Oil production in 42 countries

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by sufee_b Take the War on Iraq IQ Test - Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq? 1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the US have? A: 6%

270000000/6000000000=4.55%

quote:

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? A: 50%

From cia.gov:

US GDP: 10.45 trillion
Japan GDP: 3.65 trillion
German GDP: 2.16 trillion
UK GDP: 1.53 trillion
French GDP: 1.56 trillion
China GDP: 5.99 trillion
India GDP: 2.66 trillion
Russia GDP: 1.41 trillion

Well, these are basically all the countries that matter much. Let's say that if we add up all the other countries in the world that the figure will increase by something like 2.5. So at a glance, I'd approximate that the US has about 20% of the world's wealth, +/- 5%.

quote:

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? A: Saudi Arabia

CIA agrees.

[/quote]4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?
A: Iraq [/quote]

Same here.

quote:

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: $900+ billion

Too lazy to search.

quote:

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A:50%

Says 277 billion, but that's from 1999. Since then it's considerably increased, so it might be in the 450 billion range.

quote:

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the UN? A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

Well, it's kinda difficult to say. Keep in mind though that the essentials of life aren't television sets and quality education. It's the most basic of food and medicines. If we say that about 500 million people are unable to feed themselves properly, that would be about 80$ per person. One kg of bread costs, what, 75 cents? That'd be about 100kg of bread per starving person per year. Not much, but even if we triple the figure, we'd still be well below the US military budget spending.

quote:

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? A: 86 million

Too lazy to search.

quote:

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? A: Since the early 1980's.

Well, they did gas the Kurds in the 80's so that's essentially correct.

quote:

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own? A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

Do I need to get back that pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam?

Well, here's something about it, not very detailed but I guess I will search more if you find it unsatisfactory.

http://monkeyfist.com/pipermail/bon...930/000926.html

quote:

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? A: No

Well, did they? I don't remember that happening.

quote:

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? A: 5,000

I believe that was the right estimate upon which we agreed in prior discussions.

quote:

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time? A:0

Too lazy to search.

quote:

14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? A: 17million.

Most sites put the figure at about 19-21 million. BBC says 11 million, but that was for south vietnam only.

quote:

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack? A: No

Well, it is upon the war supporters to supply proof on this one, and I have yet failed to see any.

quote:

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? A: 35,000

It says about 10000 on some other sites.

quote:

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War ? A: 0

Somebody said in the picture thread that there were no coffins seen from the first gulf war. Whether it was indeed 0 casualties is questionable, but the Iraqis have retreated rapidly as soon as the US invaded Kuwait.

quote:

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front? A: 6,000

I kinda doubt this, but they were killed on the retreat though.

quote:

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? A: 40 tons

Bah, too lazy again.

quote:

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700%

Well, if this is correct, it is most likely not because of depleted uranium shells only, chemical weapons might have something to do with it too. Nevertheless, DU is certainly responsible for some of those cancers.

quote:

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? A: 80%

That's about right if my memory serves me correctly.

quote:

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defence? A: No

Aside from attacking Kuwait, Iran and Israel, no.

quote:

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago? A: No

Well, this question was obviously put up while Saddam was still in power, and since the leadership was the same and the army was weaker, I'd agree with the assumption.

quote:

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3? A: 10,000

Well, seems they were right on.

quote:

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children? A: Over 50%

That's only because of the Iraqi population structure.

quote:

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? A: 11 years

Correct. The no-fly-zone attacks were taking place all the time.

quote:

27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: No

Correct.

quote:

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: 20 million

A rather large figure, but there were frequent bombings, so it may be correct.

quote:

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years

Correct again.

quote:

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? A: 38 31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraqin 1999 (per 1,000 births)? A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

Correct, although it implies that it's UN's fault that such things took place.

quote:

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? A: 1.5 million

And the UN sanctions were initiated because of Saddam's regime. Besides, it's hard to say that those deaths are a direct cause of sanctions.

quote:

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? A: 750,000

Again, population structure.

quote:

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? A: No

No, Clinton did in 1998.

quote:

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? A: 300 36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems? A: 5

Too lazy again.

quote:

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? A: Yes

Correct, although there was a bit of arguing about that.

quote:

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history. A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

Well, since the US forces themselves destroyed most of Iraqi army, it's not far from the truth.

quote:

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? A: 90%

Well, there aren't any of those found, are there? My guess is closer to 100%.

quote:

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in? A: Yes

Correct, they were willing on that.

quote:

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? A: Over 65 42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990? A: 30+ 43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year? A: $5 billion

Essentially correct, but who cares?

quote:

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? A: 8 45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? A: 0 46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got? A: over 10,000 47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? A: the US

Correct, and I believe it is of no dispute, right?

quote:

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? A: Over 400

Rather uncertifiable, but it surely has some.

quote:

49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapons inspections? A: No

Correct.

quote:

50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories is controlled by Israeli settlements? A: 42%

I think it's a bit less, but really irrelevant to Iraqi situation.

quote:

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land? A: Yes

I'll say no to this one.

quote:

52. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.? A: ???? 53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"? A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Irrelevant and subjective.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ok than, but Iran is much more relevant to Iraq, and so is Syria, and Sudan.

I don’t need to assess the degree of relevance of other countries to prove my point that Israel is relevant to the discussion.

quote:

And igottaknow, contrary to "common knowledge" there is no PROOF that Israel has nukes. It is assumed and accepted, I have very good reason (and very good sources) to believe that Israel does indeed pose nuclear capability.

It’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion with pro-Israeli people here, because they’re unwilling to accept the obvious, even when they know it to be true. It’s exhausting to try to prove the most basic aspect of an issue. Requests for proof or denials of common sense are disingenuous and are designed to Phil buster, deter, and distract.

quote:

Regardless, many peaceful democracies have nukes, France, Russia, and the UK for instance. Using your logic, they are also relevant to Iraq and so is the USA for that matter.

Even if they are relevant how does that have any bearing on whether Israel is relevant to the discussion?

quote:

I'm not taking the extreme position as diginut did that there is no relevance between Israel and Iraq - Yes they both have nuclear weapons. But stop reading us so literaly and start being more intuitive! Digi did not mean there is no absolute relevence between Israel and Iraq, no he meant there is no relevance between Israel and Iraq IN THIS DISCUSSION.

How am I suppose to read between the lines to determine whether you mean what you say? So when digi says there NO relevance, I must use my intuition to determine he means the opposite? Now you are talking crazy.

quote:

being wrong happens to the best of us, it happened to me just the other day, bite the bullet and take it like a man, don't go on flaming and going in to pointless drivel

All digi had to say is ‘I concede you are right that Israel is relevant to the discussion.’ But like a six year old stamps his feet in the ground and refuses to give one inch.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Why don't we switch positions, you prove the earth is round. Even if you can then I’ll just pick something else and say prove that, then prove this. You’re like an obstinate child. I don't need to scientifically prove it’s related to the discussion. You even conceded it was relevant based on WMDs in one of previous posts so I don't know why you continue to argue.

"No, YOU'RE like an obstinate child. YOU prove this. I don't have to prove anything, you'll just find something else to pick at. You even admitted you were wrong. Stop arguing, you know I'm right."

- Do you have even the slightest idea how lame an argument that is? Enough with the one-liners and platitudes already, how about you post some intelligent debate yourself instead of accusing everybody else of not being intelligent enough? It's been clearly shown how ridiculous some of sufee's "facts" are by multiple people already, and even if the crap about Israel is true (and it's only half-true, at best), I STILL have yet to be presented with any coherent link to Iraq other than the conjecture that they both have nukes! Israel has psychedelic trance too, does that make them relevant to any music discussion that includes Brazil?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow It’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion with pro-Israeli people here, because they’re unwilling to accept the obvious, even when they know it to be true. It’s exhausting to try to prove the most basic aspect of an issue. Requests for proof or denials of common sense are disingenuous and are designed to Phil buster, deter, and distract. All digi had to say is ‘I concede you are right that Israel is relevant to the discussion.’ But like a six year old stamps his feet in the ground and refuses to give one inch.

That's some nice ad hominem, but you've still missed the point.

If it's exhausting and impossible, THEN DON'T DO IT. So far you yourself have contributed absolutely NOTHING to any of the debates on this forum except pathetic insults and sarcastic jokes. You're the one that's "impossible" to argue with because you begin your arguments on the foundation that everything you say is 100% correct - can you honestly not tell the difference between an established fact and your personal opinion?

Holy shit, you are one of the most pretentious pricks I've ever had the displeasure of debating with. I think you're actually worse than George Smiley, who at least posts an argument instead of this pompous bombast. I'd seriously be inclined to smack you if I were hearing this up front.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US

uh... dispute on that one. This is small point so it doesnt really matter a whole lot.

Speaking at a press conference following the tests of 11 May 1998, the Prime Minister said that there had been three tests. One was a fission device with a yield of "about 12 kilotons," a thermonuclear device with a yield of "about 43 kilotons," and a sub-kiloton device. This was followed by two more tests on 13 May 1998, whose yields are claimed to be "in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 kilotons." There has been much debate over these yields. Based on seismic data, several analysts have claimed that the Indian claims are exaggerated and the real yield is much lower.

Hiroshima/test are not really comparable, but clarity is a good thing to have.

Plenty of nations have tested nuclear weapons. The US was the only nation to actually use them in war, and in my opinion, rightly so - against an obstinate Japanese enemy that would have fought to the last man had we stuck to conventional warfare. (I actually read the other day that in the mid-1970's, they found some Japanese guy who was still holding his position on an uninhabited island in the Pacific. He was rather surprised to find out that his nation had lost the war 30 years earlier.)

Actually, the nation that was recently the most "gung-ho" about testing was France. They were very much against test bans, particularly the ones which banned atmospheric testing. Along the way, they even blew up a Greenpeace boat that was harassing their testing ops. If you want to talk nukes, why not talk about how George Bush, on his own initiative, signed and implemented some of the largest reductions in combat-ready nuclear warheads ever. But no, you can't give him credit for that...

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Last edited by imokruok on Apr-25-2004 at 04:09

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Plenty of nations have tested nuclear weapons. The US was the only nation to actually use them in war, and in my opinion, rightly so - against an obstinate Japanese enemy that would have fought to the last man had we stuck to conventional warfare. (I actually read the other day that in the mid-1970's, they found some Japanese guy who was still holding his position on an uninhabited island in the Pacific. He was rather surprised to find out that his nation had lost the war 30 years earlier.) Actually, the nation that was recently the most "gung-ho" about testing was France. They were very much against test bans, particularly the ones which banned atmospheric testing. Along the way, they even blew up a Greenpeace boat that was harassing their testing ops. If you want to talk nukes, why not talk about how George Bush, on his own initiative, signed and implemented some of the largest reductions in combat-ready nuclear warheads ever. But no, you can't give him credit for that...

I agree that in the WW2 the nuke was the better of two evils. Now, as far as nuclear testing goes, it's not the same thing as attacking another country with nukes, so I don't see how those two things are comparable. Nukes can be used for some other purposes aside from destruction (spaceship propulsion, for example), so I disagree that a full ban should be enacted.

Now, about Bush, let's not forget that he unilaterally decided to drop out of the ABM treaty with russians.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Actually, the nation that was recently the most "gung-ho" about testing was France. They were very much against test bans, particularly the ones which banned atmospheric testing. Along the way, they even blew up a Greenpeace boat that was harassing their testing ops. If you want to talk nukes, why not talk about how George Bush, on his own initiative, signed and implemented some of the largest reductions in combat-ready nuclear warheads ever. But no, you can't give him credit for that...

So the US has actually used it against a population killing lots of people, while France has been testing them, destroying the environment... wow, the french are really mean.

Now how about giving credit to Bush Tactical Nuclear Warhead project currently in development?

___________________
House music lover? Click here!