The Iraqi Saga: Remix

Debmey

--> C'mon Debmey, the Americans too had pertroleum based contracts with Iraq, in fact, a significant number of countries have similar contracts with Iraq.

What I am merely asking is for you to prove that France, by having those contracts by itself, led to its(as you alleged) 'foul-play'.

Hhahahahahahahaha.............. tahst teh funniest lie I ever heard this past month.

hahahahahahahaha.................

since yu like to ask people for contracts, why don't yu lead teh way and show us US oil contracts with Saddam.
cheers

Debmey,

You do have an odd sense of humour...However, the main point is this:-

What I am merely asking is for you to prove that France, by having those contracts by itself, led to its(as you alleged) 'foul-play'.

--> If you read carefully to my statement above, what I am saying that when considering that countries like the US and UK have petroleum based contracts with Iraq, how does France, like you have said having those contracts by itself led to its(as you alleged) 'foul-play'?

since yu like to ask people for contracts, why don't yu lead teh way and show us US oil contracts with Saddam.
cheers

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Iraq has the world抯 second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq抯 reserves to 2-300 billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce, leading to a gold-rush of profits for international oil firms in a post-Saddam setting. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. They face companies from France, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere, who already have major concessions. But in a post-war military governments, imposed by Washington, the US-UK companies expect to overcome their rivals and gain the most lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 19-2-2004 at 05:48 PM ]

With respect, you have yet to address a single point I have made on page 2 of this thread.

When in a discussion, if you have a point to make, back it up with the relevant sources and information.

Do not accuse the other side of ignorance, instead put up the relevant sources so that it can be read and understood by the other side.

This is the basic 'ethic' of any public discussion/debating. You have told me before that everything you say here is substantiated so please adhere to your own words.

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 19-2-2004 at 05:58 PM ]

Debmey

Russia and France had oil contracts with Iraq while Germany has been supplying chemicals to Iraq. all these are well known to all and yu choose to ignore all this.

Debates on the war is done and the war is over. I think we shld focus our energy on rebuilding Iraq and stop all this jealous bickering against US.

Russia and France had oil contracts with Iraq while Germany has been supplying chemicals to Iraq. all these are well known to all and yu choose to ignore all this.

Debmey, I am not choosing to ignore all these 'well known to all' 'facts'...ok, I'll admit it...I do not know about all these so please provide the link/source so that I can understand and perhaps agree with you.

There are many issues to settle before anyone can safely say with 100% certainty that it is the oil contracts of Russia and France that led it to oppose the war. The companies that have these alleged contracts, were they private or nationalised? If it is private, then you cannot say put the blame on the State, if it is nationalised, how by having those alleged contracts by itself compromise States' position on the notion of War?

Debates on the war is done and the war is over. I think we shld focus our energy on rebuilding Iraq and stop all this jealous bickering against US.

Again, this is nothing to do with jealousy or whatnot. When a State, be it US or Azerbaijan, steps outside the legal realm, it creates an uncertainty and it could explode at anybody anywhere. The US can turn around and decides to go to war with Indonesia or Thailand or Singapore at their own will without legal restraints. I respect your stand to support the US, that is your right and your belief as everyone is entitled to their own stand.

An interesting but not quite productive discussion have progressed thus far and I would like to conclude the issue by providing a few thoughts on the matter.

The whole subject of war is a matter that mankind dreads and ideally hopes that would never occur. Reality however has shown that in history, numerous wars occurred for various reasons, often trivial ones. Why do we continue to resort to violence to justify a certain stand, I guess is rooted in the very nature of Man itself. To deconstruct this behaviour effectively is probably beyond the scope of any mortal being, however with awareness and understanding of the sanctity of life will people learn to prevent such occurance in future. It is no doubt a slow and perhaps painful process.

The invasion of Iraq signified an evolution in many aspects. Some see the war as a liberation and yet others, a sham. No doubt if there were concrete evidence of WMD  production and blueprints for world conquest by Saddam Hussein to 'change' Earth into Saddam Al-Paradise, then justification for war may be easier to come. However, as yet, reality has not visualised the initial justifications given by the US and UK for the invasion and as yet, despite the abundance of oil reserves in Iraq, many Iraqi civilians are without basic necessities such as water, food, efficient sanitation system, medical supplies and a seciruty and legal order.

The rebuilding of Iraq furthermore has been dampened by insurgent attacks mainly aimed at US and UK soldiers and probably is fueled by extreme Islamists who generally have a overall hatred towards the US. Could it be works of Al-Qaeda? Who knows and probably they do play a role in these attacks.

The UN had systematically oppose to the invasion based on proper channels are now in fact given the burden by the US and UK to rebuild Iraq. Is this a situation of 'please clean up our mess?' is yet to be confirmed due to the possible lucrative oil contracts that the US and UK oil firms may gained in a Washington-based administration in Iraq.

This summary concludes my opinion and my hope that forummers reading this, of whatever cultural and religious background, to understand that violence, in any form and any manner, is not a tool for justification or reprisal. As for those with a belief in God, let it be known that God is the ultimate Judge so let Him decide.

Shalom,
WinterNights

[ Last edited by WinterNights on 19-2-2004 at 08:30 PM ]

Debmey

the truth is, terrorists and there supporters must be confronted, with force if necessary.

And yu don't have to worry abt US invading yu idf your country is not guilty.

Acong

but bunch of jokerz..........!

Debmey

I like these jokers, they are doing a great job.

Acong

they have done a great job in making fool of themself!

sonny~~

Originally posted by Acong at 2004-2-24 08:13 AM:
they have done a great job in making fool of themself!

the day gonna come sonner than expected when the us gonna laugh on wrong side of their face