36 hours???

[Leon]

That's what I reckon we've got until that nutter in Washington declares war.

They are writing his speech already.

And today's Commons debate was cr@p as well.

36 hours tops - better get the car looking nice then :)

[JB]

Todays commons debate still has another 81/4 hours to go!

So what would you do then Starionman to avoid war?

[Nathan_200sx]

Yeah and kenedy is makeing a right tit of himself at the moment as well. I thought Duncan smith and Blair did a good job.

[Leon]

OK, I rephrase - the opening to todays debate was cr@p - there was nothing there that swayed my opinions at all.

What would I do to avoid war? I must state here that most of my objections are to do with the way that we have reached this point and nothing to do with the "apparent" desire to liberate the Iraqi people. I also believe that the Iraqi people have NOTHING to do with this war, and that it is a war of oil, economics and the US interest in Israel.
This is my firm belief.

Now, to avoid war. At this moment, there is nothing that can be done. However, if we assume that the UK/US bedfellows would back down for an instant:
To legitismise war, we have to have a 2nd UN resolution. Without this the international community is meaningless as any member states could then act outside the UN and not be punished. 1441 is, as has already been stated, not a prelude to war. In fact it needs a second resolution in re-invoke 678 (think it was 678) from 1991/2 in order to legitimse going to war.
The actions of the UK/US are undermining the UN. Additionally, the UN charter states that no member may seek the overthrow of another regime. Did anyone else hear Tony say that this was one of the objectives today in his speech? The phrasing was different, as he said that he wanted to depose SH but then must have realised that the anti-war lobby would jump him for exactly these reasons.

There have been a number of mistakes - and the most hilarious of these concerned the weapons inspectors who, by all accounts, missed a huge amount of WMDs etc. If they had more power and ability, then something could have been done.
The sanctions against Iraq have NEVER been effective against the leadership - only against the people. And who therefore are the villains of the piece? Yup the UN

So, back to the question. To prevent going to war? Re impose the inspectors with far more power than they had before. Reassess sanctions to ensure that the people receive what tehy need.
If need be, use an undercover war to effect social change. But don't go in my land, sea and air.

[JB]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Yeah and kenedy is makeing a right tit of himself at the moment as well. I thought Duncan smith and Blair did a good job.

Kennedy is a total waste of skin. Wasn't too impressed by Blair I must say but Duncan Smith I thought was quite good.

Oh dear, Kennedy is bringing the debate close to becoming a brawl now. What a twat.

[Leon]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Yeah and kenedy is makeing a right tit of himself at the moment as well..

Hardly surprising really.

[marty_t3]

erm... how about say...

"let's not rush into a war... let's think about the alternative proposals" , eg, allowing more time for the inspectors to finish doing their job"

The news this morning was saying how the UN inspectors were gutted to have to leave because they thought they were making progress and war/killing/destruction should be a LAST resort.



Blair's excuse that the French ruined the diplomatic talks is pitiful.

The idea of diplomacy is that you work out your differences in a civilized manner through discussion and debate. Not as Blair has done..... decided he didn't like what everyone else was proposing and decided to go and kill people anyway.



At the end of the day... Iraq are not invading anyone, they are not commiting any acts of terrorism, nobody can find and proof of WMD, the inspectors are getting on with their jobs.... there was no need for war.

That was made perfectly clear when the US doctored up reports from a decade ago and tried to pass them off as "recent intelligence". They obviously don't have enough legitimate reason to invade so they have to make it up.

[JB]

Originally posted by Starionman
I also believe that the Iraqi people have NOTHING to do with this war, and that it is a war of oil, economics and the US interest in Israel.
This is my firm belief.

If this is the case then why do the majority of Iraqi expats support war to get rid of Saddam?

Saddam is despised by his own people, hated and feared by the leaders of most arab nations, a figure of contempt to so called militant muslims and a major obstacle to Palestinian/Israeli peace. Removing him will be doing everyone a favour.

The only regret is that he should have been removed 12 years ago before he got round to murdering the Kurds rather than waiting until now.

I'm not actually afvocating war however. What I cannot understand is that in this era of sophisticated surveillance and intelligence gathering, why can't we simply pinpoint where Saddam and his cohorts are and take them out using the SAS etc.

[JB]

Originally posted by marty_t3
The news this morning was saying how the UN inspectors were gutted to have to leave because they thought they were making progress

Unfortuantely for the weapons inspectors, they are led by a man (Hans Blix) who once stated that North Korea had no weapons of mass distruction and no intention of making any. Therefore there is a slight credibility problem with regard to him and his gang

[Leon]

Originally posted by JB

I'm not actually afvocating war however. What I cannot understand is that in this era of sophisticated surveillance and intelligence gathering, why can't we simply pinpoint where Saddam and his cohorts are and take them out using the SAS etc.

Again - this would make him a martyr to certain people especially if he has been helping terrorists. (thats an IF remember)

[Leon]

From Channel 4 - the lines are still open btw.
The question is do you support the war on Iraq?

So far, we've had 67,947 calls in total:



23,124 responded 'yes' or 34 per cent;



44,823 responded 'no' or 66 per cent.

register by heading off to www.channel4.com/news and calling the numbers from there or emailing.

[JB]

Originally posted by Starionman
Again - this would make him a martyr to certain people especially if he has been helping terrorists. (thats an IF remember)

No it wouldn't. Remember this is a guy described as an infidel by Bin Laden. He may well help terrorists, but he does it for money, not out of idealism. Saddam Hussein only believes in Saddam Hussein (and the destruction of Israel).

[Leon]

So then why (other than thru rampant madness) did bush link l-Qaeda and Iraq?

There must people people loyal to Hussain. There were to Hitler and everyother mass murdering/people suppressing figure that there has ever been.
It is to these people that he will become a martyr

[marty_t3]

Hans Blix may have made mistakes in the past... but UN inspector presence is at the very least helping to keep SH at bay.

As for ex-pats wanting the war to go ahead.... well if i was living abroad ... and someone said we're going to invade the uk to get rid of the current government and improve things so you can return to your home and live happily ever after... then i'd support a war too. :rolleyes: I bet the average joe iraqi bloke in the street in Bagdad isn't quite so keen on the war...

Also, how can Tony Blair say that the french have knocked the diplomatic process backwards.

Tony is the one that is resorting to 12 year old resolutions (678/687) to legitimize his war. France wanted to go with the German option a new resolution involving increased inspections and more time. Their veto was to be aimed at any resolution that meant war without proper justification. They weren't vetoing (sp?)the diplomatic process, they were vetoing a blatant attempt to start a war.

[JB]

Originally posted by Starionman
So then why (other than thru rampant madness) did bush link l-Qaeda and Iraq?

Through the potetnial sale of WMD to Al Qaeda.

[marty_t3]

Bush tried to link Al-Queda and Iraq. He failed though... so they decided to try and use the "humanitarian" reasons for a war.

Iraq and Al-Queda have less links between them than the US have with the IRA.

[marty_t3]

Potential sale ..... oh... so if i could potentially hijack a plane and fly it into 10 downing street then i should be classed as a terrorist and have my house and family blown up by a B52???

[Leon]

Originally posted by marty_t3
..... oh... so if i could potentially hijack a plane and fly it into 10 downing street then i should be classed as a terrorist and have my house and family blown up by a B52???

I was actually considering this morning how cool it would be if Saddam realsised that he was going to lose and blew his oil wells to hell :) That would REALLY screw Bush. I was also seriously considering the merits of strapping explosives to myself and then driving very very fast into something very very important. Or of dropping poisens into the local water supply, just to bring the battle to these shores and give people something other than Iraq to worry about.
When I realised that I couldn't email the ugly one, I went back to eating my lunch.
I am now waiting for the thought crime police to appear.

*edit* that last bit souned flippant. But I was considering all those other things in a "Well, I could easily..." kinda way.

[JB]

Originally posted by marty_t3
..... oh... so if i could potentially hijack a plane and fly it into 10 downing street then i should be classed as a terrorist and have my house and family blown up by a B52???

If it was your stated aim to do that then yes, but I presume it isn't. That's the whole point. Britain has nuclear weapons but isn't likely to sell them to Al Qaeda. Iraq is attempting to build a nuclear weapon and there is every reason to believe that if they do they will sell it to the first terrorist that comes along, especially if their aim is to rid the world of the infidel Westerners Saddam hates so much.

But what are the real choices.

If we do nothing we're damned because sooner or later Saddam will have his weapons and will do great harm with them. We'll still be the target of militant muslim fanatics who hate us because of our association with the US.

If we do take out Saddam then he won't be able to do any further harm. We'll still be a target for the terrorists but at last there will be one problem less.

We're buggered whatever we do really.

[marty_t3]

Iraq is attempting to build a nuclear weapon

They are?!?!?! :eek:

Do the weapons inspectors know about it??? I'm sure they'd be very interested in knowing where Saddam is Keeping it. You'd better give them a call.... in fact... i'd give George and Tony a call too... they could do with all the proof of WMD they can get. :D

[JB]

Originally posted by marty_t3
They are?!?!?! :eek:

Do the weapons inspectors know about it??? I'm sure they'd be very interested in knowing where Saddam is Keeping it. You'd better give them a call.... in fact... i'd give George and Tony a call too... they could do with all the proof of WMD they can get. :D

OK then. Lets bury our heads in the sand and do nothing and wait until it's too late. That's what's made Britain the success story it is today :rolleyes:

[marty_t3]

Rather than bury our heads in the sand...

why don't we use them to think things through rather than just blow stuff up and kill people???

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Starionman
From Channel 4 - the lines are still open btw.
The question is do you support the war on Iraq?

So far, we've had 67,947 calls in total:



23,124 responded 'yes' or 34 per cent;



44,823 responded 'no' or 66 per cent.

register by heading off to www.channel4.com/news and calling the numbers from there or emailing.

There must be something wrong (rigged) with that site as the figure are the same as you posted over an hour ago

[gaz.thomas]

If someone could explain to me how we are intending to depose a dictator by carpet bombing innocent civilians in Iraq i'd appreciate it. I'm having trouble getting my head 'round that one.

Gaz
-x-

[marty_t3]

Gaz... you gotta remember that it's only military target they're going to bomb.....

though 3000 missiles in the first 48 hours, that's a lot of military targets. Assuming only 1% of the missiles miss their intended target.. thats 30 missiles that will be blowing up innocent folk. :rolleyes:

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
If someone could explain to me how we are intending to depose a dictator by carpet bombing innocent civilians in Iraq i'd appreciate it. I'm having trouble getting my head 'round that one.

Gaz
-x-

Thats ww2 tatics mate, they are NOT perposfully going for civilians, they will not bomp civilian targets (on perpose:rolleyes: )
they dont even want to destroy the army as it needs to be in place when they leave and Iraq is under a new administration.
If they carpet bombed a city they'd be up for a pretty seriouse war crime

[AshT_200]

You're absolutely correct that the diplomatic process was screwed because of oil, but if you think it is because of the American and UK desire for Iraqi Oil.... Can yuou substantiate this to the extent that you want the US and UK to substantiate their reason for going to war? You want hard evidence of WMDs, then show us your evidence that this is a war about oil.

There is already documented proof, that the french have a $50 Billion interest in untapped Iraqi oil, however I will not say that they would Veto "No matter What" because of this.

Mohammed Atta (One of the 911 bombers) had met with senior Iraqi diplomats before he did his dastardly deed. This is a link between Al Quaeda and Iraq.

And they didn't Carpet bomb civillians the last time, only the republican guard.

[tim rome]

just a thought or 2 about iraq and wmd's. we know for a fact that the IRA have some really nasty weapons including surface to air missiles, we have undercover police, mi5 and sas working in ireland, some have actually infiltrated the IRA, but the IRA still have their weapons because they are hidden. nobody can find them.
so now to iraq, i dont think we have infliltrated his military, all we have over there are a few people going to sites that they have been told to go to and having a bit of a shufty around. IRAQ is over 5 times the size of IRELAND, so who here really honestly believes that IF Sadam has hidden weapons that the weapons inspectors are going to find them.

[GD1]

No it wouldn't. Remember this is a guy described as an infidel by Bin Laden. He may well help terrorists, but he does it for money, not out of idealism. Saddam Hussein only believes in Saddam Hussein (and the destruction of Israel).

Substitute George Bush for Sadam Hussein and hey presto!

Caught the end of an interview earlier - some guy talking about the war - he was laying into Iraq, talking about Sadams terrible human rights record - how he butcherd the curds, killed thousands in the war with Iran etc. Bloody hell - who funded the war against Iran? Where were the USA/UK when he was butchering the curds?

I dont doubt that the bloke is an animal but for Gods sake cant we be honest about the reason we are about to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Interesting that the first target for occupation is Basra - whats at Basra? errrrrrr... militery bases? WMD production plants? Atomic weapons development facility? Sadams hidy hole? Oh gosh - its just come to me its OIL...

[gaz.thomas]

Listening to some army type blokey on radio 4 this morning he listed the expected primary targets as: Military logistical, civilian infrastructure and major cities. Sounds like there'll be quite a lot of collateral damage there then.

Could someone (AshT probably :D )tell me what the desired outcome of this is? Bush offered the ultimatum '48 hours to leave Iraq' and all the rest yesterday - and he turns round today and says even if Saddam does leave - we're still going to war???

To the victor go the spoils?

Gaz
-x-

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Listening to some army type blokey on radio 4 this morning he listed the expected primary targets as: Military logistical, civilian infrastructure and major cities. Sounds like there'll be quite a lot of collateral damage there then.

Could someone (AshT probably :D )tell me what the desired outcome of this is? Bush offered the ultimatum '48 hours to leave Iraq' and all the rest yesterday - and he turns round today and says even if Saddam does leave - we're still going to war???

To the victor go the spoils?

Gaz
-x-

Er no, the military will still go in and disarm Iraq, by destroying the WMD that Hans Blix last night said that Iraq possesses. :confused: Why the feck did he not say this to the security council?

It seems to me that the argument for keeping the weapons inspectors in would not have worked, because from my point of view they weren't being honest with the UN.

Last night Hans Blix the chief Bio Chemo inspector confirmed that Iraq possesses Biological and Chemical weapons, but he did not think that Iraq would use them. It's a bit different to his last report.

Intelligence reports that Iraq is deploying Chemical and Biological weapons to southern Iraq.

Depends what poll you read, because last night it was reported that the majority of the country now support the war.

And the Commons who represent us voted 412 for.

And Basra also is a tactical advantage to the Coalition (30 named 15 anonymous)

The military pointed out, that the bombing of cities accounted for a small proportion of the tonnage of ordinance dropped on Iraq in the last gulf war. They agree there will be some civillian casualties, it's unavoidable. But they are hoping to keep it as low as possible.

And GD1.... Oil is under the whole of Iraq... it's not just Basra. And who has exploratory rights? Yep you guessed it... THE FRENCH.

And why does Saddam pose a threat to the other nations in the Middle East? OIL... That's why he invaded Kuwait.

[gaz.thomas]

I knew you'd put me right AshT:D I'm assuming you're talking about the VX fax that was rec'd earlier this week - having not seen the translation I guess we'll have to wait and see what his report says later on today.

Gaz
-x-

[Nathan_200sx]

Basra does have a big militry presence, unlike most of Iraq this is the place where most buildings have a machine gun pointing out of the window. The main reason for going straight in there is to stop saddam setting fire to the oil wells and hindering the progress of our troop's. he may be a mad man but he does know his military tactics pretty well.
Anyone see the documentry on Iraq last night? 99.97% of the Iraqi people voted for him in the last election, not suprising as only the other week someone who spoke out against him was tied to a lamp post, had his tonge cut out and cut up and left to bleed to death :eek:

[Leon]

Then again, considering Bush banned thousands of voters from his elections (people with a criminal record, people with the same name as someone with a criminal record being just 2 examples of people prevented from voting in Florida), Saddam's just taking the metaphorical and making it actual.

Anyway... the oil issue. The French might have exploratory rights (something i didn't know - can someone explain WHY the French have the right to explore under someone elses sovereign territory please? Under international boundry laws that seems more than a little odd), but the US will die after about 70 days with no oil. Therefore it is more in their interests IMHO.

Talking of oil - did you see the prices have DROPPED??? Whats the betting that this won't be reflected in our fuel bills?

Back to the civilian point. Saddam is a wily beast and I am fairly certain that this every hidey hole is surrounded by nuns, priests, school children and hospitals. How many of these people have to die before Saddam is declared dead? And which Saddam? Given that he apparently has so many doubles, which one are we going after?

[gaz.thomas]

I think Oil prices have dropped because the producing nations believe the military action will be over quickly and the instability in the region will be reduced. Apparently a $1 drop in the price of a barrel of crude equates to a 1p drop in prices at the pump (based on empirical evidence)

There's enough oil in texas, alaska and venezuela to keep the yanks in small block chevys for a few years yet - not to mention siberia.

At the end of the day winning a war is good for boosting a politicians' popularity - regardless of whether it's a just war or not.

Gaz
-x-

[Leon]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
There's enough oil in texas, alaska and venezuela to keep the yanks in small block chevys for a few years yet - not to mention siberia.



From what I've seen, I have to disagree. There aren't many oil reserves for the US and the stockpiles aren't huge. Perhaps Nismo could clear it up?

Siberia and Alaska should be protected anyway

[gaz.thomas]

I'm not saying it's right starionman - I don't think there's any need for the yanks to drive 3ton monsters with 5.7 litre engines at 60mph in a perfectly straight line - I'm just saying that OPEC only account for 40% of the worlds production and there are alternative sources of oil. I say give them all ford fusions :D

Gaz
-x-

[AshT_200]

Russia has the biggest untapped oil reserve anywhere.

The French exploratory rights (remember, Chirac is the only westerner to have welcomed Saddam to their country.) is worth $50 Billion Dollars to France, no wonder they don't want war.

As for Saddams whereabouts, it is likely Mossad will be used to find him. It has been mentioned about Israel bombing Iraqs Nuclear facility. It was reported that the day before it was bombed, 40% of the workforce failed to turn up for work, because they were members of Israeli intelligence. Now that's spying :D

As for Russia tho, BP has secured a 50% stake in some of the oil fields.

[AshT_200]

Well regarding the threat of VX, Anthrax and Botulinus among other things..... smallpox etc..... America has been reported to have deployed Tactical Battlefield Nukes to the front line. Just in case. :(

[shadow21]

Originally posted by AshT_200

And GD1.... Oil is under the whole of Iraq... it's not just Basra. And who has exploratory rights? Yep you guessed it... THE FRENCH.


Sorry, I can't let that being said! (can't you hear the "Marseillaise" in the background?;))

* France has no "exploratory rights" over Irak territory.
The facts:
- Irak nationalized his oil pits during the 70's (Saddam was the "oil minister")
- Iraki oil represents 0.6% of the total oil imports of France
- French firms (TOTAL an ELF) exploit oil pits in Iraq, like in almost every oil-productive country in the world, and LIKE ANY OIL COMPANY IN THE WORLD (I was told that US -and UK- owned a few ones :rolleyes: ...)

Cheers

Fabien

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by shadow21
Sorry, I can't let that being said! (can't you hear the "Marseillaise" in the background?;))

* France has no "exploratory rights" over Irak territory.
The facts:
- Irak nationalized his oil pits during the 70's (Saddam was the "oil minister")
- Iraki oil represents 0.6% of the total oil imports of France
- French firms (TOTAL an ELF) exploit oil pits in Iraq, like in almost every oil-productive country in the world, and LIKE ANY OIL COMPANY IN THE WORLD (I was told that US -and UK- owned a few ones :rolleyes: ...)

Cheers

Fabien

Fabien...

The Facts.

French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth €60bn - €75bn to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq.

However it is illegal for TotalFinaElf to develop this while the sanctions are in place. They are likely to lose this when the Saddam Hussein regime is toppled.

The Kurdish Prime Minister and Iraqi Opposition leaders have stated that these contracts made by the Hussein regime will not be honoured.

Russia appears to be the biggest loser.

At the end of the day, I believe that Briant and America have acted in their own national interests as have everyone else in the UN security council. :rolleyes:

And Fabien....

The countries who have oil deals with Iraq are Russia France and China.

A few news clips for your perusal

Agence France Presse, the Associated Press, and the New York Times reported that the Iraqi
government (through a daily newspaper owned by S. Hussein's son) has "warned" France that French
companies may lose Iraqi oil contracts if France votes in the Security Council to link arms
inspections with suspending sanctions.

The Agence France Presse, Associated Press, and New York Times articles are reproduced below.

************************************************** ***************

Copyright 1999 Agence France Presse
Agence France Presse

December 5, 1999 11:42 GMT

SECTION: International news
LENGTH: 1299 words
HEADLINE: Iraq warns France of high price to pay for UN vote
DATELINE: BAGHDAD, Dec 5
BODY:
An official Iraqi newspaper warned France on Sunday of a high price to pay if it sides with the
United States in a UN Security Council vote linking a suspension of sanctions to a new disarmament
regime.

Such a vote would be "the last straw for Iraqi-French relations," said Babel, a daily run by
President Saddam Hussein's elder son, Uday.

As a result it would be "only logical for the French (oil) companies Elf and Total to close their
offices in Baghdad and lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited."

"The numerous advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be halted,"
Babel said, protesting that Iraqis had "suffered a lot because of the position adopted by the
French government."

Iraq has rejected in advance a British draft resolution at the Security Council that makes a
suspension of sanctions conditional on Iraqi cooperation with a new arms control panel.

US State Department spokesman James Rubin said Saturday that a vote on the resolution could come
"very, very soon."

The Security Council has been divided on Iraq policy since an air war waged in December 1998 by the
United States and Britain, which both take a hard line against lifting sanctions.

But a senior US official at the United Nations said Friday that the resolution would finally be
voted on within the next week.

The United States backs the British draft, while France has not announced its position but played a
role in enhancing a UN humanitarian programme under the resolution.

After having accused Paris at length over several days of abandoning its circle of "friends",
Baghdad is counting on Moscow, which has multi-billion dollar interests tied up in Iraq, to block
the resolution.

Sanctions have been in force since Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Baghdad insists its weapons of
mass destruction have been eliminated and that the time has come for a full and unconditional
lifting of sanctions.

Iraq's leading official daily warned France on Sunday of a high price to pay if it sides with the
United States in a UN Security Council vote linking a suspension of sanctions to a new disarmament
regime.

Such a vote would be "the last straw for Iraqi-French relations," said a commentary in Babel
written by Abdel Razzak al-Hashemi, who was Iraq's ambassador to Paris when Baghdad broke
diplomatic ties during the 1991 Gulf War.

As a result it would be "only logical for the French (oil) companies Elf and Total to close their
offices in Baghdad and lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited."

"The numerous advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be halted,"
Hashemi said, protesting that Iraqis had "suffered a lot because of the position adopted by the
French government."

Iraq has rejected in advance a British draft resolution at the Security Council that makes a
suspension of sanctions conditional on Iraqi cooperation with a new arms control panel.

US State Department spokesman James Rubin said Saturday that a vote on the resolution could come
"very, very soon."

The Security Council has been divided on Iraq policy since an air war waged in December 1998 by the
United States and Britain, which both take a hard line against lifting sanctions.

But a senior US official at the United Nations said Friday that the resolution would finally be put
to the vote within a week.

The United States backs the British draft, while France which has an interests section in Baghdad
has not announced its position but played a role in enhancing a UN humanitarian programme under the
resolution.

After having accused Paris at length of abandoning its circle of "friends", Baghdad is now counting
on Moscow, which has multi-billion dollar interests tied up in Iraq, to block the resolution.

The commentary in Babel, which is run by President Saddam Hussein's son Uday, noted that France had
fought against Iraq in the US-led multinational coalition in the conflict over Kuwait.

France took part "in the attacks and the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure," Hashemi said.

"An historic opportunity presents itself today (for France) to allow Iraqis to forget the past and
turn over a new page," he wrote, warning that "French interests and its standing in the whole
region" were at stake.

Sanctions have been in force since Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Baghdad insists its weapons of
mass destruction have been eliminated and that the time has come for a full and unconditional
lifting of sanctions.

Iraq's leading official daily warned France on Sunday of a high price to pay if it sides with
Washington in a UN Security Council vote linking a suspension of sanctions to a new disarmament
regime.

Such a vote would be "the last straw for Iraqi-French relations," said a commentary in Babel
written by Abdel Razzak al-Hashemi, who was Iraq's ambassador to Paris when they broke diplomatic
ties during the 1991 Gulf War.

As a result it would be "only logical for the French (oil) companies Elf and Total to close their
offices in Baghdad and lose the immense concessions which they have won but not yet exploited," he
said.

"The numerous advantages which French companies enjoy on the Iraqi market could also be halted,"
said Hashemi.

Iraq has rejected in advance a British draft resolution at the Security Council that makes a
suspension of sanctions conditional on Iraqi cooperation with a new arms control panel.

US State Department spokesman James Rubin said Saturday that a vote on the resolution could come
"very, very soon."

The Security Council has been divided on Iraq policy since an air war waged in December 1998 by the
United States and Britain, which both take a hard line against lifting sanctions.

But a senior US official at the United Nations said Friday that the resolution would finally be put
to the vote within a week.

The United States backs the British draft, while France which has an interests section in Baghdad
has not announced its position but played a key role in enhancing a UN humanitarian programme under
the resolution.

After having accused Paris of abandoning its circle of "friends", Baghdad is now counting on
Moscow, which has multi-billion dollar interests tied up in Iraq, to block the resolution.

The commentary in Babel, which is run by President Saddam Hussein's son Uday, noted that France had
fought against Iraq in the US-led multinational coalition in the conflict over Kuwait.

France took part "in the attacks and the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure," Hashemi said.

"An historic opportunity presents itself today (for France) to allow Iraqis to forget the past and
turn over a new page," he wrote, warning that "French interests and its standing in the whole
region" were at stake.

Sanctions have been in force since Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Baghdad insists its weapons of
mass destruction have been eliminated and that the time has come for a full and unconditional
lifting of sanctions.

A ruling Baath party official, meanwhile, said the extension of the UN oil-for-food programme was
nothing more an American "joke" and a ploy to pressure the Security Council into passing the
British draft.

"The Security Council ... will assume responsibility for the continuation of the embargo and the
agression aimed at exterminating the Iraqi people," said Abdel Ghani Abdel Ghafour.

Iraq has rejected stopgap extensions of the oil-for-food programme since the last phase run out on
November 20 and taken its oil off the world market.

The humanitarian programme -- launched in December 1996 in renewable six-monthly phases -- allows
Iraq to export crude to finance imports of food and medicine under UN supervision.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: December 5, 1999

************************************************** ***************

Copyright 1999 Associated Press
AP Worldstream

December 5, 1999; Sunday 14:01 Eastern Time

SECTION: International news
LENGTH: 942 words
HEADLINE: Report: Iraq will cut trade ties with France if it supports U.N. resolution
BYLINE: LEON BARKHO
DATELINE: BAGHDAD, Iraq
BODY:
France will lose all of its trade benefits, including lucrative oil development deals, if it
votes in favor of a U.N. resolution backed by the United States and rejected by Iraq, Iraq's most
influential newspaper said Sunday.

The warning in Babel, the daily newspaper owned by President Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Odai,
singled out French oil giants Elf Aquitaine and Total, which have deals nearing completion for the
development of two of the world's largest oil fields.

If the resolution is passed ''logic says that both Elf and Total will have to close their offices
in Baghdad and leave. That means they will lose the huge oil investment opportunities they have
been granted,'' Babel said in a front-page editorial and were signed by Abdulrazzaq al-Hashimi, a
senior member of the ruling Bath party.

Iraq also ''will put an end to the preferential treatment given to French companies,'' it said.

Russia and China Iraq's closest allies among the five permanent Security Council members as well as
France have favored suspending sanctions soon after Iraq allows U.N. weapons inspectors to return
and demonstrates compliance with them. But the United States and Britain demand a longer waiting
period and Iraqi answers to outstanding questions about its disarmament.

Attempts to reach a compromise have dragged on nearly a year, but a vote appears to be drawing
near. Lately, Iraqi state-run newspapers have accused France of leaning toward the U.S.-British
position on Iraq in the Security Council. The direct warning, however, was new.

Babel did not say whether Iraq would punish its other two major trading partners Russia and China
if they agree to the proposal. Both have signed deals to develop oil fields in Iraq.

The United States is pressing U.N. Security Council members to reach agreement on the proposed
resolution which charts a new policy toward Iraq that would restart U.N. weapons inspections as
well as upgrade the humanitarian program in the country.

U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq almost a year ago on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes. The
government had vowed not to let them return. Nizar Hamdoon, a deputy foreign minister said Saturday
that Iraq would only allow the inspectors back if U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion
of Kuwait were abolished.

France is among Iraq's major trading partners under the U.N.-approved oil program, which permits
oil sales worth dlrs 5.2 billion every six months despite the sanctions. French exports to Iraq
were estimated at a half-billion dollars during each the past two phases of the program.

France will lose all of its trade benefits, including lucrative oil development deals, if it votes
in favor of a U.N. resolution backed by the United States and rejected by Iraq, Iraq's most
influential newspaper said Sunday.

The warning in Babel, the daily newspaper owned by President Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Odai,
singled out French oil giants Elf Aquitaine and Total, which have deals nearing completion for the
development of two of the world's largest oil fields.

If the resolution is passed ''logic says that both Elf and Total will have to close their offices
in Baghdad and leave. That means they will lose the huge oil investment opportunities they have
been granted,'' Babel said in a front-page editorial signed by Abdulrazzaq al-Hashimi, a senior
member of the ruling Baath party and former ambassador to France.

Iraq also ''will put an end to the preferential treatment given to French companies,'' it said.

Russia and China Iraq's closest allies among the five permanent Security Council members as well as
France have favored suspending sanctions soon after Iraq allows U.N. weapons inspectors to return
and demonstrates compliance with them. But the United States and Britain demand a longer waiting
period and Iraqi answers to outstanding questions about its disarmament.

Attempts to reach a compromise have dragged on nearly a year, but a vote appears to be drawing
near. Lately, Iraqi state-run newspapers have accused France of leaning toward the U.S.-British
position on Iraq in the Security Council. The direct warning, however, was new.

Babel did not say whether Iraq would punish its other two major trading partners Russia and China
if they agree to the proposal. Both have signed deals to develop oil fields in Iraq.

Later Sunday, Saddam met with several members of Iraq's highest legislative body the Revolutionary
Command Council to discuss the U.N. resolution.

''The meeting stressed Iraq's rejection of the evil British draft resolution and Iraq's position
not to deal with any formula that does not contain the comprehensive and unconditional lifting of
the sanctions,'' the official Iraqi News Agency said.

The United States is pressing U.N. Security Council members to reach agreement on the proposed
resolution which charts a new policy toward Iraq that would restart U.N. weapons inspections as
well as upgrade the humanitarian program in the country.

U.N. arms inspectors left Iraq almost a year ago on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes. The
government had vowed not to let them return. Nizar Hamdoun, a deputy foreign minister said Saturday
that Iraq would only allow the inspectors back if U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion
of Kuwait were abolished.

France is among Iraq's major trading partners under the U.N.-approved oil program, which permits
oil sales worth dlrs 5.2 billion every six months despite the sanctions. French exports to Iraq
were estimated at a half-billion dollars during each the past two phases of the program.

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

LOAD-DATE: December 5, 1999


************************************************** ***************

[AshT_200]

Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

December 6, 1999, Monday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 12; Column 5; Foreign Desk
LENGTH: 709 words
HEADLINE: Iraq Opens a War of Words Against Its French Friends
BYLINE: By BARBARA CROSSETTE
BODY:
A few days before the United Nations Security Council is expected to vote on a new arms
inspection system for Iraq, the Iraqi government threatened France yesterday with retaliation
against its diplomats and oil companies if it supports the proposal.

The government of Saddam Hussein apparently senses that it can no longer rely on France -- and
perhaps not on Russia either -- to block the resumption of inspections after a year of indecision
by the Security Council and no monitoring in Iraq. So Iraq has gone on the offensive with articles
in its controlled press and with comments from officials.

Western diplomats say that Iraq is in effect asking the French and Russians, who have considerable
financial interests in Iraq, to choose between potential business deals -- and the repayment of
Iraqi debts -- and good relations with the United States and a number of European countries also
pressing for new inspections.

Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister and intermediary with the United Nations, spent four days
in Moscow last week trying to persuade Russia to continue to oppose the weapons monitoring plan. At
the end of the visit, Russian officials, including Moscow's United Nations representative, Sergey
Lavrov, would say only that they were still studying the draft Security Council resolution.

At the United Nations, Western diplomats say that France has been drawing closer to supporting the
plan, which has undergone many revisions over six months. The Iraqis began criticizing France
recently for this apparent willingness to require new inspections as a key to suspending sanctions
on Iraq that were imposed over its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But yesterday's attack, in the
newspaper published by President Hussein's son Uday, was the most pointed to date.

The newspaper, Babel, said Iraq should break off relations with France and expel French oil company
representatives. Two companies, Elf Aquitaine and Total S.A., have been talking with Iraq about
joint development of large oil fields in the south of the country.

The draft resolution before the Security Council would create a new arms-inspection system to
replace the United Nations Special Commission. That body was formed by the Security Council after
Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf war to monitor a requirement that Iraq rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction.

The commission has not been able to function in Iraq since inspectors were evacuated before British
and American bombing raids a year ago. Iraq barred their return after the air strikes, and the
Russians led a campaign against efforts to revive the commission, including personal attacks on its
chairman, Richard Butler, who resigned in June.

Russia, and to a lesser degree France, argued at first for a substantial easing of the sanctions
against Iraq as an incentive for Iraqi cooperation. The United States and Britain argued that there
could be no relief for Mr. Hussein until weapons inspections resumed and the Iraqis complied with
the inspectors.

The current version of the resolution reflects the American view that there has to be compliance
and that intrusive inspections on the ground must be permitted. But significant differences remain
over how to evaluate Iraqi compliance and in what time frame. There are also disagreements over the
powers to be assigned to the chairman of a new inspection commission.

The Iraqi leadership has been enraged in recent weeks by shorter-than-usual extensions of the
program that allows limited sales of oil, despite the sanctions, to meet civilian needs. And Iraq
has repeatedly said that it will never let any inspectors back in unless sanctions are lifted
first. Some council members say, however, that this may be Iraq's opening position for the hard
bargaining that will follow if the resolution passes.

If the French -- who protested the most recent extension of the oil-sales plan by not voting at all
-- support the arms control resolution, the focus will be fixed on Russia and China, either of
which could veto the proposal. Those countries supporting the new plan are negotiating hard to
secure a Russian abstention. If they are successful, supporters of the plan assume that China will
follow suit.

[shadow21]

Originally posted by AshT_200
The French exploratory rights (remember, Chirac is the only westerner to have welcomed Saddam to their country.) is worth $50 Billion Dollars to France, no wonder they don't want war.


Sorry Ash,

I again have to disagree:
Chirac is NOT the only westerner to have welcomed Saddam in their country. I 'll let you make your own researches about that:
Tip: search among US and UK diplomats and chiefs of government between 1970 and 1991.

As I told before: Iraki oil is only 0.6% of the total France oil imports.

Before 1991, Saddam was supported by almost every country in the world for his action, even the gulf emirates!!: he invaded Kuwait without any difficulty (with his US, French, UK, etc... weapons). why? Kuwait decreased its oil prices by 20% the year before, destabilising the whole oil industry.

Less than a week before the first UN resolution towards Irak, US publically declared to UN that they would NOT intent any action of any kind towards a "sovereign country" (Irak), and as no one seemed to be interested, Saddam felt into a huge diplomatic trap.
Unhabitual amount of American troops were in Saoudi arabia well BEFORE the Kuwait invasion.

Believe what you want to believe Ash, but with a subject as important as a war, and with the fact that my country is designated by the "good axis" :rolleyes: as being the cause of it because "we" just suggested that a war isn't the immediate attitude to adopt and defended that position in front of the American world dictatorship, you'll easilly understand that I'm a little upset by that kind of attitude.
I made huge searches during the last two weeks. Things are not necessarily what they seem to be.

We could talk more in detail of all this, you still have many things to learn, young Padawan...

A reasonably intelligent pacifist.

[AshT_200]

Fabien I applaud you for being patriotic,

But the facts are the facts.

France has closer relationship with Iraq than anyother European country. Chirac has been reported for referring to Saddam as a personal friend.

Your interpretation of the facts are different to mine, so lets agree to disagree.

US/UK support of Iraq is in the past... History.... Nothing more.

As is the US and UK led liberation of France in WW2.

[GD1]

In the end it all boils down to one thing. Is it right or wrong to kill hundreds/thousands of innocent people? Report on TV this morning. The US plans to drop more bombs on Bagdad in the first days of the war than during the whole of the last conflict!

And whilst the sky is full of marauding US planes, troops will be advancing below. What was it in the last conflict - 9 to friendly fire 1 to enemy fire (UK losses). 45% US casualties to friendly fire were also reported on a programm a couple of weeks ago.

Sadam is round the bend but does he really present an international threat? He is certainly a national threat to those of his people who oppose him, but I would have thought the American secret services had ways of undermining such leaders - they have done it int he past.

I dont know all of the facts - I doubt that anyone really does, but I think we can be sure that the US and UK governments have their own agendas otherwise they would be doing nothing (as they have for many years).