Niether the "1%" figure in addition to $4-5 trillion the figure I posted had a time (i.e. "per year") tagged to them. Would over the term of the $40-50 billion would they have $4-5 trillion in foreign business? That is my point.
Would over the term of the $40-50 billion would they have $4-5 trillion in foreign business? That is my point. If the term is 1 year, probably not. If the term is 50 years, almost definitely. So what exactly is your point with that?
I saw a French reporter state that less than 1% of France's foreign business dealings were with Iraq. That sounds pretty insignificant if true. Good post. The war backers go so far as to talk like it is crystal clear that France is motivated mainly by business contacts and that it is inconceivable that the US could be motivated by business concerns. Can they possibly believe this? I know they are blinded by what they call patriotism, but still can one really have this complete child like belief in the 100% purity of American motives? I saw the French representative to the UN say that FRENCH intelligence says that Sadam is not an immediate threat and can be contained by inspectors without war.. Given their intelligence service, (which due to their friendlier relations with the nations in the region, should have at least as good of contacts within the Middle East as we do) and the overwhelming feelings of the French people, why should they back a war they don't believe is necessary? What if the French wanted to go to war against a country that the CIA said was no threat to us and 80% or more of the population in the US was against us? Would an American president blow off the CIA and the vast majority. Of course not.
The French also give the Iraqis prior knowledge of where the inspections are going to be. The French are real trustworthy. Hell I was listening to an former inspector who was talking about how the inspection teams had to make fake lists of what sites they were going to inspect so the French would have a harder time giving away the real sites. The French have many other motives other than simply pacifism for not going to war. If you want to criticize the US for being all evil and selfish and unilateral for this war then at the same time you need to be criticizing the French for sabotaging the inspections numerous times and being one of the few countries to go against what the other countries in NATO want.
one more thing...you guys are acting like 40bln ain't a lot of money. the contract is probably spaced out over 20 to 25 years so its around 2 billion a year. pretty damn significant. russia's ties and potential ties with iraq are also the reason why it doesn't want war and the pretty much explicitly state that. france has also had historic ties to iraq and saddam another reason why they support not attacking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/58568.stm Iraq: the French connection France has historically been Iraq's best friend in the West. The special relationship began three decades ago, when General de Gaulle cultivated Arab countries in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East. This policy was seen by Paris as a way of boosting trade ties with oil-rich nations and extending French influence in an area which had been dominated by the "Anglo-Saxons". By 1970 France was one of Iraq's main trading partners. Diplomatic and economic ties were given a crucial boost in 1974, when the then French Prime Minister, and current President, Jacques Chirac, called Saddam Hussein a personal friend; his government agreed to build an experimental nuclear reactor near Baghdad, which was later bombed by Israel. Arms sales continued apace, as did French infrastructure projects in Iraq; by the late 1970s France was second only to the USSR as supplier of both civilian and military equipment to the Iraqis. The trend continued under French socialist governments in the 1980s. Like other Western countries, France strongly backed Iraq in its war against Iran. Paris supplied Baghdad with sophisticated weaponry, including Mirage fighter bombers and Super Etendard aircraft equipped with Exocet missiles. When the Iraqis found it hard to pay up, Paris rescheduled the debt. France's response to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 must be viewed in the light of this long-standing relationship. The French felt that they were in an ideal position to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw; just a few days before Operation Desert Storm began, French envoys were in Baghdad, trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. On the face of it, it seems hard to understand why France remains more favourably-inclined towards Baghdad than other Western countries. Economically, ties with Iraq have been a costly disaster. After helping Saddam Hussein build airports, factories and weapons, France is saddled with $4bn in unpaid bills. Military cooperation also backfired: the French helped arm a power which they later had to fight. And politically, French diplomacy has yielded scant results. So why does Paris still prefer to view Saddam Hussein as a potential ally, rather than an enemy? Many in Britain and the US argue that France's policy towards Iraq is driven by the prospect of lucrative deals for French companies, notably oil giants, once UN sanctions are lifted. This may be true, but it's not the whole story. Most previous contracts with Iraq have been anything but lucrative for the French. The belief that diplomacy can work wonders without the threat of force, and a perennial reluctance to follow the Anglo-Saxons' lead, are probably as strong as any perceived economic interest.
The French also give the Iraqis prior knowledge of where the inspections are going to be. Prove it. Or is it this too much to ask?
I hate to speak for others, but I think the point is: If the contract is _______ years (insert any length you wish), do you think France does $4 to 5 billion in that same ______ years?
Well I was listening to one of the former inspectors on the Sean Hannity radio show talking about how the inspectors had to basically trick the French so their inspections were not compromised. This was the 1st time he had come out with the accusations. I can look for names and transcripts if you want. This also was not with the recent inspections, but ones that took place a few years back. Also, a disclaimer for you since I am sure you will only focus on the Sean Hannity part. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but I do enjoy listening too him on my drive home.
