Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

And there is the crux of this whole situation:

The hatreds that exist today have their roots in the intolerance and bigotry of crusade era Christians. And the fact that the more technologically advanced western nations have treated the arab world like a poor stepchld for the last 100 years doesnt help a lot either.

That doesnt excuse or justify the extremist islamic elements, but the west is hardly free of any sort of blame for the current hatreds and bigotry of the current situation.

The simple fact is that nations need to learn to accept and understand the ways of other people, and not be arrogant and assured that their way is any better than that of another nation. ANd THAT is the big problem with US foreign policy. It presumes that inside every Arab there is an American struggling to get out. Thing is, the islamic faith is a fairly austere one, and has no want or need of McDonalds or Budweiser.

And the sooner that US politicians realize that you can actually make peace through respect and sensitivity, the sooner those nations will be willing to take a step back and stop being as insane as their actions portray them as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,03<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,07:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can be involved without the reeking foreign policies and bullyboy attitude that has so soured the world on the USA.<span id='postcolor'>

No, you need to think about it from someone elses point of view.  Say we're giving aid to one country, but to stay in budget (yeah right, i know i know, just hypothetical) we have to take 3 billion dollars out of foreign aid from another country.  That's going to piss off a lot of people from one country, while making people from another country very happy.  Get my drift?

In other words, we can't make everyone happy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice definitions - point being? If they have declared jihad against America it is hardly because of your religious beliefs, but because of your country's interference.<span id='postcolor'>

A jihad, by definition, is a war waged due to religious beliefs.  It is a religious war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Really? The press seem to be keeping awfully quiet about these attacks. Like to give me some examples?<span id='postcolor'>

What difference does it make?  They said they've declared a jihad on the US, which is by defintion a religious war.  It's a crusade.<span id='postcolor'>

Supply foregin aid, fine. I realise you can't make everyone happy. But you must admit US foreign policy for the last 30 years or so has been downright nasty in many cases (assassinations, installing puppet rulers, manipulating the world market to USA advantage, blocking free trade when it suits US interests, getting involved in miltary conflicts that have nothing to do with the US - directly and indirectly etc.). A lot of the crap the US pulls they only get away with because they are a superpower.

-----

As to the jihad, I disagree with you. You are twisting the term holy war to make it seem like muslims vs. christians (i.e USA). This is not the case. To give an  example - if Al Queda declared jihad on a sports team, say the Raiders, because some of the raiders guys had slept with their wives, it is a holy war of muslims vs christians? No, of course not. It is a holy war against a particualr group (sports team) because of something they have done to them. It's a silly example, but what I am getting at is a hily war declared on the USA isn't necessarily about you not being muslim. They could just as easily declare a jihad against another muslim group, and it would still be a holy war.

Out of interest, who is this "they"? Are you speakiing spefically about Osama and AL Queda, or do you think all muslim groups and countries have decalred jihad on America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,08:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Supply foregin aid, fine. I realise you can't make everyone happy. But you must admit US foreign policy for the last 30 years or so has been downright nasty in many cases (assassinations, installing puppet rulers, manipulating the world market to USA advantage, blocking free trade when it suits US interests, getting involved in miltary conflicts that have nothing to do with the US - directly and indirectly etc.). A lot of the crap the US pulls they only get away with because they are a superpower.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, but that's no reason to target people who aren't responsible for it in any way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the jihad, I disagree with you. You are twisting the term holy war to make it seem like muslims vs. christians (i.e USA). This is not the case. To give an example - if Al Queda declared jihad on a sports team, say the Raiders, because some of the raiders guys had slept with their wives, it is a holy war of muslims vs christians? No, of course not. It is a holy war against a particualr group (sports team) because of something they have done to them. It's a silly example, but what I am getting at is a hily war declared on the USA isn't necessarily about you not being muslim. They could just as easily declare a jihad against another muslim group, and it would still be a holy war.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so if the jihad isn't about religion, why do you call it a holy war?

Either way, their attacks weren't justified because they were only designed to kill people. Not attack a military structure, not attack anything that would help their cause, they were attacking innocent civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of interest, who is this "they"? Are you speakiing spefically about Osama and AL Queda, or do you think all muslim groups and countries have decalred jihad on America?<span id='postcolor'>

Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,08:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Supply foregin aid, fine. I realise you can't make everyone happy. But you must admit US foreign policy for the last 30 years or so has been downright nasty in many cases (assassinations, installing puppet rulers, manipulating the world market to USA advantage, blocking free trade when it suits US interests, getting involved in miltary conflicts that have nothing to do with the US - directly and indirectly etc.). A lot of the crap the US pulls they only get away with because they are a superpower.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, but that's no reason to target people who aren't responsible for it in any way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the jihad, I disagree with you. You are twisting the term holy war to make it seem like muslims vs. christians (i.e USA). This is not the case. To give an  example - if Al Queda declared jihad on a sports team, say the Raiders, because some of the raiders guys had slept with their wives, it is a holy war of muslims vs christians? No, of course not. It is a holy war against a particualr group (sports team) because of something they have done to them. It's a silly example, but what I am getting at is a hily war declared on the USA isn't necessarily about you not being muslim. They could just as easily declare a jihad against another muslim group, and it would still be a holy war.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so if the jihad isn't about religion, why do you call it a holy war?

Either way, their attacks weren't justified because they were only designed to kill people.  Not attack a military structure, not attack anything that would help their cause, they were attacking innocent civilians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of interest, who is this "they"? Are you speakiing spefically about Osama and AL Queda, or do you think all muslim groups and countries have decalred jihad on America?<span id='postcolor'>

Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,08:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Supply foregin aid, fine. I realise you can't make everyone happy. But you must admit US foreign policy for the last 30 years or so has been downright nasty in many cases (assassinations, installing puppet rulers, manipulating the world market to USA advantage, blocking free trade when it suits US interests, getting involved in miltary conflicts that have nothing to do with the US - directly and indirectly etc.). A lot of the crap the US pulls they only get away with because they are a superpower.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, but that's no reason to target people who aren't responsible for it in any way.<span id='postcolor'>

Couldn't agree with you more, I have never said I support terrorist attacks on civvy targets. But bombing their countries isnt really going to help, is it? You can cure the symptoms of a disease, but to really be rid of it you need to look at the cause. And the cause is primarily resentment of American meddling and foreign policy in the Middle East. In the long term, trying not to piss as many people off with your foreign policies will prevent a lot more terrorism than bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq will. In fact, that will just build more resent ment which leads to more terrorism down the track. Someone needs to end the cycle of violence. It's hardly likely to be the terrorists, so can't America be "the bigger man" and start the healing process?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the jihad, I disagree with you. You are twisting the term holy war to make it seem like muslims vs. christians (i.e USA). This is not the case. To give an  example - if Al Queda declared jihad on a sports team, say the Raiders, because some of the raiders guys had slept with their wives, it is a holy war of muslims vs christians? No, of course not. It is a holy war against a particualr group (sports team) because of something they have done to them. It's a silly example, but what I am getting at is a hily war declared on the USA isn't necessarily about you not being muslim. They could just as easily declare a jihad against another muslim group, and it would still be a holy war.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so if the jihad isn't about religion, why do you call it a holy war?

Either way, their attacks weren't justified because they were only designed to kill people.  Not attack a military structure, not attack anything that would help their cause, they were attacking innocent civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

Why do they call it  a holy war? Why does George W drop the word God in so many of his speeches? Religion is a great way way to drum up emotion and support for your cause, plain and simple.

Again I point out that I don't think the S11 attacks were justified, I'm just trying to point out the reasoning behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 21 2003,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the jihad, I disagree with you. You are twisting the term holy war to make it seem like muslims vs. christians (i.e USA). This is not the case. To give an  example - if Al Queda declared jihad on a sports team, say the Raiders, because some of the raiders guys had slept with their wives, it is a holy war of muslims vs christians? No, of course not. It is a holy war against a particualr group (sports team) because of something they have done to them. It's a silly example, but what I am getting at is a hily war declared on the USA isn't necessarily about you not being muslim. They could just as easily declare a jihad against another muslim group, and it would still be a holy war.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, so if the jihad isn't about religion, why do you call it a holy war?<span id='postcolor'>

Jihad Explained

Western media has come up with and popularized the term "holy war."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But bombing their countries isnt really going to help, is it?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it will.  Terrorists need funding.  They need support, otherwise they'll simply go out of business.  No money = no training, no plane tickets to US, no food.  If we take out the governments that support these terrorists now, then other countrys will think twice about harboring them later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can cure the symptoms of a disease, but to really be rid of it you need to look at the cause. And the cause is primarily resentment of American meddling and foreign policy in the Middle East.<span id='postcolor'>

Or you can stop people from getting the disease in the first place by saying "if you have unprotected sex and catch a disease, you'll have to deal with the consequences and possibly die". So, hopefully, people will stop having unprotected sex and catching diseases. In the same manner we're telling countries considering harboring terrorists "if you harbor these terrorists, you'll have to deal with the consequences and possibly lose power." So, hopefully, governments will stop harboring terrorists.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the long term, trying not to piss as many people off with your foreign policies will prevent a lot more terrorism than bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq will. In fact, that will just build more resent ment which leads to more terrorism down the track. Someone needs to end the cycle of violence. It's hardly likely to be the terrorists, so can't America be "the bigger man" and start the healing process?<span id='postcolor'>

And how do we do that?  These people are already pissed off, and they wont stop until America is no more.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do they call it  a holy war? Why does George W drop the word God in so many of his speeches? Religion is a great way way to drum up emotion and support for your cause, plain and simple.<span id='postcolor'>

Good point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again I point out that I don't think the S11 attacks were justified, I'm just trying to point out the reasoning behind it.<span id='postcolor'>

I understand the reasoning behind them for the most part, but that just reinforces my support for the war on terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 21 2003,04:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jihad Explained

Western media has come up with and popularized the term "holy war."<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9. DEFENDING THROUGH PREEMPTIVE STRIKES:

Indeed, it is difficult to mobilize people to fight when they see no invaders in their territory; however, those who are charged with responsibility see dangers ahead of time and must provide leadership. The Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (S), had the responsibility to protect his people and the religion he established in Arabia. Whenever he received intelligence reports about enemies gathering near his borders he carried out preemptive strikes, broke their power and dispersed them (6). Allah ordered Muslims in the Qur'an:

"Fighting is prescribed upon you, and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have I heard the phrase "defending through pre-emptive strikes" before? Denoir, I salute your immense capability for sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 21 2003,02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If that were the case, why aren't muslim extremists attacking Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Japan etc etc all the other non-muslim countries in the world?<span id='postcolor'>

There are.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? The press seem to be keeping awfully quiet about these attacks. Like to give me some examples?<span id='postcolor'>

1. Djerba, Tunesia: 17 people killed, mostly german tourists

2. Bali, Indonesia: ~200 killed, mostly australian tourists

I would recommend to read some other newspapers wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python).

Sunday January 26, 2003

The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.

It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?

How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists?

These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. ...........................................................

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG! That sarcasm [by the monty python guy] was so witty, sharp and such a low blow that I had to use Internet acronyms for the first time in my life! LOL! SAS! ROTFLMAO! CIA!

crazy.gif  tounge.gif   biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,13:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python).

<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Great analogy. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

taps Terry Jones on the shoulder: "Excellent letter!"

Monty Python, my all-time-heroes of sarcasm:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

PILATE

    Stwike him, centuwion, vewwy woughly.

CENTURION

    And throw him to the floor, sir?

PILATE

    What?

CENTURION

    THWOW him to the floor again, sir?

PILATE

    Oh yes.  Thwow him to the floor.

(The CENTURION knocks BRIAN hard on the side of the head again and the TWO GUARDS throw him to the floor.)<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this article and believe it is relevant to this topic.

Dec. 25, 2002, 7:15PM

TotalFinaElf drives ahead of oil rivals

French firm draws fire for aggressive policies

By KIM HOUSEGO

Associated Press

PARIS -- As TotalFinaElf has aggressively searched for new oil fields to explore, it hasn't been deterred by controversy.

The French energy giant has provoked outrage in other countries by doing business with such pariahs as Iran and Myanmar. And the world's fourth-largest oil group has positioned itself to profit when Iraq is free of U.N. sanctions.

"We have to go where the oil and gas is," said Christophe de Margerie, executive vice president in charge of exploration and production. "Though not at any cost."

The company's assertive stance has allowed it to surpass its larger competitors. While industry giants Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP have downgraded oil production targets amid tumbling profits, Total says it's on track to lift output by 10 percent this year.

"TotalFinaElf has been able to expand production and, above all, do it profitably," said John Parry, analyst at U.S.-based petroleum consultancy John S. Herold.

The company posted net profits of $4.65 billion in the first nine months of this year, down from the same period in 2001 but still in line with expectations.

Total's expansion into politically sensitive countries has angered the United States and human rights groups.

The company brushed aside U.S. objections and invested heavily in Iran during the mid-1990s, then insulated itself from the threat of U.S. sanctions by selling its American activities.

At the same time, it opened negotiations with Saddam Hussein's government to develop two vast oil fields under the Iraqi sands once the United Nations lifts sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.

Elsewhere, Total has angered separatist rebels in the disputed Western Sahara by signing a contract with Morocco to develop an offshore oil rig.

Does expanding into unstable countries not leave the company more vulnerable to Third World political risks such as coup d'etats, nationalization or terrorism?

De Margerie, who sees Total's diversity as one of its greatest assets, says no.

"We split our risks," he said in an interview at Total's headquarters just outside Paris. "No one country has such an exposure that it would put our company at stake."

Furthermore, de Margerie said rising demand over the next 20 years means oil companies will need to find much more oil but "it's not easy to find new opportunities, it's a big fight."

"When we see new opportunities, we are very aggressive," he said. "But we will never operate in a country unless we are certain we can uphold our rules of conduct and respect the laws."

That wasn't the case in Myanmar, according to labor unions who lodged a complaint in a French court in August alleging the company used forced labor during the construction of a pipeline there. Total denies any wrongdoing.

De Margerie rejected calls by some rights groups for Total to leave the country because of the ruling junta's poor human rights record, citing the company's commitments to local communities there.

Asked about Iran, de Margerie said Washington's decision to bar U.S. companies from doing business there did not apply to Total.

Now the company is focused on Iraq. It is anxious for the opportunity to develop vast new energy deposits in a post-Saddam Iraq. But it also fears that two tentative agreements it has signed with Saddam's regime could be voided by U.S.-led military action.

"The contracts ... would be a major addition to the French company by giving them access to cheap oil," said Dr. Fadhil Chalabi, director of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. "Therefore it is essential for them to secure these two agreements."

Iraq has the second-largest proven oil reserves on the planet -- an estimated 112 billion barrels -- just after Saudi Arabia. And that is just what is known.

"We would like to develop those fields as soon as possible," de Margerie said.

Total, formed two years ago in the merger of Total Fina and the former state-owned oil company Elf Aquitaine, has also had to contend with damage to its reputation at home.

Total Fina first took a beating after an aging tanker it contracted sank off France's Brittany coast in 1999. Some 10,000 tons of gluey oil washed up on the country's beaches.

Two years later, an explosion in a TotalFinaElf subsidiary's fertilizer factory killed 30 people, injured hundreds, and damaged scores of buildings in the southern city of Toulouse.

A year ago, activists removed window panes from a chateau belonging to the group's chairman to protest the disaster. TotalFinaElf, France's biggest company, is responding, de Margerie said.

"We have taken new measures to ensure maximum possible security," he said, adding that the company would invest $500 million in additional precautions over the next four years. "We must be more transparent and less defensive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every American man, woman and child is about to send at least $25 each to Turkey in exchange for the opportunity to attack Iraq from there.

In addition to this $6 billion grant, the US will provide over $20 billion in loan guarantees.  Of course, this won't affect the US taxpayer unless Turkey has trouble making payments (as they did in recent years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is a bit strange:

CNN: Turkey: Deal with U.S. on Iraq imminent

Dagens Nyheter: Turkey rejects U.S offer

confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,19:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a bit strange:

CNN: Turkey: Deal with U.S. on Iraq imminent

Dagens Nyheter: Turkey rejects U.S offer

confused.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Dagens Nyheter has old news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 20 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Every American man, woman and child is about to send at least $25 each to Turkey in exchange for the opportunity to attack Iraq from there.

In addition to this $6 billion grant, the US will provide over $20 billion in loan guarantees.  Of course, this won't affect the US taxpayer unless Turkey has trouble making payments (as they did in recent years).<span id='postcolor'>

Instead of using the money for warfare we should try doing something useful with it like helping the people who are starving all over this world.

Oh wait, i forgot, i guess we don't care about them right?!

Of course... how dumb of me...

War is most important, damn me, i'm so dumb!!

I wonder what actually made me think about trying to really help others without useless violence!! What a dumb and silly idea, haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 20 2003,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lying and deceiving?<span id='postcolor'>

What the inspectors think is not important!

We KNOW that Iraq has those weapons!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, folks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead of using the money for warfare we should try doing something useful with it like helping the people who are starving all over this world.

Oh wait, i forgot, i guess we don't care about them right?!

Of course... how dumb of me...

War is most important, damn me, i'm so dumb!!

I wonder what actually made me think about trying to really help others without useless violence!! What a dumb and silly idea, haha!<span id='postcolor'>

60% of the worlds foreign aid comes from the United States.

And about that article, the inspectors probably called ahead to the places they were inspecting anyway. crazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 21 2003,18:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lying and deceiving?<span id='postcolor'>

"... six hour and twenty minute U-2 flight..."

It took us that long to realize they weren't hiding weapons on their rooves biggrin.giftounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 19 2003,11:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,04:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said the only excuse that I can see is that they were indeed very directly blackmailed by the US (11 of them, not all). They were told explicitly in letters from Bush that if they did not support the US position that they could forget about NATO membership and that USA would cut both economical suport and trade agreements..

IMO that is much more outrageous then Chiracs statements.<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir,

I haven't read this yet, do you have a source about the letter from Bush?<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, I'm still digging for that article. The only thing I've come across so far is this Amerikaanse lobbyist hielp Oost-Europa met Irak-brief. Is that what you read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×