well what's funny about the "you're with US or against US" mentality of the US is that they conveniently ignore when it's the UN & member nations complaining about Israel. Not to mention when it was the UK trying to defend the Suez Canal from Egypt, or the Falkland Islands war, the US didn't help at all and in fact was even more vocal politically against the UK than anyone in the UK has been against the recent Iraq War. But dumb Americans conveniently forget that...

---

> That's actually total crap straight from right-wing talk radio, this myth of
> the "UN lining it's pockets from the Iraq/Oil for Food." If you dig into the
> facts & details a little more, you'll see that US companies were profiting
> as well, including Halliburton who got around rules even outside "Oil for
> Food" by having a non-US-registered subsidiary deal with Saddam.
>

Even if that were so, it cuts the other way. If US companies were also making illegal profits, then the US should NOT have wanted to invade.

---

> Even if that were so, it cuts the other way. If US companies were also making
> illegal profits, then the US should NOT have wanted to invade.

errr, not really, they can do better when they're running things after the invasion, n'est-ce pas? and human rights etc never really bothered any of the US companies that are gladly using slave labor in China etc.

---

> errr, not really, they can do better when they're running things after the
> invasion, n'est-ce pas? and human rights etc never really bothered any of the
> US companies that are gladly using slave labor in China etc.
>

Can't your little pea-brain PLEASE, for ONCE stay on point? We were talking about the logic, or lack of logic, behind the decisions to intervene in Iraq and Ivory Coast by the US and France, respectively. OK, there were other bad things that happened in the world, but what the hell do allegations of slave labor in China have to do with the premise that the UN went one way with Iraq and another with Ivory Coast? Since when did work conditions in China or my parking citation in 1986 enter into to debate in the Security Counsel? I hear you saying that it's wrong for me to hit you because: there are blueberries growing in Missouri . . . what? With logic like that (you think you are so clever), you will never lose a debate, because no one can make sense of you.

Now, go ahead and find the six degrees of relationship that ties your so-called "fact" to the argument at hand: it will just make you look as stupid as you claim all Americans to be.

---

The point is, the war-mongering neo-con twits ignore EVERY DAMN UN RESOLUTION they don't like. But they conveniently jumped on the Iraq one post 9/11. And to help, they made sure the corporate media told the American people enough lies so that, as one poll showed, 73% thought Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11.

> If a new resolution for military action against Irak was not needed
> then why Bush was so desperately seeking for a UN approval ? Why powel
> went to the security councel with false documents and satellite pictures
> to accuse Irak of having WMD ? I really don't know just asking.
> As for members of UN who took some advantages of the oil for food
> I don't know either. I honestly never heard of these alegations.
> I will do my homework today and get the facts about it. Who proposed
> that oil for food program, what it really was, etc.
>

It would have been preferrable to get Security Counsel approval, but if the allegations of corruption are true, maybe such approval, no matter how deserved, would never have come. And as for Powell, he told the UN what US intellegence and every other Western Intellegence service already believed.

> Anyway I still see a difference here Tom. The use of force authorisation
> that France got from the security councel in Ivory coast is not for taking
> control of the country, removing the president, and impose a new democracy
> kind of thing. It is just to prevent each side of not getting in the no
> war zone and preventing each side to clash. The Ivory Coast president
> do not have the right to use is military forces to cross the "line"
> The US led coalition in Irak had the same kind of mandate. An example
> is the no fly zone. Sadam often broke that rules and his fighter jets
> were shut down by US air forces. Nobody ever complained about that.
>

So, France has no business interests in Ivory Coast (as you have tied US involvement in Iraq to US oil interests)? So, the poeple of Iraq were not being systematically slaughtered and oppressed by Saddam (as you have used protection of the people in Ivory Coast to justify French actions)?

I will also check on that later today but I think Sadam was complying
> relativaly well to the last resolution in wich he had to allow UN
> inspector to search for WMD. The search made by Blix team was doing
> a very good job despite what the bush administration said.
>

Blix reported over and over again, up to the last days before the war, that Saddam was not allowing free access to sites or scientists. But, in a great waffle, he would say that things are improving. What does that mean?

> The UN is certainly not perfect, it's already difficult to govern a
> country, imagine the world. If there is a security councel it's not
> for nothing,

The UN is NOT a governing body and it never has been. France would never allow the UN to govern them or it's citizens anywhere in the world. The UN is a place for diplomats to discuss international areas of concern, ranging from health care to military disputes, but it has no power to enforce it's collective will.

---

> That is not the intent of the Security Council and it can 'enforce the
> collective will'. The Korean 'Police Action' (rather like a real war) springs
> to mind.
>
> -H. Richard Utzig
>

We would call them "peace keeping" actions today. A member nation, South Korea, was attacked by North Korea and the UN approved international military action to repel the invaders (yes, before you say it, McArthur was much more aggressive than that). If the Soviets had vetoed the Korean action, the US, Britian and probabply others would have come to the military aid of South Korea, even though it was a dictatorship. But despite all this, the UN did not govern and only countries that wanted to supplied troops.

---

I have spent the last 2 hours to try to get the facts about the
Oil for food program that started 1995. Honestly I have found
that all accusations or allegations that UN members, Russia and
France had made profits out of this program were broadcast by
conservative media after France and Russia opposed to the war
in Irak. It seem clear to me that it was some kind of political
revenge, rather then accusation based on true facts.

It is of course a very complicated subject and one would really
need to be at a high political level to fully understand all the
details of that program. My only sources of Information is the
Internet (like most of us) and it's good sources of both good
and bad information. One has to be very cretical in order to
make distinction between facts and propaganda.

Amoung all the informations I have found, one really caught my
attention. It was a letter from the French ambassador to the
United States, Jean-David Levitte posted in the Los Angeles Times
on April 7, 2004.

Now this is the official words of France diplomacy. If you want
to say it isn't true you will have to come with facts. Not some
misinformation taken on pro conservative and anti French web sites.
Until those accusations are backed by valuable proof, I personally
take what's in this letter as the truth.

I know it's a long post again but I think it worth reading it.

-------

Op ed of French ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte in the Los Angeles Times.

Washington , April 7, 2004

First 'Freedom Fries,' Now Oil-for-Food Lies: Give France a Break
A year ago, when the question of military intervention to disarm Iraq was raised, my country strongly opposed such a step, convinced that Iraq was not an imminent threat to world peace and had no link to Al Qaeda, and that the consequences of a war needed to be seriously weighed.

At that time, France's position, which was shared by many countries and a number of Americans, was widely disparaged. Although there were many signs of friendship extended to me from individual Americans, for which I am very grateful, there were also many false accusations spread in public to discredit France.

Since then, the diplomatic hurricane has abated. Today, we all understand the importance of what unites us, from our common fight against terrorism to our presence side by side in regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Haiti, Kosovo and elsewhere.

Consequently, I have been deeply surprised in the last few days to see a new campaign of unfounded accusations against my country flourish again in the media. These allegations, being spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S., have arisen in connection with a recent inquiry into the "oil for food" program that was run by the United Nations in Iraq during the final years of Saddam Hussein's government.

These allegations suggest that the government of France condoned kickbacks — bribes, in effect — from French companies to the Iraqi regime in return for further contracts. They say Paris turned a blind eye to these activities. Let me be absolutely clear. These aspersions are completely false and can only have been an effort to discredit France, a longtime friend and ally of the U.S.

As the former French ambassador to the U.N., let me explain how the oil-for-food program worked. Created in 1996, it was intended to provide Iraqis with essential goods to alleviate the humanitarian effect of the international sanctions that remained in place. The program authorized Iraq to export agreed-on quantities of oil, and allowed money from the sales to be used for food and other necessities. The program was managed by the U.N. and monitored by Security Council members.

Between 1996 and the end of the program in 2003, every contract for every humanitarian purchase had to be unanimously approved by the 15 members of the Security Council, including France, Britain and the U.S. The complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them and would have been in the best position to have known if anything improper was going on. Though a number of contracts were put on hold by the American and British delegations on security-related grounds, no contract was ever held up because malfeasance, such as illegal kickbacks, had been detected.

Was there corruption and bribery inside the program? Frankly, I don't know. Iraq was not a market economy; it was under sanctions at the time. Customs experts had little choice but to assume that the prices set by outside companies were "reasonable and acceptable," a criterion of acceptance used by the U.N. secretariat, and they had no way of checking whether some contracts were overpriced.

That is why France fully supports the independent inquiry set up by the U.N. The truth must come out. Was France a major beneficiary of oil-for-food contracts, as several conservative columnists have claimed recently? Definitely not. From the beginning of the program to its end, French contracts accounted for 8% of the total. We were Iraq's eighth-largest supplier. In addition, throughout the program a sizable proportion of the contracts dubbed "French" were in fact contracts from foreign companies using their French branches, subsidiaries and agents. Among them were U.S. firms providing spare parts for the oil industry (including several subsidiaries of Halliburton). They submitted contracts through French subsidiaries for more than $200 million. It is also suggested that the money from the oil-for-food contracts passed exclusively through a French bank, BNP Paribas. Wrong again: 41% of the money passed through J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, which, like BNP, was contracted by the U.N. with the approval of Security Council members.

This leaves us with one remaining accusation: that the French positions on the oil-for-food program and Iraq in general were driven by the lure of oil. Yet France was never a major destination for Iraqi oil during the program. In 2001, 8% of Iraqi oil was imported by France, compared with 44.5% imported by the U.S., which was the No. 1 importer all along.

At a time when the U.N. is considering a return to Iraq, and we all agree on the need for close international cooperation to help a sovereign, stable Iraq emerge, I don't understand this campaign. Or the hidden agenda behind it.

Embassy of France in the United States - April 7, 2004

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2384&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://img98.exs.cx/img98/1999/hamradio.gif"><img src="http://img54.exs.cx/img54/3872/cqkey.gif">

> Heu ?
>
> So because your SUV is not running on Irak oil it means that Bush
> friends are not making profits out of it ? lol Wake up man !!!
> Being there because of the oil does not mean for the "oil" itself,
> but money you make out of it. Not only that but a better control
> over world stock and prices of gas. Now explain to me why the prices
> of gas have increased in the US even if it is not comming from Irak ?
> I am sorry to say that but you sound a little bit naive to me. May I
> suggest that you make some research on the subject.
>
I am not the one that needs to do the research!
The prices go up, and down, because the total World supply goes up and down. If the Iraq piplelines are burning and not pumping oil then the prices go up World wide! It is called "supply and demand", ever heard of it. Even though the oil does not come here currently, it could if the prices got too high for your Country to afford it and the US could. And of course with a population of a little over 350 million we can use some resources!

> Anyway if it wasn't for oil tell me why the first thing US troops
> have protected after invasion of Irak was the pipe lines ? to protect
> the environment just in case sadam put them on fire ? hahaha It would
> be very paradoxal, I'd say start by respecting world environment treaty
> and then we might buy that reason.
Read the reply above!

> Actually What a great business oportunity it would have been. Remember
> all the oil fire during the first Irak war ? Do you know how much money
> american contractors made out of this ? I guess it made some happy...
>
Yes it made some VERY happy, it also made some VERY broke! Didn't hear about those did you?!

---

> I have spent the last 2 hours to try to get the facts about the
> Oil for food program that started 1995. Honestly I have found
> that all accusations or allegations that UN members, Russia and
> France had made profits out of this program were broadcast by
> conservative media after France and Russia opposed to the war
> in Irak. It seem clear to me that it was some kind of political
> revenge, rather then accusation based on true facts.
>
> It is of course a very complicated subject and one would really
> need to be at a high political level to fully understand all the
> details of that program. My only sources of Information is the
> Internet (like most of us) and it's good sources of both good
> and bad information. One has to be very cretical in order to
> make distinction between facts and propaganda.
>
> Amoung all the informations I have found, one really caught my
> attention. It was a letter from the French ambassador to the
> United States, Jean-David Levitte posted in the Los Angeles Times
> on April 7, 2004.
>
> Now this is the official words of France diplomacy. If you want
> to say it isn't true you will have to come with facts. Not some
> misinformation taken on pro conservative and anti French web sites.
> Until those accusations are backed by valuable proof, I personally
> take what's in this letter as the truth.
>
> I know it's a long post again but I think it worth reading it.
>
He always has been an eloquent spokesman! BUT he NEVER addresses the accussations that could be the most problematic. The charges that kickbacks were the order of the day! Yes the Council had to approve the contracts BUT they "supposedly" knew nothing about the backdoor kickbacks to the Countries selling Iraq the oil. And YES France was one of those, it also was one of those that had contracts with Saddam himself to explore for oil inside Iraq!
That is a conflict of interest when then asked to vote about sanctions and possible military actions. Did France abstain, NO THEY DID NOT! Did France explain about their possible conflicts of interest, NO THEY DID NOT!
In alot of peoples opinions France and the other Countries invloved have alot of explaining to do before their word is ever taken as face value again!
Yes Russia was a MAJOR player in the oil program! Yes Russia also had contracts with Saddam to explore Iraq for oil reserves, reportedly for over a billion dollars worth. There are reports that Iraq has over 75% of the World's oil reserves under its sand!

---

Ground Zero Suicide Inspired By Election

> I am not the one that needs to do the research!
> The prices go up, and down, because the total World supply goes up and down.
> If the Iraq piplelines are burning and not pumping oil then the prices go up
> World wide! It is called "supply and demand", ever heard of it. Even though
> the oil does not come here currently, it could if the prices got too high for
> your Country to afford it and the US could. And of course with a population of
> a little over 350 million we can use some resources!

Your original post was about saying that the US did not invade Irak for oil
because USA is apparently not importing oil from Irak. Now you are saying
that the main reason for the US troops top priority to protect the pipe lines
was to avoid them burning to prevent a increase of price at the pump . OK I
understand now...Were you guys invaded Irak for WMD, rebuilding, etc or for
countroling oil prices? It's getting really hard to understand. Anyway it will
always come back to oil since it's the only thing Irak has. And What do you
mean by my country to affoard it ? And wich one ?

> Yes it made some VERY happy, it also made some VERY broke! Didn't hear about
> those did you?!

Never heard of those, sorry. Were they Irakis ? American I guess, I really
don't care. Even if I don't agree with Sadam puting fire on HIS pipe lines,
it was still HIS pipe lines and not yours.

> He always has been an eloquent spokesman! BUT he NEVER addresses the
> accussations that could be the most problematic. The charges that kickbacks
> were the order of the day! Yes the Council had to approve the contracts BUT
> they "supposedly" knew nothing about the backdoor kickbacks to the Countries
> selling Iraq the oil. And YES France was one of those, it also was one of
> those that had contracts with Saddam himself to explore for oil inside Iraq!
> That is a conflict of interest when then asked to vote about sanctions and
> possible military actions. Did France abstain, NO THEY DID NOT! Did France
> explain about their possible conflicts of interest, NO THEY DID NOT!
> In alot of peoples opinions France and the other Countries invloved have alot
> of explaining to do before their word is ever taken as face value again!
> Yes Russia was a MAJOR player in the oil program! Yes Russia also had
> contracts with Saddam to explore Iraq for oil reserves, reportedly for over a
> billion dollars worth. There are reports that Iraq has over 75% of the World's
> oil reserves under its sand!

Your country is not in a position to blame any other country on the Irak
subject. EVEN, I say EVEN if France and Russia where to blame for some
backdoor kickbacks, It was not the reason why they oppose to it.
I'll remind you that 90% of the world was opposed to that war, were
they all having conflict of interrest in Irak ? What reason do you have
to blame Canada for opposing it. As far as I know Canada never had a
single contract with Sadam Hussein...

No the truth is those who still support that war (numbers going down each
day) are desperatly looking for someone or something to blame because they
know this war was wrong. You can say what ever you want about France, at
least they don't have the blood of 100000 innocent civilians on their hands. 100 THOUSANDS !!! But hey ! Who cares ? They're just arabs and arabs are terrorist....

Americans supporter of that war are frustrated that other countries might
opposed to their views of the world. How dare could they oppose to us !!!
The great United states of America !!! We are a super power and therefore
we are right and we can do what ever we want !!!

Anyway when I look at how messy it is now over there, I am so proud of
my Canadian and french Passport, You have no idea.

> Now this is the official words of France diplomacy. If you want
> to say it isn't true you will have to come with facts. Not some
> misinformation taken on pro conservative and anti French web sites.
> Until those accusations are backed by valuable proof, I personally
> take what's in this letter as the truth.
Marc, reword that a little and you have what Tom's been saying:
...If you want to say it isn't true you will have to come up with facts. Not some misinformation taken from pro-liberal and anti-American websites..."

> Your country is not in a position to blame any other country on the Irak
> subject.
If the US had a crystal ball that showed them that Iraq would be violating the UN resolutions that kept them out of Bagdad to begin with the US wouldve toppled his regime back then.

> Your original post was about saying that the US did not invade Irak for oil
> because USA is apparently not importing oil from Irak. Now you are saying
> that the main reason for the US troops top priority to protect the pipe lines
> was to avoid them burning to prevent a increase of price at the pump . OK I
> understand now...Were you guys invaded Irak for WMD, rebuilding, etc or for
> countroling oil prices? It's getting really hard to understand. Anyway it
> will
> always come back to oil since it's the only thing Irak has. And What do you
> mean by my country to affoard it ? And wich one ?
>

I have a less cynical reason the American troops defended Iraqi oil lines: the ultimate stability of Iraq depends on their ability to feed, shelter and defend their people (something every nation must do). How will the US and the other coalition members ever get out of Iraq if the Iraqi government does not have the ability to fund these things? Oil is the most logical answer.

Many have said the US has won the war but will never win the peace, many more have said the Iraqis must become self-sufficient. In that area of the world, which is rich in oil, it makes sense that this resource would have to be intact and productive for the Iraqi state to succeed. The insurgents know this and have done what they could to destroy this revenue source.

The US is not stealing Iraqi oil, just as we did not steal Kuwaiti oil after that gulf war--though in both cases critics accused the US of fighting these wars JUST to take the oil. History bears out that it is not the theft of oil that is the US motive to fight these wars, no matter what the blind liberal (I assume they're blind, but maybe they just have selective memory) accusers say!

---

> > Now this is the official words of France diplomacy. If you want
> > to say it isn't true you will have to come with facts. Not some
> > misinformation taken on pro conservative and anti French web sites.
> > Until those accusations are backed by valuable proof, I personally
> > take what's in this letter as the truth.
>
> Marc, reword that a little and you have what Tom's been saying:
> ...If you want to say it isn't true you will have to come up with facts.
> Not some misinformation taken from pro-liberal and anti-American
> websites..."

Well you are right. God I've almost copy/paste him lol. I did not noticed
it. I guess it applies for both our point of view. None of us can prove if
it's true or not. Tom will tend to believe more what's being said on
conservative news, as I would tend to do the same for leberal ones.

Tom will tend to believe more what's being said on
> conservative news, as I would tend to do the same for leberal ones.
>
>

And it may be that none of us ever learn the actual truth. I have seen enough "news stories" about things I was involved in that were so wrong . . .

---

> I have a less cynical reason the American troops defended Iraqi oil lines: the
> ultimate stability of Iraq depends on their ability to feed, shelter and
> defend their people (something every nation must do). How will the US and the
> other coalition members ever get out of Iraq if the Iraqi government does not
> have the ability to fund these things? Oil is the most logical answer.

Good point

> Many have said the US has won the war but will never win the peace, many more
> have said the Iraqis must become self-sufficient. In that area of the world,
> which is rich in oil, it makes sense that this resource would have to be
> intact and productive for the Iraqi state to succeed. The insurgents know
> this and have done what they could to destroy this revenue source.

True

> The US is not stealing Iraqi oil, just as we did not steal Kuwaiti oil after
> that gulf war--though in both cases critics accused the US of fighting these
> wars JUST to take the oil. History bears out that it is not the theft of oil
> that is the US motive to fight these wars, no matter what the blind liberal
> (I assume they're blind, but maybe they just have selective memory) accusers
> say!

So what was in your point of view the real motives for that war.

> So what was in your point of view the real motives for that war.
I think W "did it for dad". From an economical standpoint it would illogical to do it for oil if Bush profits from oil. Why? Its called the price the market place creates by supply and demand. Less supply & more demand makes for higher prices. If Bush profits, say, from Texas oil then he would have to be retarded for wanting to put Iraqi oil on the marked for purposes of profit. Maybe thats why as DB says, "alot of our Alaska oil is shipped to Japan." The best supply/demand example I can think of is the Energy Deregulation that happened here in California a few years ago, which was fraudulantly created. So yeah I think he did it for dad; and 9/11 and the war in Afganistan, combined with the high approval rate for the Afgan war, created him the perfect opportunity (in his mind) for him to do it.