War With Iraq

[Prophet Tenebrae]

France has the greatest oil interest in Iraq of all European countries.

[Rennie]

France....those crafty Gallic bastards...

[Cattet]

...And Ten, that's exactly why Chirac is screaming not to get into a war. Their oil gets jeopardized. It's not as much a factor as many might think for the US--they have less than 3% of their oil coming from Iraq. In fact, 42% comes from domestic stuff, and Venezuela provides the most, of the other countries who import oil to the US. No matter how much everybody says it, the US is not in this just for the bits of oil they get from there.

[Cola Cube]

But it is why France will jump into this before war starts. You can never have too much oil. I think that's pretty much a given.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

In the end, more people will join in so they can get their man with a flag to stand over the oil and call shotgun on it.

[Oddball]

Perhaps France is hoping to get Oil contracts by stopping the allies going to war. Chirac may have done a deal with Saddam, in return for French diplomatic assisstance France gets the the Oil. It would hardly surprise me, given the French history of being bad.

[Al]

What history? You are just a racist!

[Pilmour Boy]

My take on Chirac's position is that he's doing anything to let Saddam stay in power, with disarmament being forced through with increased inspections et al. This would fit in well with the France's historic support for undemocratic regimes in order to further the greater French Aims. On this front, they are almost as bad as the Americans used to be.

[hr]One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato

[*]

Why is it that if someone yells racist they feel they have one the arguement? It's a bit off and offensive.

[Bob]

It is hardly racist to describe the French as 'bad'. Throughout much of the 17th and 18th centuries they were up to no good. They even tried to invade this most wonderful Island. After the 19thC the French may have settled down, but they are still plotting away in Paris, just look at their willingness to support the EU and their opposition to war. We should be wary of those who support France.

[Durham bloke]

In response to France's opposition. The reason is simple enough. France HAS a multi-million pound (probably more)oil deal with Iraq. Unfortunately losing this would do serious damage to the French economy. Another possible reason why Chirac is so irritating is because this is one big ego trip for him.

[Shelby]

People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest.
Hermann Hesse (1877 - 1962)

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I think it's safe to say that everyone has an agenda - except Britain which is following Bush because Blair is his lapdog.

[RRankin]

I'd say Blair has alot to lose, such as power. I think hes on his own "international statesman" ego trip, alot like Mr Chirac (who also wants to regain the trust of the french electorate by pushing a little french nationalism, so they can all forget about his millions of pounds of corruption as mayor of Paris). Yes its about Oil, but its also about Mr Bush doing whats politically popular in america - and getting a second term for winning a popular war. And I doubt Britain will do too badly out of being Bush's lap dog. Though Germany and France may be spanked with the newspaper for doing a crap in America's slippers.

[Emma]

I've become kind of resigned to the fact of an impending war now. No matter what we do, Blair's not going to listen to us. I'm just hoping that the nukes don't come out, but who knows what'll happen if Saddam tries to hit Israel again.

Ideally, Saddam would be ousted by internal diplomatic pressure but since Dubya's s keen on getting the bombs out, perhaps the UN could insist on a strike on Iraq being accompanied by the adamant insistence of the USA that talks begin immediately towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. Also, since the UK seems to be responsible for so many of the bombs that are going to fall on Iraqi homes, maybe we could agree to accept most of the inevitable flood of Iraqi asylum seekers. After all, once Saddam is crushed, all of the people who fled him will want to return to Iraq, right? Because the USA is, post-victory, going to donate a sensible amount for building new infrastructure, schools and hospitals and ensure that a democratic government is set up ASAP. To do otherwise would probably result in a festering hole of gathering anti-West hatred and resentment, and we wouldn't want that.

[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[Anon.]

What I'm worried about is the rather arrogant assumption that we will win a war in Iraq.

[cc105]

No, Blair has an agenda too. He's taking a risk, but he could win out big in the end

[Guest]

-"What I'm worried about is the rather arrogant assumption that we will win a war in Iraq."


It doesn't take a genius to come up with the most probable outcome of the war. Take a look at the US, its technological advances, its air, land, and sea superiority, you'll come out with one outcome, a US lead victory.

[Cattet]

Their firepower--even with nukes or bio--can't possibly come close to the obliteration possible from the US.

Also, Mr. Bush is definitely going to be able to stay popular simply because of the war, as too many people in the US are against it.

[Rennie]

Look at the Vietnam War if you want to see what sheer refusal to lie down and be steamrolled by the US can do. Don't automatically assume that the Iraq war - when it happens - will be a walkover. The US isn't, that's why it's dropping 10 times more bombs in the first 2 days than in the last war.

But, will the US always be fighting against rebel groups, even when they do take the country? will they use this as an excuse to never leave? If you want something that seems very true to me, read what Syria thinks the US plans for Iraq are.