% of the country is unexplored. 112 billion is bare minimum. Im looking for info on the 50-50 standard contract for middle eastern oil deals like the ones in Saudi arabia but havent found it yet. But Iraq is one of few countries with nationalized oil. Saying 1 or 2 trillion is no more like saying 40 billion is pure profit... of course in that there will be plenty of costs and things to pay off as taxes and such. Even if France were to see its deal of 40 billion over 10 years honored it would by far never cover the loss of trade it has already suffered by loss of business with the US. The contract would still be tiny over ten years of overall trade. Your argument that that unsigned contract that has languished over 12 years of sanctions and is spread out over a decade is what makes France act the way it does makes your case laughable as a presentable motive...
Tho that remains to be seen I would bet a few million americans avoiding things French could spell serious economic trouble for their trade. France took a hell of a gamble in resisting US political desires... But its concerns over the international legal ramifications are real and I generally agree with them. As much as international law is full of holes and subject to interpretation any law that exists is important in that it must be upheld. It important for its own sake and for the basis for new laws that must eventualy be created to plug some of those holes... Right now America is skirting legality and is seen as being more about thr law of the strongest than the law of legitimate conerns... but its is a tought case no doubt... Post war Iraq may prove the US case. But it will be severely scrutinized which explains the ealry deployement of French specialists as the war liberates iraqi territory we'll possibly soon see them at work along with others to investigates sites of wmds...
Exports:
$307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002)
Imports:
$303.7 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html
40 billion of gross business over 10 years is barely a drop in the bucket...
I did google for the infor and plan on posting the link in my following post, but when you come out and start mentioning trillions of dollars you have to put some sources on the line.pax said:
later,
here are some articles on why its important to keep the rebuilding of Iraq to those in the coalition of the willing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/b...da4099b01a212277&ex=1049000400&partner=GOOGLE
and an article pointing out how much oil *might* be coming out of iraq in the next few years.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-115024-2402r
Why should we allow the french to profit from the rebuilding process when they have not done any of the hard work. I hope we are able to make sure that those who did nothing get nothing from this effort. If the french are willing to donate to the cause I would not turn them down.
later,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/b...da4099b01a212277&ex=1049000400&partner=GOOGLE
and an article pointing out how much oil *might* be coming out of iraq in the next few years.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-115024-2402r
Why should we allow the french to profit from the rebuilding process when they have not done any of the hard work. I hope we are able to make sure that those who did nothing get nothing from this effort. If the french are willing to donate to the cause I would not turn them down.
later,
epicstruggle said:
Poor choice of words. So you recognize there's profit to make from the rebuilding process.
I'm french, and i'm saddened by all the comments on this board, especially yours epicstruggle. You seem brainwashed to me.
I won't bother to argue as my english isn't that good and i won't risk to be misinterpreted.
A few words, we french people don't give a shit about economic sides of Irak. But we are concerned about USA wanting to be cop of the world. We are concerned about USA making decisions by their own. We are concerned by USA judging what is good, what is bad. We french believe in UN. It's not perfect but it's the way to go. So we want every nation to be part of Irak reconstruction ( and yes that include us, the stupid french). Not only those who bombarded it....