NationStates Jolt Archive

...in the middle east. Just something that most people should know, and should find interesting. These figures are: first, the amount in millions of dollars that was given to the nation by the USA in the form of military aid between 1995 and 2003, and second, the amount of oil reserves that nation has in billions of barrels.

Kuwait: $4,100 million in arms, 96.5 billion barrels in reserve (9.2% of world)

Saudi Arabia: $25,700 million, 261.8 billion barrels (25% of world)

United Arab Emirates: $900 million, 97.8 billion barrels (9.3% of world)

Jordan: $500 million, Bahrain: $900 million

Egypt: $8,300 million (Africa contains 77.4 billion barrels of proven reserves, with most situated in the northernmost countries, particularly Nigeria).

Georgia, population 5 million, home of the BTC pipeline: $1,300 million in aid and weapons

The sad part:

Isreal: $5,900 million

Lebanon: $100 million

Syria: $100

The most telling part:

Oman (bordering Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates): 0 dollars, 5.5 billion barrels (only .5% of world)

This is incredibly interesting.PENIS

Makes some sense.

The fact that the US funds governments and militaries or those governments in the middle east to protect its oil interests is nothing new or secret. I suppose it makes sense for them since oil is what keeps the US alive at the moment.

Well since prices at the pump are still bad we should start selling those bitches more weapons....I know, was joking...don't say it.

The fact that the US funds governments and militaries or those governments in the middle east to protect its oil interests is nothing new or secret. I suppose it makes sense for them since oil is what keeps the US alive at the moment.
We have to pay something to ensure the drug that fuels our addiction is still supplied.

FullMetalJacket']Well since prices at the pump are still bad we should start selling those bitches more weapons....I know, was joking...don't say it.

Yes, a joke, but I have a different criticism, one that I think needs to be said.

We don't play oil politics to reduce consumer prices. We do it to ensure we have the oil to sell at outstanding prices for a long time to come.

Yes, a joke, but I have a different criticism, one that I think needs to be said.

We don't play oil politics to reduce consumer prices. We do it to ensure we have the oil to sell at outstanding prices for a long time to come.

Problem is, every other nation on earth wants to accomplish the same thing. Russia and china are also flooding arms to many of the same countries, though sometimes to the insane religious fanatics instead of the corrupt dictators that we tend to favor. It's no wonder that the region is destabalized - every other developed nation is playing a huge game of geopolitical monopoly with the caspian sea and persian gulf regions. For as long as every nation is feuding of the last of the oil reserves, sectarian violence will continue to rage and pipelines and oil fields will continue to be blown up, lowering production and raising prices.

Of course, the USA will continue with the SINGLE goal of our internation policy - to maintain a single-superpower global supremacy. That's why the invasion of Iraq led to 12 new permanent military bases in the persian gulf. As China and Russia (among other nations) continue to gain foldholds, though, the only way we can hope to match their challenge is by borrowing money in hopes that the return will be greater in the form of cheap oil. But who do we borrow from? China, Japan, and private banking firms with ties to the oil industries.

The only way to break the cycle is to CEASE all oil subsidies and immediatly shift them towards a post-petrolium economy, and radically overhaul the Bush/Clinton doctrain to move the focus from oil to stability and democracy.

And that list loses all relevance due to the fact that iran isn't there at all. The US has oil interests, but doesn't put them above politics.

Sure, but they gave them loads of weaponry before Iran went fruity.

The Shah of Iran was one of the world's largest arms customers before he got removed from power.

What that list is missing is an indicator of political compliance. You will find all those middle-eastern countries are client states, while Iran rebels against the status.

Where did you get your stats from?
Anyway there seems to be two clear issues going on here
1) Israel vs. Egypt etc
US paid off both sides to keep Middle East nukes under control and maybe o look good to some local Egyptians and Jews I guess.

2) Iraq war
US paid UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc in order to protect them from Iraq.

I think it is more to do with these specifics than the over simplification of "oil". Besides China is giving the US the hiding of its life time in terms of growth and they don’t control the oil at all (although they do have coal coming out their ears).

Of course, the USA will continue with the SINGLE goal of our international policy - to maintain a single-superpower global supremacy.
If that is their strategy then frankly their strategy is a joke - if hey blow their economy by overstretching themselves how long will they be able to maintain military superiority over an economy that is thriving?

If that is their strategy then frankly their strategy is a joke - if hey blow their economy by overstretching themselves how long will they be able to maintain military superiority over an economy that is thriving?
Like the Soviet Union, you mean? :D

Heh, they thought it was a good idea too. The US is heading the same way, even without a strategic opponent.

If bribery is working...

China has little actual chance of obtaining super power status. It lacks natural resources. Its major and probably only resource is mass labor. The United States also has most of the world's coal, so it has quite a bit of energy that it can use to supplement its crude oil dependancy.

The United States does need to move from oil dependancy as fast as possible. Otherwise as supplies dry up it will hurt the economy, and since the US controls large portions of the enitre world's economy it will make a global depression. The US just makes too many loans and has far too large a portion of the agricultural industry for the entire planet. The US has 17% of the World's gross domestic product. It is the only industrialized country not expected to experience a loss in work-force or general population in the coming decades. The U.S. has the world's largest national economy with over $12 trillion. The US has nearly 30% of the global market exchange-rate GDP.

I am not sure that any nation can even come close to matching the United States in military strength. The US spends more money on its military than the next top 12 spenders combined. Its technological advantage is so great it would take decades for even the strongest nation to come close to closing the gap.

And that list loses all relevance due to the fact that iran isn't there at all. The US has oil interests, but doesn't put them above politics.


Bullshit.

Why do you think we are in Iraq now?

To procure, and secure, oil interests in a continually de-stabilizing area.
This is, and has been the goal all along.

Especially since we no longer have military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq (may) provide a stable base of operations in a destabilizing country, in wich we can sontinue to procure more oil.

Bullshit.

Why do you think we are in Iraq now?

To procure, and secure, oil interests in a continually de-stabilizing area.
This is, and has been the goal all along.

Especially since we no longer have military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq (may) provide a stable base of operations in a destabilizing country, in wich we can sontinue to procure more oil.

You bullshit. If Iraq was for oil, then the entire US govt suffers from mental retardation. They're just not that stupid.

Anybody who still believes that the Iraq War was for oil really has been spoonfed produce from Idaho's biggest shitfarm.

China has little actual chance of obtaining super power status. It lacks natural resources.

1) COAL some say enough for 300 odd years (others only 100 years - but that is enough) and their coal is ALREADY cheaper than oil
2) All sorts of metals and so forth

The United States also has most of the world's coal

About 25% I think and that would be of discovered reserves. Not sure what the costs of digging it up is.:confused:

The US has 17% of the World's gross domestic product.

It used to be over half I believe not all that long ago... at that rate it would be zero by 2030 (ok I'm exagerating!):D

I am not sure that any nation can even come close to matching the United States in military strength.

As the USA proved against Iraq what matters in war is having the latest technology. If the USA falls far enough behind it won’t matter that they invested trillions over the previous century. If the other country has a bigger economy all of a sudden it will be able to outspend the US and then give it a few years and it will be stronger.:sniper:

Its technological advantage is so great it would take decades for even the strongest nation to come close to closing the gap.

Yes we are talking Long term planning here. Any sensible country should think in terms of multiple decades if not centuries.

You bullshit. If Iraq was for oil, then the entire US govt suffers from mental retardation. They're just not that stupid.
They essentially blocked the Iraqi constitution because it gave oil rights solely to Iraq. There was nothing else even remotely offensive to the US about it.
Anybody who still believes that the Iraq War was for oil really has been spoonfed produce from Idaho's biggest shitfarm.
What is it for then?

Oil and trying to impress daddio is all that it's about.

Freedom?

In martial law?

Democracy?

With puppet governments and a blocked constitution?

Security?

With sectarian violence as high as it is?



You make me laugh.

You bullshit. If Iraq was for oil, then the entire US govt suffers from mental retardation. They're just not that stupid.


That seems to be the case.

But, there is no real signs of decline for the US. It currently holds the monopoly on military and private technology. It still has the monopoly on agriculture as well.

The US has about 35% of the world's coal reserves, but I think it can adapt to alternate fuel sources.

The US never had over half of the world's GDP that is impossible. It has about the same percentage of the world's GDP for a long time. Now it did and still does control about 42% of the world's wealth if I remember correctly. But, that is mostly in loans, and savings.

The US is winning the conflict in Iraq. At least on a measure of casualties on both sides. The US has a few thousand deaths while the terrorists and insurgents have way way more than that. The major hurdle for the US is its own people. They are easily discouraged from a specific course of action. It is because the people are weak-willed.

It is unlikely that any nation will be able to catch up for longer than a few decades though. Unless the US economy collaspes I don't forsee anything for a very long time.

The US does have the third largest country by both population and land. Plus it has very powerful economic and military allies. It is allied with the country with the second highest GDP, Japan.

If what appears to be the basic premise of this thread is correct, and as the US imports most of its oil from Venzuela then why is the US not sending arms to Venzuela?

But, there is no real signs of decline for the US.

You have a lot of debt and a massive balance of trade problem and much slower growth than the other contenders.

The US has about 35% of the world's coal reserves, but I think it can adapt to alternate fuel sources.

Here says 26% but it may depend on how it is counted (sometimes they don’t count less viable fossil fuels etc)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.htm

The US never had over half of the world's GDP that is impossible. It has about the same percentage of the world's GDP for a long time.

There was not much of the rest of his world to share that GDP around - remember Asia and Africa’s GDP would have still been negligible so the only other countries in his blame would have been the European ones and the major white colonies. Surely the growth of Asia & Eastern Europe (at least) has had some impact? Your % of GDP must have dropped. A number of sources seem to indicate that it was up around 50% but nothing good enough to quote that I can find so far... one site sait it controlled 58% of the wealth..

The US is winning the conflict in Iraq. At least on a measure of casualties on both sides.

I'd say al the countries that are not involved are winning that war. Because they have NO casualties. The USA is picking up he tab for, at least as it sees it, spreading democracy and so forth. That’s a recipe for hegemonic decline.

The US does have the third largest country by both population....

It is the two others that are the 'problem'!

The United States has the most growth out of any first-world nation. I think that is enough. When a country reaches first-world status there are limitations to growth rate.

It does depend upon sources. 26% if fairly accurate, but the internet has so much information on it. It is difficult to judge which is accurate and which is not.

You forget a huge contender for GDP at the time. That would be the Soveit Union. Plus even in a somewhat dilapidated state Europe still had a lot of the GDP after the WWII. While it was marginally higher, the US has never had close to half of the world's GDP. The US controls a lot of the world's money, and it has a very high GDP, but comparatively it controls a lot more money than its GDP.

I think a lot of the planning for the war in Iraq was bad. It was a badly planned invasion without an exit strategy. I am glad Saddam is gone. I am glad they no longer have an oppressive regime over thier people. I am glad no one is gassing the Kurds. I am glad the genocide was ceased. I really would like to see things go well in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people, and lives in general. But, you have a valid point. There are plenty of countries that are not taking casualties. I don't know if in the end the war is winnable with the way it is being fought. The US is too afraid to go on the offensive and get the job done. So they are limited to a war of attrition.

While India and China do have some promising futures, I am not sure if they are capable of supplanting the USA for a very long time. As I said before the USA is the fastest growing first world country.

One theory is that the nations of the axis of evil were threatening to stop buying and selling oil in dollars but do it in Euros instead. This would cause the bottom to fall out of the American economy so America decided to make an example out of Iraq.

I could have phenomenal growth too, if I signed up for every credit card out there and used a stack of them to pay off the others.

I couldn't keep it up forever though.

really, everyone is wrong. the us has always had a reputation as the world police, the great, stable, prosperous superpower, ever since the cold war. this has kept foreign investment in the us high, because of who the us is, this is how it can rebound from any recession so quickly. fighting the war in iraq was to keep up that image, to keep up foreign investment, because if it stops, the us economy will be shown for what it is, which is absolutely broke.

This was previously posted: The United States has the most growth out of any first-world nation. That is simply not true.:)

Syria: $100


Gave Syria a hundred bucks, eh? Hope they didn't spend it all in one place.

They essentially blocked the Iraqi constitution because it gave oil rights solely to Iraq. There was nothing else even remotely offensive to the US about it.

Well, they'll try to bleed it. But they didn't go to war specifically for oil. It's the same with WWII: the Allies went to war to save the world, but they'll take all of Germany's land and stuff while they're at it.

What is it for then?

Oil and trying to impress daddio is all that it's about.

Freedom?

In martial law?

Democracy?

With puppet governments and a blocked constitution?

Security?

With sectarian violence as high as it is?



You make me laugh.

Your face makes me laugh.

Gave Syria a hundred bucks, eh? Hope they didn't spend it all in one place.

lol, sorry. That should be $100 million worth of weapons.

You bullshit. If Iraq was for oil, then the entire US govt suffers from mental retardation. They're just not that stupid.

Anybody who still believes that the Iraq War was for oil really has been spoonfed produce from Idaho's biggest shitfarm.

Iraq: 112.5 billion barrels of oil, 10.7% of the world's total.

number of major pipelines: 4

Two countries most against the iraq war: Russia and France

The two countries who had multibillion dollar contracts with Sadam Hussein for iraqi oil that would be lost of the US invaded: Russian and France

Iraq was considered a threat to: Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia

Amount of oil in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: 42.7% of the world's total reserves.

One of the first deployment of ground troops in iraq: Secured the oil fields north of kuwait

What the soldiers were gaurding while looters famously tore apart the iraqi museums, taking priceless treasures: Iraqi Oil Ministery

What Halliburton received a no-bid contract for: Rebuilding Iraqi Oil fields.

The first thing Halliburton started work on rebuilding: The equipment and installations at the oil fields.

Iraq was about oil, and about protecting our oil interests in the region (which houses almost 80% of the world's reserves).

...in the middle east. Just something that most people should know, and should find interesting. These figures are: first, the amount in millions of dollars that was given to the nation by the USA in the form of military aid between 1995 and 2003, and second, the amount of oil reserves that nation has in billions of barrels.

Kuwait: $4,100 million in arms, 96.5 billion barrels in reserve (9.2% of world)

Saudi Arabia: $25,700 million, 261.8 billion barrels (25% of world)

United Arab Emirates: $900 million, 97.8 billion barrels (9.3% of world)

Jordan: $500 million, Bahrain: $900 million

Egypt: $8,300 million (Africa contains 77.4 billion barrels of proven reserves, with most situated in the northernmost countries, particularly Nigeria).

Georgia, population 5 million, home of the BTC pipeline: $1,300 million in aid and weapons

The sad part:

Isreal: $5,900 million

Lebanon: $100 million

Syria: $100

The most telling part:

Oman (bordering Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates): 0 dollars, 5.5 billion barrels (only .5% of world)

Interesting. 70% (7 out of 10) of those countries that you mentioned we gave military aid to have no oil at all, so your point is....

Yes, a joke, but I have a different criticism, one that I think needs to be said.

We don't play oil politics to reduce consumer prices. We do it to ensure we have the oil to sell at outstanding prices for a long time to come.
Kewl! The higher the price of oil, the more incentive to find something better. :)

Georgia, population 5 million, home of the BTC pipeline: $1,300 million in aid and weapons

It should be noted that the support in georgia is basically so the government has the power to deal with the Chechen terrorists and slave-runners in their territory enough so that Russia just doesn't invade.

The two countries who had multibillion dollar contracts with Sadam Hussein for iraqi oil that would be lost of the US invaded: Russian and France

Another person trotting out this tired myth. Companies of Russia and France had contracts for iraqi oil, yet the United States and its companies had far more, both legal and illegal. The united states is hardly a more upstanding member of the international community, so why would they want to invade, while the lesser recipients would be against it? Its illogical.

I am no liar. The US has the most growth out of any first-world country. It is a fact. It is also the only western country that is going to have a growing work force in coming years. The rest of the western nations will have a shrinking work force.

Kewl! The higher the price of oil, the more incentive to find something better. :)

And to use less of it while we develop alternatives. Conservation is the first half of the battle and the one we have to win before the alternatives become fully competitive. Alternative energy is already cheaper than oil and natural gas power and nuclear/geothermal provide the cheap load stabilizers to fill the gaps in intermittent sources like wind or solar. Alternative fuels are still a few years away, but progress in improving fuel economy and making hybrids cost competitive are bringing real and affordable alternatives to the market right now.

By 2030, I think oil demand will be in permanent decline and fully obsolete by 2050. People forget that Peak Oil can and likely will be a blessing in disguise to our economic and technological future. There will be some tough periods along the way, but in the long run we'll be better off.

What's this now? A country behaving in it's national interest? What a surprise!

What's this now? A country behaving in it's national interest? What a surprise!

Yeah, it's not like anyone else does it. I'm sure China is spending all that money in Sudan and Nigeria out of the goodness of their heart and not because they both have huge amounts of unclaimed and unproven oil/natural gas.

The fact that the US funds governments and militaries or those governments in the middle east to protect its oil interests is nothing new or secret. I suppose it makes sense for them since oil is what keeps the US alive at the moment.

Wouldn't be more intelligent just keeping those government disarmed? SO there wouldn't be any possible crisis scenario?

Or the weaponry industry is more important than the oil one?

Hum! So They didn't lie when they said it wasn't for oil! :D

While India and China do have some promising futures, I am not sure if they are capable of supplanting the USA for a very long time. As I said before the USA is the fastest growing first world country.

No it isint like Dvsland said infact India and China have faster growing economies just because America thinks it's king of the world does not mean it's the best.

There is a reason China and India are called 'Potential Superpowers' because they have a much larger Population then the USA and they are also becoming very economicly poewrful. While America is suffering from the fact that nobody wants to buy there products when other countries (AKA China) are making them cheaper and for the same amount of quality.

The USA will have a huge depression it's starting to show now only 5 years ago the American Economy was 25% stronger (basing this on Currency) if i went to USA 5 years ago i would get 50 Cents for every australian dollar now it's 75 Cents.

If you think America military will keep it strong that is 'Wrong' the USA has nothing special to offer except for there airforce which still could be easily pushed aside.

Russia has more tanks then USA and China has more Troops and last time i checked the USA didnt have the largest navy (i cant remember i think USA airforce is the Biggist in the world. either airforce or navy).

What about those nukes well Russia still has all there Nukes from Soviet times. if they could afford to launch them then the USA would be in trouble (btw didnt bush want to aim some Nukes at russia? i wonder why? ;) )

India is nothing special now but in 50 years they have really improved and give it a few more years and they will be developed. and China for a communist country is amazingly strong money wise so Communism cant be all that bad.

The West altogether is starting to slow down we had our time in the sun and now it's over. simple as that. what so bad with the USA losing it's thunder anyway the world was much better off before the USA starting trying to control everything.

I know people will complain about what i said but i see it has true every Empire has it's start and it's end look at Persia,Rome and Mongolia.

Give it a few decades and the USA will go broke you will see.

. . .everyone except China

The real problem is that Russia doens't have all their nukes. After the breakup of the USSR there are nukes unnaccounted for and nuke sin several different states of the former USSR not just Russia.