Has anyone else noticed...

[Michael Tee]

Hahahaha

Mother of all battles Saddam , are we talking about the same guy?

I think your position depends on the assumption of good sense on Saddams part.

<<Mother of all battles Saddam>>  was his phrase from the First Gulf War - - note that he pulled his troops from Kuwait rather than fight the Americans there and fought only defensively agaisnt them for a brief period of time.  One of the biggest slaughters of Iraqi troops in that war came when they were in retreat from the U.S. army.  He basically preserved his armed forces and did not risk them in combat.

[Michael Tee]

<<My point was that other governments had companies with significant financial ties to Saddam's government. Hundreds of billions of dollars is significant in anybody's book - except yours, apparently. I made my point. Your "ripping it to shreds" apparently consisted of saying that US did business with them as well. A point that I never contradicted.>>

Actually, I conceded that you might have had a point with respect to France.  Of course, it's always risky business to evaluate a new oil venture in terms of the expected profits.  Many a slip, etc.  And it would have been helpful to see how ELF valued its other deals in other parts of the world.  This might not have been close to the biggest jewel in the crown.  Most of the other examples given were totally unconvincing and I said so.  They were basically small change.

[Plane]

<<My point was that other governments had companies with significant financial ties to Saddam's government. Hundreds of billions of dollars is significant in anybody's book - except yours, apparently. I made my point. Your "ripping it to shreds" apparently consisted of saying that US did business with them as well. A point that I never contradicted.>>

Actually, I conceded that you might have had a point with respect to France.  Of course, it's always risky business to evaluate a new oil venture in terms of the expected profits.  Many a slip, etc.  And it would have been helpful to see how ELF valued its other deals in other parts of the world.  This might not have been close to the biggest jewel in the crown.  Most of the other examples given were totally unconvincing and I said so.  They were basically small change.

I agree that the oil involved is not worth enough to cause a war.

[Michael Tee]

<<I agree that the oil involved is not worth enough to cause a war.>>

Neat trick.  You're agreeing with something I never said.  (What is the sound of one hand clapping?)

What I said was that the amount of oil involved in France's ELF-Iraq deal might not have been enough to influence France's voting intentions on the Security Council.

[Amianthus]

What I said was that the amount of oil involved in France's ELF-Iraq deal might not have been enough to influence France's voting intentions on the Security Council.

Control of 25% of Iraq's oil is not enough?

How much would be enough?

[Michael Tee]

<<Control of 25% of Iraq's oil is not enough?>>

That's 25% of all the oil in Iraq IF it lives up to predictions.  Time will tell what percent it would have been.  If I had a 25% stake and the U.S. was about to invade, I would have covered my bets.  A U.N. Security Council vote would have satisfied the U.S.A. and as long as I knew Germany, Russia and China were voting against, it would not have jeopardized my deal with Saddam one bit.  My deal with Saddam would have been to vote against the U.S. only if the other veto powers had been suckered into the U.S. orbit.  Having said all that, I would add that it is possible there's enough oil there for the French to vote in the U.N. Security Council to protect their economic interests.  That still wouldn't mean they bought into any of Bush's bullshit.  They could protect their own interests AND still recognize BS for what it is. 

[Amianthus]

That's 25% of all the oil in Iraq IF it lives up to predictions.  Time will tell what percent it would have been.

Those were "proven reserves."

Incidently, they are still currently undeveloped.