• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If Iraq's Oil Reserves didnt Exist

smashp

Platinum Member
If Iraq's Oil Reserves didnt Exist and we were in our current situation in Iraq, would President Bush Pull the troops out of the region?
 
of course, we're only there for the oil.


edit: actually, probably not, since pulling out doesn't always work. at least, that's what mama mutters whenever i do something stupid.
 
We wouldn't have even gone in in the first place.

RE: Just about any country in Africa, name one, or two, or even a dozen if you like.
Haven't gone in, why should we, just starving and dying civilians under corrupt dictatorships -
without oil.
 
True, an iraq without oil is similar to any troubled african country. Take Sudan for example.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
The troops wouldnt be there in the first place 😉

There is no doubt. In terms of priority of WMD we went reverse of the "Axis of Evil".

1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. Iraq

Just so happens the least important country was also the one with all the oil. Who would've thought! Plus WMD everywhere except IRAQ!
 
Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Originally posted by: Stunt
The troops wouldnt be there in the first place 😉

There is no doubt. In terms of priority of WMD we went reverse of the "Axis of Evil".

1. North Korea
2. Iran
3. Iraq

Just so happens the least important country was also the one with all the oil. Who would've thought! Plus WMD everywhere except IRAQ!

Plus, tough time in iraq?...good luck with the other two.

Iran and NK would kick major a$$...unless you just nuked the hell out of them...fortunately that won't happen.

Both of the other two are no go's anytime soon...
 
Oil is and will be the #1 reason for invasion.

Why do you think we are talking about invading/pre-emptively striking Iran instead of NK? Iran, again, sits on an ocean of oil (and a ton of natural gas too).
 
Originally posted by: Stunt

Plus, tough time in iraq?...good luck with the other two.

Iran and NK would kick major a$$...unless you just nuked the hell out of them...fortunately that won't happen.

Both of the other two are no go's anytime soon...

even if you nuked the hell out of north korea they would still level seoul. their artillery is in hardened mountain bunkers, very hard to hit with a nuclear weapon.
 
Originally posted by: Stunt
True, an iraq without oil is similar to any troubled african country. Take Sudan for example.

Right, when was the last time Sudan invaded its neighbor?? Is Sudan developing WMD's?

How can you compare Sudan to Iraq is beyond me
 
Take Liberia and Afghanistan as an example....

Bush wouldn't have sent our troops to either of those if it weren?t for their diamond and opium surpluses.
 
sure, we went there for oil..
many people said the same thing for the first Gulf War...
turned out they were wrong, just like they are this time...
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Stunt
True, an iraq without oil is similar to any troubled african country. Take Sudan for example.

Right, when was the last time Sudan invaded its neighbor?? Is Sudan developing WMD's?

How can you compare Sudan to Iraq is beyond me

I thought mass slaughter and genocide was the current justification for invading Iraq. The last time Iraq invaded a neighbor was 1992, and well, we already fought that war. Any plans for re-invading Germany?
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Stunt
True, an iraq without oil is similar to any troubled african country. Take Sudan for example.

Right, when was the last time Sudan invaded its neighbor?? Is Sudan developing WMD's?

How can you compare Sudan to Iraq is beyond me

Is Iraq developing WMD?...cuz if you have evidence that they were, i'm sure GWB will be your new bestfriend.

Iraq invading Kuwait is a whole different matter. Happened a long time ago and doesnt warrent another war today. Besides, the US unilaterally invades countries all the time 🙂

Also, genocide is far worse than anything Iraq has done...so i guess you are right. Not a good comparison...Sudan is far worse. Too bad that doesnt help your line of reasoning in the least.
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
Gas is still toooo high, dunno how the Iraq war helped on that end.

Dont even make this argument.


Who has benifitted from High Priices in the Oil Market is what you are really Asking?




Answer: The Oil companies.







 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We wouldn't have even gone in in the first place.

RE: Just about any country in Africa, name one, or two, or even a dozen if you like.
Haven't gone in, why should we, just starving and dying civilians under corrupt dictatorships -
without oil.

Exactly.
 
Just so happens the least important country was also the one with all the oil. Who would've thought! Plus WMD everywhere except IRAQ

NK already has nukes. You cant do much about it.
Iran is close or might already have a nuke. You are walking a fineline with them.
Iraq has a history of aggression and is in violation of a ceasefire agreement.

I think you would be wise to take care of the easier problem first. 2nd on the list is Iran. At least this time it appears the Euros are actually interested in dealing with this situation. 3rd problem will be the most difficult because they already possess nukes.

One lob of an artillery shell and seoul is gone.
 
The first war was about keeping Kuwait's oil and ports out of Saddam's hands (too many eggs in one basket), hell, they even had to make up stories about Iraqi soldiers killing babies and massing on Saudi Arabia's border to get support.

It's never about short term oil prices, it's about long term access to oil to keep prices down for economic growth at the expense of the local people.
 
I honestly think it'd just be another hotspot we dealed with sometimes but never really got involved with in the first place. It's the oil that makes it a strategic target to begin with.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Stunt

Plus, tough time in iraq?...good luck with the other two.

Iran and NK would kick major a$$...unless you just nuked the hell out of them...fortunately that won't happen.

Both of the other two are no go's anytime soon...

even if you nuked the hell out of north korea they would still level seoul. their artillery is in hardened mountain bunkers, very hard to hit with a nuclear weapon.


A preemtive neutron bomb assualt would take care of that.
 
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We wouldn't have even gone in in the first place.

RE: Just about any country in Africa, name one, or two, or even a dozen if you like.
Haven't gone in, why should we, just starving and dying civilians under corrupt dictatorships -
without oil.

Exactly.



Caugh...Liberia.....under this presidency

Somalia under the former
 
Africa

I started to look up and post some links about the corruption and actions
of genocide throughout Africa torture and slaughter, and Country assets
to view thier perceived value.

It was too depressing, and there was nothing good to refer to except Plague.

Here's a starting point if you wish to read some information.

Angola has been an economy in disarray because of a quarter century of nearly continuous warfare.

Botswana has maintained one of the world's highest growth rates since independence in 1966. Through fiscal discipline and sound management, Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of $9,500 in 2002.

Burundi is a landlocked, resource-poor country with an underdeveloped manufacturing sector. The economy is predominantly agricultural with roughly 90% of the population dependent on subsistence agriculture. Economic growth depends on coffee and tea exports, which account for 90% of foreign exchange earnings. The ability to pay for imports, therefore, rests primarily on weather conditions and international coffee and tea prices. The Tutsi minority, 14% of the population, dominates the government and the coffee trade at the expense of the Hutu majority, 85% of the population. Since October 1993 an ethnic-based war has resulted in the death of over 200,000 persons, sent 800,000 refugees into Tanzania, and displaced 525,000 others internally.

Only one in two children go to school, and approximately one in ten adults has HIV/AIDS

Egypt improved its macroeconomic performance throughout most of the last decade by following IMF advice on fiscal, monetary, and structural reform policies. As a result, Egypt managed to tame inflation, slash budget deficits, and attract more foreign investment. In the past four years, however, the pace of reform has slackened, and excessive spending on national infrastructure projects has widened budget deficits again.

The Gambia has no important mineral or other natural resources and has a limited agricultural base. About 75% of the population depends on crops and livestock for its livelihood. Small-scale manufacturing activity features the processing of peanuts, fish, and hides. Reexport trade normally constitutes a major segment of economic activity, but a 1999 government-imposed preshipment inspection plan, and instability of the Gambian dalasi (currency) have drawn some of the reexport trade away from The Gambia.

Gabon enjoys a per capita income four times that of most nations of sub-Saharan Africa. This has supported a sharp decline in extreme poverty; yet because of high income inequality a large proportion of the population remains poor. Gabon depended on timber and manganese until oil was discovered offshore in the early 1970s. The oil sector now accounts for 50% of GDP.

Guinea possesses major mineral, hydropower, and agricultural resources, yet remains an underdeveloped nation. The country possesses over 30% of the world's bauxite reserves and is the second-largest bauxite producer. The mining sector accounted for about 75% of exports in 1999. Long-run improvements in government fiscal arrangements, literacy, and the legal framework are needed if the country is to move out of poverty.

Cote d'Ivoire is among the world's largest producers and exporters of coffee, cocoa beans, and palm oil. Consequently, the economy is highly sensitive to fluctuations in international prices for these products and to weather conditions. Despite government attempts to diversify the economy, it is still largely dependent on agriculture and related activities, which engage roughly 68% of the population.

Kenya the regional hub for trade and finance in East Africa, is hampered by corruption and reliance upon several primary goods whose prices remain low. Following strong economic growth in 1995 and 1996, Kenya's economy has stagnated, with GDP growth failing to keep up with the rate of population growth. In 1997, the IMF suspended Kenya's Enhanced Structural Adjustment Program due to the government's failure to maintain reforms and curb corruption. A severe drought from 1999 to 2000 compounded Kenya's problems, causing water and energy rationing and reducing agricultural output.

Mali is among the poorest countries in the world, with 65% of its land area desert or semidesert and with a highly unequal distribution of income. Economic activity is largely confined to the riverine area irrigated by the Niger. About 10% of the population is nomadic and some 80% of the labor force is engaged in farming and fishing. Industrial activity is concentrated on processing farm commodities. Mali is heavily dependent on foreign aid and vulnerable to fluctuations in world prices for cotton, its main export, along with gold.

Morocco faces the problems typical of developing countries - restraining government spending, reducing constraints on private activity and foreign trade, and achieving sustainable economic growth.

Niger is a poor, landlocked Sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence agriculture, animal husbandry, and reexport trade, and increasingly less on uranium, because of declining world demand.

Rwanda is a poor rural country with about 90% of the population engaged in (mainly subsistence) agriculture. It is the most densely populated country in Africa; landlocked with few natural resources and minimal industry. Primary foreign exchange earners are coffee and tea. The 1994 genocide decimated Rwanda's fragile economic base, severely impoverished the population, particularly women, and eroded the country's ability to attract private and external investment. However, Rwanda has made substantial progress in stabilizing and rehabilitating its economy to pre-1994 levels, although poverty levels are higher now.

South Africa is a middle-income, emerging market with an abundant supply of natural resources; well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transport sectors; a stock exchange that ranks among the 10 largest in the world; and a modern infrastructure supporting an efficient distribution of goods to major urban centers throughout the region. However, growth has not been strong enough to lower South Africa's high unemployment rate; and daunting economic problems remain from the apartheid era, especially poverty and lack of economic empowerment among the disadvantaged groups. High crime and HIV/AIDS infection rates also deter investment.


Sierra Leone is an extremely poor African nation with tremendous inequality in income distribution. It does have substantial mineral, agricultural, and fishery resources. However, the economic and social infrastructure is not well developed, and serious social disorders continue to hamper economic development, following a 11-year civil war.

There are 43 more - some better off (with Oil) and a whole lot more in as bad as it gets.








 
Back
Top