Iraq or Pakistan ?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AcrobatMan

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
3,854
Location
Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Iraq may or may not have weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan has. Al-Qeida may or may not be existing in Iraq. Many Al-Qeida members are still in Pakistan and that probably includes Al-Qeida CEO, Osama Bin Laden.

Pakistan is no democracy. The present President of Pakistan came into power by a coup. Pakistan is known to produce such coups.

What if the weapon of mass destruction fell into hands of Al-Qeida. The chances of that happening is more in Pakistan than Iraq.
 
Despite a long history of exploration?the first well in what is modern Pakistan was drilled in 1857, the first commercial discovery was made in 1914?Pakistan remains a modest producer of oil and gas and currently imports 80 percent of its crude oil requirements. The country is self-sufficient in natural gas, although this is likely to change demand increases. Oil and natural gas each account for about 40 percent of Pakistan's commercial energy supplies but currently form only a small part of the country's economy. The state-owned Oil and Gas Development Corporation (OGDC) remains the most important player in the Pakistani oil industry. Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. (PPL), established in 1950, produces the majority of the natural gas.

Foreign companies currently operating in Pakistan include: Union Texas Pakistan (produces around 30 percent of oil and 10 percent of natural gas); British Gas; Lasmo; OMV; Gaz de France; Shell; Unocal.

Pakistan is starved for cash. Pipelines leading from the oil and gas deposits in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, across Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and, eventually, to the enormous Indian market could provide Pakistan with a much-needed injection of cash in transport fees. Plus, Pakistan got nukes.

Iraq, on the other hand, holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional security issues.
 
ya guys, but its good against evil.

saddam is clearly the most evil man alive, and were the good guys.
 
blah bliddy blah blah blah.

the u.s. imports less than 10 percent of its oil from the middle east.
 
JOFO said:
blah bliddy blah blah blah.

the u.s. imports less than 10 percent of its oil from the middle east.

I'd like to see official proof of that to believe it. If that were the case, why is it said that Iraq's largest oil customer is the US? Also, if the US imports less than 10 percent of the its oil from the middle east, why is it that there could be an oil crisis and higher prices at the pumps if the US attacks Iraq?

Facts first, please.
 
There are vast differences between Pakistan and Iraq in terms of behavior.

Iraq has openly attacked Israel and invaded and attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years.
Pakistans military has not invaded any countries over the past 20 years.

Iraq has used Chemical weapons on a multiple times over a period of several years. Pakistan has never used WMD weapons.

Pakistan has not violated international law in any way similar to the way Iraq has. It does not have any UN resolutions passed against it under Chapter VII rules. It is not in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. Pakistan is not in violation of a 1991 Ceacefire Agreement.

Pakistan has helped to kill and detain more Al Quada personal than almost any other country in the world except the United States.

Pakistan chief goals are detering a war with India, independence for the Muslim part of Kashmire, modernization of its military to deter India, and stability in Afghanistan and Iran so more Pakistani military units can be deployed along its border with India.

Pakistan has certainly engaged is some shady business in accomplishing those goals, But they are not in any way, behavior wise, on a level with Iraq. Not even close.

What makes Iraq and Saddam unique from any other country is simply its WMD weapons PLUS its past Behavior.
 
And North Korea, STING2? U.S. troops fought a war against NK too, remember. Don?t they behave badly? Aren?t they evil?
 
Iraq crude boycott targets U.S. oil import reliance
New York |Reuters | 05-12-2000
Print friendly format | Email to Friend

Iraq's decision to impose a crude oil export boycott on the U.S. comes at a time when America's refiners have become more dependent on Baghdad's oil than ever before.

U.S. thirst for Iraqi crude has doubled in the past two years to some 750,000 barrels daily (bpd) - nine per cent of total U.S. oil imports - with No 1 U.S. oil firm Exxon Mobil, the No 2 Chevron and independent refiner Premcor leading the way.

Other purchasers Iraqi oil for their U.S. refineries include major BP and other leading independent refiners Koch Petroleum, Valero and Tosco. While U.S. oil companies do not have official contracts to buy Iraqi oil under the Opec producer's oil-for-food programme with the UN, they can import quite legally through oil trading middlemen.

The imports were threatened at the weekend when Iraq said it would boycott companies and countries that sold its crude oil to countries it regards as hostile. "Any company found supplying Iraqi crude to a country in a state of war with Iraq will be put on the blacklist and there will be a partial or full ban in dealing with it," said Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mehdi Saleh.

Although the statement did not name countries Baghdad considered hostile, it was clearly referring mainly to the United States, which led the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq. At a time when U.S. winter stocks of crude and refined products are already running low, the threats may scare some companies from importing crude, according to some buyers of Iraqi crude.

"People are not buying Iraq crude because they are not going to run the risk of getting into trouble," said one oil trader. Iraq's move highlights the growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, as robust demand at home pulls away from declining domestic production.

Baghdad's penetration of the U.S. oil market has now surpassed pre-Gulf War levels, when exports were averaging around 500,000 bpd, Department of Energy figures show. In recent months, ExxonMobil has been taking in nearly 200,000 bpd, while Premcor has been importing 130,000 bpd.

Yet the oil market's muted response to Iraq's recent stoppage to all its crude exports has suggested that importers may not be as vulnerable to a disruption in Iraqi supply as has been feared, analysts say.

Crude prices have slid more than $2.50 a barrel since the Iraqis halted oil exports Friday over a pricing row with the UN. Traders say that lofty prices of above $31 have already taken into account the threat that Iraq could disrupt its exports ahead of winter.

"Saddam Hussein's gambit appears to have failed rather miserably," said Peter Beutel of Cameron Hanover in Connecticut. Traders say Iraq's refusal to sell to the United States could see more of its crude heading to the Far East, displacing oil from other Gulf sources such as Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, the only Opec nation with significant production capacity, has vowed to fill any disruption from Iraq, a Saudi source told Reuters yesterday. "As long as overall world supply doesn't change, it's not going to be too big an issue," said a Premcor spokeswoman. "We assume it's just going to move some barrels around."

In addition, the United States reiterated yesterday that it was ready to dip into its own strategic crude reserves to counter an Iraqi supply disruption. "We are ready to take action to add supply very quickly if the situation should warrant," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters.

Still, some traders question whether Iraq will be able to carry out its threats. "Where does Iraq think its oil is going to go if it doesn't go to the U.S.?" asked one trader with a U.S. major oil company.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think ten percent?s pretty much.

But it could be more. And its about reserves, too.

Anyway, there is lots of oil imported from Nigeria and Venezuela, too.

Then, its about control of all the region, not only Iraq.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the USA only gets 10% of its oil from the middle east is actually not that important. What important is the fact that the middle east has 60% to 75% of the worlds known reserves of oil. Instability in the region effects Global market price of oil. Even if the USA only imported .5% of its oil from the middle east, prices here in the USA would still move up or go down based on the situation in the middle east. Its not the amount of oil any one country imports from a particular region that effects price. Its the global market price which is effected by the global supply and global demand. Global market price effect the price of oil everywhere.
 
Here is where approximately 80% of our oil comes from.
I would just like to note that there is humanitarian assistance that goes to Iraq for the oil if I am not mistaken. It is also true that much of the humanitarian assistance sent to Iraq winds up being sold on the black market.

PEACE....

Here is the link:

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml
 
Yes, STING2, like I just said. Its about controlling all the region. Its about "Who?s the master here?"
 
STING2 said:
There are vast differences between Pakistan and Iraq in terms of behavior.

Iraq has openly attacked Israel and invaded and attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years.
Pakistans military has not invaded any countries over the past 20 years.

Iraq has used Chemical weapons on a multiple times over a period of several years. Pakistan has never used WMD weapons.

Pakistan has not violated international law in any way similar to the way Iraq has. It does not have any UN resolutions passed against it under Chapter VII rules. It is not in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. Pakistan is not in violation of a 1991 Ceacefire Agreement.

Pakistan has helped to kill and detain more Al Quada personal than almost any other country in the world except the United States.

Pakistan chief goals are detering a war with India, independence for the Muslim part of Kashmire, modernization of its military to deter India, and stability in Afghanistan and Iran so more Pakistani military units can be deployed along its border with India.

Pakistan has certainly engaged is some shady business in accomplishing those goals, But they are not in any way, behavior wise, on a level with Iraq. Not even close.

What makes Iraq and Saddam unique from any other country is simply its WMD weapons PLUS its past Behavior.

right, cause they dont have a dictator and because they allowed the united states to setup in their country during the afghani conflict.

ill scratch your back if you scratch mine.

sting2, have the united states EVER acted wrong in your opinion?
 
HIPHOP,

Unlike Iraq, North Korea has not invaded or attacked any country in over 50 years! In terms of its behavior in the internation scene, they could be regarded as even more passive than Pakistan. North Korea certainly has weapons and capability that in of themselves are threats to the region, but they do not have the history of Behavior especially over the last 20 years that Iraq has. The Behavior factor is the big difference with Iraq.

Another difference between North Korea and Iraq, is that the risk in taking action against North Korea is much greater than Iraq. North Korean Artillery, in the thousands built into the mountain sides, is only 20 to 30 miles from Seoul South Korea. While this artillery would be eventually destroyed in any conflict, it could not be destroyed before hundreds of thousands of South Koreans would be killed by it in the opening days of any conflict. This unique situation does where a large metropolitan area of 10 million people is only miles away from hostile artillery that could fire on them at any time, does not exist anywhere else in the world, and dramatically effects any foreign policy decisions in the Korean situation. All this without factoring in the two nuclear weapons that North Korea now has.

The good thing is that North Korea does not behave like Iraq does on the internation scene and it is the one of the chief reasons for the difference in policy towards the two countries.
 
Cow,

"sting2, have the united states EVER acted wrong in your opinion?"

Of course, but not in these particular situations at the moment.
 
STING2 said:

The good thing is that North Korea does not behave like Iraq does on the internation scene and it is the one of the chief reasons for the difference in policy towards the two countries.

right, thats why iraq has allowed inspectors back in, and north korea has kicked them out.

thats why iraq AT LEAST says theyre doing everything to cooperate with the inspectors and the internation community, and north korea says if anyone dares to slap sanctions on them, they will consider it an act of war.

great logic, it makes sense. :up:

ofcourse this war isnt about oil! trust blindly in our leader, i beg you all!
 
Cow,

You don't seem to understand that the inspection regime in regards to North Korea and the inspection regime in regards to Iraq are two different things.

North Korea through mutual agreement allowed inspectors to inspect and check its Nuclear reactors.

Inspectors were introduced into Iraq because of Iraq's serious and gross violations of international law through invading and attack 4 countries and the targeting and killing of civilians using WMD weapons. Iraq signed a CEACEFIRE agreement to end a war. The Ceacefire agreement had a number of conditions which included the destruction and removal of all of its WMD weapons. In addition, Iraq is in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. North Korea is not in violation of any UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules and is not in violation of a ceacefire agreement.

Inspectors or inspection devices in North Korea were simply there to moniter. Inspectors in Iraq were there to verify and destroy all WMD components.
 
No, thats not true, STING2. Hans Blix wouldn?t have the authority to destroy nuclear weapons. He has the duty to report and nothing more.

And the inspectors were the same organization, the IAEA.

What do you think of the U.S. controlling all the Near East region to secure long term oil interests? And using a war to secure that.
 
HIPHOP,

I guess you do not remember the hundreds of missiles and munitions, plants and other equipment that are associated with the production and capability of WMD that UN inspectors successfully destroyed during the period from 1991-1998. So sorry, that is so.

The fact that it is the IAEA in this case is not relevant. What is relevant is the above context in which the monitering and inspections take place which I clearly mentioned above.

The USA is not going into Iraq to control the oil, just as we didn't liberate Kuwait in 1991 to exclusively control the oil. Rather the USA helps to make sure that the worlds access to this oil is not cut off thereby keeping the cost of energy for consumers like you and I and everone else on the planet, low. Keeping the cost of energy down, helps the global economy, which has more benefitial effects for the rest of the planet than I can mention here.
 
I AM A TRUE BLUE PAKISTANI, AND IT IS INSULTING THAT ANYONE IS COMPARING WAR WITH SADDAM WITH PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT......
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH SH**, JUST TO SUPPORT THE EVER SOOO RICH US OF A...
SO, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, JUST AS THE US, ISRAEL, POSSIBLY IRAQ, INDIA, RUSSIA AND THE LIST GOES ON... AND DON'T TELL ME THAT EAITHER ONE HAVE THEM HAS NOT COMMITED WAR CRIMES OR TERRORISM....

PREVEZ MUSHARAF AND PM JAMEEL ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO CREATE A FAIR GOVERNMENT... A DEMOCRACY (EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRUE DEMOCRACY)....

AT THE RISK OF LOWERING THE COUNTRIES SAFETY, MUSHARAF HAS SUPPORTED THE US INCREDIBLY... BUT LETS BE FAIR, ANYMORE SUPPORT TO THE US, AND OUR (PAKISTANI) ECONOMY WOULD PLUMMIT LOWER THEN IT ALREADY HAS...

O, AND PAKISTAN IS A NEW BORN COUNTRY, DEVELOPING.... WE ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH YOUNGER THEN AMERICA, SO PLEASE..... SAVE YOUR ANGST AGAINST THE COUNTRY.

WE 2 HAVE PUT IN SO MUCH EFFORT TO TRACK DOWN TERRORISTS.... BUT, LIKE THE US AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY HAS PROVED, IT IS VERY HARD TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO... ESPECIALLY WHEN THE US CAN SOMETIMES BE THE AGRESSOR...

THIS IS A SHAMELESS THREAD...

IT IS VERY OFFENSIVE,
AMNA

I LOVE LIVING IN THE US, IT IS MY HOME, BUT I AM A PAKISTANI.... AND YOU PEOPLE DON'T REALISE WHAT PROBLEMS OUR COUNTRY HAS GONE THROUGH IN AN EFFORT TO COOPERATE WITH THE US, INDIA, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY... PAKSITAN HAS COMMITED MANY CORRUPT WAYS... I'M NOT JUSTIFIYING IT... BUT TELL ME, WHICH COUNTRY HASN'T??????????????

LETS COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, ORANGES TO ORANGES..... WE CAN'T JUST SAY STUFF OUT OF OUR asses.... BECAUSE I CAN SAY THAT THE US (or even Israel) HARBOURS TERRORISTS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, OIL, AND IS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO ANY OTHER COUNTRY.... BUT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD ATTACK THE US...


RECOGNIZE BEFORE YOU CRITISIZE!
 
I don't mean to sound all angry... I love the US, it has many good aspects to it... But, when people put down any country in the ME or Asia, it makes me stop and think...
All countries should have the right to grow revolutionize, just as the US has... The US should save itself from getting involved in situations where it is bound to anger so many people of other developing countries (and vice versa)...

peace out
 
Amna,

I laid out in my first response to this thread that there was definitely no comparison between Iraq and Pakistan. I fully thank Pakistan for its massive contribution to the war on terrorism and the large number of Al Quada that have been killed or detained by Pakistani police and military forces. I think that Musharaf will be able to eventually form a democratic government.
 
STING2 said:

I laid out in my first response to this thread that there was definitely no comparison between Iraq and Pakistan. I fully thank Pakistan for its massive contribution to the war on terrorism and the large number of Al Quada that have been killed or detained by Pakistani police and military forces. I think that Musharaf will be able to eventually form a democratic government.

Sting2,

Did you read about the arrest of 28 "Iraqi" terrorist suspects in Italy ?

AcrobatMan
 
Last edited:
Acrobatman,

Those individuals do not represent the Pakistani Government just as US citizens that have participated in terrorist activity do not represent the US government.
 
The members of the US military and members of the US intelligence community are brave individuals that defend the freedom and security of the planet. Disgusting that you would refer to people I know and love as terrorist.
 
STING2 said:
The members of the US military and members of the US intelligence community are brave individuals that defend the freedom and security of the planet. Disgusting that you would refer to people I know and love as terrorist.

STING, I quoted you - you used the term terrorist activities.

Are they all? Can you unequivocally say that no member of either the CIA or the military has ever engaged in 'terrorist activities'? You can't, we both know differently.

It is disgusting, you're right, that *SOME* (note, not all, not a blanket condemnation) of the members of the organizations I noted have been involved in what basically amounts to terrorist activities. And they did it while representing their government.

Issuing a blanket 'terrorist' label of all their collegues is certainly something that I would say is illogical, so I would be careful of the words you choose.

I would say 'renegade' would be a more appropriate term, provided of course, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, that their superiors did not approve of their activities and they acted on their own behalf.
 
Back
Top Bottom