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_01/02.2...rcumvented.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