I can't believe i'm still hearing "France should just shut up and suck up to the US because our fathers saved your asses".
I can't believe i'm reading:
[quote]They may not be speaking German now, but supposedly there are a whole lot of them speaking Muslim... Maybe they have already been invaded and didn't even realize it?<hr></blockquote>
And reading a moderator finding that funny. that's pretty disturbing. And I really, really don't want to hear somebody tell me that joke was funny. Really.
[quote]Can't get more tangible than Blix ordering them to be destroyed and Iraq saying no, can you?<hr></blockquote>
I haven't seen Irak say no to Blix' requests. I have on the other hand seen Bush say he'd go to war anyways, whatever Saddam does with those missiles.
CNN seems to have convinced you guys that saddam is indeed the all mighty baddy of the Axis Of Evil that must be destroyed in order for Good to prevail.
Fascinating. What you don't seem to understand is that force should only be used as a last ressource, not something you tout every time you want to negotiate something. You don't go around saying Germany is on the same level as Syria or Korea just because it doesn't want to go to war with you. That's ridiculous.
[quote]They're doing two things that are definitely good:
1) They're pandering to their anti-US populations.
2) They're protecting their oil ties to Saddam.
If anyone tries to tell me that they just want to protect the Iraqi people from the horrors of war I will vomit on their shoes. NONE OF THE INVOLVED NATIONS ACTUALLY GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE.<hr></blockquote>
1) yeah, I know, everybody hates the US because they're jealous.
2) What oil ties? Perhaps the ties Total-Fina-Elf has? Do you know most shareholders are actually US and UK pension holders? The oil incentive in this war is so clear in US intentions it's not even funny to debate about it, and you come along here convinced that France doesn't want to go to war because of it? How about all the US really cares about is Iraq's oil?
[quote]The U.S. president has to go through a series of "checkpoints" so to speak in order to launch a nuke or even an aerial bombardment. I think the U.N. needs to do what it was created for and ensure that the world is safe from madmen like Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we?
The UN was created to ensure world peace, not to go to war for obscure financial and political reasons.
The arrogance is sickening. "I'm almighty, I decide what's right or wrong, you're all dumbasses, and you should bow down for you're not worthy." And I have to hear it from a nation where one out of 8 18-24 year olds can't even place Irak on a world map.
This is sick. You'll have your war, don't worry about it. And the economy will come out of its slump, because there's nothing like a good war to start it back up. Yet you won't learn anything from history, and keep repeating it, again and again. Congrats.
Does any of that disprove that TotalFinaElf has a multi-billion dollar contract to develop oil-rich areas provided the sanctions are lifted and Saddam remains in power?
This isn't a zero-sum game. Both France and the U.S. can have oil interests. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Like $3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money.
Come on be serious. The French GNP is over a Trillion dollars, they would hardly jeopardize so much for so little money. It's not like they will own the oil for Gods sake. Lukoil and TotalFinaElf would only have the right to drill and maybe some shipping rights. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It's quite sad that instead of facts, the US media is spoon feeding spin that is being eatten up so gullibly.
<strong>Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We put Saddam in power?
[quote]<strong>The UN was created to ensure world peace, not to go to war for obscure financial and political reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nor was it created to protect rule-breakers for obscure financial and political reasons. The knife cuts both ways.
[quote]<strong>And I have to hear it from a nation where one out of 8 18-24 year olds can't even place Irak on a world map.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or spell it.
[quote]<strong>Who put Saddam in position in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Himself and his violent cronies.
[quote]<strong>Who gave him the chemical weapons and the brainpower to make them in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The weapons were provided by the West. US, UK, Germany and even your beloved France.
Brainpower... I don't know what you mean there.
[quote]<strong>Who kept him in place because he brought "stability" to the region 12 years ago?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N.
These questions are fun, keep asking them!
--
BillData:
Where do you get $3.5 billion from, my friend?
TotalFinaElf has a contract with Saddam's regime that gives them exploratory control over ~50% of Iraq's oil reserves. A contract that can only be fully realized if the sanctions are lifted. Do you dispute this?
Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves. Do you dispute this?
But you'll actually try to say it's not a compelling interest to France? Hilarious. Absolutely freaking hilarious.
And beyond that, when faced with REAL FACTS you promote U.S. interests that aren't even involved right now.
[quote]Nor was it created to protect rule-breakers for obscure financial and political reasons. The knife cuts both ways.<hr></blockquote>
So saying "we'll go to war whatever the UN says, we don't need their backing" is not breaking the rules?
[quote]Or spell it.<hr></blockquote>
Cute. The fact that Iraq is spelled with a k in France, and that I'm taking the time to debate in your mother-tongue has obviously completely flown over your US-centric mind, hasn't it?
[quote]Himself and his violent cronies.<hr></blockquote>
And US backing.
[quote]The weapons were provided by the West. US, UK, Germany and even your beloved France.
Brainpower... I don't know what you mean there.<hr></blockquote>
Brainpower is the people doing the research.
I'm criticising the US stance on the issue. Not praising France's. This is perhaps too complicated to understand when you're in a "Everybody hates me because they're jealous" logic.
[quote]The U.N.<hr></blockquote>
the US.
[quote]But you'll actually try to say it's not a compelling interest to France? Hilarious. Absolutely freaking hilarious.<hr></blockquote>
And you're stating it's not a compelling reason for the US?
Seriously?
And you're still touting Totalfina's involvment, even though most shareholders are actually American and British?
[quote]These questions are fun, keep asking them! <hr></blockquote>
I want to know why you didn't ban RandyCat for his openly racist comment, or at least delete his post. I don't think you're taking your responsibilities seriously. I don't think you're realizing most 12 year olds who read these forums will read his comment, read your answer, and decide it's a funny thing to say. You're supposed to be mature enough to filter it out.
[quote]<strong>So saying "we'll go to war whatever the UN says, we don't need their backing" is not breaking the rules?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know, is it?
The burden of proof isn't on the alleged offender to prove itself guilty.
[quote]<strong>Cute. The fact that Iraq is spelled with a k in France, and that I'm taking the time to debate in your mother-tongue has obviously completely flown over your US-centric mind, hasn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly appreciate your efforts and conceit.
[quote]<strong>And US backing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have a source for how Saddam came to power with the help of the U.S.?
I'm sorry, SYN, but the U.S. started helping Saddam after he was in power, not before.
[quote]<strong>Brainpower is the people doing the research.
I'm criticising the US stance on the issue. Not praising France's. This is perhaps to complicated to understand when you're in a "Everybody hates me because they're jealous" logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Research for what? Stuff like a nuclear reactor? Because that was France's deal as well.
Remember when Chirac called Hussein a "good friend." before the Israelis blew up the little Franco-Iraqi Chernobyl? Oh man, good times.
[quote]<strong>the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry but you're wrong again.
The U.N. explicitly told Allied commanders (mainly Bush 1.0) that they were not to go into Baghdad or attempt to oust Saddam, only to liberate Kuwait.
Do come back and try again, though!
[quote]<strong>And you're stating it's not a compelling reason for the US?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said it was an interest for both. Try and keep up, please.
"This isn't a zero-sum game. Both France and the U.S. can have oil interests."
[quote]<strong>And you're still touting Totalfina's involvment, even though most shareholders are actually American and British?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you please tell me why that matters in any real sense or how it might absolve a French connection?
[quote]<strong>I want to know why you didn't ban RandyCat for his openly racist comment, or at least delete his post. I don't think you're taking your responsibilities seriously. I don't think you're realizing most 12 year olds who read these forums will read his comment, read your answer, and decide it's a funny thing to say. You're supposed to be mature enough to filter it out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have a problem with the way the forums are run or object to a particular post or topic, please feel free to contact a moderator or administrator via private message or e-mail.
[quote]<strong>I haven't seen Irak say no to Blix' requests. I have on the other hand seen Bush say he'd go to war anyways, whatever Saddam does with those missiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't seen Saddam say he's not going to destroy them?
Regarding chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix's order that Iraq destroy its Al-Samoud 2 missiles, "Saddam indicated he does not intend to destroy them or pledge to destroy them as demanded," the network said.
Hmmm!
[quote]<strong>CNN seems to have convinced you guys that saddam is indeed the all mighty baddy of the Axis Of Evil that must be destroyed in order for Good to prevail.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it was Clinton that convinced me of that. He turned on that Bubba charm and I was melted. Oh sweet bliss.
TotalFinaElf has a contract with Saddam's regime that gives them exploratory control over ~50% of Iraq's oil reserves. A contract that can only be fully realized if the sanctions are lifted. Do you dispute this?
Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves. Do you dispute this?
And beyond that, when faced with REAL FACTS you promote U.S. interests that aren't even involved right now.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where do you get 50% from, my friend?
The contract for Majnoon field though large is only 15% of the total IRAQI oil reserves.
Oh, and some studies actually show Saudi Arabia second to Iraq in total oil reserves.
As to your US interests comment... it makes no sense. But I guess much of your other half-truth rhetorical responses have been that way. So...
How was my comment rascist??? Because you [SYN] did not find it flattering (as if France is only worthy of flattering praise, because it is, well, France)? Perhaps, all US bashing posts should be considered rascist, as well?
That isn't the only field involved.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your right, but not much of a difference.
Out of the 112 Billion barrels believed to be in reserve [ US Geological Survey 2001 ], the Majnoon field is estimated to be as much as 600 thousand barrels. The only other field of the contract is the Nahr Umar field which is estimated to have only 200-300 thousand barrels.
[ US Department of Energy 10/02 ]
With Majnoon being $3.5 billion and Nahr Umar being $2 billion we're still only talking about 5-6 billion dollars. It is still chump-change.
EDIT: where did that number come from. I found a reference with similar data.
Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Forget what? We didn't put either of them in power. And Saddam's military uses Russian weapons and French Mirages. During the Cold War Iraq was a Soviet client. Stalin is one of Saddam's inspirations. Look at just about every broadcast you see from Baghdad. They are full of those massive murals of Saddam - just like Stalin's Soviet Union. It's that "Cult of the Individual" thing. You need to brush up on your history.
I didn't read the article. I'll get to it later. That said, Rumsfeld didn't appear on the scene until the '80s. Saddam came to power in the late '50s. You need to brush up on your history too.
[quote]Out of the 112 Billion barrels believed to be in reserve [ US Geological Survey 2001 ], the Majnoon field is estimated to be as much as 600 thousand barrels. The only other field of the contract is the Nahr Umar field which is estimated to have only 200-300 thousand barrels.<hr></blockquote>
Either you worded this poorly or you are trying to be misleading. The 112 billion is a total figure, the 600,000 and 200,000-300,000 are daily production figures. Mixing the two is weak. Linking back to the original source ( <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html"; target="_blank">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html</a>; ) which your link quotes yields the following statement:
[quote]The largest of Iraq's oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-20 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. Majnoon was reportedly brought onstream (under a "national effort" program begun in 1999) in May 2002 at 50,000 bbl/d, with output possibly reaching 100,000 bbl/d by the end of 2002 (according to Oil Minister Rashid). Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of up to 600,000 bbl/d at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. In July 2001, angered by France's perceived support for the U.S. "smart sanctions" plan, Iraq announced that it would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well. Iraq also announced that it was inclined to favor Russia, which has been supporting Iraq at the U.N. Security Council, on awarding rights to Majnoon and another large southern oil field, Nahr Umar.
TotalFinaElf apparently has all but agreed with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field. Initial output from Nahr Umar is expected to be around 440,000 bbl/d of 42o API crude, but may reach 500,000 bbl/d with more extensive development. The 2.5-4.6 billion-barrel Halfaya project is the final large field development in southern Iraq. Several companies (BHP, CNPC, Agip) reportedly have shown interest in the field, which ultimately could yield 200,000-300,000 bbl/d in output at a possible cost of $2 billion. <hr></blockquote>
That's 14.4-24.6 billion proven probable barrels and maybe more.
Where are you getting the $3.5 billion and $2 billion figures from? Unless you are citing the cost figures mistakenly I don't see those numbers in that data.
Beyond that, you have speculation that Iraq could have up to 300 billion total barrels. Plenty of the known stuff isn't even contracted out. Any political successes would be returned in kind economically for France and when you start talking about 10s of billion of barrels of oil it is no longer chump change. The favors would be returned, that's how the world works after all. Certainly there are plenty of other political considerations for the French, and certainly other countries like the US and Russia also are very much interested in the oil game, but to deny that the French are not in part motivated by Iraqi oil and money is dubious.
Comments
I can't believe i'm reading:
[quote]They may not be speaking German now, but supposedly there are a whole lot of them speaking Muslim... Maybe they have already been invaded and didn't even realize it?<hr></blockquote>
And reading a moderator finding that funny. that's pretty disturbing. And I really, really don't want to hear somebody tell me that joke was funny. Really.
[quote]Can't get more tangible than Blix ordering them to be destroyed and Iraq saying no, can you?<hr></blockquote>
I haven't seen Irak say no to Blix' requests. I have on the other hand seen Bush say he'd go to war anyways, whatever Saddam does with those missiles.
CNN seems to have convinced you guys that saddam is indeed the all mighty baddy of the Axis Of Evil that must be destroyed in order for Good to prevail.
Fascinating. What you don't seem to understand is that force should only be used as a last ressource, not something you tout every time you want to negotiate something. You don't go around saying Germany is on the same level as Syria or Korea just because it doesn't want to go to war with you. That's ridiculous.
[quote]They're doing two things that are definitely good:
1) They're pandering to their anti-US populations.
2) They're protecting their oil ties to Saddam.
If anyone tries to tell me that they just want to protect the Iraqi people from the horrors of war I will vomit on their shoes. NONE OF THE INVOLVED NATIONS ACTUALLY GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE.<hr></blockquote>
1) yeah, I know, everybody hates the US because they're jealous.
2) What oil ties? Perhaps the ties Total-Fina-Elf has? Do you know most shareholders are actually US and UK pension holders? The oil incentive in this war is so clear in US intentions it's not even funny to debate about it, and you come along here convinced that France doesn't want to go to war because of it? How about all the US really cares about is Iraq's oil?
[quote]The U.S. president has to go through a series of "checkpoints" so to speak in order to launch a nuke or even an aerial bombardment. I think the U.N. needs to do what it was created for and ensure that the world is safe from madmen like Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we?
The UN was created to ensure world peace, not to go to war for obscure financial and political reasons.
The arrogance is sickening. "I'm almighty, I decide what's right or wrong, you're all dumbasses, and you should bow down for you're not worthy." And I have to hear it from a nation where one out of 8 18-24 year olds can't even place Irak on a world map.
This is sick. You'll have your war, don't worry about it. And the economy will come out of its slump, because there's nothing like a good war to start it back up. Yet you won't learn anything from history, and keep repeating it, again and again. Congrats.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
Who put Saddam in position in the first place?
Who gave him the chemical weapons and the brainpower to make them in the first place?
Who kept him in place because he brought "stability" to the region 12 years ago?
<strong>BillData:
Does any of that disprove that TotalFinaElf has a multi-billion dollar contract to develop oil-rich areas provided the sanctions are lifted and Saddam remains in power?
This isn't a zero-sum game. Both France and the U.S. can have oil interests.
Like $3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money.
Come on be serious. The French GNP is over a Trillion dollars, they would hardly jeopardize so much for so little money. It's not like they will own the oil for Gods sake. Lukoil and TotalFinaElf would only have the right to drill and maybe some shipping rights. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It's quite sad that instead of facts, the US media is spoon feeding spin that is being eatten up so gullibly.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We put Saddam in power?
[quote]<strong>The UN was created to ensure world peace, not to go to war for obscure financial and political reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nor was it created to protect rule-breakers for obscure financial and political reasons. The knife cuts both ways.
[quote]<strong>And I have to hear it from a nation where one out of 8 18-24 year olds can't even place Irak on a world map.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or spell it.
[quote]<strong>Who put Saddam in position in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Himself and his violent cronies.
[quote]<strong>Who gave him the chemical weapons and the brainpower to make them in the first place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The weapons were provided by the West. US, UK, Germany and even your beloved France.
Brainpower... I don't know what you mean there.
[quote]<strong>Who kept him in place because he brought "stability" to the region 12 years ago?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.N.
These questions are fun, keep asking them!
--
BillData:
Where do you get $3.5 billion from, my friend?
TotalFinaElf has a contract with Saddam's regime that gives them exploratory control over ~50% of Iraq's oil reserves. A contract that can only be fully realized if the sanctions are lifted. Do you dispute this?
Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves. Do you dispute this?
But you'll actually try to say it's not a compelling interest to France? Hilarious. Absolutely freaking hilarious.
And beyond that, when faced with REAL FACTS you promote U.S. interests that aren't even involved right now.
Very sad.
So saying "we'll go to war whatever the UN says, we don't need their backing" is not breaking the rules?
[quote]Or spell it.<hr></blockquote>
Cute. The fact that Iraq is spelled with a k in France, and that I'm taking the time to debate in your mother-tongue has obviously completely flown over your US-centric mind, hasn't it?
[quote]Himself and his violent cronies.<hr></blockquote>
And US backing.
[quote]The weapons were provided by the West. US, UK, Germany and even your beloved France.
Brainpower... I don't know what you mean there.<hr></blockquote>
Brainpower is the people doing the research.
I'm criticising the US stance on the issue. Not praising France's. This is perhaps too complicated to understand when you're in a "Everybody hates me because they're jealous" logic.
[quote]The U.N.<hr></blockquote>
the US.
[quote]But you'll actually try to say it's not a compelling interest to France? Hilarious. Absolutely freaking hilarious.<hr></blockquote>
And you're stating it's not a compelling reason for the US?
Seriously?
And you're still touting Totalfina's involvment, even though most shareholders are actually American and British?
[quote]These questions are fun, keep asking them! <hr></blockquote>
I want to know why you didn't ban RandyCat for his openly racist comment, or at least delete his post. I don't think you're taking your responsibilities seriously. I don't think you're realizing most 12 year olds who read these forums will read his comment, read your answer, and decide it's a funny thing to say. You're supposed to be mature enough to filter it out.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: SYN ]</p>
<strong>
Or spell it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're a native English speaker? Congrats.
[quote]<strong>So saying "we'll go to war whatever the UN says, we don't need their backing" is not breaking the rules?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know, is it?
The burden of proof isn't on the alleged offender to prove itself guilty.
[quote]<strong>Cute. The fact that Iraq is spelled with a k in France, and that I'm taking the time to debate in your mother-tongue has obviously completely flown over your US-centric mind, hasn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I certainly appreciate your efforts and conceit.
[quote]<strong>And US backing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have a source for how Saddam came to power with the help of the U.S.?
I'm sorry, SYN, but the U.S. started helping Saddam after he was in power, not before.
[quote]<strong>Brainpower is the people doing the research.
I'm criticising the US stance on the issue. Not praising France's. This is perhaps to complicated to understand when you're in a "Everybody hates me because they're jealous" logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Research for what? Stuff like a nuclear reactor? Because that was France's deal as well.
Remember when Chirac called Hussein a "good friend." before the Israelis blew up the little Franco-Iraqi Chernobyl? Oh man, good times.
[quote]<strong>the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry but you're wrong again.
The U.N. explicitly told Allied commanders (mainly Bush 1.0) that they were not to go into Baghdad or attempt to oust Saddam, only to liberate Kuwait.
Do come back and try again, though!
[quote]<strong>And you're stating it's not a compelling reason for the US?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I said it was an interest for both. Try and keep up, please.
"This isn't a zero-sum game. Both France and the U.S. can have oil interests."
[quote]<strong>And you're still touting Totalfina's involvment, even though most shareholders are actually American and British?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you please tell me why that matters in any real sense or how it might absolve a French connection?
[quote]<strong>I want to know why you didn't ban RandyCat for his openly racist comment, or at least delete his post. I don't think you're taking your responsibilities seriously. I don't think you're realizing most 12 year olds who read these forums will read his comment, read your answer, and decide it's a funny thing to say. You're supposed to be mature enough to filter it out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you have a problem with the way the forums are run or object to a particular post or topic, please feel free to contact a moderator or administrator via private message or e-mail.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
[quote]<strong>I haven't seen Irak say no to Blix' requests. I have on the other hand seen Bush say he'd go to war anyways, whatever Saddam does with those missiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't seen Saddam say he's not going to destroy them?
<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030224-1420-iraq.html"; target="_blank">read more information</a>
Regarding chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix's order that Iraq destroy its Al-Samoud 2 missiles, "Saddam indicated he does not intend to destroy them or pledge to destroy them as demanded," the network said.
Hmmm!
[quote]<strong>CNN seems to have convinced you guys that saddam is indeed the all mighty baddy of the Axis Of Evil that must be destroyed in order for Good to prevail.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it was Clinton that convinced me of that. He turned on that Bubba charm and I was melted. Oh sweet bliss.
<strong>
...
Where do you get $3.5 billion from, my friend?
TotalFinaElf has a contract with Saddam's regime that gives them exploratory control over ~50% of Iraq's oil reserves. A contract that can only be fully realized if the sanctions are lifted. Do you dispute this?
Iraq is only second to Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves. Do you dispute this?
And beyond that, when faced with REAL FACTS you promote U.S. interests that aren't even involved right now.
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where do you get 50% from, my friend?
The contract for Majnoon field though large is only 15% of the total IRAQI oil reserves.
Oh, and some studies actually show Saudi Arabia second to Iraq in total oil reserves.
As to your US interests comment...
<strong>Where do you get 50% from, my friend?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/pbobbitt/"; target="_blank">Philip Bobbitt</a>
[quote]<strong>The contract for Majnoon field though large is only 15% of the total IRAQI oil reserves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That isn't the only field involved.
<strong>
That isn't the only field involved.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your right, but not much of a difference.
Out of the 112 Billion barrels believed to be in reserve [ US Geological Survey 2001 ], the Majnoon field is estimated to be as much as 600 thousand barrels. The only other field of the contract is the Nahr Umar field which is estimated to have only 200-300 thousand barrels.
[ US Department of Energy 10/02 ]
With Majnoon being $3.5 billion and Nahr Umar being $2 billion we're still only talking about 5-6 billion dollars. It is still chump-change.
EDIT: where did that number come from. I found a reference with similar data.
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/oil/Iraqoilgas.htm"; target="_blank">Iraqi Oil and Gas</a>
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
Sure, and it's your US presidents that put men like Saddam and Osama Bin Laden in the position they're at now in the first place, providing weapons along the way; let's not forget that, shall we? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Forget what? We didn't put either of them in power. And Saddam's military uses Russian weapons and French Mirages. During the Cold War Iraq was a Soviet client. Stalin is one of Saddam's inspirations. Look at just about every broadcast you see from Baghdad. They are full of those massive murals of Saddam - just like Stalin's Soviet Union. It's that "Cult of the Individual" thing. You need to brush up on your history.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
...You need to brush up on your history.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html"; target="_blank">History lesson</a>
<strong>
Come on be serious. The French GNP is over a Trillion dollars, they would hardly jeopardize so much for so little money. </strong><hr></blockquote>
And the California's GDP is larger but that doesn't prevent people from alleging that the U.S. is just in this for the oil.
<strong>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html"; target="_blank">History lesson</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't read the article. I'll get to it later. That said, Rumsfeld didn't appear on the scene until the '80s. Saddam came to power in the late '50s. You need to brush up on your history too.
<strong>
And the California's GDP is larger but that doesn't prevent people from alleging that the U.S. is just in this for the oil.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I completely agree and I react with just as much disdain for people that state such allegations.
Allegation is not truth.
Either you worded this poorly or you are trying to be misleading. The 112 billion is a total figure, the 600,000 and 200,000-300,000 are daily production figures. Mixing the two is weak. Linking back to the original source ( <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html"; target="_blank">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html</a>; ) which your link quotes yields the following statement:
[quote]The largest of Iraq's oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-20 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border. French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon. Majnoon was reportedly brought onstream (under a "national effort" program begun in 1999) in May 2002 at 50,000 bbl/d, with output possibly reaching 100,000 bbl/d by the end of 2002 (according to Oil Minister Rashid). Future development on Majnoon ultimately could lead to production of up to 600,000 bbl/d at an estimated (according to Deutsche Bank) cost of $4 billion. In July 2001, angered by France's perceived support for the U.S. "smart sanctions" plan, Iraq announced that it would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well. Iraq also announced that it was inclined to favor Russia, which has been supporting Iraq at the U.N. Security Council, on awarding rights to Majnoon and another large southern oil field, Nahr Umar.
TotalFinaElf apparently has all but agreed with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field. Initial output from Nahr Umar is expected to be around 440,000 bbl/d of 42o API crude, but may reach 500,000 bbl/d with more extensive development. The 2.5-4.6 billion-barrel Halfaya project is the final large field development in southern Iraq. Several companies (BHP, CNPC, Agip) reportedly have shown interest in the field, which ultimately could yield 200,000-300,000 bbl/d in output at a possible cost of $2 billion. <hr></blockquote>
That's 14.4-24.6 billion proven probable barrels and maybe more.
Where are you getting the $3.5 billion and $2 billion figures from? Unless you are citing the cost figures mistakenly I don't see those numbers in that data.
Beyond that, you have speculation that Iraq could have up to 300 billion total barrels. Plenty of the known stuff isn't even contracted out. Any political successes would be returned in kind economically for France and when you start talking about 10s of billion of barrels of oil it is no longer chump change. The favors would be returned, that's how the world works after all. Certainly there are plenty of other political considerations for the French, and certainly other countries like the US and Russia also are very much interested in the oil game, but to deny that the French are not in part motivated by Iraqi oil and money is dubious.