Article discussing France's oil business and involvement in Iraq.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zarathustra, Mar 18, 2003.

  1. zarathustra macrumors 6502a


    Jul 16, 2002
    Philadelphia, PA
    An article describing the dealings of elf, the franch oil giant. Here is the link.

    Of particular interest:

  2. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816


    Nov 24, 2002
    Tampa, FL
  3. chrisfx811 macrumors regular

    Jul 18, 2002
    "no u.n. inspections for oil"
    no u.n. inspections for oil
    say it with me
  4. Taft macrumors 65816


    Jan 31, 2002
    Who do you think is going to get those contracts when Saddam is ousted? And before you say 'the Iraqi people', think about who else is going to be involved.

    If you guessed US companies, I'd say you nailed it. To implicate France's greed and overlook our own is folly.

  5. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Jul 3, 2001
    I don't think France doesn't want war because of this. There are still people that don't want war and their governments act out of their wishes. What's the reason for all this searching why France is against attacking? Isn't it conceivable that they simply don't think that war is the solution? Many, if not most countries and governments support this view.

    Have you heard about major newscompanies and their interests in the arms/war business?
  6. zarathustra thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jul 16, 2002
    Philadelphia, PA
    I think all the other posters overlooked one fact: I never mentioned that the details described by the article are in fact the reasons why France doesn't want war in Iraq.

    I just thought it was interesting, you guys did all the "jumpig to conclusions". Please don't put words in my mouth, otherwise we'll turn into a miniature UN. ;)
  7. G4scott macrumors 68020


    Jan 9, 2002
    Austin, TX
    While I agree that the US will probably be the major buyer of Iraqui oil after this is all over, I think that the US will be careful about how they set things up. Hopefully they will let Iraq decide who to sell their oil to, but the US is probably going to make the best offer to them. You know how these things work.

    What's funny, Total Fina Elf sponsors a 'freshman camp' at my high school. I think I'll start a boycott or something at my school...
  8. alex_ant macrumors 68020


    Feb 5, 2002
    All up in your bidness
    If France's government is equally as corrupt and able to be paid off by corporations as the U.S.', then this is a big issue. I don't know whether it is, though, because I'm an ignorant American. I think as Americans, we've gotten so used to "money = influence" that we expect to see it everywhere.
  9. beatle888 macrumors 68000


    Feb 3, 2002
    no government operates out of the goodness of their heart. this makes the position france has taken on the war open to major speculation. they have motives to be against the war that are derived strictly from monitary gain. im not pro war but im not proud to have france on my side in this judgement.

    there isnt a government out there that does anything out of the goodness of their heart, including america. all the hyper-war boys need to know (some already do) that we arent heroes here. we want something out of this war that isnt being shared with the general public. if this wasnt true then why didnt we bomb saddam (who must go) when he actually murdered all his people? what did we truth and liberty gods do? we looked the other way. so dont think we are doing this because we are interested in doing the RIGHT thing.
  10. beatle888 macrumors 68000


    Feb 3, 2002
    just read an article about france and their possible involvement in the war against iraq.

    ""If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Ambassador Jean-David Levitte told CNN."

  11. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Aug 20, 2001

    I suspect the French leadership is also going with public opinion, which is quite anti-war.

    However I think that it is reasonable to demand that at least some of the motives behind the actions of the USofA be "goodness" motives.
  12. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Jul 3, 2001
    I think the whole world community failed there, not just the USA. But it's no strange thing. What about the millions of deaths in the ethnic clensing between the hutu's and tutsi's, and lots of other events. We didn't do anything.
    The scary part is, that when we do something, it's almost always a short term solution.

    I remember countries sponsoring the Taliban with money, weapons and training. Same for Iraq, when they were in war with Iran.
    As if the world leaders didn't know back then that Sadam was an evil man. Short term solution of countries like USA, France, England and Germany was to suply Iraq with lots of weapons, including chemical and biological.

    It's sad that the UN is so divided now. I can see why, to much disagrements about the Iraq problem. How come we let things go out of hand? Didn't we see this coming? I bet we (or our leaders) did. But it's all about being re elected, short term politics.

    What about North Korea? And what about say China, considering human rights? We don't do anything, because we can still make money there and the thread for us isn't that big.
    Now if the UN could finaly deside what it stands for, we could change things. Stop all trading with countries that don't have human rights. Yeah it will cost us in the short run. Lots and lots of money. But the thing is, we just keep supporting these countries, we lack principles and the will to change.

    And then there is the international court for human rights... Right here in Holland. Did you know that the US has officialy threatened Holland to invade us if any American gets arrested for breaking the international laws for human rights?? "How does that make you feel?" :confused:
  13. macfan macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2003
    cc bcc,
    Why did you leave out the biggest supplier of Iraqi arms?

    Things get out of hand because when you leave Saddam in place, you get used to him and eventually ignore his acts. It is a gradual thing. The reason that the UN didn't intervene in Rwanda is two-fold. On the one hand, there wasn't political will for it in the strong countries, on the other hand many countries in the UN know that they would be next in line for intervention if it became a common policy, so they argued over what the technical name for dead Rwandans is.

    Do not worry, the Unites States in not going to invade the Netherlands. It is a matter of our own Constituitonal protections that the US doesn't agree to an international court. I think such a court should only apply when the state invovled doesn't have the capacity to deal with such cases with its own judiciary system. We have that capacity, as do many other states. Some, like Serbia, did not have that capacity.

    I think this is too harsh. One the one hand, it is appealing, but we could simply end up killing the citizens of, say, China, without and benefits to China or us. I think that constructive engagement, a much-hated term from the Reagan administration, is sometimes the best policy.
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    well aint that just sweet after them doing everything to block the U.S. in the U.N.- maybe they should just stay home ,watch it on tv and drink their wine and eat their cheese. We again will rise to the occasion and do what has to be done while they figure out who they are.
  15. beatle888 macrumors 68000


    Feb 3, 2002
    "We again will rise to the occasion and do what has to be done while they figure out who they are."

    oh my god, you sound as if america is so heroic.
    do what has to be done? you mean like we stopped him from killing the kurds? its not like we have a track record of being this shinning star of freedom and justice.

    i dont know, i really dont understand your argument, or position. you come off as if we are america, the freedom fighters. maybe i just dont see where you are coming from.

    nevermind, i think im just going to ignore you.
  16. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Jul 3, 2001
    Macfan, sorry i left out Russia, but my point was not who did it, but that it was done.
    The will to intervene (<- I was looking for that word earlier on.. found it, tnx) wasn't there in Rwanda, and frankly, the will to intervene in Iraq for the UN isn't here either. So what's the difference now?
    I know, Rwanda didn't have weapons of mass destruction, instead they mass destructed with simple weapons.

    The UN is failing. My idea about boycotting was weak, forget it, I didn't really think. It's difficult, as with child labor, denying them won't solve a thing, ever.
    Though it would be nice if there was some sort of code of behaviour to with cases like Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq etc. could be tested, otherwise there will be months of discussions and disagreements before the UN can deside on the next item on the agenda.
    Maybe a new kind of orginasation. I don't entirely agree with how the EU is doing things, but slowly more and more countries are joining and others are getting their political and humanitairian act together, in order to work up to an EU membership. Of course, this will end at the border of europe, or they'll have to change the name.. I'm NOT saying that the EU is an example of how things can be done.

    All I'm saying is that the international community is failing, the role of the UN will change (the security counsel is a joke, some UN parts are doing great work ie UNICEF) and things aren't what they were some time ago. What does NATO mean, when some members refuse to help defend Turkey from Iraq?

    Maybe these organisations were doomed to fall apart. Let's hope something better will emerge out of this.
  17. cc bcc macrumors 6502

    Jul 3, 2001
    France desided not to go to war at this time, because they didn't think all other options were fully utilised. It's something you might not agree with, but that's how it is.
    If the USA starts the war, then it's mcuh more probable that Sadam starts using those weapons, and the basis of the French refusal to engage war changes. And therefor a new decision has to be made, ie. help the USA.

    You think of it as another reason to bash France, I think it shows character and consistancy (and some other things I don't know the english word for..). What if they would have said: "You started this mess, clean it up yourselves." ?

    I know you would have liked that, a real reason to bash France. But they didn't say that did they? They just disagreed to go to war at this time, and in the line of "you're either with us, or against us" you, hungry for war and retaliation, make some sort of Satan out of France. Hey, they simply didn't think that war was the only way out. And now that war is imminent, and all their and others efforts to prevent it failed, they offer help. Go bite that hand..
  18. porfirio macrumors newbie

    Mar 22, 2003
    Dear Zarathustra,

    I have another evidence:
    most of french cars and trucks use gas!
    Our scientists failed to replace it with a mix of 80/20 wine and cheese.
    By chance France is a ridiculously small country so we'll made the best with the little drops U.S will leave.

    But who wrote this ? Not a french guy...

    "Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
    There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials--a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA--but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration's most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.

    So why do these pinheads think such a thing?

    Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don't stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. He'd certainly let us have it this week, now that Bush is revving up the war he wanted all along--but he won't, because he can't.

    Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America's role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators--as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan---not democrats.(...)."

    I just suggest we speak again about mass destruction weapons after the war (that I hope short,obviously,now that it's gone) meanwhile don't forget
    those nice bullets, currently sold to 15 countries, that leaded 183 629 on the 696 628 US troopers involved in 91 to fill out medical files and more than 9000 to death just because the eggheads who thought to solve the problem of the radioactive waste didn't tell them to take care (don't forget some french troopers are now ill also),will stay radioactive during 4.5 million years.
    But never mind if you are not a beduin...

    Sure also you don't prepare a war with shaded words, but this is not a match with the 91 about 150 000 iraqis died with surgical bombs (according to Ramsay Clarck) , so one shouldn't here lower the debate about France's opposition to war with any argument based upon bravery (especially if he hasn't personally been in a war),with allusions to wine or cheese (especially if he doesn't wan't USA being summarized to Coke or Mac Donald)
    and,I think, with moral reasoning so much it is true that the road to hell ... what is it yet paved with?
    Those last 30 years learned me truth is never told to us on the spur of the moment,certainly Saddam desserves to be toppled,but why just now will remain unclear, maybe Saudi's involvement in terrorism is a burning topic ...
    Why France has taken this irritating position isn't fully explained by the state of the opinion (even if the terrorist threat weighs silently)nor by the respect of the international right. I see two main reasons that couldn't be baldly said:
    maybe the concern about appearing as a part of a christian-developped block
    facing a muslim-poor one,possibly also reasons could be searched in the difficulty to exist near a giant whose mourning and vital interest don't excuse fully a self-centered vision of the world.
    Sorry if I fall myself a bit in an ethical presentation with the last idea but I confess it is hard to admit to be identified as some sort of an ennemy only
    because France didn't want to add a new resolution to the 1440 while US Pdt
    said he planned war even against the UN sec. council's decision,and America doesn't need any other country to fight.In other tems,in place of considering us that way shouldn't you question the skillfullness of a diplomatic policy?
  19. kettle macrumors 65816


    May 12, 2002
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    Mirage Fighter Jets

    Anyone know where Iraq gets its Air Force from?
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2002
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    Let me get this straight: it's okay to jump to conclusions and assume that France was anti-war for the oil, but to make the same assertion that the USA was anti-peace for the oil is ridiculous?
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2002
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    I ran across this tidbit. For those who say this isn't about oil. Iraq only sits on the 2nd largest reserves, but...

  22. porfirio macrumors newbie

    Mar 22, 2003
    What's the problem Kettle?`
    Other countries being able to design planes or do you allege US is only selling weapons to nuns?
    Want to laugh a bit?
    --Saddam Hussein: Honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan
    Years before Saddam Hussein became an enemy to the United States, he was reportedly seen as a friend and made an honorary Detroit citizen._
    In 1980 when Saddam Hussein was on good terms with America, he was quite the giver. Hussein donated money to help several churches in the motor city, Detroit(...)
    Father Jacob_Yasso of the Sacred Heart_Chaldean Church says,_"He said, 'We hear you have a debt on your church'. I said, 'Yes Mr. President'. He said, 'How much?'. I said '$170,000'. He said, 'I'll pay it off for you'."_
    Father_Yasso returned_the favor at that same meeting 23 years ago. He gave Hussein a key to the city of Detroit making him an honorary citizen--
    Some more?
    Who said that?
    ""This is clearly an American invasion. The chance of Iraq attacking the U.S. is about the same as attack from Mars,"
    "The Japanese tried to put out that line, that they thought America was going to attack them, and this was a pre-emptive strike. That didn't sell at the war crimes trial (after World War II)."
    At the risk of being a bore to the audience I should add that using those kind of little sentences not only shows that you couldn't care less about texts exceeding 20 words but ,in the unleashing hysterical context,that a mac user cannot avoid wisecracks straightly inspired by the mood in the air.
    If it's not asking too to much to your rushed mind have a look at or read the Gimlett's report you will have an idea of the links between military expenditure and macroeconomical stability.
    Let's be clear,the air ,at this side of the Atlantic begins to be fouled also(i.e
    so-called pacifists screwing-up war cemeterywalls with insanity)but people doesn't sincerely believe french gov is a team of angels.In the meantime how could anybody think french gov is an ally of this mad murderer.
    And don't talk about weapon sales unless you want to answer about the help US gov brought to wicked people around the world.
    Sure we need oil...who doesn't?
    but today what do we see?
    "(...)In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses, including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity. A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary) on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be accessed on EarthRights' Web site,

    Human rights activists have also criticized Cheney's company for its questionable role in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, Indonesia, and other volatile trouble spots. In Russia, Halliburton's partner, Tyumen Oil, has been accused of committing massive fraud to gain control of a Siberian oil field. And in oil-rich Nigeria, Halliburton worked with Shell and Chevron, which were implicated in gross human rights violations and environmental calamities in that country. Indeed, Cheney's firm increased its involvement in the Niger Delta after the military government executed several ecology activists and crushed popular protests against the oil industry(...)"
    " Pentagon hawk linked to UK intelligence company
    Richard Perle is director of firm selling terror alert software
    David Leigh
    Friday March 21, 2003
    The Guardian
    Amid general stock market jitters, one British company linked to the American hawk Richard Perle and dealing with secret intelligence is among the few UK commercial organisations that stand to profit from the Iraq war and its accompanying worldwide terrorist alert.(...) "

    "US arms trader to run Iraq
    Exclusive: Ex-general who will lead reconstruction heads firm behind Patriot missiles
    Oliver Morgan, industrial editor
    Sunday March 30, 2003
    The Observer
    Jay Garner, the retired US general who will oversee humanitarian relief and reconstruction in postwar Iraq, is president of an arms company that provides
    crucial technical support to missile systems vital to the US invasion of the country.(...) "

    Sure France doesn't have only good reasons to stand up as a white knight ,
    certainly the end of Saddam won't be a loss for humankind,but why french gov shouldn't express what is a general feeling in the world : the goals of the war are not conclusive enough to dissipate a concern about appropriation of a country.
  23. zarathustra thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jul 16, 2002
    Philadelphia, PA
    Who are you? First, if you wouldn't mind reading my posts - I HAVE NEVER SAID France was anti-war because of it's Iraq relations. I even reposted with the same clarification.

    Read before you post.

    [mod edit: Refrain from personal attacks.]
  24. porfirio macrumors newbie

    Mar 22, 2003
    Much ado about nothing...
    Who are you yourself,
    I DiDN'T SAY that YOU SAID that,read me correctly(before you post) and you'll see...
    it's easy to puzzle people , saying sentences like :"when you applause what is the noise of one hand ?", or"when the wise shows the moon , the idiot looks at the finger"
    But don't complain you've found curious words in your mouth.

    I just could refer again to James BAKER "all of this is included in 3 letters: O-I-L"

Share This Page