I thought it implied that France will be there in the end to aid UN troops so they can have a piece of the pie if things to get to the point of WaR. I can't see France defending on the side of Iraq. If that happened they would lose all their western allies (except maybe for germany).</strong><hr></blockquote>
They would be there only if the inspectors reported that they canno't disarm iraq. If the inspectors said that, french wil enter in the coalition for war. In the contrary they won't.
They would be there only if the inspectors reported that they canno't disarm iraq. If the inspectors said that, french wil enter in the coalition for war. In the contrary they won't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet they will no matter what. The story is circulating now that Saddam will not destroy his al-Samoud missiles that the UN demanded he do. These missiles already go over the limit on distance that was imposed.
Saddam himself has already said he refuses to comply. Chirac has no more valid argument.
There is no more hope for progress. It's over.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: France will get on board and leave Germany holding the bag.
Chirac has to pander to his anti-American population. Chirac has to try to protect his financial interests in Iraq under Saddam. Chirac isn't a moron, he's going to get on board so his nation still has financial interests in Iraq (*toot* *toot* little aircraft carrier). He's playing both sides and it's time to make the switch, poor Germany.
At the very least France will abstain and not veto the new resolution that will say Iraq has broken the cease-fire. I believe we call that the "diplomatic" way of selling your anti-war allies out.
Saddam himself has already said he refuses to comply. Chirac has no more valid argument.
There is no more hope for progress. It's over.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: France will get on board and leave Germany holding the bag.
Chirac has to pander to his anti-American population. Chirac has to try to protect his financial interests in Iraq under Saddam. Chirac isn't a moron, he's going to get on board so his nation still has financial interests in Iraq (*toot* *toot* little aircraft carrier). He's playing both sides and it's time to make the switch, poor Germany.
At the very least France will abstain and not veto the new resolution that will say Iraq has broken the cease-fire. I believe we call that the "diplomatic" way of selling your anti-war allies out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are more confident than me Grover, for my part i don't know what will arrive. If it is confirmed that Saddam refuse to destroy his missiles, it would be the good excuse for Chirac to make war, in fact it will be the excuse he is asking for since the beginning.
NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Soviet Union was also Hitler's ally until he turned on them. This caught Stalin completely by surprise which is one of the reasons for their horrendous losses.
The Soviet Union was also Hitler's ally until he turned on them. This caught Stalin completely by surprise which is one of the reasons for their horrendous losses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their horrendous losses also can be attributed to the particularly murderous Nazi strategies and also to their lack of technological sophistication; armerments which could not match the Germans . . . until near the end of the war . . .
100+ al-Samoud 2 missiles that Saddam refuses to destroy.
Can't get more tangible than Blix ordering them to be destroyed and Iraq saying no, can you?
Or is he a war-monger now as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The missiles are really only a slight violation. Clearly they were purchased, and built, in violation of UN sanctions but honestly those sanctions are just lip service. No one really believes, or even expects, for any nation to compromise their security to the point that UN sanctions demand. They've become an issue because the Bush administration wants them to be. Saddam's reaction has been almost surprise, I don't think anyone was expecting this. I suspect the US just leaned on some back channels. The only thing necessary to bring them into line would be a software mod limiting the range, I'm expecting Iraq to invite European, or even American, engineers to assist in compliance on the missiles.
It's a small missile, it doesn't deliver a nuclear payload, and developing some sort of aerosol delivery system would be a hack job at best and not really suitable for military deployment. They're not exactly womd.
[quote]No matter if you are pro or anti-war on Iraq, this article is a must read. <hr></blockquote>
It's too radical to really be taken seriously, I also can't find the authors credentials as a global economist. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I have trouble seeing OPEC and the EU as cohesive federations, let alone as the organizers of a global economic plot...
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a glib response, don't you think?
And then you criticize pfflam for not taking you seriously...
[quote]<strong>The missiles are really only a slight violation. Clearly they were purchased, and built, in violation of UN sanctions but honestly those sanctions are just lip service.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh well, if it's only a slight violation...
100+ illegal missiles capable of being tipped with biological/chemical warheads. Only slight.
[quote]<strong>No one really believes, or even expects, for any nation to compromise their security to the point that UN sanctions demand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the push for war shows that this is a false statement.
[quote]<strong>They've become an issue because the Bush administration wants them to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush brought it up?
I could swear it was Blix who consulted an international panel of experts to check them out.
I could swear it was Blix that worked with those people to declare the missiles proscribed.
I could swear it was Blix who drafted a letter demanding they start destruction by March 1st.
Maybe Blix is a Bush puppet?
[quote]<strong>The only thing necessary to bring them into line would be a software mod limiting the range, I'm expecting Iraq to invite European, or even American, engineers to assist in compliance on the missiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's a great idea.
You program it to only go so far and then let Iraq have it back. That's really really smart.
"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!"
You seem to have misunderstood me, perhaps I should clarify some of my positions.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Oh well, if it's only a slight violation...
100+ illegal missiles capable of being tipped with biological/chemical warheads. Only slight.<hr></blockquote>
The range limit imposed after the Gulf war is 93 miles.
13, of 40, missiles tested exceeded this range.
One went as far as 114 miles.
The missiles were tested sans payload or guidance system. I'm having a real problem taking this as a credible threat.
[quote]I think the push for war shows that this is a false statement.<hr></blockquote>
I'd argue that the US's incentives for war are not the enforcement of UN sanctions.
[quote]Bush brought it up?
I could swear it was Blix who consulted an international panel of experts to check them out.
I could swear it was Blix that worked with those people to declare the missiles proscribed.
I could swear it was Blix who drafted a letter demanding they start destruction by March 1st.
Maybe Blix is a Bush puppet?<hr></blockquote>
I never mentioned the word puppet, and I never suggested that Bush brought it up. I merely suggested the US may have leaned on some back channels. It was an off the cuff statement and I have absolutely nothing to back it up, you can feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
[quote]
Yeah, that's a great idea.
You program it to only go so far and then let Iraq have it back. That's really really smart.<hr></blockquote>
They're only in violation of a range limit, are you suggesting new restrictions?
[quote]
"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!"
"The panel confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometres (95 miles)... and are to be destroyed...
Maybe Blix and the "international panel of experts" are war-mongers, too, eh?
[quote]I'd argue that the US's incentives for war are not the enforcement of UN sanctions.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you would.
[quote]I never mentioned the word puppet, and I never suggested that Bush brought it up. I merely suggested the US may have leaned on some back channels. It was an off the cuff statement and I have absolutely nothing to back it up, you can feel free to take it with a grain of salt.<hr></blockquote>
I'll go ahead and not take it at all because there's no logic to it unless you want to say Bush unduly influenced Hans Blix. A pretty heavy charge, especially when there's absolutely nothing backing it.
I realize you're trying to muddy the water, but unfortunately for you it is crystal clear on this issue.
[quote]They're only in violation of a range limit, are you suggesting new restrictions?<hr></blockquote>
No, I'm suggesting disarmament by force.
I also wonder why you work so hard to sweep material breaches under the rug. Hmm.
[quote]What nuclear warheads? ...and what delivery system?<hr></blockquote>
Satire - 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
<strong>...Of course you don't feel threatened, you're not sitting within range of them.
...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how many people are within 100 miles of IRAQs border?
Only Kuwait and IRAN have any significant populations that close to IRAQ. I am not saying that those people are expendable, just that 100 miles doesn't get Saddam much. Even the shortest range SCUD can go twice that far.
Maybe we should have limited him to sticks and stones. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
5:1, same ratio you give for oil purchase relative to each country.
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>
France is protecting very little from their current anti-war stance. The US on the other hand has a lot to gain by invading IRAQ and overthrowing Saddams evil dictatorship. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems from you data, they are protecting just as much of an interest, relatively speaking.
If you were to compare economies and the relative importance of the amounts of oil you mentioned, them importance to France of the Iraqi becomes even more elevated compare to the US.
Seems from you data, they are protecting just as much of an interest, relatively speaking.
If you were to compare economies and the relative importance of the amounts of oil you mentioned, them importance to France of the Iraqi becomes even more elevated compare to the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France has more wine groves than the US, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with where they get their oil either. They could make up their lose of 10% in a heart beat.
The only real question reguarding Frances motives and oil, which has had many a number thrown around, is how much is the TotalFinaElf contract with IRAQ really worth. I have not yet seen any data that makes that an issue either.
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.
Comments
<strong>
I thought it implied that France will be there in the end to aid UN troops so they can have a piece of the pie if things to get to the point of WaR. I can't see France defending on the side of Iraq. If that happened they would lose all their western allies (except maybe for germany).</strong><hr></blockquote>
They would be there only if the inspectors reported that they canno't disarm iraq. If the inspectors said that, french wil enter in the coalition for war. In the contrary they won't.
<strong>
They would be there only if the inspectors reported that they canno't disarm iraq. If the inspectors said that, french wil enter in the coalition for war. In the contrary they won't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet they will no matter what. The story is circulating now that Saddam will not destroy his al-Samoud missiles that the UN demanded he do. These missiles already go over the limit on distance that was imposed.
Saddam himself has already said he refuses to comply. Chirac has no more valid argument.
There is no more hope for progress. It's over.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: France will get on board and leave Germany holding the bag.
Chirac has to pander to his anti-American population. Chirac has to try to protect his financial interests in Iraq under Saddam. Chirac isn't a moron, he's going to get on board so his nation still has financial interests in Iraq (*toot* *toot* little aircraft carrier). He's playing both sides and it's time to make the switch, poor Germany.
At the very least France will abstain and not veto the new resolution that will say Iraq has broken the cease-fire. I believe we call that the "diplomatic" way of selling your anti-war allies out.
<strong>Powerdoc:
Saddam himself has already said he refuses to comply. Chirac has no more valid argument.
There is no more hope for progress. It's over.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: France will get on board and leave Germany holding the bag.
Chirac has to pander to his anti-American population. Chirac has to try to protect his financial interests in Iraq under Saddam. Chirac isn't a moron, he's going to get on board so his nation still has financial interests in Iraq (*toot* *toot* little aircraft carrier). He's playing both sides and it's time to make the switch, poor Germany.
At the very least France will abstain and not veto the new resolution that will say Iraq has broken the cease-fire. I believe we call that the "diplomatic" way of selling your anti-war allies out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are more confident than me Grover, for my part i don't know what will arrive. If it is confirmed that Saddam refuse to destroy his missiles, it would be the good excuse for Chirac to make war, in fact it will be the excuse he is asking for since the beginning.
<strong>
Well duh, that's obvious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well duh, it still doesn't make the case that we put Saddam in power.
<strong>
NO you're wrong. They would be speaking Russian. . .
. the Russians sacrificed more lives than anyone in WW2 and kicked more but than anyone . . in the Eurpean Theatre that is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Soviet Union was also Hitler's ally until he turned on them. This caught Stalin completely by surprise which is one of the reasons for their horrendous losses.
<strong>
Well duh, it still doesn't make the case that we put Saddam in power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say it did. And you are right, we didn't put Saddam in power.
It just shows that the US certainly has not been an innocent bystander.
In hind sight it may have been a lot better for everyone if the US had supported IRAN instead of IRAQ though.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
I didn't say it did...</strong><hr></blockquote>
But SYN did. He was the one I was replying to when you responded to my post.
[quote]<strong>It just shows that the US certainly has not been an innocent bystander.
In hind sight it may have been a lot better for everyone if the US had supported IRAN instead of IRAQ though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We did support Iran. We supported both sides in that war.
<strong>
We did support Iran. We supported both sides in that war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's one of the reasons Saddam was and is so pissed off at us.
<strong>
The Soviet Union was also Hitler's ally until he turned on them. This caught Stalin completely by surprise which is one of the reasons for their horrendous losses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Their horrendous losses also can be attributed to the particularly murderous Nazi strategies and also to their lack of technological sophistication; armerments which could not match the Germans . . . until near the end of the war . . .
<strong>SYN:
Do you want tangible evidence of violations?
100+ al-Samoud 2 missiles that Saddam refuses to destroy.
Can't get more tangible than Blix ordering them to be destroyed and Iraq saying no, can you?
Or is he a war-monger now as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The missiles are really only a slight violation. Clearly they were purchased, and built, in violation of UN sanctions but honestly those sanctions are just lip service. No one really believes, or even expects, for any nation to compromise their security to the point that UN sanctions demand. They've become an issue because the Bush administration wants them to be. Saddam's reaction has been almost surprise, I don't think anyone was expecting this. I suspect the US just leaned on some back channels. The only thing necessary to bring them into line would be a software mod limiting the range, I'm expecting Iraq to invite European, or even American, engineers to assist in compliance on the missiles.
It's a small missile, it doesn't deliver a nuclear payload, and developing some sort of aerosol delivery system would be a hack job at best and not really suitable for military deployment. They're not exactly womd.
<a href="http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html"; target="_blank">http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html</a>;
It's too radical to really be taken seriously, I also can't find the authors credentials as a global economist. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I have trouble seeing OPEC and the EU as cohesive federations, let alone as the organizers of a global economic plot...
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
I would rather say that Bush has an ounce of leadership to bring real issues to the table and is willing to address the issues. Bush and Blair are some of the few real world leaders at this point in time. It is not enough to ignore problems and talk "nicely" with killers. Would a police dept take a killer and try to ask the killer to comply with doing the right thing? uhhhhh I should think not.
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a glib response, don't you think?
And then you criticize pfflam for not taking you seriously...
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
[quote]<strong>The missiles are really only a slight violation. Clearly they were purchased, and built, in violation of UN sanctions but honestly those sanctions are just lip service.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh well, if it's only a slight violation...
100+ illegal missiles capable of being tipped with biological/chemical warheads. Only slight.
[quote]<strong>No one really believes, or even expects, for any nation to compromise their security to the point that UN sanctions demand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the push for war shows that this is a false statement.
[quote]<strong>They've become an issue because the Bush administration wants them to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bush brought it up?
I could swear it was Blix who consulted an international panel of experts to check them out.
I could swear it was Blix that worked with those people to declare the missiles proscribed.
I could swear it was Blix who drafted a letter demanding they start destruction by March 1st.
Maybe Blix is a Bush puppet?
[quote]<strong>The only thing necessary to bring them into line would be a software mod limiting the range, I'm expecting Iraq to invite European, or even American, engineers to assist in compliance on the missiles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's a great idea.
You program it to only go so far and then let Iraq have it back. That's really really smart.
"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!"
Laughable. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
Oh well, if it's only a slight violation...
100+ illegal missiles capable of being tipped with biological/chemical warheads. Only slight.<hr></blockquote>
The range limit imposed after the Gulf war is 93 miles.
13, of 40, missiles tested exceeded this range.
One went as far as 114 miles.
The missiles were tested sans payload or guidance system. I'm having a real problem taking this as a credible threat.
[quote]I think the push for war shows that this is a false statement.<hr></blockquote>
I'd argue that the US's incentives for war are not the enforcement of UN sanctions.
[quote]Bush brought it up?
I could swear it was Blix who consulted an international panel of experts to check them out.
I could swear it was Blix that worked with those people to declare the missiles proscribed.
I could swear it was Blix who drafted a letter demanding they start destruction by March 1st.
Maybe Blix is a Bush puppet?<hr></blockquote>
I never mentioned the word puppet, and I never suggested that Bush brought it up. I merely suggested the US may have leaned on some back channels. It was an off the cuff statement and I have absolutely nothing to back it up, you can feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
[quote]
Yeah, that's a great idea.
You program it to only go so far and then let Iraq have it back. That's really really smart.<hr></blockquote>
They're only in violation of a range limit, are you suggesting new restrictions?
[quote]
"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!"
Laughable. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <hr></blockquote>
What nuclear warheads? ...and what delivery system?
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
13, of 40, missiles tested exceeded this range.
One went as far as 114 miles.
The missiles were tested sans payload or guidance system. I'm having a real problem taking this as a credible threat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course you don't feel threatened, you're not sitting within range of them.
And beyond that, your information is terrible.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2790831.stm"; target="_blank">click</a>
"The panel confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometres (95 miles)... and are to be destroyed...
Maybe Blix and the "international panel of experts" are war-mongers, too, eh?
[quote]I'd argue that the US's incentives for war are not the enforcement of UN sanctions.<hr></blockquote>
Of course you would.
[quote]I never mentioned the word puppet, and I never suggested that Bush brought it up. I merely suggested the US may have leaned on some back channels. It was an off the cuff statement and I have absolutely nothing to back it up, you can feel free to take it with a grain of salt.<hr></blockquote>
I'll go ahead and not take it at all because there's no logic to it unless you want to say Bush unduly influenced Hans Blix. A pretty heavy charge, especially when there's absolutely nothing backing it.
I realize you're trying to muddy the water, but unfortunately for you it is crystal clear on this issue.
[quote]They're only in violation of a range limit, are you suggesting new restrictions?<hr></blockquote>
No, I'm suggesting disarmament by force.
I also wonder why you work so hard to sweep material breaches under the rug. Hmm.
[quote]What nuclear warheads? ...and what delivery system?<hr></blockquote>
Satire - 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
<strong>...Of course you don't feel threatened, you're not sitting within range of them.
...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And how many people are within 100 miles of IRAQs border?
Only Kuwait and IRAN have any significant populations that close to IRAQ. I am not saying that those people are expendable, just that 100 miles doesn't get Saddam much. Even the shortest range SCUD can go twice that far.
Maybe we should have limited him to sticks and stones. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
More Propaganda, please learn the facts.
The US buys almost 50% of the IRAQI oil.
The French buy less than 10% of the IRAQI oil.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
US population ~ 300Mil
French population ~ 60Mil
5:1, same ratio you give for oil purchase relative to each country.
[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:
<strong>
France is protecting very little from their current anti-war stance. The US on the other hand has a lot to gain by invading IRAQ and overthrowing Saddams evil dictatorship. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems from you data, they are protecting just as much of an interest, relatively speaking.
If you were to compare economies and the relative importance of the amounts of oil you mentioned, them importance to France of the Iraqi becomes even more elevated compare to the US.
<strong>
Seems from you data, they are protecting just as much of an interest, relatively speaking.
If you were to compare economies and the relative importance of the amounts of oil you mentioned, them importance to France of the Iraqi becomes even more elevated compare to the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
France has more wine groves than the US, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with where they get their oil either. They could make up their lose of 10% in a heart beat.
The only real question reguarding Frances motives and oil, which has had many a number thrown around, is how much is the TotalFinaElf contract with IRAQ really worth. I have not yet seen any data that makes that an issue either.
Petroeuros.
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.