[typoon]

http://nypost.com/seven/03162004/pos...ists/20887.htm

March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.

In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.

The French claimed their opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein was all about policy. The editor of the Paris daily Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, just resuscitated those arguments in an editorial that singled out George W. Bush as "a threat to the very foundation of the historical alliance between the U.S. and Europe," and called fervently for the election of John F. Kerry. (I guess that F now stands for France.)

But Colombani, whose paper's coverage of the war in Iraq was noteworthy for its wanton disregard for the truth, had not a word to say about his country's war for oil. Indeed, the secret deals the French state-owned oil companies negotiated in the 1990s with Saddam Hussein went widely unreported in France.

Almost as soon as the guns went silent after the first Gulf war in 1991, French oil giants Total SA and Elf Aquitaine - who have now merged and expanded to become TotalFinaElf - sought a competitive advantage over their rivals in Iraq by negotiating exclusive production-sharing contracts with Saddam's regime that were intended to give them a stranglehold on Iraq's future oil production for decades to come.

The first of two massive deals was announced in June 1994 by then-Iraqi Oil Minister Safa al-Habobi - a well-known figure whose name had surfaced in numerous procurement schemes in the 1980s in association with the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, which supervised Saddam's chemical, biological, missile and nuclear-weapons programs.

Speaking in Vienna, al-Habobi confirmed that his government was awarding Total SA rights to the future production of the Nahr Umar oil field in southern Iraq, and that Elf was well-placed to be awarded similar terms in the Majnoon oil fields on the border with Iran.





Those two deals, which I detail in "The French Betrayal of America," would have been worth an estimated $100 billion over a seven-year period - but were conditioned on the lifting of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Simply put, analyst Gerald Hillman told me, the French were saying: "We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this."

The Total contract, a copy of which I obtained, was "very one-sided," says Hillman. (Hillman, a political economist and a managing partner at Trireme Investments in New York, did a detailed analysis of the contract.) An ordinary production agreement typically grants the foreign partner a maximum of 50 percent of the gross proceeds of the oil produced at the field they develop. But this deal gave Total 75 percent of the total production. "This is highly unusual," he said. Indeed, it was extortion.

But Saddam willingly agreed: He saw the Total deal, and a similar one with Elf, as the price he had to pay to secure French political support at the United Nations.

Much has been written in recent weeks about the corruption of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program. Documents uncovered in Iraq's oil ministry and published by the Baghdad daily al Mada list several cronies of French President Chirac among those who had received special oil allocations as a political payoff from Saddam.

But the amounts attributed to these individuals - in the tens of millions of barrels, on which they stood to earn between 25 to 40 cents per barrel - pale in comparison to the $100 billion payoff orchestrated by Chirac and Saddam.

No, oil wasn't the only reason France opposed the United States at the United Nations in the lead-up to the war. The megalomania of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly and later boasted about it to visiting U.S. congressional delegations) certainly entered into the mix. So did French pride, wounded at the realization that France is no longer the great power it once was.

But the French did not merely disagree with the United States over Iraq, as did a certain number of our allies: They actively sought to rally world leaders and public opinion to treat the United States - not Saddam Hussein - as the enemy.

The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine.

[benb]

Originally posted by typoon:
In documents I obtained during an investigation of the French relationship to Saddam Hussein, the French interest in maintaining Saddam Hussein in power was spelled out in excruciating detail. The price tag: close to $100 billion. That was what French oil companies stood to profit in the first seven years of their exclusive oil arrangements - had Saddam remained in power.

I should hope that these documents are made public, so that this is not his word against others.

[dcolton]

This is old news isn't it? At any rate...it explains a lot about the backbone of the French and their committment to their economic allies.

[Troll]

Ho Hum! More xenophobia. This is getting so tiresome.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ho Hum! More xenophobia. This is getting so tiresome.

Is it ok when it's directed towards America? Like I have seen thousands of times in here?

BTW it would be xenophic not to agree with France because they are French.

Not because they were tmore interested in their monitory "blessings" than the people of Iraq.

That is not being xenophobic.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ho Hum! More xenophobia. This is getting so tiresome.

I don't know whether the details of this allegation are true or not, but if it's permissible to claim that the US was pro-war because of its oil interests (as many here have), why is it not permissible to claim that France was anti-war because of its own oil interests?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't know whether the details of this allegation are true or not, but if it's permissible to claim that the US was pro-war because of its oil interests (as many here have), why is it not permissible to claim that France was anti-war because of its own oil interests?

That's only logical. And no Xenophobic.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ho Hum! More xenophobia. This is getting so tiresome.

Hey! That's exactly what I think everytime someone lobs an attack at the US for the same type of actions! Small world, eh?

[paully dub]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't know whether the details of this allegation are true or not, but if it's permissible to claim that the US was pro-war because of its oil interests (as many here have), why is it not permissible to claim that France was anti-war because of its own oil interests?

The US had its own oil interests as regards to Iraq.

This makes us look like we went to war for $$$$, that's why.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by paully dub:
The US had its own oil interests as regards to Iraq.

This makes us look like we went to war for $$$$, that's why.

To say that was the ONLY and MAIN reason we went is a bit silly though.

[itai195]

Originally posted by paully dub:
The US had its own oil interests as regards to Iraq.

This makes us look like we went to war for $$$$, that's why.

I didn't say I agree with the position that the US went to war over oil, did I?

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
To say that was the ONLY and MAIN reason we went is a bit silly though.

I just wonder why exactly did we go to war... We hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan, the issue itself was very divisive amongst our own allies, and our intelligence was indeed quite suspect.

It looks bad because Bush doesn't appear to be capable of making his own decisions he admits to not reading the news or surfing the internet- and considering the people he has around him (Cheney for example) it's fair, and not at all unamerican to doubt Bush given reasons for the necessity of war in IRAQ at that time.

Given the absence of evidence of WMDs, and the current situation in Iraq, just WHO has benefitted from this war, if not Halliburton?

[itai195]

[paully dub]

Originally posted by itai195:

I don't necessarily agree, but... touché

[angaq0k]

I still do not understand this.

Before the Gulf War, Iraq was a threat. It was and had been a threat with Saddam Hussein and before him as well.

In the '80s, Hussein did everything to become a regional superpower. And abuse of Human Rights had started long before Hussein. Even before the "civilized" British rule which put a so-called "king", Faisal I, whom was not even Iraqi, as a puppet to manage the country... Incidentally the same "civillized" made the first killings through chemical warfare in 1920 and using airplanes to kill of civilians rebelling.

(Try replacing Bush with Chirac...)

Under Hussein, Iraq was doing business with whoever had money: France, Switzerland, USSR, Canada, the U.S. and countless others.

But because the U.S. did not like that Iraq invaded Kuwait, a totalitarian State, like Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries with whom the U.S. is getting its oil from, suddenly, he turned bad.

And everybody doing business with Iraq became bad.

Suddenly, Saddam not being a friend anymore, his friends turned ennemies...

The only thing that ever changed in this picture is the attitude of the U.S. towards Iraq.

Hussein was always the same old sociopath in power, all the way from the time he committed his first murders as a teenager until the war in Iraq.

What's wrong with this picture? Well I think the U.S. government wanted the Oil pot for itself...

Business as usual. Nothing to see here...

Except 10 000 innocents sacrificed on top of those murdered under the dictator for over 35 years in full knowledge of the industrialized countries and their corporations making money from it and feeding a mass murderer...

[itai195]

Originally posted by paully dub:
I don't necessarily agree, but... touché

No you are right, the thread seems thoroughly sidetracked now

[theolein]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://nypost.com/seven/03162004/pos...ists/20887.htm

March 16, 2004 -- MANY Americans are convinced even today that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And they're right - but oil was the key for French President Jacques Chirac, not for the United States.

...

No, oil wasn't the only reason France opposed the United States at the United Nations in the lead-up to the war. The megalomania of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell repeatedly and later boasted about it to visiting U.S. congressional delegations) certainly entered into the mix. So did French pride, wounded at the realization that France is no longer the great power it once was.

But the French did not merely disagree with the United States over Iraq, as did a certain number of our allies: They actively sought to rally world leaders and public opinion to treat the United States - not Saddam Hussein - as the enemy.

The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Chirac and much of the French establishment are quite a corrupt bunch of slime bags. This seems to me to be a recurring thing in French politics: They seem to be either totally over the top, like that nazi freak Le Pen, corrupt as sin (Bonjour, Jaques), or very fair but insanely boring (Lionel, t'es ou maintenant?).

I think, however that Chirac did it more for internal politcial plus points than for anything else. The war was as highly unpopular in France as it was in the rest of Europe and he stood to gain quite a lot internally from his stance.

The fact that much of the Elf Aquitaine managment is now in jail for the massive bribery campaigns of the early 90's also says quite a bit about them (The same bribery campaign that brought Germany's helmut Kohl down) and the whole thing came back to haunt them quite badly.

As for French pride, I think that the intellectual circus in France is indeed quite anti-American in its misguided attempts to compensate for France's diminished status in the world. The people in the street will tell you the same thing. They seem to be as unimpressed with the establishment as can be.

Still, whether or not the French establishment is corrupt or not, if I had to choose whether to live there or in the US, I'd pick France any day of the week. I like the people, the language and the food and the countryside is beautiful and les femmes sont vachement chouettes

[ambush]

[Zimphire]

Time named Hitler man of the year once.

I would never hold that against them.

[Troll]

"The enormous difference between those two positions - legitimate dissent and active subversion of America's right to self-defense - is why America is right to treat France as a former ally. Under Chirac's stewardship, France has shown the world that it cared more about propping up a murderous dictator than it valued its 225-year alliance with America."

This ind of statement can't be motivated by anything other than xenophobia IMHO. How you draw those conclusions from the evidence he's presented, without having some kind of chip on your shoulder I don't know!

Anything France does to further its interests is legitimate dissent. The US was actively bribing countries to support its position. How can France be wrong for doing something well short of the same thing? What arrogance to say it was illegitimate for France to try to stop something happening that it's people wanted to prevent.

The US's right to self-defence was subverted by France? How? The US never claimed to be acting in self-defense, it has been proven that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and, most importantly, the US invaded anyway!!

France propped up a murderous dictator? Hello!!! France bombed the sh1t out of Saddam in the First Gulf War, it imposed sanctions. It did no more and no less than anyone else to support a murderous dictator. This guy has nothing to go on but a few contracts with private companies (Elf is only notionally French for example) that no one has even seen and yet he draws the conclusion from that that France prefers to support murderers than be friendly with the US!

Still, you have a point that there's a fair amount of xenophobia thrown at the US too. I don't support the argument that it was all about oil; I think it was about an amalgam of interest. Still, it seems to me that whenever the Bush Administration comes under some pressure, then rumours start circulating about France.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Troll:
This ind of statement can't be motivated by anything other than xenophobia IMHO. How you draw those conclusions from the evidence he's presented, without having some kind of chip on your shoulder I don't know!

Anything France does to further its interests is legitimate dissent. The US was actively bribing countries to support its position. How can France be wrong for doing something well short of the same thing? What arrogance to say it was illegitimate for France to try to stop something happening that it's people wanted to prevent.

The US's right to self-defence was subverted by France? How? The US never claimed to be acting in self-defense, it has been proven that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US and, most importantly, the US invaded anyway!!

France propped up a murderous dictator? Hello!!! France bombed the sh1t out of Saddam in the First Gulf War, it imposed sanctions. It did no more and no less than anyone else to support a murderous dictator. This guy has nothing to go on but a few contracts with private companies (Elf is only notionally French for example) that no one has even seen and yet he draws the conclusion from that that France prefers to support murderers than be friendly with the US!

Still, you have a point that there's a fair amount of xenophobia thrown at the US too. I don't support the argument that it was all about oil; I think it was about an amalgam of interest. Still, it seems to me that whenever the Bush Administration comes under some pressure, then rumours start circulating about France.

I hate to pass the blame, but France wasn't the only nation to have interest in Iraq. Russia was owed several billion dollars, had a big $40 billion economic cooperation program in the works. They too had said they would veto, despite Putin's buddy buddy ranch visits. I actually believe more was stake for Russia - always cash poor.

Look when you have allies with investments in countries you're planning on bombing to hell, and then let your own private companies reap the benefits instead, its normal that those allies might object...

Anyway I'm having a hard time taking this thread seriously since it seems to have sprung from a NY Post op-ed piece of all things...

[ambush]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Time named Hitler man of the year once.

I would never hold that against them.

Time magazine's person of the year is a title for an influencing person, not a "good" person.

Next.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by ambush:
Time magazine's person of the year is a title for an influencing person, not a "good" person.

Next.

Was Clinton ever Time's man of the year then?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ambush:
Time magazine's person of the year is a title for an influencing person, not a "good" person.

Next.

They don't put evil dictators that kill Jews on the cover.

At the time, Hitler hadn't shown his true side.

I wouldn't hold it past them because of that.

Sorry to bust your bubble.