Makes me very sad

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 2, 2003, 5:31 pm

Now I feel we have crossed the point from helping the Iraqi people to becoming the monster in this conflict to the only eyes that should matter regarding this war, theirs

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 2, 2003, 5:46 pm

Gezus christ.. The fact that they hit every building in the sector except the one they actually wanted to hit is kinda pathetic...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 2, 2003, 5:48 pm

Oh well civilian casualties are totally acceptable. After all, Bush gave them all ample time to flee out into the middle of the desert.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 2, 2003, 5:48 pm

I read a report today that estimated Iraqi civilian death between 500-700. Note that is not casualties. Those are deaths. I forgot where I read that or else I'd post a link. I know it was off of Drudge Report early this am. Incidents like the above, the whole "shooting a van full of women and children", and this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2907373.stm

really make me hope this war is over fast. I mean, they already hate us. This stuff is just gas on the fire.

The war will be over rather fast. However, the American occupation of Iraq will be a whole 'nother story.

Post by **Xouqoa** » April 2, 2003, 5:49 pm

War sucks, and no matter how many steps you take to avoid things like this, it will happen eventually.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 2, 2003, 5:55 pm

If Bush cannot impress us with his proclaimed accurate weaponry then he needs to clear the hell out and stop killing innocent people who do not want us there at all, who do not want to be liberated by us.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 5:57 pm

The monsters, Acies, are the people who make innocent civilians the targets, not those who do everything in their power to avert this happening. I am certain that no one in the US government or armed forces takes any pride or pleasure in this happening.

Terrorists, target civilians as a rule, and take pleasure in their demise. How many night clubs have terrorists walked into, strapped with explosives, then blown themselves up?

That's the difference.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 2, 2003, 6:00 pm

The satellite guided missile is the most accurate weaponry in any war to date. Out of 10,000+ missiles that have been fired, 3 went into Iran, 3 went into Turkey, and only 2 that I've heard about have gone off course in Iraq (someone correct my numbers if they're incorrect please) and missed their targets. That is amazingly accurate to me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 2, 2003, 6:00 pm

I'm sure the corpses really give a shit whether it was intentional or not.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 2, 2003, 6:03 pm

I thought it would be horribly ironic if the Iraqi civilian death toll ended up being the exact same as the number of people who died in the World Trade Center. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to link the two. Just a morbid thought really.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 2, 2003, 6:04 pm

Aranuil wrote:The monsters, Acies, are the people who make innocent civilians the targets, not those who do everything in their power to avert this happening. I am certain that no one in the US government or armed forces takes any pride or pleasure in this happening.

Terrorists, target civilians as a rule, and take pleasure in their demise. How many night clubs have terrorists walked into, strapped with explosives, then blown themselves up?

That's the difference.

You are absolutely correct, I can see that, but we are outside look in on this bro.

I am willing to bet the husband who just lost his wife and child in that hospital bombing only sees those who are responsible. Not Saddam or his regime. He sees America and people like you and me behind this.
Now, Aranuil, this was not a bunker lined with people tied to walls like Operation: Get behind the darkies in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. This was a hospital, a maternity hospital. There were newborns and mothers in there. They were not "PUT" in harms way by anyone but the people who's bombs claimed their life.
These people do not want us there, blowing up their cities and "liberating" them.
It is our arrogance to believe that they want our help, which in fact reflects very poorly in their cuture, like they cannot take care of themselves.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 6:16 pm

Going to respond to individual points here...

Acies wrote:I am willing to bet the husband who just lost his wife and child in that hospital bombing only sees those who are responsible. Not Saddam or his regime. He sees America and people like you and me behind this.

No argument. Possibly the one gleam of hope behind this is that the government sponsored 'martyr organizations' (for lack of a better term) will no longer exist when this is all over. I am not afraid of these people man. They will be dealt with. They can think America is the big evil, but when they discover that every time they attempt to bloody our nose, we will rip out their trachea, it will stop (and no, I'm certainly not thinking of civilians here).

Now, Aranuil, this was not a bunker lined with people tied to walls like Operation: Get behind the darkies in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. This was a hospital, a maternity hospital. There were newborns and mothers in there. They were not "PUT" in harms way by anyone but the people who's bombs claimed their life.

Surely you know me better than the South Park reference, but again, no argument. People die in war. It's completely unavoidable. Good, innocent people die. That's why war should always be the last resort.

These people do not want us there, blowing up their cities and "liberating" them.

You're generalizing here. That statement is not fact, it's your perception. There are people that do want us there, people that don't, and people who are too scared to be sure if they do or don't. Of course they don't want us blowing up their cities.

It is our arrogance to believe that they want our help, which in fact reflects very poorly in their cuture, like they cannot take care of themselves.

See above. There are those who want our help. Certainly it isn't everyone, but they're there.

Innocent people have always died in wars since the beginning of time. In prior wars and times, people have been raped, mutilated, robbed, and tortured prior to death. Did you see the video of Daniel Pearl being killed? I did. It still happens today. You'll never see a US president or military leader condoning that type of behavior though.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 2, 2003, 6:27 pm

Vetiria wrote:The satellite guided missile is the most accurate weaponry in any war to date. Out of 10,000+ missiles that have been fired, 3 went into Iran, 3 went into Turkey, and only 2 that I've heard about have gone off course in Iraq (someone correct my numbers if they're incorrect please) and missed their targets. That is amazingly accurate to me.

You are of course assuming that the government discloses the misses. If all you are made aware of is the successful hits of course you will consider them highly accurate.

You can add Saudi Arabia to your list, we probably wouldn't have known about those except the SA government has resinded the use of it's airspace for missiles due to those missiles landing in its territory.

I'm not claiming they are accurate or not. Just take what read for what it is, propaganda. The 90+% stated success rate of the patriots in the first gulf war versus the actual 0% success rate is a drastic example.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 2, 2003, 6:31 pm

Fair enough, Forthe.

Just one thing, people keep saying that the patriots had a 0% success rate in GW1. A source for that number has been asked for numerous times and no one has given one. Will someone please link a source that says the patriots hit 0 of their targets in GW1 please.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 2, 2003, 6:35 pm

Vetiria wrote:Fair enough, Forthe.

Just one thing, people keep saying that the patriots had a 0% success rate in GW1. A source for that number has been asked for numerous times and no one has given one. Will someone please link a source that says the patriots hit 0 of their targets in GW1 please.

Do a search for Israel + patriot. It was Israel that busted the balloon after the US provided them with patriot batteries to keep them from retaliating against Iraq for the scud launches against them.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 6:37 pm

Forthe wrote:
Vetiria wrote:Fair enough, Forthe.

Just one thing, people keep saying that the patriots had a 0% success rate in GW1. A source for that number has been asked for numerous times and no one has given one. Will someone please link a source that says the patriots hit 0 of their targets in GW1 please.
Do a search for Israel + patriot. It was Israel that busted the balloon after the US provided them with patriot batteries to keep them from retaliating against Iraq for the scud launches against them.

Well perhaps the Patriots were unsuccessful in their technical mission, but it appears they were 100% successful in their political one.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 2, 2003, 6:43 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/906218.stm

bbc wrote:The Patriot was widely used in the Gulf War but is not credited with hitting any incoming Iraqi missiles.

Good enough for me.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » April 2, 2003, 7:03 pm

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/scud_info_i ... triot.html

This one shows two opposing viewpoints on the effectiveness of the Patriots.

It does make me question whether or not patriots were effective. I saw missiles NOT hit our compound, but if they were only diverted to a patch of harmless desert, does that count as a success or not?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 2, 2003, 7:04 pm

Aranuil wrote:Going to respond to individual points here...
Acies wrote:I am willing to bet the husband who just lost his wife and child in that hospital bombing only sees those who are responsible. Not Saddam or his regime. He sees America and people like you and me behind this.
No argument. Possibly the one gleam of hope behind this is that the government sponsored 'martyr organizations' (for lack of a better term) will no longer exist when this is all over. I am not afraid of these people man. They will be dealt with. They can think America is the big evil, but when they discover that every time they attempt to bloody our nose, we will rip out their trachea, it will stop (and no, I'm certainly not thinking of civilians here).

True enough, from a governmental standpoint.

Acies wrote:
Acies wrote:Now, Aranuil, this was not a bunker lined with people tied to walls like Operation: Get behind the darkies in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. This was a hospital, a maternity hospital. There were newborns and mothers in there. They were not "PUT" in harms way by anyone but the people who's bombs claimed their life.
Surely you know me better than the South Park reference, but again, no argument. People die in war. It's completely unavoidable. Good, innocent people die. That's why war should always be the last resort.

Sorry about the South Park comment, no I do not feel you see this like many through a black and white lens (many also including myself, admittedly) to your credit. People do die in war, in the past more than this. However we are invading Iraq. We are not doing the U.N.'s good work here by disarming this man, in fact Saddam's WoMD could not even reach one eight of the distance to American soil, aside from our local embassy. Frankly, prior to this Saddam would have continued shut up and depowered, free to terrorize his own masses (I would still seek proof of that, so far I have only heard word of mouth). As for Liberating the Iraqi's, our commander and chief I am sure could care less about the state of affairs for the Iraqi people, but I would *guess* that it makes it easier to sleep knowing he has a convient and accepted excuse.

Aranuil wrote:
Acies wrote:These people do not want us there, blowing up their cities and "liberating" them.
You're generalizing here. That statement is not fact, it's your perception. There people that do want us there, people that don't, and people who are too scared to be sure if they do or don't. Of course they don't want us blowing up their cities.

Now I have heard people state the Iraq military are dressing up like civillians and opening fire on US troops. I suspect it very well could be citizens with weapons, but I have had no validation either way. But your right, I should assume nothing in regards to this war.

Aranul wrote:
Acies wrote:It is our arrogance to believe that they want our help, which in fact reflects very poorly in their cuture, like they cannot take care of themselves.
See above. There are those who want our help. Certainly it isn't everyone, but they're there.

Undoubtedly there are some who want us there, who have suffered some wrong and want the object of their pain removed. Wait, screw this, I will concede this one (I draw the line at defending Saddam).

Aranuil wrote: Innocent people have always died in wars since the beginning of time. In prior wars and times, people have been raped, mutilated, robbed, and tortured prior to death. Did you see the video of Daniel Pearl being killed? I did. It still happens today. You'll never see a US president or military leader condoning that type of behavior though.

My whole object of fustration with this war is that I do not see it as nessicary. Even from the view of liberating people from an oppressive regime, I cannot help but think that the American government is setting up shop there because of the oil and not the Iraqi people's freedom. Now many people here believe the American government can do no wrong and are not that way in this.
There is always someone manipulating events for their own gain in this country. It is called capitalism.
I worry that our purpose for this war is to capitalize on it for some end, which I feel is the case. I hope I am wrong.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 7:16 pm

I think it would be rather difficult (not impossible) to cover up the US stealing Iraqi oil. In my opinion, I see the difficulty as an obstacle to us actually being able to accomplish this.

I don't see this war as a capitalistic war either. Capitalism is largely an economic term rather than one of foreign policy, and frankly I think the US will lose far more money from this war than we could ever hope to gain back. That is again, just my opinion.

Finally, as far as the necessity of war goes, I think that there comes a time when peaceful negotiation is no longer serving when you need to take a harder stance to meet your objectives. I will be the first to say that clear objectives, and clear evidence for the American people have not necessarily been provided. Loose ties with terrorism, and WoMD that no one has seen in 10 years are dubious arguments at best.

Having said all of that, I do trust my government to act in the best interest of the US people, and I do believe that there could be many, many reasons that the intelligence the US government has about Iraq cannot (as yet) be disseminated. If I am being played for a fool, so be it, but I don't believe that the socialization process that I went through growing up in this country has caused me to lose my objectivity.

I was very fortunate to spend my early 20s hanging out with a large group of Canadians (believe it or not) who helped me open my eyes to the perceptions of the rest of the world regarding the US. I know not everything the US does it seen as good or well received/intentioned. If I didn't believe that our government was doing the best they could, I would say so, and I do attempt to at least bring another perspective to the table when we have these discussions without forcing my views on anyone.

The US has done some good things in the past. We've also done some very bad things. I truly believe that there are far worse people in the world, and I do think we're better than them...

Edit: typing > me

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 2, 2003, 7:37 pm

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

Interesting read, seems like the problem was as much the Scud itself as the Patriot.

The inaccuracy of the Patriot may not have been entirely a problem with the Patriot, but rather due to the poor design or redesign of the Scud and the fact that many Iraqi Scuds (Al-Husseins) broke up reentering the Earth's atmosphere leaving the Patriot without a firm single target. (In the debate over designing a national ballistic missile defense, this fact is interesting to note. If a nuclear warhead was attached to a Scud or another similar missile, would a Patriot be able to guarantee the destruction of the nuclear armed Scud warhead each and every time? In a conventional war a Scud missile landing in the desert or the sea instead of a populated city is acceptable. However, if that same Scud is armed with nuclear materials, then relying on a Patriot as a from of defense may indeed be quite foolish.)

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 2, 2003, 8:35 pm

My whole object of fustration with this war is that I do not see it as nessicary. Even from the view of liberating people from an oppressive regime, I cannot help but think that the American government is setting up shop there because of the oil and not the Iraqi people's freedom. Now many people here believe the American government can do no wrong and are not that way in this.

Can you take the Machiavellian stance and say that even if we are there for the oil ( I don't personally believe this is true, mainly because of what it will cost us to exploit that oil), the end result is going to be a much more humanitarian living condition for the average Iraqi?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 2, 2003, 8:41 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
My whole object of fustration with this war is that I do not see it as nessicary. Even from the view of liberating people from an oppressive regime, I cannot help but think that the American government is setting up shop there because of the oil and not the Iraqi people's freedom. Now many people here believe the American government can do no wrong and are not that way in this.
Can you take the Machiavellian stance and say that even if we are there for the oil ( I don't personally believe this is true, mainly because of what it will cost us to exploit that oil), the end result is going to be a much more humanitarian living condition for the average Iraqi?

Not a very profound arguement when your holding you dead kid who was killed by an American weapon, I suspect. By in any case, I can take this "Machiavellian stance" because I understand certain differances in mentality between the residents of the Middle East and America. However, that aside, please submit proof that the average Iraqi is horribly mistreated please, aside by our bombs falling on their maternity hospitals.
I will gladly point/counter-point from there bro.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » April 2, 2003, 8:45 pm

Aranuil wrote: No argument. Possibly the one gleam of hope behind this is that the government sponsored 'martyr organizations' (for lack of a better term) will no longer exist when this is all over. I am not afraid of these people man. They will be dealt with. They can think America is the big evil, but when they discover that every time they attempt to bloody our nose, we will rip out their trachea, it will stop (and no, I'm certainly not thinking of civilians here).

Try to remember Al Q'aeda was born out of the first Gulf War, and to Quote the Egyptian President, this will give birth to 100 Bin Lauden's. Sadly it is our ignorance that will cause the spread, not the suppression of global terrorism.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 8:49 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:Try to remember Al Q'aeda was born out of the first Gulf War...

That's a largely oversimplified view of the origins of Al Qaeda.

...and to Quote the Egyptian President, this will give birth to 100 Bin Lauden's. Sadly it is our ignorance that will cause the spread, not the suppression of global terrorism.

Both of these statements are opinion, not fact.

The US has stated that as a matter of foreign policy we will be exterminating terrorism wherever they may be hiding. The real fear that I have is how we will differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists. Time will tell.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 2, 2003, 8:54 pm

The real fear that I have is how we will differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists.

You can't. The Israeli have tried for decades.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 2, 2003, 8:56 pm

Kelshara wrote:
The real fear that I have is how we will differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists.
You can't. The Israeli have tried for decades.

To be honest, it's the best tactic the terrorists have.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » April 2, 2003, 9:05 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:Try to remember Al Q'aeda was born out of the first Gulf War...
That's a largely oversimplified view of the origins of Al Qaeda.

...and to Quote the Egyptian President, this will give birth to 100 Bin Lauden's. Sadly it is our ignorance that will cause the spread, not the suppression of global terrorism.
Both of these statements are opinion, not fact.

The US has stated that as a matter of foreign policy we will be exterminating terrorism wherever they may be hiding. The real fear that I have is how we will differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists. Time will tell.

True enough, Al Qaeda was already established by GW1 (as it is apparently acronym'ed now), but it was anti-communist then and looking for a new enemy. This is abit of his past before 9/11.
There was little in bin Laden's upbringing to indicate that he was destined for greatness. Born in 1957 one of the youngest of nearly 50 children to a former bricklayer turned construction magnate, bin Laden grew up a rich kid in an increasingly wealthy country. He studied engineering in college, an indication that he intended to take over the family company, which by 1966 had become the largest private construction firm in the world.

All that changed in December 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and propped up a communist government in Kabul. Arriving in the mid-1980s, bin Laden became the main financier for Maktab al-Khidamat ("the Office of Services"), which recruited Muslims from local mosques around the world to fight against the Soviets as mujahideen, or "holy warriors." The contacts that bin Laden made at this time allowed him to organize an international network of motivated Islamic radicals, called Al-Qaeda (literally "the base").

When the mujahideen eventually forced the Soviet forces to leave Afghanistan in 1990, bin Laden returned to his home country, Saudi Arabia, where he found the rulers inviting in American forces. This reportedly enraged the young leader, who was looking for a cause and more seriously studying Islam.

"It is very disruptive to lose your enemy as he did," says Post. "The way he dealt with it was to replace the Soviets with the Americans."

Many of his followers, well-trained Muslim warriors, also returned to their own countries, from North Africa to South Asia and even the United States, filled with experience and fueled with a passion to bring what they saw as a more pure form of Islamic government to their own countries.

Throughout the following years, bin Laden became more and more militant about expelling Americans from his holy land. In a series of fatwas or declarations and interviews, he increasingly became more hard-line. He stressed the significance of Muslims being killed all over the world - from the the US support of Israel and the suffering of Palestinian Muslims to the mass graves of Muslims in Bosnia and the Chechen Muslims killed by the Russian military.

"There was a significant shift in 1998 from just getting the military out [of Saudi Arabia] to attacking all American civilians," says Post, who has studied all of his speeches and appearances.

In the 1990s, he has been linked by US officials to:

• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people;

• The 1995 and 1996 bombings in Saudi Arabia in which 22 American soldiers were killed;

• The 1998 US Embassy bombings in East Africa, in which 224 people were killed, including 12 Americans;

• and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole at a port in Yemen, in which 17 US sailors were killed.

When bin Laden was expelled from Sudan under US and Saudi pressure and moved back to his one-time Afghan training camp near the city of Khost, he quickly backed the latest rising star, Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, and asked him for asylum.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 2:15 am

True Pherr, making more enemies is arisk.

Thing is, you reach a point where you have two choices. Oppose or appease.

Appease doesn't work, to a terrorist (or freedom fighter if you prefer that term) it's victory. To a fundamentalist, it's a sign of weakness and dismissed out of hand.

That unfortunately leaves us with oppose.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 2:29 am

Acies,

As soon as I can find you something on the web that isn't totally biased one way or the other, I will post it.

Basically, the Iraqis were one of the better off Middle Eastern nations before 1990. Since then the sanctions and Hussein have crippled the economy, to the point where electricity is available (where it is available at all) for 6 horus a day, half of the adult males in the country are unemployed and seven dollars a month is a damn good job. Right now, both the standard of living and the economy are a fucked-up mess.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 3, 2003, 3:02 am

Oh yeah blame Iraq's economic position on Saddam Hussein. Holy jesus it is like stupid moved into your skull and refuses to leave.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 3, 2003, 9:46 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:I'm sure the corpses really give a shit whether it was intentional or not.

Oh good I was really worried what they might of thought.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 3, 2003, 10:53 am

Hmm, I think he said "the sanctions AND Saddam"

Both have had a big impact, and unless you are Saddam's accountant (which I am not either), we will never know exactly how much was skimmed or stolen.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 10:56 am

Forget it Boogahz.

Kyou is going beyond one track now and wearing a fucking groove in the planet on her "USA IS DA DEBIL" crusade.

Rasspotari · Post by **Rasspotari** » April 3, 2003, 11:55 am

These people do not want us there, blowing up their cities and "liberating" them.

i´m pretty sure the US isn´t going to war with Saddam because some Iraqi people asked for it, the US is doing it to try and destroy a possible danger and then a secondary objective that a large portion of the world is gonna help them with, build up Iraq and turn it into a country that the US can trade with and make money doing, Iraq will gain more from that re-build, that´s just a very nice side effect to the secondary objective.

If i see an option that costs me 200 $, it involes wackin someone over the head, he wont like it and in doing that he´ll start to behave differently towards the rest of the people around him and also will allow me to buy his goods and he will buy mine, he´ll gain 15 $ a year, and i´ll gain 10 $.
heck that´s a good deal in my mind.
a severe simplification of the situtation as i see it, but i´m sure you can use that example to GET my view on the war.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 3, 2003, 12:01 pm

Rasspotari wrote:
These people do not want us there, blowing up their cities and "liberating" them.
i´m pretty sure the US isn´t going to war with Saddam because some Iraqi people asked for it.

Then they should stop calling this media fiasco "Operation : Iraqi Freedom" and call it something like "Operation : Protecting our Lifestyle"

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 12:16 pm

Yes, controlling an oil reserve that is capable of supplying 5% of our daily intake of oil is surely going to war to preserve our lifestyle.

Especially considering it will cost us more to fund this operation that that oil would bring in a big handful of years.

Think people.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 3, 2003, 12:29 pm

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml

This is your oil importation distribution per day pre country.

Iraq is your 6th biggest supplier.
Venezuela just recently resumed shipping it's crude recently as well but by the time this was restarted, the US was alwady too deep in with Iraq to back out.

It's called research..

miir · Post by **miir** » April 3, 2003, 12:46 pm

Yes, controlling an oil reserve that is capable of supplying 5% of our daily intake of oil is surely going to war to preserve our lifestyle.

We have already discussed this to death.

Iraq has the second larget oil reserves in the world.
Even with sanctions and a crippled economy, Iraq was still one of the top oil exporters in the past 10 years.
Given proper development and construction of more wells, Iraq could easily supply 100% of the USAs crude oil demand

I'm not saying this will would happen... I'm just pointing out the fact that Iraq has the reserves and production potential to supply the USA with crude oil for a very long time.

You cannot view the current oil production and export of any country and assume that is their maximum. One of OPECs main jobs is to ensure that no one single country controls an inordinate share of the crude oil market. There's no point in producing excess oil if it cannot be sold.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 1:25 pm

Given proper development and construction of more wells, Iraq could easily supply 100% of the USAs crude oil demand

For a time, sure.

Animal, at top production Iraq was sending out 3.5 million barrels a day(they haven't hit this mark in ten years now, FYI), the US buys around 100-120 million barrels a day. You do the math, sir.

I agree Iraq oil production could be a hell of a lot better. Matter of fact, I hope one of the outcomes of this war is that the Iraq government signs a juicy deal with a major oil company and starts pumping some much needed hard currency back into their economy.

I still say if you think this is a straight oil grab you are really missing the point. There are much larger long-term benefits here than oil.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 3, 2003, 1:36 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Yes, controlling an oil reserve that is capable of supplying 5% of our daily intake of oil is surely going to war to preserve our lifestyle.

Especially considering it will cost us more to fund this operation that that oil would bring in a big handful of years.

Think people.

I would ask you to think.

- The US produces 9+ million barrels a day.
- US reserves are 22.446 billion barrels.

- Iraq reserves are 112.500 billion barrels.
- Iraq exploration is only ~10%, leaving a huge potential for additional discovery.
- Iraq oil production cost is among the lowest in the world, meaning easier and higher profit.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize just how huge the oil production numbers of Iraq could be given similar aggresive exploration and production to that of the US.

PS. With the discovery of the Alberta oil sands Iraq now has the 3rd largest oil reserves (Saudi Arabia - 261.8bb, Canada 180.021bb).

miir · Post by **miir** » April 3, 2003, 1:39 pm

With the discovery of the Alberta oil sands Iraq now has the 3rd largest oil reserves (Saudi Arabia - 261.8bb, Canada 180.021bb).

The size of the reserves in Alberta are disputed.
They really have no accurate method of estimating the potential reserves in oil sands.

The Iraqi reserves are pretty accurate based on the number of sites that have been explored.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 3, 2003, 1:46 pm

miir wrote:
With the discovery of the Alberta oil sands Iraq now has the 3rd largest oil reserves (Saudi Arabia - 261.8bb, Canada 180.021bb).
The size of the reserves in Alberta are disputed.
They really have no accurate method of estimating the potential reserves in oil sands.

The Iraqi reserves are pretty accurate based on the number of sites that have been explored.

The jump in reserves for Canada reflects the inclusion of Alberta's oil sands. Conventional crude oil and condensate reserves, as reported by Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), stands at 5.2 billion bbl. An additional 174.8 billion bbl of bitumen is contained in the oil sands, reports Alberta's Energy & Utilities Board. CAPP considers this estimate to accurately repesent the volume of crude bitumen that is recoverable using current technology.

PennWell Corporation, Oil & Gas Journal
Vol. 100, No. 52 (December 23, 2002), page 113.

US Department of Energy are also using these numbers.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 3, 2003, 1:58 pm

Oh come on... look who supplied those figures.

You're not that naive, are you?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » April 3, 2003, 2:04 pm

In regards to bus accident I saw a Cleric from Iraq on Fox explaining that people from his Mosque had informed him that those individuals were hostages and the drive had a gun to his head being told not to stop. It was a setup. Pretty amazing thing to see a Muslim Cleric telling his people it wasn't the American's fault... that could easily be his death warrant if some of Saddam's guys get a hold of him.

Marb

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 3, 2003, 2:06 pm

..I read an interview with people claiming they were refugees misunderstanding the leaflets that Americans have dropped and they thought they had to leave their homes to get to safety..

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 3, 2003, 2:16 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
Animal, at top production Iraq was sending out 3.5 million barrels a day(they haven't hit this mark in ten years now, FYI), the US buys around 100-120 million barrels a day. You do the math, sir.

[url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt]Dept. of Energy's report for for week of March 28th[/url]. wrote: U.S. crude oil imports averaged nearly 10.4 million barrels per day last week, the largest average ever recorded on our weekly survey.

Your claim that "the US buys around 100-120 million barrels a day" is BS.
you guys bought about 800k barrels per day back in 2001/2002 which makes it approx. 8-10% of your total import.

Now take into account that an invasion and implementation of a new govt. in Iraq could possibly shake it loose from OPEC(is this possible?) then you would have possibly one of the world's largest oil supplies at your beck and call.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 3:19 pm

Yep, I fucked up the total figure.

Our current reliance on Iraqi oil is unbelievably low. I just checked EIA for information, and over 80% of our oil comes from six countries, none of which is Iraq. The remaning 20% comes from 32 different sources.

Iraq barely rates as a supplier. Could that change after the war is over? Yep. Once again, I think it would do that country a world of good to sign an agreement with a major oil company and get their production facilities modernized. Right now they are using detrimental extraction procedures and tying equipment back together with baling wire and duct tape.

**EDIT**

Here are the figures up to 2000. Guess what? Iraq comes up at 5.4%

http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocketg ... le_07.html

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 3, 2003, 3:33 pm

Here are the figures up to 2000. Guess what? Iraq comes up at 5.4%

Maybe it's just me but with the amount of oil that is used in the US(and I know you guys have reserves in the billions of barrels), 5-10% may be small however the impact of this missing oil in the longrun would still be nothing short of disasterous. (I have no real figures on how much of the oil per day importations go into the reserves either.)

miir · Post by **miir** » April 3, 2003, 3:34 pm

I just checked EIA for information, and over 80% of our oil comes from six countries, none of which is Iraq.

Do a little research into why virtually all American oil contracts with Iraq have been cancelled in the past few years.

Iraq barely rates as a supplier

Yeah because of the fucking sanctions placed on iraq after asshead decided to invade Kuwait.

And just beacuse Iraq doesn't sell crude oil to YOUR country, you can't say they aren't a supplier. Are you really that close minded?

Once again, I think it would do that country a world of good to sign an agreement with a major oil company and get their production facilities modernized.

There were agreements with some European governments and companies to help Iraq with their oil production... coincidentally, there were no agreements with any American or British based companies.

Fallan, oil is a motive in this attack.
Stop trying so hard to deny the obvious and open your eyes for a minute.