<<Of course these facts aren't really facts, right Tee? >>
They might be facts, but even if they are, it is EXACTLY as I suspected - - meaningless factoids, with nothing to compare them to, to give any meaning or significance. Only a moron would conclude, on the basis of the facts as stated, that economic interests would persuade even France to take the positions they did regarding a proposed American motion in the Security Council.
I am referring to Ami's article, to which he was kind enough to post the link. I'm sure that sirs' book is just another crock of the same shit, but let's look at Ami's "source," which like most of his other garbage turns out to be the same misbegotten collection of factoids and half-truths proving absolutely nothing. Actually, the stupidity of quoting this article in support of their moronic positions is hilarious, because it actually shows you in some detail why America would want to invade this country.
First of all, if you read between the lines of the article, you see that the country with the biggest economic motive to invade the fucking country is the U.S.A. - - America not only relies on Iraq for $3.5 BILLION worth of its oil in one single year, 2002, but has to buy the stuff through middlemen, which obviously would cost substantially more. France, by contrast, bought $3.1 billion SINCE 1996 under the oil-for-food program. As a consumer of Iraqi oil, France is a piker compared to the U.S.A.
Germany, another country which these geniuses claim votes only its "economic self-interest" at the Security Council when Iraq is concerned, does a lordly "350 million" business annually with Iraq. Plus a "reported" billion through third parties, as meaningless an estimate as could be imagined in the circumstances. Germany is the second largest exporting nation in the world - - $350 million would represent a piss in the ocean as far as their overall balance of trade is concerned.
The foreign debt figures were equally hilarious - - while Iraq owes France an "estimated" $6 billion in foreign debt, and Germany "billions" [that's it - - "billions;" $2 billion or $999 billion, that's for YOU to figure out,] there are absolutely no figures at all regarding the foreign debt owed to the U.S. by Iraq.
The rest of the article is just a frantically-compiled mish-mash of the News from Nowhere - - a $2 million contract for cable here, a $70 million contract for auto parts there - - stuff that naturally has absolutely zero in terms of meaningful economic significance - - what percent of France's, Germany's or Russia's foreign trade is represented by Iraq, how do all the numbers compare with the U.S.A. and what of the other countries that also, like France, Germany, Russia and China, refused to back the U.S.A., what were their trade figures?
In addition, none of this explains how come India, Canada, Belgium and scores of other countries, some big and some small, also felt that there was no need to invade Iraq despite the bullshit and lies of the Bush administration.
At the end of the day, the article succeeded in convincing me that all the countries named did business with Iraq in one form or another, for greater or lesser amounts, and that of all of them, the U.S. seemed to have the greatest economic incentive to invade Iraq since it not only bought by far the biggest amounts of oil from them but also was forced to buy through middlemen, which would substantially have increased the price - - an inconvenience which could be solved neatly by taking over the wells directly and reaping enormous benefits not only through the elimination of the middleman but also by being able to dictate the price of the product directly to the Iraqi "government" at the point of a gun.
