The French oil connection

[JD]

THE FRENCH WAR FOR OIL
By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Email Archives
Print Reprint



March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in
Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French
President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.
In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship
to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in
power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100
billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first
seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in
power.

The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam
Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde,
Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that
singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the
historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for
the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.)

But Colombani, whose paper's coverage of the war in Iraq was noteworthy for
its wanton disregard for the truth, had not a word to say about his
country's war for oil. Indeed, the secret deals the French state-owned oil
companies negotiated in the 1990s with Saddam Hussein went widely unreported
in France.

Almost as soon as the guns went silent after the first Gulf war in 1991,
French oil giants Total SA and Elf Aquitaine - who have now merged and
expanded to become TotalFinaElf - sought a competitive advantage over their
rivals in Iraq by negotiating exclusive production-sharing contracts with
Saddam's regime that were intended to give them a stranglehold on Iraq's
future oil production for decades to come.

The first of two massive deals was announced in June 1994 by then-Iraqi Oil
Minister Safa al-Habobi - a well-known figure whose name had surfaced in
numerous procurement schemes in the 1980s in association with the Ministry
of Industry and Military Industrialization, which supervised Saddam's
chemical, biological, missile and nuclear-weapons programs.

Speaking in Vienna, al-Habobi confirmed that his government was awarding
Total SA rights to the future production of the Nahr Umar oil field in
southern Iraq, and that Elf was well-placed to be awarded similar terms in
the Majnoon oil fields on the border with Iran.



Those two deals, which I detail in "The French Betrayal of America," would
have been worth an estimated $100 billion over a seven-year period - but
were conditioned on the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Simply put,
analyst Gerald Hillman told me, the French were saying: "We will help you
get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this."

The Total contract, a copy of which I obtained, was "very one-sided," says
Hillman. (Hillman, a political economist and a managing partner at Trireme
Investments in New York, did a detailed analysis of the contract.) An
ordinary production agreement typically grants the foreign partner a maximum
of 50 percent of the gross proceeds of the oil produced at the field they
develop. But this deal gave Total 75 percent of the total production. "This
is highly unusual," he said. Indeed, it was extortion.

But Saddam willingly agreed: He saw the Total deal, and a similar one with
Elf, as the price he had to pay to secure French political support at the
United Nations.

Much has been written in recent weeks about the corruption of the U.N.
Oil-for-Food program. Documents uncovered in Iraq's oil ministry and
published by the Baghdad daily al Mada list several cronies of French
President Chirac among those who had received special oil allocations as a
political payoff from Saddam.

But the amounts attributed to these individuals - in the tens of millions of
barrels, on which they stood to earn between 25 to 40 cents per barrel -
pale in comparison to the $100 billion payoff orchestrated by Chirac and
Saddam.

No, oil wasn't the only reason France opposed the United States at the
United Nations in the lead-up to the war. The megalomania of Foreign
Minister Dominique de Villepin (who lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell
repeatedly and later boasted about it to visiting U.S. congressional
delegations) certainly entered into the mix. So did French pride, wounded at
the realization that France is no longer the great power it once was.

But the French did not merely disagree with the United States over Iraq, as
did a certain number of our allies: They actively sought to rally world
leaders and public opinion to treat the United States - not Saddam Hussein -
as the enemy.

The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and
active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is
right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France
has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous
dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine. His book "The
French Betrayal of America" is just out.

[Nemo l'ancien]

And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer like
SA? Even when people of that country funded terrorism...

>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...

>And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer like SA?
Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...

No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France apparently
had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every release of information
regarding these "sweetheart deals" between your companies and Saddam. What
is the going rate these days for a major foreign policy decision in France?
Maybe you could bid them out, or just sell them in an open market... The
question is no longer whether or not France's support can be bought by the
highest bidder, but just what the final cost will be. Recent reports
indicate that maybe the best place to find the answer to that question would
be in Beijing, which has apparently bought the latest chunk of the FPMQ
(French Policy-Making Quota), in return for that recent proposal from Chirac
to dump the arms export restrictions against the PRC.

Brooks

[Stephen Harding]

Nemo l'ancien wrote:

> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer like
> SA? Even when people of that country funded terrorism...

The US relation with SA is [was?] indeed a strange one.

But AFAIK, it's individuals, some through shake downs by OBL,
that provided the money, not outright government collusion.

The Saudis now seem to realize their fence sitting WRT radical
"religious" training hasn't done them any good either.

The primary value of SA for the US has been in keeping oil prices
stable via production variations, not so much cozy deals for oil
companies. The world has benefited from this as much as the US.


SMH

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Nemo l'ancien > wrote:

> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer like
> SA? Even when people of that country funded terrorism...

Which makes the French behavior right?

[Alex A]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
>> like SA?
> Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
>
> No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
> apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
> release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
> your companies and Saddam.

same source as WMD ?

Rgds
Alex

[Kevin Brooks]

"Alex A" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
> >> like SA?
> > Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
> >
> > No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
> > apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
> > release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
> > your companies and Saddam.
>
> same source as WMD ?

Eh? Can't quite get the meaning of that fragment.

Brooks

>
> Rgds
> Alex
>
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" > wrote:

>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> "Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
>>> like SA?
>> Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
>>
>> No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
>> apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
>> release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
>> your companies and Saddam.
>
>same source as WMD ?
>
>Rgds
>Alex
>
France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.

Al Minyard

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...

> >
> France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
> been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
> behavior.

What about the juicy contracts US oil companys were about to sign with the
Taliban, during the summer before 9/11 ??? You know, the pipelines through
Afghanistan.....

2 wrongs don't make 1 right, but just stop giving out moral lessons, OK?

> Your country is a shameless whore.

Hey; you need one to know one!

--
Pierre-Henri Baras
___________________________
French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net

Encyclopédie de l'Aviation
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Keith Willshaw]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>
> > >
> > France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
> > been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
> > behavior.
>
> What about the juicy contracts US oil companys were about to sign with the
> Taliban, during the summer before 9/11 ??? You know, the pipelines
through
> Afghanistan.....
>

Unlike the situation with Iraq there were no UN sanctions in place so it
would have been legal for Unocal to go ahead but in fact it withdrew
from the deal in December 1998, almost 3 years before the Sept 11
attacks when the true nature of the Taliban regime became clear.


> 2 wrongs don't make 1 right, but just stop giving out moral lessons, OK?
>

But 1 right and 1 wrong make an interesting comparison.

Keith

[Grantland]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" > wrote:
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>> "Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
>>>> like SA?
>>> Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
>>>
>>> No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
>>> apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
>>> release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
>>> your companies and Saddam.
>>
>>same source as WMD ?
>>
>>Rgds
>>Alex
>>
>France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
>been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
>behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.
>
>Al Minyard

And you are a shameful, poisonous Jew.

Grantland

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>
> > >
> > France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
> > been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
> > behavior.
>
> What about the juicy contracts US oil companys were about to sign with the
> Taliban, during the summer before 9/11 ??? You know, the pipelines
through
> Afghanistan.....

Can you point to any embargo or trade restrictions that prevented those
negotiations? No? Was there any competition from other forms for such
pipeline rights allowed? Yes? Now tell us how that compares to French
companies, and the French government, climbing into bed with Saddam, who was
under operating under an embargo, and then amazingly started talking about
relaxing or eliminating samesaid embargo. Go ahead, give it your best shot.

>
> 2 wrongs don't make 1 right, but just stop giving out moral lessons, OK?

But how do you come up with US firms negotiating a contract that was not
dependent upon relaxation of trade restrictions with the situation where
France sold its foreign policy to the highest bidder, in this case Saddam,
who was subject to embargo?

>
> > Your country is a shameless whore.
>
> Hey; you need one to know one!

We don't need one--one France is more than enough for the rest of the world.

Brooks

>
> --
> Pierre-Henri Baras
> ___________________________
> French Fleet Air Arm
> http://www.ffaa.net
>
> Encyclopédie de l'Aviation
> http://www.aviation-fr.info
>
>
>
>
>

[ArVa]

"Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de
...

> >
> > same source as WMD ?
>
> Eh? Can't quite get the meaning of that fragment.
>
> Brooks


You're not even trying...

Arva

[ArVa]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" >
wrote:
>
> >
> France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
> been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
> behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.
>
> Al Minyard


What disturbs you so much? That the US were the only "major" country without
any contract (unlike Italy, Russia, the UK, China, the
Netherlands, ...) or that France was about to sign the biggest one?...

You want to talk about moral? What about the fact that on the eve of last
year's war, the US were still the biggets purchaser of the Iraki oil? What
about Libya, where so many US businessmen gather nowadays, eager to exploit
the oil and gas reserves of this country that was once (not so long ago!) on
the "axis of evil" list? What about the dozens of US (and other countries)
citizens this regime has killed?... What about the business conducted in
several Central Asia countries, far from being democracies?

You want another "oil scandal" involving Total ? Here's one : Total
exploits an oil field in Myanmar (Burma). We all know that this country's
regime is not a
model of democracy but I don't hear any American complaining about it.
Could it be because Total is associated 50/50 with a US company?...

Someone famous once said : "Let those who have never sinned throw the first
stones". I'm sorry but you don't qualify...

Arva

[ArVa]

"Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> But how do you come up with US firms negotiating a contract that was not
> dependent upon relaxation of trade restrictions with the situation where
> France sold its foreign policy to the highest bidder, in this case Saddam,
> who was subject to embargo?


You really don't understand much (and know even less) if you still believe
that the oil was the French government's main motive... (though it certainly
was a concern).


> We don't need one--one France is more than enough for the rest of the
world.


Accept no substitute!...


Arva

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArVa" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
>
> > >
> > > same source as WMD ?
> >
> > Eh? Can't quite get the meaning of that fragment.
> >
> > Brooks
>
>
> You're not even trying...

Let's see...we have undisputed accounts of the oil deals between Total and
Iraq/Saddam (not to mention the acknowledged oil vouchers given to that
friend of Chirac's, as the gent in question confirmed himself), versus an
allegation apprently having something to do with intel assessments regarding
WMD (which intel assessments were reportedly not being disputed at the time
by major European intel agencies, including those of France IIRC). And the
connection between the two is...?

Brooks

>
> Arva
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArVa" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> >
> > But how do you come up with US firms negotiating a contract that was not
> > dependent upon relaxation of trade restrictions with the situation where
> > France sold its foreign policy to the highest bidder, in this case
Saddam,
> > who was subject to embargo?
>
>
> You really don't understand much (and know even less) if you still believe
> that the oil was the French government's main motive... (though it
certainly
> was a concern).

Let's see--lucrative (and non-competitive) oild development deal reached
between French firms and Saddam, followed by French officials voicing the
desire to relax the embargo. Cause-effect. And what other reasons were there
then existing to call for such a relaxation? Strange parallel to later
events--PRC leadership visits France, talks up buying of more French
products, French president reacts by recommending that the arms export
restrictions regarding the PRC be eliminated. Cause-effect. It looks like a
trend...

Brooks

>
>
> > We don't need one--one France is more than enough for the rest of the
> world.
>
>
> Accept no substitute!...
>
>
> Arva
>
>

[Nemo l'ancien]

Alan Minyard a écrit :

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
>>>>like SA?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
>>>
>>>No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
>>>apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
>>>release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
>>>your companies and Saddam.
>>>
>>>
>>same source as WMD ?
>>
>>Rgds
>>Alex
>>
>>
>>
>France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
>been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
>behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.
>
>Al Minyard
>
>
Et toi, un parfait et stupide intoxiqué par les vapeur sdu pétrole de
BU****E

[Nemo l'ancien]

>
>
>Pierre, Vive la France... et mort aux C...
>
>
Nemo l'ancien

[Kevin Brooks]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard a écrit :

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" >
wrote:


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...


And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
like SA?

Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...

No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
your companies and Saddam.

same source as WMD ?

Rgds
Alex


France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.

Al Minyard

Et toi, un parfait et stupide intoxiqué par les vapeur sdu pétrole de
BU****E

First, speak english; French is not exactly a major-demand language, and
based upon your recent national actions, it is growing less so. Secondly,
enough of the danged HTML posting--post in plain text, you ninnie.

Brooks

[Nemo l'ancien]

>
>
>
>
>
Oh yeah. And we are happy enough to keep our way of life, our good food,
not the Mac do's one our cheeses and YOUR Wives...

[Jarg]

"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Oh yeah. And we are happy enough to keep our way of life, our good food,
> not the Mac do's one our cheeses and YOUR Wives...

Actually funny you should say that since McDonalds is doing very well in
France. And most women run away from Frenchmen after catching one whiff -
your nation takes the fewest baths and changes it's underwear the least
frequently of any western nation!

Jarg

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

> You really don't understand much (and know even less) if you still believe
> that the oil was the French government's main motive... (though it certainly
> was a concern).

Yeah - it was the cash payments to French politicians that was really
important, with future armaments sales ciming in a close second.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Nemo l'ancien]

Et pan dans le baigneur...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. officials are exploring ways to
persuade Spain to keep its troops in Iraq, including the possibility
of a separate United Nations command to oversee international
forces.
Under that scenario, the U.S. military would continue to
lead its own soldiers, while troops from Spain and other countries
could be led by the United Nations, a State Department official
said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

[Leslie Swartz]

Kevin:

ArVa (and his ilk) are WRONG and they are simply using the
rationalizations of the "caught red handed." His main problem is that a lot
of the general american public knows it. Although John Kerry (and his ilk)
may not understand France's perfidy and the dishonorable behavior of it's
people, the John Kerry's of the wolrd DON'T MATTER in our system of
government (even when he does get elected).

Kerry won't wield the power that the corrupt ChIraq cronies would. Trying
to explain the truth to the French people at this point in time is futile .
.. . don't even *try* to confuse them with the facts.

Steve Swartz




"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArVa" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de
> > ...
> >
> > > >
> > > > same source as WMD ?
> > >
> > > Eh? Can't quite get the meaning of that fragment.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> >
> > You're not even trying...
>
> Let's see...we have undisputed accounts of the oil deals between Total and
> Iraq/Saddam (not to mention the acknowledged oil vouchers given to that
> friend of Chirac's, as the gent in question confirmed himself), versus an
> allegation apprently having something to do with intel assessments
regarding
> WMD (which intel assessments were reportedly not being disputed at the
time
> by major European intel agencies, including those of France IIRC). And the
> connection between the two is...?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Arva
> >
> >
>
>

[Grantland]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>Alan Minyard a écrit :
>
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" >
>wrote:
>
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>"Nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>And the US does not have a very strange relation with oil producer
>like SA?
>
>Even when people of that country > funded terrorism...
>
>No, we don't have a relationship anything like that which France
>apparently had with Saddam, as is becoming more clear with every
>release of information regarding these "sweetheart deals" between
>your companies and Saddam.
>
>same source as WMD ?
>
>Rgds
>Alex
>
>
>France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
>been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
>behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.
>
>Al Minyard
>
>Et toi, un parfait et stupide intoxiqué par les vapeur sdu pétrole de
>BU****E
>
>First, speak english; French is not exactly a major-demand language, and
>based upon your recent national actions, it is growing less so. Secondly,
>enough of the danged HTML posting--post in plain text, you ninnie.
>
>Brooks
>
Keep sucking Jew cock, fat Amerikong pigslave. Keep up the deficits.
Oil is going Euro/yuan and we will topple your foul, stinking, rotted
Regime. Sell the dollar! DEATH TO AMERIKA!

Grantland

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:53:19 +0100,
Pierre-Henri Baras attempted to say .....

>
> "Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>
> > >
> > France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
> > been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
> > behavior.
>
> What about the juicy contracts US oil companys were about to sign with the
> Taliban, during the summer before 9/11 ??? You know, the pipelines through
> Afghanistan.....
>

Oil pipelings through Afganistan ?

What's your source for that ?



> 2 wrongs don't make 1 right, but just stop giving out moral lessons, OK?
>
> > Your country is a shameless whore.
>
> Hey; you need one to know one!

That's why we have France....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Franck]

Good exemple, in US you have Al Minyard and in France we have Grantland
:o))))

There are stupid men all over the world

Franck

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:49:09 +0100, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:34:34 +0100, "Alex A" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> France betrayed all those that thought her a friend. WMDs may have
>> been an intelligence failure, but the Total/Elf deals were criminal
>> behavior. Your country is a shameless whore.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>
>What disturbs you so much? That the US were the only "major" country without
>any contract (unlike Italy, Russia, the UK, China, the
>Netherlands, ...) or that France was about to sign the biggest one?...

We were purchasing oil under the auspices of the UN "food for oil" plan,
not secretely undermining the plan with illegal and immoral deals.
>
>You want to talk about moral? What about the fact that on the eve of last
>year's war, the US were still the biggets purchaser of the Iraki oil?

See above

> What
>about Libya, where so many US businessmen gather nowadays, eager to exploit
>the oil and gas reserves of this country that was once (not so long ago!) on
>the "axis of evil" list? What about the dozens of US (and other countries)
>citizens this regime has killed?...

That regime has allowed inspectors complete access to its nuclear program
and that program has been removed.

>What about the business conducted in
>several Central Asia countries, far from being democracies?

And France wants to sell AWACS tech to the Chinese?
>
>You want another "oil scandal" involving Total ? Here's one : Total
>exploits an oil field in Myanmar (Burma). We all know that this country's
>regime is not a
> model of democracy but I don't hear any American complaining about it.
>Could it be because Total is associated 50/50 with a US company?...

>
>Someone famous once said : "Let those who have never sinned throw the first
>stones". I'm sorry but you don't qualify...
>
>Arva
>
Well, since the disgusting, immoral, despicable government of france has chosen
to be the world's whore, I suppose that you would be an expert on sin.

Al Minyard

[pcg]

> > What about the juicy contracts US oil companys were about to sign with
the
> > Taliban, during the summer before 9/11 ??? You know, the pipelines
through
> > Afghanistan.....
> >
>
> Oil pipelings through Afganistan ?
>
> What's your source for that ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pipelines+Afghanistan+&meta

[ArVa]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> We were purchasing oil under the auspices of the UN "food for oil" plan,
> not secretely undermining the plan with illegal and immoral deals.


Why were the Total negociations more illegal or immoral than the deals
signed by companies from other countries? And how would you qualify the
business many US companies made in Iraq using their European subsidiaries?
See : http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm


> >
> >You want to talk about moral? What about the fact that on the eve of
last
> >year's war, the US were still the biggets purchaser of the Iraki oil?
>
> See above


I have no doubt that it was legal but nevertheless I find it somewhat
strange to make business with someone you're about to attack...

> > What
> >about Libya,
>
> That regime has allowed inspectors complete access to its nuclear program
> and that program has been removed.


And that excuses its former behaviour? For years the Libyan regime has
openly threatened the West, it has funded terrorism wolrdwide (PIRA, ETA and
many more...), invaded Northern Chad, used its intelligence services to
commit bombings killing *hundreds* of civilians, and all of a sudden
everything's forgotten and it's OK to make business with it?
If so, why was it impossible to achieve such a result with Hussein who had
much more relationships than Gaddafi with several Western countries in the
past (for example, guess to which country's embassy he paid a visit in Cairo
in 1960 after he failed his coup)? One could wonder in that case if giving
more time to the UN weapon inspectors would had not been the best choice
instead a full scale war?


>
> >What about the business conducted in
> >several Central Asia countries, far from being democracies?
>
> And France wants to sell AWACS tech to the Chinese?


Honestly, I don't like much the idea but it's not a new issue, and France is
not the only one asking the ban lift (it can only be a collective European
decision anyway). IIRC, in 1996 the UK had already revised its reading of
the 1989 ban to allow the sale of military technology (no weapons stricto
sensu). Anyway, there's nothing to worry about : are you not one of those
who keep saying that European, and expecially French, technology is nothing
but crap?

> >
> Well, since the disgusting, immoral, despicable government of france has
chosen
> to be the world's whore, I suppose that you would be an expert on sin.
>

Well, I confess a liking for lust, but you obviously know more than I do
about anger...


ArVa

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:34:38 +0100, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>>
>> We were purchasing oil under the auspices of the UN "food for oil" plan,
>> not secretely undermining the plan with illegal and immoral deals.
>
>
>Why were the Total negociations more illegal or immoral than the deals
>signed by companies from other countries? And how would you qualify the
>business many US companies made in Iraq using their European subsidiaries?
>See : http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm

1. That web site is utterly incredible. They offer no proof or documentation
or their "facts", but even if their facts were correct, so what? US companies
have subsidiaries all over the world, and if the UN (not Iraq) wishes to
contract with them for services, what is the problem? Total was illegally
doing business directly with the Iraqis in order to circumvent the UN, BIG
difference, both legally and morally.
>
>
>> >
>> >You want to talk about moral? What about the fact that on the eve of
>last
>> >year's war, the US were still the biggets purchaser of the Iraki oil?
>>
>> See above
>
>
>I have no doubt that it was legal but nevertheless I find it somewhat
>strange to make business with someone you're about to attack...

We were "doing business" with the UN. The UN was doing "business"
with Iraq.
>
>> > What
>> >about Libya,
>>
>> That regime has allowed inspectors complete access to its nuclear program
>> and that program has been removed.
>
>
>And that excuses its former behaviour? For years the Libyan regime has
>openly threatened the West, it has funded terrorism wolrdwide (PIRA, ETA and
>many more...), invaded Northern Chad, used its intelligence services to
>commit bombings killing *hundreds* of civilians, and all of a sudden
>everything's forgotten and it's OK to make business with it?
>If so, why was it impossible to achieve such a result with Hussein who had
>much more relationships than Gaddafi with several Western countries in the
>past (for example, guess to which country's embassy he paid a visit in Cairo
>in 1960 after he failed his coup)? One could wonder in that case if giving
>more time to the UN weapon inspectors would had not been the best choice
>instead a full scale war?

The "UN Inspectors" were a bad joke.
>

So we should still ostracize the French for attacking the US Navy in WWII?
>
>>
>> >What about the business conducted in
>> >several Central Asia countries, far from being democracies?
>>


>> And France wants to sell AWACS tech to the Chinese?
>
>
>Honestly, I don't like much the idea but it's not a new issue, and France is
>not the only one asking the ban lift (it can only be a collective European
>decision anyway). IIRC, in 1996 the UK had already revised its reading of
>the 1989 ban to allow the sale of military technology (no weapons stricto
>sensu). Anyway, there's nothing to worry about : are you not one of those
>who keep saying that European, and expecially French, technology is nothing
>but crap?
>
They are certainly not on par with US Systems, but the would be better than
anything the Chinese could build.

Al Minyard