My apologizes for some over simplifications here but you'll get the idea

From what I've been reading (don't know if it is100% accurate) and the understanding I've taken away from it France (and Germany & Russia) are opposing the invasion of Iraq at the UN. There is speculation that this is due to France currently buying oil at below market prices along with the possibility that France has sold certain weapons and technologies to Iraq and that France (and Germany & Russia) have financial investments in Iraq that would result in losses if Iraq enters a war

Going to show a little naivety here but .....

What I'd like to propose is the US informs France (and Germany & Russia) that we will be invading Iraq regardless of their input/feelings/political posturing but ....
The US is willing to guarantee that they will be able to buy oil at the current prices they are paying to Iraq for the next 5 years providing there are no catastrophes to the oil fields in Iraq either during the war or during the 5 year period. Also that the sale of certain weapons and technologies to Iraq will be dismissed, no harm, no foul.

This removes any support that Iraq has today and ensures economic stability for the counties concerned with the US attack of Iraq
and the same cash flow as today will be still going to the new government of Iraq as the oil is being sold at those prices today

A war of bank transfers. I like it. We're already buying off Turkey. Let's keep going.

I've said all along that the moronic conduct of foreign policy is part of the reason for French and German resistance. Tom Ridge should procure some of the vast stockpiles of hoarded goverment duct tape, forward it to Colin Powell, who could apply it to the mouth of Rumsfeld.

If other countries were taking the course that the United States is right now, we would expect assurances that financial obligations/arrangements be respected. IF the French and Germans pursued a policy of providing illegal or forbidden arms to certain countries, they would not be the first nations to ever do such a thing. I think we ought to make the complete procurement history of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs public - identify all nations and corporations that assisted Iraq with these programs and any nations or corporations which profitted from breaking the U.N. sanctions.

And Colin, come on ... all wars are "wars of bank transfers." Maybe not in the same dramatic sense as dividing spheres of influence on a map in red ink, but ...



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 26 2003, 08:15 PM

PD, "Come on?"

I don't think I DIS-agreed, did I?

PD, the world is not fair. Some people want all countries to play by the same rules for some strange reason. That makes no sense to me.

Why can some countries have nuclear weapons and not others? Because some countries developed them first and will threaten others into not using them. Too bad. People often ask if it is "fair" that the US can have weapons of mass destruction while other countries cannot. The answer is no. The world is not fair.

I agree with you. Your POINT is .... ?

Don't forget that FRENCH oil tanker that sank off the coast of Spain a little while ago, it may have been an accident, but the history of the area shows piracy, including commercial sabotage, to be a frequently used method of getting economic and political direction in your favor. No doubt Chirac and french investors are very much putting this into perspective also.

Ironhorse - Huh? Tankers sink. Old tankers sink frequently. Am I missing a whole conspiracy?

Colin ... my point on the commercial and economic arrangements that other nations may have with Iraq is very, very simple. Since the United States is not an imperialistic power bent on capturing Iraq for ecomonic purposes, there is no reason in the world NOT to make assurances to the French and Germans about their financial arrangements with Iraq. We are only doing this to eliminate the danger to the Iraqi people, their neighbors and the world that Saddam Hussein's rouge regime and his horrid weapons of mass destruction represents, right? Frankly, it would be an intelligent PR move on behalf of the Bush folks - kinda stalls the "all about oil" arguement.

With regard to the "fairness" issue (which I didn't bring up, and don't quite get how it worked its way into the discussion, but okay, I'll play) - the United States, the exisiting nuclear powers, and the other nations of the world, understanding the dangers that unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons poses, created a treaty framework to limit their spread. The United Stated did not dictate to the world, "we've got them, you can't have them." You will notice that the Bush Administration is not saying to the North Koreans "we told you you can't do that." They are invoking the nonproliferation treaty and the U.N.

Please remember this when I run for President of the USA in 2004

haha. i think i am missing it too. but he makes an important point.

which is:
Don't forget about that one place with that thing.

Vick, your plan makes too much logical sense to be implemented ;-)))
LOL


perhaps the french have been providing weapons to iraq for a reason ... just like america once did so they could 'own' the people (& oil) of iraq.

many countries see usa as a bigger bully than iraq, no matter whether the living conditions of the countries people are 'democratic' or not.

maybe france is already in the position america is trying to be in with iraq, and has no intention of giving it up so that america can own what they now own.

you may see yourselves as better than the french, more important than the french, tougher than the french, more guns than the french etc etc ... but they don't!

right now france and iraq are probably having a chat about what they are going to do with the american people when they invade usa, and america is oblivious to the level of power they do have (none of us know where the big guns are hiding!). Could it be possible that france and iraq could put their combined forces together and reduce america's level of world power SIGNIFICANTLY? yes! a couple of terrorists can do it with some butter knives and a plane ticket ... america is no longer so tough if even 1 country supports iraq - either economically or with force.

france is very unlikely to change its mind on their current decision, they have attached themselves to a nuclear superpower with billions of human shields. why would they want to support the bully america who constantly reminds them how much they needed them in the war?

if the french are supporting iraq, then fuck 'em!! they are part of the enemy as george bush plainly stated days after sept 11 ... something about any country that supports a terrorist network is considered the enemy equally. so? they've had enough chances to make financial & trading guarantee demands - NUKE THEM TOO!!!!

:gbounce:

As a liberal I am afraid I cannot support your run for the Presidency. It's not about the whole liberal vs. conservative thing ... it's more about the separation of church and state. Here on Oprano you are regarded as somtething of a diety - I have even seen such phrases as "Praise Vick," "in the Name of Vick", and "what would Vick do?" posted here on the board.

That will simply not do - there's enought theologians in Washington now. A genuine fucking diety is more than we can take.

"Vick forgive me, for I have sinned ..."



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 26 2003, 11:58 PM

PD - there goes your shot at being the first minister of porn in the new ministry of Porn I was going to start if/when elected B)




damn I might be a politician ... already making promises to get votes ...

Slow down, Vick ... it's working. I figure if George Bush can go from denouncing "Vodoo Economics" to Vice Presidential candidate in three short weeks back in 1980, I can reconsider my position.

And just in case you've made other offers ... I get a bigger office and better parking space than Torone. :D

[/b][/quote]
I think it would be a good PR move with those few countries. I don't know if it is the best move though.

Rumsfeld, Powell, and other have already said that Iraqi oil will be held "in trust" and that it would not be exploited by Washington, that a new Iraqi regime - one chosen Democratically - would make their own decisions as to what economic ties Iraq should and should not have.

That is an even MORE nonimperialistic position than the one you are suggesting. The Iraqi people will control their oil, not us.

If the US were to make assurances about what the next regime would do with it's oil, wouldn't that be the epitome of imperialist action?

I can see the point you are trying to make, but I don't agree with it. First of all, I go back to what you seem to consider my "fairness" doctrine. The U.S. would probably NOT find such an assurance acceptable coming from the French or Germans. The U.S. would consider that a thinly-disguised way of saying "once we get our people in place to put pressure on the Iraqis we'll negotiate the deals in our favor." And rather than "the epitome of imperialist action", I think it merely guarantees the continuity of Iraqi sovereignty.

If we're willing to spend 30 billion to buy off Turkey, this seems like a small price to pay to buy the support of France and Germany. As a matter of fact, this is better than the Turkey deal - with this deal we're "spending" money we (or our grandchildren) don't even have to raise later.

I proposed this concept (like it would ever really happen and the fact it hasn't sort of boggles my mind) as a means to remove international support for Iraq and to address the issues that concerns that the USA's FORMER allies have

Remove the support and what does Iraq have left.....
and maybe through international negotiations and pressures war could be as short as possible

Yes this plan would sell someone elses future and could be seen as imperialistic position but it is what is happening already and the new Iraq government would have $ guarantees and income in place as soon as they take power