-
Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Those 2 little ass wipes Dick Cheney and George Bush have nothing to fall back on now that in retrospect it can be seen that their entire effort in Iraq was an abject failure not to mention a genocide. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein.
Hahaha. You tell me ...let's take a look at who filled in the vacuum after Saddam Hussein was removed. It looks like isis to me and all these other ass wipe groups beheading people and stuff like that. George Bush Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld all fail and the whole lot of those piece of s*** abject failure and in many ways they are responsible for what is happening now
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
The real question would be would the world be better off without Bush's ever being presidents?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
-
It's irrelevant if Gore would have gone to war himself or even if he supported the idea. The fact is that girl was not elected president so therefore he was not the one who invaded Iraq and did all of these things.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
It's irrelevant if Gore would have gone to war himself or even if he supported the idea. The fact is that girl was not elected president so therefore he was not the one who invaded Iraq and did all of these things.
Ok Brockton, let's imagine this....no George H.W. Bush, no George W. Bush......everything is peaceful and grand in the Middle East right? No terrorist attacks here or there or ever right? Peace in the Middle East right?
-
I tend to agree Lyle. But Bush made a mess. Just look at it now. All the floodgates were opened. Saturation bombing of Iraq. You KNEW there'd be a backlash. There's literal proof that most of these isis guys are Saddam Hussein's elite guards and people they have trained directly.
Saddam Hussein wasn't kidding when he said it would be the mother of all wars. Everyone thought he was referring to battling against the United States in that initial invasion 2003. Saddam Hussein was an intelligent man and was talking about 25 years into the future. Iraq a sovereign nation was destroyed unilaterally
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
I tend to agree Lyle. But Bush made a mess. Just look at it now. All the floodgates were opened. Saturation bombing of Iraq. You KNEW there'd be a backlash. There's literal proof that most of these isis guys are Saddam Hussein's elite guards and people they have trained directly.
Saddam Hussein wasn't kidding when he said it would be the mother of all wars. Everyone thought he was referring to battling against the United States in that initial invasion 2003. Saddam Hussein was an intelligent man and was talking about 25 years into the future. Iraq a sovereign nation was destroyed unilaterally
It's a great thing Bill Clinton didn't mess with them, I mean it's not like we were attacked during HIS Presidency.....oh, wait... :rolleyes:
-
Lyle I've been trying to get you to see past the two-party
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Lyle I've been trying to get you to see past the two-party
I don't like the 2 party system anymore than you do, but what makes it a hell of a lot easier to support Republicans is that they're willing to address the problem and actually NAME IT....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4d4J1que0s
....that's BILL MAHER, he's no Republican, he's hardly a Democrat, he's just to the right of Bernie Sanders, maybe
-
Well how can you generalize like that.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Saddam put a hit on on Bush senior and continuously broke all the agreements that ended the gulf war. Yes, it's a mess over their but if you remember the troop surge and ramadi when the Iraqis began working with the Americans things were getting better. Obama then pulled the troops out. There is a lot to the story but I think we left Iraq at a very bad time. We could go back and say the war never should have happened or we could go back further and say England shouldn't have carved up the ottoman empire the way it did but this is the world we live in.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Saddam was a horrible evil man. Who also happened to have a lot of wealth worth taking.
I think people did not appreciate that his reign of terror was containing all these lunatics. He just killed them himself and ruled the land.
If you blame anything like that on one front man, you haven't a clue. Bush didn't make any decisions, even less than the rest of them do because of being mentally challenged
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
No the world is not better off.
Nation upon nation has stated this. The American Conservative stated this. On line: The Federalist stated this.
Lead contender Trump states the same.
Tony Blair recently apologized for his part.
Tea/birther Rand Paul states same. Ron Paul same.
For years many of our retired military brass called the invasion America's worst blunder.
Admiral Stansfield Turner, General Wesley Clark, Ltd. General Newbold, Lt General Richard Sanchez. Just to name a few.
World war II vets spoke against it.
Only two demographics are still for it Right Wing thinkers in America and Zionist leaders
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
No the world is not better off.
Nation upon nation has stated this. The American Conservative stated this. On line: The Federalist stated this.
Lead contender Trump states the same.
Tony Blair recently apologized for his part.
Tea/birther Rand Paul states same. Ron Paul same.
For years many of our retired military brass called the invasion America's worst blunder.
Admiral Stansfield Turner, General Wesley Clark, Ltd. General Newbold, Lt General Richard Sanchez. Just to name a few.
World war II vets spoke against it.
Only two demographics are still for it Right Wing thinkers in America and Zionist leaders
I don't think think that is the issue now. Right or wrong we went in. We owed it to the people of Iraq to stick around rather than let it go to shit, or at least spend a few more trillion.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Saddam put a hit on on Bush senior and continuously broke all the agreements that ended the gulf war. Yes, it's a mess over their but if you remember the troop surge and ramadi when the Iraqis began working with the Americans things were getting better. Obama then pulled the troops out. There is a lot to the story but I think we left Iraq at a very bad time. We could go back and say the war never should have happened or we could go back further and say England shouldn't have carved up the ottoman empire the way it did but this is the world we live in.
May I ask: you would have no problem sending your child into a war because the president 10 years previous had a hit out?
It would be difficult for me to stand over a loved one's grave knowing they didn't die for sovereignty, but because the son of a previous president wanted payback.
More difficult knowing that son also invoked God as the one who told him to go.
Knowing that the father wrote a book stating he would never send troops past a point called Basra:
Because it would bog us down thus making us look like occupiers.
Knowing that upon the invasion oil field were seized while munition dumps weren't.
Nothing that The VP main source named curveball would reveal his statement about mobile labs were a lie and I could hear his own words on you tube saying it with a smile aka Rafid Ahmed Allan Al_Janabi
Knowing that many Americans demanded we pull out immediately only when a new president cane in. Then blame him for taking too long to pull out. Then blame him for the week Iraq military that after 10 years..can't defend themselves.
Had Ron Paul been prez.. he said he would have pulled out way before Obama.
If so, would we hold him accountable in the same manner?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Saddam put a hit on on Bush senior .....................
There was never any time when things were good in Iraq. All the "surge" did was send a few thousand extra troops but even then the total number was tens of thousand less than the US had originally had there failing to keep a lid on things. What did keep a lid on things long enough for the US to retreat without getting shot to bits was that Bush put all the terrorists on the payroll so they'd stop shooting Americans :
Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else
Add a Comment
July 25, 2008
AFP
The Iraqi officer leading a U.S.-financed anti-jihadist group is in no mood for small talk -- either the military gives him more money or he will pack his bags and rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda.
"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups," Col. Satar tells U.S. Lt. Matthew McKernon, as he tries to secure more funding for his men to help battle the anti-U.S. insurgents.
Most members of the Awakening groups are Sunni Arab former insurgents who themselves fought American troops under the al-Qaeda banner after the fall of the regime of executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Some, like Satar, had served in Saddam's army before joining Al-Qaeda. Others were members of criminal gangs before deciding to fight the insurgents, with the backing of the U.S. military.
They earn around 300 dollars a month and their presence at checkpoints and on patrol has become an essential component of the U.S.-led coalition's strategy to restore order in the war-wracked country.
"I like my work," said Satar, who is in charge of security south of Baquba in Iraq's eastern Diyala province.
According to McKernon Satar has a contract with the U.S. military to employ 230 men "but he has more than 300" under his command, which is why he wants more money to keep them happy.
The U.S. military knows perfectly well that many people joined Awakening groups simply because it was a good way to make money, and that if the cashflow dries up some would not hesitate to return to al-Qaeda.
In a bid to avoid this, the U.S.-led coalition is helping Awakening members to return to a "normal life," according to US Admiral Patrick Driscoll.
He told AFP that options included helping them return to the lives they had before joining the insurgency or joining the Iraqi security forces.
Some 17,000 Awakening members have opted for the second choice, and 2,500 of them now hold administrative positions, Driscoll said.
But not everyone in Baquba is happy with the situation.
"Yesterday's killers have now become our protectors," said one sceptical resident who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Who should I trust to protect my family?"
Despite levels of violence nationwide hitting a four-year low, Diyala remains one of the most dangerous regions in Iraq because of the al-Qaeda presence.
On Thursday police said a woman suicide bomber attacked an Awakening patrol in central Baquba, killing eight people including a local Sahwa commander.
Little more than a year ago, Baquba was the scene of deadly fighting that forced many residents to flee.
Among them was the Shiite Wahab family. Despite simmering tensions that continue to grip Baquba, the family recently returned home to the Katun neighbourhood, a mostly Sunni area in the western part of town.
No sooner had they settled in than a home-made bomb blasted through the gate of their house. On Wednesday the eldest son, Mahmud, discovered a second bomb just yards away from the building.
American soldiers accompanied by Iraqi policemen and troops arrived to investigate, accompanied by Abu Zarra, an Awakening group commander of 300 men in Katun.
As bomb disposal teams examined the device, Abu Zarra was overheard by an AFP correspondent discussing with one of his men how much protection money they could extort from the Wahab family.
After the bomb was finally blown up by the experts, a U.S. Soldier teased Abu Zarra, telling him: "Isn't this just like the good old days when you were the terrorist?"
Meanwhile the U.S. Army has files on all Awakening members -- including finger prints and retinal identification.
"They know that we know who they are," said Capt. Kevin Ryan.
If you want to know what became of the Iraqi Sunnis once we stopped paying them and left them facing the Shiite government then read this.
When Abu Hamza, a former Syrian rebel, agreed to join the Islamic State, he did so assuming he would become a part of the group’s promised Islamist utopia, which has lured foreign jihadists from around the globe. Instead, he found himself being supervised by an Iraqi emir and receiving orders from shadowy Iraqis who moved in and out of the battlefield in Syria. When Abu Hamza disagreed with fellow commanders at an Islamic State meeting last year, he said, he was placed under arrest on the orders of a masked Iraqi man who had sat silently through the proceedings, listening and taking notes.
Abu Hamza, who became the group’s ruler in a small community in Syria, never discovered the Iraqis’ real identities, which were cloaked by code names or simply not revealed. All of the men, however, were former Iraqi officers who had served under Saddam Hussein, including the masked man, who had once worked for an Iraqi intelligence agency and now belonged to the Islamic State’s own shadowy security service, he said.
His account, and those of others who have lived with or fought against the Islamic State over the past two years, underscore the pervasive role played by members of Iraq’s former Baathist army in an organization more typically associated with flamboyant foreign jihadists and the gruesome videos in which they star.
Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.
They have brought to the organization the military expertise and some of the agendas of the former Baathists, as well as the smuggling networks developed to avoid sanctions in the 1990s and which now facilitate the Islamic State’s illicit oil trading..........
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...759_story.html
And this is just beautiful. Before anybody else wighs in on whether invading Iraq was a good idea then read this from a guy who interviews ex-ISIS fighters. :
This whole experience has been very familiar indeed to Doug Stone, the US general on the receiving end. “He fits the absolutely typical profile,” Stone said afterward. “The average age of all the prisoners in Iraq when I was here was 27; they were married; they had two children; had got to sixth to eighth grade. He has exactly the same profile as 80 percent of the prisoners then…and his number-one complaint about the security and against all American forces was the exact same complaint from every single detainee.”
These boys came of age under the disastrous American occupation after 2003, in the chaotic and violent Arab part of Iraq, ruled by the viciously sectarian Shia government of Nouri al-Maliki. Growing up Sunni Arab was no fun. A later interviewee described his life growing up under American occupation: He couldn’t go out, he didn’t have a life, and he specifically mentioned that he didn’t have girlfriends. An Islamic State fighter’s biggest resentment was the lack of an adolescence. Another of the interviewees was displaced at the critical age of 13, when his family fled to Kirkuk from Diyala province at the height of Iraq’s sectarian civil war. They are children of the occupation, many with missing fathers at crucial periods (through jail, death from execution, or fighting in the insurgency), filled with rage against America and their own government. They are not fueled by the idea of an Islamic caliphate without borders; rather, ISIS is the first group since the crushed Al Qaeda to offer these humiliated and enraged young men a way to defend their dignity, family, and tribe. This is not radicalization to the ISIS way of life, but the promise of a way out of their insecure and undignified lives; the promise of living in pride as Iraqi Sunni Arabs, which is not just a religious identity but cultural, tribal, and land-based, too.
What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters | The Nation
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
No the world is not better off.
Nation upon nation has stated this. The American Conservative stated this. On line: The Federalist stated this.
Lead contender Trump states the same.
Tony Blair recently apologized for his part.
Tea/birther Rand Paul states same. Ron Paul same.
For years many of our retired military brass called the invasion America's worst blunder.
Admiral Stansfield Turner, General Wesley Clark, Ltd. General Newbold, Lt General Richard Sanchez. Just to name a few.
World war II vets spoke against it.
Only two demographics are still for it Right Wing thinkers in America and Zionist leaders
I don't think think that is the issue now. Right or wrong we went in. We owed it to the people of Iraq to stick around rather than let it go to shit, or at least spend a few more trillion.
Yes it is the issue.
This thread asks us
Is the world better off
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.
Again total nonsense.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Wow
Spend a few more trillion?
If what we don't have?
Dig ourselves deeper into debt for a nation that can't keep a standing army ten plus years later?
Interesting a libertarian willing to spend trillions for a nation that is currently pumping barrels of oil...till China now has a footprint in Iraq.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
Wow
Spend a few more trillion?
If what we don't have?
Dig ourselves deeper into debt for a nation that can't keep a standing army ten plus years later?
Interesting a libertarian willing to spend trillions for a nation that is currently pumping barrels of oil...till China now has a footprint in Iraq.
China is also all over Afghanistan sucking up resources. The military had all the power and money to do as they wanted in Iraq/Afghanistan. There was a diplomatic mission begging obama for money for pacification but they were allowed very little funding. I don't believe in holding back the military but more could have been done. We did the same thing in Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat, just figured the military aspects were done so close up shop. The idea that a country thousands of miles away is of little consequence is along the idea of what a English statesmen said about Hitler, minus the distance. But Chamberlain did say far away people.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
Wow
Spend a few more trillion?
If what we don't have?
Dig ourselves deeper into debt for a nation that can't keep a standing army ten plus years later?
Interesting a libertarian willing to spend trillions for a nation that is currently pumping barrels of oil...till China now has a footprint in Iraq.
China is also all over Afghanistan sucking up resources. The military had all the power and money to do as they wanted in Iraq/Afghanistan. There was a diplomatic mission begging obama for money for pacification but they were allowed very little funding. I don't believe in holding back the military but more could have been done. We did the same thing in Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat, just figured the military aspects were done so close up shop. The idea that a country thousands of miles away is of little consequence is along the idea of what a English statesmen said about Hitler, minus the distance. But Chamberlain did say far away people.
I understand your position.
But question...if you as prez don't hold back the military...aren't you angering the Libertarians in your party?
I know conservatives would approve,
Walrus if I could ask the candidates a question it would
Be about the oil production at all time high in Iraq.
Iraq’s Oil Output Climbs to Record as South Escapes Fighting - Bloomberg Business
What means of protection exists at these facilitIes and why is it limited to just Regions where oil is any not the people of Iraq.
If you could what would you ask either or both party's?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
When I say holding back the military I mean specific war and not including atrocities. In other words, don't plan bombing runs in the oval office like LBJ. Interesting Bloomberg report you brought up slim, I need to read more on this. Did it say Iraq is the second largest opec producer, I didn't know that, need to go back and read it again. Your question is actually pretty deep. I shall soon post my one question to the candidates. I have specific questions for the individuals but the best in general, I shall deliver.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
If anyone was ever looking for a working model of perpetual motion its the middle east. An eternal war the runs on its own.
Enter outsiders.
Pardon me, cosigners.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Jimmy Carter was in well over his head....."nice guy" only because he was as naïve as Nixon was calculating. Gerald Ford was a good fellow in his own right. Jimmy Carter is one that just took the critical theory bait and not let go ever, but hey, he lived long enough to see a worse President than himself.....Barry Obama!
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
The only people who profit from wars is the arms industry and guess where they are based?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
The only people who profit from wars
....are the winners.
I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "What are the Winners"
With a thought process like you were running with Master, if people just said "Well we don't want to fight the Nazi's, I mean sure we could make a ton of money doing it, but hell it's just not right to jump into war and profit just because you disagree with someone...I'm sure Poland had it coming...who are we to step in and try to make our voice heard over the rest of everyone else?"
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
The only people who profit from wars
....are the winners.
I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "What are the Winners"
With a thought process like you were running with Master, if people just said "Well we don't want to fight the Nazi's, I mean sure we could make a ton of money doing it, but hell it's just not right to jump into war and profit just because you disagree with someone...I'm sure Poland had it coming...who are we to step in and try to make our voice heard over the rest of everyone else?"
I did not say never go to war, I just stated a fact. Where does IS get its guns and bullets?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I did not say never go to war, I just stated a fact. Where does IS get its guns and bullets?
Well I am certain they have their ways....one of which is just acquiring as they go along. They ain't poor and there IS a black market.
This isn't the Krupp family making bank off of artillery used in WW1 Master
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
The only people who profit from wars is the arms industry and guess where they are based?
In every corner of the world?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.
Why is it anyone tells the truth they're Jew haters?
-
That's often true. But after what happened to them (and to Armenians for example) I understand the knee-jerk reaction.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.
Why is it anyone tells the truth they're Jew haters?
The PLO has fucked things up just as bad as Israel. Arafat had a chance to get 90 percent of what he wanted but he caved to the radicals.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
I agree, Arafat made a lot of mIstakes. And as walrus stated Obama has saId some things that didn't add up.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
I agree, Arafat made a lot of mIstakes. And as walrus stated Obama has saId some things that didn't add up.
Slim, regarding your previous post about Bloomberg and the Iraq oil production I still haven't researched it but if memory serves me correct the oil is in the Kurdish stronghold areas which were rather well put together when Saddam wasn't bombing them. Is that part of the story to your knowledge, I forget where that post was @SlimTrae
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mrbig1
Why should we give a shit about Saddam who is 8,000 miles away? If we are against terrorist then why don't we go after Israel for war crime against the people of Gaza. Jimmy Carter who has been all over the world has said Gaza is the worst he has ever seen. A UN doctor said that children by the age of 8 has lost the will to live. Now that is a true crime against humanity.
Carter is a Jew hater, nice guy, but hates Jews.
Why is it anyone tells the truth they're Jew haters?
The PLO has fucked things up just as bad as Israel. Arafat had a chance to get 90 percent of what he wanted but he caved to the radicals.
This isn't true either. Even the Jewish-American US negotiating team who were mediating the talks you're talking about in the late nineties eventually put on record that Israel never actually made an offer. Israel never could and never will make an offer because if they ever let the Palestinians have the West Bank they'' be unable to keep stealing water from them. 50% of Israel's water comes from the West Bank and Israel's economy would collapse without it, water would be rationed so bad that everyone would leave etc etc.
Here's an election advert from one of Israel's top two political parties making that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1oFOEY_6lM
Recently Israel have explicitly said they'll never allow a Palestinian state. They're not even claiming they want to make a deal anymore.
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
I agree, Arafat made a lot of mIstakes. And as walrus stated Obama has saId some things that didn't add up.
Slim, regarding your previous post about Bloomberg and the Iraq oil production I still haven't researched it but if memory serves me correct the oil is in the Kurdish stronghold areas which were rather well put together when Saddam wasn't bombing them. Is that part of the story to your knowledge, I forget where that post was @
SlimTrae
About 20% of the oil is in Kurdish areas but these fiels are mostly used up now and won't produce much in the future. Almost all Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south and this oil has hardly been developed at all. It's the biggest undeveloped oil region on the planet by a country mile, there's a hundred and fifty trillion dollars under the ground there. This used to be owned by Saddam's Sunnis and now the Shiites(and Shiite Iran) control it and the Sunnis are eating dust. Can you see why they're so pissed off now?
-
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
I agree, Arafat made a lot of mIstakes. And as walrus stated Obama has saId some things that didn't add up.
Slim, regarding your previous post about Bloomberg and the Iraq oil production I still haven't researched it but if memory serves me correct the oil is in the Kurdish stronghold areas which were rather well put together when Saddam wasn't bombing them. Is that part of the story to your knowledge, I forget where that post was @
SlimTrae
About 20% of the oil is in Kurdish areas but these fiels are mostly used up now and won't produce much in the future. Almost all Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south and this oil has hardly been developed at all. It's the biggest undeveloped oil region on the planet by a country mile, there's a hundred and fifty trillion dollars under the ground there. This used to be owned by Saddam's Sunnis and now the Shiites(and Shiite Iran) control it and the Sunnis are eating dust. Can you see why they're so pissed off now?
Well slim posted a link about Bloomberg reporting rapid increase in current Iraqui oil production levels. Not so much about untapped stuff.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Is the world better off without Saddam, George?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SlimTrae
I agree, Arafat made a lot of mIstakes. And as walrus stated Obama has saId some things that didn't add up.
Slim, regarding your previous post about Bloomberg and the Iraq oil production I still haven't researched it but if memory serves me correct the oil is in the Kurdish stronghold areas which were rather well put together when Saddam wasn't bombing them. Is that part of the story to your knowledge, I forget where that post was @
SlimTrae
About 20% of the oil is in Kurdish areas but these fiels are mostly used up now and won't produce much in the future. Almost all Iraq's oil is in the Shiite south and this oil has hardly been developed at all. It's the biggest undeveloped oil region on the planet by a country mile, there's a hundred and fifty trillion dollars under the ground there. This used to be owned by Saddam's Sunnis and now the Shiites(and Shiite Iran) control it and the Sunnis are eating dust. Can you see why they're so pissed off now?
Well slim posted a link about Bloomberg reporting rapid increase in current Iraqui oil production levels. Not so much about untapped stuff.
That's how they can rapidly increase production levels! Because they have vast reserves of untapped oil!
There's no other country in the world that has anything like Iraq's potential. It's very high qiuality low sulphur oil and it's literally just under the ground. In 2003 loads of Iraqis digging air raid shelters on their land before we invaded did a Jethro Clampett and struck oil on their land there's so much, but there are supergiant fields that western companies mapped out decades ago that have never been drilled. Hundreds of trillions of dollars worth. By comparison the only country in the world with more oil, Saudi, has pumped more than 50% of its oil and production has been declining for years even though they're pumping as much as they can.
Meanwhile in the rest of the world energy companies are reduced to drilling in over 10 000 feet of seawater to tap relatively tiny amounts of oil. That stuff costs more than the current price of oil just to get it out of the ground so it's uneconomic. Iraqi oil costs a dollar a barrel to produce.
Which explains this:
Attachment 3716
