Russia and France had a deal with Saddam...the plot thickens

[Johnny_Physics]

Yes I too think Germany somehow is involved in the scam as well.

Hm, interesting. So you're saying that since Germany/Russia/France had this great plan where they exploited the Iraqi people for oil, but the US got jealous, just like a spoiled child, and decided to take the deal away from them and keep it for themselves via Halliburton.
How very un-american of you to portray the glorious american juggernaut in such a fashion!

 

[Sabastian]

Seriously there is no legal mechanism by which France and Russia couldve stopped the war so impossible for them to cut a deal with Iraq and stop the americans and brits from going forward as they relied on 1441. This was settled way before the war started...

Fact is France and Russia didnt do squat and couldnt even they had wanted to.

Gotta love foxnews for giving this nutcase any credence.

They can't dictate US actions absolutely but they sure did endeavor to use the Security Council to do just that, and they nearly succeeded. If it wasn't for the stalwart efforts of GW too end the Saddam regime then Saddam would still be in power. The pressure on the US to comply with the Security Council was extraordinary AFAIK.

 

[Sabastian]

Yes I too think Germany somehow is involved in the scam as well.

Hm, interesting. So you're saying that since Germany/Russia/France had this great plan where they exploited the Iraqi people for oil, but the US got jealous, just like a spoiled child, and decided to take the deal away from them and keep it for themselves via Halliburton.
How very un-american of you to portray the glorious american juggernaut in such a fashion!

Nope, there is no oil deal to free Iraq yet and if GW gets his way there won't be. Of course the Democrats would love there to be one so that they can demonize the military actions further. The actions I believe are a long term effort to change the anti American climate of mid eastern countries and to get them to stop supporting terrorist organizations. France, Germany and Russia all had strategic and economic reasons for opposing the military actions. Now that their little scam has back fired on them and they have failed to control US foreign policy they look like morons.

 

[pax]

The UN is consistently deriled for being weak and fangless but somehow they couldve stopped the US from going to war? Not in a million years... and I dont believe this story its just fud trying to keep the nato allies apart... I expect France and Russia to denounce this as nonsense if it gets any further than the tabloid press...

 

[chavvdarrr]

Nope, there is no oil deal to free Iraq yet and if GW gets his way there won't be. Of course the Democrats would love there to be one so that they can demonize the military actions further. The actions I believe are a long term effort to change the anti American climate of mid eastern countries and to get them to stop supporting terrorist organizations.

Do you believe what you've written ?!
Don't answer it's a rhetoric question ...

 

[Sabastian]

The UN is consistently deriled for being weak and fangless but somehow they couldve stopped the US from going to war? Not in a million years... and I dont believe this story its just fud trying to keep the nato allies apart... I expect France and Russia to denounce this as nonsense if it gets any further than the tabloid press...

Yes they are but with this instance all of a sudden the Security Counsel was the end all beat all wasn't it? My sakes I never heard of such a racket at the UN. Indeed they truly did try to dictate US foreign policy like never before. The UN stops short of being a world government for good reasons BTW.

 

[Sabastian]

Nope, there is no oil deal to free Iraq yet and if GW gets his way there won't be. Of course the Democrats would love there to be one so that they can demonize the military actions further. The actions I believe are a long term effort to change the anti American climate of mid eastern countries and to get them to stop supporting terrorist organizations.

Do you believe what you've written ?!
Don't answer it's a rhetoric question ...

Yes I do, jerk. Obviously you don't. I presume you would support any other sort of rationale as long as the US is demonized, that would not surprise me. Why do you think they did it then? Oil ? Not as of yet.

 

[RussSchultz]

Um, Sabastian isn't articulating it very well, but the beef I've got with Russia and France (if the story is true) is that they convinced Saddam that the war to remove him would not happen and that they would stop it, so he should stand firm and not step down. This essentially forced the US hand to use military force, instead of political pressure and the threat of force to enact the regime change.

If this is true, the political wranglings of France and Germany willfully put US soldiers, British soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians at risk. They have killed 300 something US soldiers, (tens? of) thousands of Iraqi soldiers, hundreds to thousands of Iraqi civilians. Plus myriad other coalition soldiers.

Of course, its hard to know if Aziz is being truthful. Which is why I say "if its true".

 

[Sabastian]

Um, Sabastian isn't articulating it very well, but the beef I've got with Russia and France (if the story is true) is that they convinced Saddam that the war to remove him would not happen and that they would stop it, so he should stand firm and not step down. This essentially forced the US hand to use military force, instead of political pressure and the threat of force to enact the regime change.

If this is true, the political wranglings of France and Germany willfully put US soldiers, British soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians at risk. They have killed 300 something US soldiers, (tens? of) thousands of Iraqi soldiers, hundreds to thousands of Iraqi civilians. Plus myriad other coalition soldiers.

Of course, its hard to know if Aziz is being truthful. Which is why I say "if its true".

Thanks Russ, I am not being horribly articulate and only posting off the top of my head. Aziz is the credibility subject, no question, but the story fits in quite well and it explains why these countries behaved why they did.

 

[Sxotty]

Well actually sebastian didn't say that, but Russ that was a good point.

Sebastian whether Dick cheney is benifiting from haliburton is a moot point I'll let you in on a little secret, haliburton paid cheney and bush a lot of money, therefore Cheney and Bush set them up to make tons of money. Once cheney retires he can go back to haliburton and get a nice wad of cash. It is incredibly niave to say ah but is he benifiting, b/c th answer is obviously yes, and he will be benifiting ina very tangible way at a later point.


BTW have youguys heard about the mutual fund shenanigans lol great stuff.

edit: I read the article and it is really inconclusive btw.

 

[Sabastian]

Well actually sebastian didn't say that, but Russ that was a good point.

Sebastian whether Dick cheney is benifiting from haliburton is a moot point I'll let you in on a little secret, haliburton paid cheney and bush a lot of money, therefore Cheney and Bush set them up to make tons of money. Once cheney retires he can go back to haliburton and get a nice wad of cash. It is incredibly niave to say ah but is he benifiting, b/c th answer is obviously yes, and he will be benifiting ina very tangible way at a later point.


BTW have youguys heard about the mutual fund shenanigans lol great stuff.

You have any evidence? Otherwise you are talking out your ass.

 

[Sabastian]

edit: I read the article and it is really inconclusive btw.

Just one question sxotty, why do you suppose that France and Russia behaved the way they did?

 

[Sxotty]

You should tone down you rhetoric.

I provided my proof, if you cannot see it then I apologize. If you desire to see the world a certain way, then you have the ability to ignore any part of reality that makes you uncomfortable. I don't really mind in the least, but don't get all uptight when others will not live in your fantasy.

 

[Sxotty]

I am not saying I don't believe the article,

I always thought that France, Russian, and Germany were opposed to the war for one reason Money. Most things in this world are for money.

I thought that since they had substantial invetments and Iraq had debts to them they wanted to support a despot so they could cash in. I would easily, and I mean really easily believe that exactly what was stated happened, that Iraq was assured that the war would be stopped, but the article in question was not very conclusive about that.

Saddam did not attack invading American and British forces because he believed that France and Russia would use the U.N. Security Council to stop the war.

It does not say France/Russia told him they would stop it, just that he believed it.

France and Russia opposed the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq. But Russia characterized its contacts with Saddam as an effort to convince him the Americans were serious about invading and that he should abdicate. It is unclear what contacts, if any, the French government had with Saddam.

That is what I meant by inconclusive, it says absolutely nothing about France and Russia agreeing to some deal to stop the war.

 

[Sabastian]

I provided my proof, if you cannot see it then I apologize.

Fantasy? Where is your evidence that Cheney and Bush received the cash from Haliburton you are talking about?

 

[Sabastian]

I am not saying I don't believe the article,

OK.

I always thought that France, Russian, and Germany were opposed to the war for one reason Money. Most things in this world are for money.

More then likely some kind of oil for protection con deal.

I thought that since they had substantial invetments and Iraq had debts to them they wanted to support a despot so they could cash in. I would easily, and I mean really easily believe that exactly what was stated happened, that Iraq was assured that the war would be stopped, but the article in question was not very conclusive about that.

Agreed they had something to loose should Saddam be ousted. They supported the dictator, I agree sxotty.

Saddam did not attack invading American and British forces because he believed that France and Russia would use the U.N. Security Council to stop the war.

It does not say France/Russia told him they would stop it, just that he believed it.

Yeah this is where the speculation begins, why would he even suspect that?

France and Russia opposed the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq. But Russia characterized its contacts with Saddam as an effort to convince him the Americans were serious about invading and that he should abdicate. It is unclear what contacts, if any, the French government had with Saddam.

That is what I meant by inconclusive, it says absolutely nothing about France and Russia agreeing to some deal to stop the war.

Obviously they had contacts. On one hand there was substantial investment going on in Iraq (Not to mention the oil for food scam working through the UN.) and on the other they had no contacts? Give me a break.

 

[Sxotty]

Sebastian, I am not saying they didn't (have contacts), you presented the article and stated that is said certain things, I am only saying that the article itself is quite wishy washy, it starts like there may be a big conspiracy and ends like we don't want to get sued for libel.

edit: BTW I am downloading a document from the FEC to see if haliburtons actualy campaign contribution is listed in it or not. I will tell you what though the thing is slow as mollasses in january.

 

[Sabastian]

Sebastian, I am not saying they didn't (have contacts), you presented the article and stated that is said certain things, I am only saying that the article itself is quite wishy washy, it starts like there may be a big conspiracy and ends like we don't want to get sued for libel.

I don't argue that it isn't inconclusive rather I am arguing what Aziz says is a logical deduction of why France and Russia (Germany to) behaved the way they did. Also that I found "somewhat" of a confirmation of my suspicions of why they behaved the way they did from the get go. Ironically we are not in disagreement it is that you take offence, seemingly, in my reveling of the suggestion that indeed my doubts about their actions are substantiated to some degree.

 

[Sabastian]

edit: BTW I am downloading a document from the FEC to see if haliburtons actualy campaign contribution is listed in it or not. I will tell you what though the thing is slow as mollasses in january.

That would be interesting, although I don't believe campaign contributions are illegal. You might also check to see if they gave any contributions to the Democrats as well.

 

[Sxotty]

Naw sebastian I got no problem with that (revelling, I personally said the same thing b4 the war, that franc/russia others only wanted to stop it for selfish reasons).

WRT the contributions if you look at an earlier post I stated it is perfectly legitimate and legal. I am not saying that it wasn't

I am saying it seems to be ignoring reality to say "Well sure the paid them big campaign contributions, but that has nothing to do with Haliburton getting these large contracts to do things which they normally don't even do"

Unfortunately the document that I downloaded seems to be in picture format, 2912 pages of text in picture format so search doesn't work, sorry but it is simply not worth it to me to find the info.

Like you said there is nothing illegal about the contribution.

edit:
I am sure they gave to the democrats as well, almost all companies do so, but if you honestly look at the issue you will see 2 things,
1) democrats always (recently anyway) enc up with less contributions overall
2) A corelary companies most of the time give more to republicans by a large degree than democrats so tobaco give 1mil to dems, and 5mil to reps, there are a few exceptions, well I can only think that hollywood is the exception.