Just to restate: My basic problem is that the Bush administration has changed the direction of US policy such that we launch preemptive strikes against other countries we feel threatened by whether or not the threat is an immediate one or a more indirect one such as the possibility that a country like Iraq will supply terrorists with weapons and such.
About the UN: Bush and Blair have both publicly said that they want the UN to have a role in putting Iraq back together.
Originally posted by Hondaman
Also from what I heard France and Russia used to have a lot of business agreements with Saddam, and now that he is going to be removed, their business plans are falling apart. Has anyone else heard this?
The main thing that people are referring to when talking about this is an agreement that the French oil conglomerate TotalFinaElf has/had with Saddam's government. Most of Iraq's oil resources are undeveloped because the government doesn't have the funding to do it themselves and international companies can't do it because of UN economic sanctions. So TotalFinaElf signed a deal where they get first crack at developing the oil fields and such if/when the sanctions are lifted. If Saddam's government goes away, then so do any agreements it made with corporate entities. Still. Just because a French oil company is going to loose some agreements with Saddam, doesn't mean that the French government is going to oppose removing him. Oil is obviously a factor in the situation because the truth is that Iraq does have oil, but to say it's a motivating reason for one side is to say that it's a motivating reason for all sides.