what is the iraqi oil production pre war versus post war?
104499
When Iraq was actually producing oil their capacity was around 2.2 million barrels a day.  Due to disruptions in the pipeline and in the basic production lines their production has been only in the 600,000 barrels per day range.
727126
Vietnam war was a resource war. We wanted to control the tin, rubber, manganese , the still undeveloped off-shore oil and the largest rice growing region (Mekong Delta) in the world. We poisoned the Delta before we left with Agent Orange and today there are so many deformed births that they are just quietly put down. Vietnam war was a whore just like Iraq.
855995
There is no proof. If it was we would be using Iraqi oil and paying less!
280307
Helped both economically and its citizens but damaged 'co-alition's' public image. \n\nThe gulf conflicts are purely down to oil, if oil was not available to the world to use from Iraq Western oil prices would obviously soar crippling the economies and businesses.\n\nUnder the previous regime Saddam kept the revenues from oil for himself, his family and the Republic Guard. The West were very worried after the Gulf war when he burned oil refineries and oil rigs cause millions of £££ worth of damage and loss of a massive amount of oil. What's stopping him from doing it again?\n\nSo by securing oil supply from the Middle East it has actually helped both the US, UK and Iraqi people as this provides the money to invest into their infrastructure and improve standard of living. \n\nUnfortunately this is completely wrong! unethical and embarrasing that we could represent a race of people so materialistic and selfish its about time we realised that we can not keep raping this planet's resources and we need to limit use of resources and pollution before we come to a very abrupt end.\n\nThe war in Iraq as absolutely nothing to do with ridding the Iraq people of a dictator, nobody could give a flying f-uck..  look at Africa! no one cares about the dictators and warlords that have done far FAR worse than Saddam, unfortunately they have no oil.
1048535
The Iraq war was a farce. Big oil is the answer!
571257
i don't know what the final outcome in iraq will be, but i have made this very point to people i know. i heard the same thing in 1969 myself. we were in an unpopular war then, gas prices were soon to rise, people, for the most part, were becoming disillusioned with our government, jobs were soon to start drying up and many were to move overseas, interest rates were starting to rise. sounds like deja vu all over again today, doesn't it?
1063366
Iraq is not a very mountainous region, and given that it's the oldest inhabited country in the world (Babylon and Sumeria) it's possible that most of the easily obtained natural resources have been used by the centuries of civilizations.\n\nThat was my opinion, now for the facts from the CIA World Factbook:\nIraq, Natural resources: petroleum, natural gas, phosphates, sulfur\n\nAlthough the CIA are scumsucking bastards, the World Factbook is a good resource published annually and can be downloaded for free from their website.
1098151
the war in Iraq is a pre-emptive strike
95483
Oil most likly. Look we caught saddam but bin laden is still free about 5 years later.
705369
Modern History\n\nOttoman rule over Iraq lasted until the Great War (World War I) when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. British forces invaded the country and suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–16). British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917. An armistice was signed in 1918.\nImage:LittleIraq.png\n\nIraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".\n\nThe British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt, Britain used phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers. Legal experts consider phosphorus bombs chemical weapons. (See Gas in mesopotamia)\n\nIn the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaykhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 severely reduced the tenants', forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.\n\n\nThis is just a piece of Iraq's "modern history".  If you read more from any source on its entire history you will see that the illusion of a stable government is not a reality. \nI've not included the juicy parts on  British Petroleum etc.  You will enjoy reading that for yourself.                                                                                       HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AND POLITICIANS REFUSE TO LEARN FROM IT!!!
2578
Several stand to profit from this war.  Large war corporations are first.  They are currently making large amounts of government money with war neccesities such as ammunition and more.  Second, in the rebuilding process other large corporations stand to profit by assimilating their products into the Iraqi society.  \nPerhaps, if things go right the Iraqis could profit from the war... but it will be a long and arduous journey.
924258
There is nothing to talk about since, there is no oil being produced for exporting...and there is hardly any oil being produced for domestic consumption. \n\nBut, this may have more to do with the big oil companies than anything else. If Iraq were to begin producing and exporting oil, the price of oil would drop dramatically, since Iraq would be flooding the market with oil,and thus creating a greater supply, and thus reducing the demand, and thus, reducing the price.\n\nIf you ask me, every day that Iraq remains unstable, the oil companies jump for joy.\n\nS.T.
596294
I don't believe this war was about oil--- we get most of our oil from other sources--- I believe it was about strategic positioning of our allies (in other words, we want access to the land and won't get it unless a friendly government is in power). We basically want to set up military bases somewhere in the Middle East, and what better way to do it than to "liberate" Iraq!  And the African nations do not have any similar resource--- oil, land, political allegiances, natural resources--- that we can use to our advantage, so we don't get involved. Pretty sad, considering the horrible genocides going on in some countries.\n\nAnd to the poster who said that all Africans have AIDS and why attack them when they'll die off on their own... that's just one of the ugliest things I have ever heard. And there was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and there's no WMD either... not sure how you are getting your facts...
961935
till there is no more oil in iraq
371774
Iraq still has very large reserves of oil, but due to old equipment and terrorists they don't export alot of it. This will improve over the next few years. Oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and Iran are on the decline even though they still export large amounts of it. At the present time the U.S. doesn't purchase any of Iraqs oil directly from them. All of Iraqs production is committed to Europe and Asia. Iraqs oil that comes to the U.S. is purchased from sources in Europe.
593642
There is good article on the BBC website that gives two views on the future in Iraq.\n\nIt summarises both sides of the argument.
263132
No, but maintaining the security of the oil supply has been a priority for every administration since cars, trucks and planes became essential to our economy. It would be very foolish not to have this concern, or to allow hostile powers to control too much of the world's oil supply. \n\nThis sort of question is usually asked in reference to the allegation that the current war in Iraq is due to an intention by this administration to control oil. There are several things wrong with this theory. \n1. other countries have high interests in oil supply as well, but they are not involved in the war. For example: prior to this war, the primary customer for Iraqi oil was France. \n2. The US need for oil now is about the same as it has been for some time. This war would have occurred in the 1970s if oil is all it is about. \n3. Controlling oil is an exceptionally simplistic view of the reasons the war occurred. It paints the war in very negative terms having to do with money and greed and corporations, which are reasons much easier to attack than if the war is about more complex issues such as safety, democracy, international politics, etc... \n4. A much more likely reason for the war is that the entire middle east has significant problems which have been spilling out onto other parts of the world for many years. It took a major spillover like 9/11 to push the US to the point where they felt they had to do something.