Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on August 30, 2008, 10:53:00 PM
-
Iraq signs 3 billion oil deal with CHINA!
Oh well........China are teh world supermarket....err superpower. We must surrender all our bases.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/30/iraq.china.oil.deal/index.html
-
ronmo.
Jihad called it a major and significant move for Iraq.
CNN refactuate's fear.
-
CNN refactuate's fear.
??? Is that you George?
No results found for refactuate. -- Dictionary.com
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. -- Merriam Webster online
Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word refactuate. ---One Look Dictionary Search
-
Holden, it's his attempt at obtuse.
Or, it could be the shape of his head.
-
Holden, it's his attempt at obtuse.
Or, it could be the shape of his head.
I thought he might be... I mean it is only the President who is allowed to make up words, isn't it?
-
depends on the shape of his head... forehead slope and occipital point would be key indicators.
-
Iraq signs 3 billion oil deal with CHINA!
Oh well........China are teh world supermarket....err superpower. We must surrender all our bases.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/30/iraq.china.oil.deal/index.html
As it did with other international companies, the Saddam regime had a partnership contract with CNPC signed at the end of the 1990s that entitled the company to share profits. The current contract, however, will be only a "service contract" under which CNPC is simply paid for its services, Jihad said.
He said Iraq has provided "security guarantees" for CNPC, as it would for any other foreign company that will work in Iraq's oil fields.
Looks' like they just wanna slide back in to their niche. I figure the Iraqi's are just going where the money is.
-
Unition of the elders. I'm proud to have made this happen. Go on and celebrate, fellas. Purchase yerselves a couple boners.
-
mod 3's my lady.
-
The same thing happened in Syrianna.
-
Lets see how fast the troops come out after this..
-
I have one thing to add.
:noid
-
So much for the US invading Iraq for oil argument.
It doesn't defeat the argument - it strengthens it. Events such as this would suggest it was folly to invade, and we should have concentrated on killing OBL and securing Afghanistan.
-
It doesn't defeat the argument - it strengthens it. Events such as this would suggest it was folly to invade, and we should have concentrated on killing OBL and securing Afghanistan.
Dowding I think you read that wrong. I'm pretty sure he meant the argument that America invaded Iraq so we would secure a source of oil just for us. With the Chinese getting in on the act in Iraq that does defeat the argument. :)
-
how much US own to China? :noid
-
how much US own to China? :noid
That would imply that we invaded Iraq for...China. However, the chinese were buying into Iraqi oilfields' even before GWI, and they lost alot of production due to that. Also, the embargo's after that didn't help either. None of that could have helped China.
The argument that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil is still valid, though, if you consider that the current Iraqi gov't. might not really be that attached to the U.S. deep down inside. They have repeatedely asked us to remove our troops, and have kept trying to speed up the removal timetable. We removed what had been a ruthless but non-secular gov't. under Saddam Hussein, and replaced it with one that is now open to control by extremist groups. We have to keep troops' there now, not because of secular violence...but because of the possibility that this gov't. will either fall to Iran, or will ally itself with the extremists' wholeheartedly. IMHO, we've made the largest Geo-political mistake we could have made in the Middle east.
-
how much US own to China? :noid
This is the scariest and most compelling point that needs to be assessed
How many people here realize how much China is funding our country?
China has been lending the USA...yes Communist bad guys China.....The Evil Empire ....lol, we owe China billions...
This country is screwed up so bad...but hey -- we have the right to keep and bear arms to form a well organized militia...we got that going for us....I saw on tv last night one of those organized militia guys just shot some other organized militia types on the south side of Chicago... must have been a war game.....heck maybe we can even borrow some more money to invade another country that we really don't like...rather than go after the real culprits
never mind...
that would be insane, and heck lets have another 4 years of it
I saw an ostrich once with his head in the sand...he was safe ...he was protecting his individual freedom...
-
This is the scariest and most compelling point that needs to be assessed
How many people here realize how much China is funding our country?
China has been lending the USA...yes Communist bad guys China.....The Evil Empire ....lol, we owe China billions...
This country is screwed up so bad...but hey -- we have the right to keep and bear arms to form a well organized militia...we got that going for us....I saw on tv last night one of those organized militia guys just shot some other organized militia types on the south side of Chicago... must have been a war game.....heck maybe we can even borrow some more money to invade another country that we really don't like...rather than go after the real culprits
never mind...
that would be insane, and heck lets have another 4 years of it
I saw an ostrich once with his head in the sand...he was safe ...he was protecting his individual freedom...
I would ask you...Are we into China for so much, can we not get ourselves back out of the "tar baby" trap we've gotten into?
-
I would ask you...Are we into China for so much, can we not get ourselves back out of the "tar baby" trap we've gotten into?
Seriously do not understand what your question is - what is a "tar baby" trap?
-
For more on how much the US owes China click on the link.
http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/01/17/what-the-us-owes-china/ (http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2008/01/17/what-the-us-owes-china/)
Estimated 1.5 TRILLION and growing by 1 BILLION per day.
:O
-
people used to say the same thing about the japs just a few short decades ago.. They were buying America!!!
They bought everything in sight.. most of it worthless and they lost their butts on most of it. Movies and media portrayed an America that by now would all be speaking japanese
Everything old is new again.. especially to the vacant headed.
lazs
-
Seriously do not understand what your question is - what is a "tar baby" trap?
It's an analogy to the old childrens' story of Brer rabbit and the Tar Baby. There's different versions of it; Basically, a Wolf and a bear in the story wish to catch the rabbit, who always runs away, mocking them in the process. However, the bear and wolf devise a trap for the rabbit, using his own vanity. They make a sort of dummy out of tar; The rabbit, thinking the "Tar Baby" is someone new, goes up to the Tar Baby and tries to shake it's hand. The tar, however, sticks' to him, and the rabbit get's his hand stuck. Well, then, the rabbit starts' to hit and wrestle with the Tar Baby, only to get himself further and further mired in the tar. Eventually, the rabbit is completely immobilized, and cannot move. At this point, the wolf and the bear simply walk up, and capture the helpless rabbit without having to run a single step.
I used this analogy because more and more of our nations' businesses and industries are falling for the lure of ultra-cheap chinese labor, and that eventually, we will be helpless at the hands of our enemies, both politically and economically.
-
That would imply that we invaded Iraq for...China. However, the chinese were buying into Iraqi oilfields' even before GWI, and they lost alot of production due to that. Also, the embargo's after that didn't help either. None of that could have helped China.
The argument that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil is still valid, though, if you consider that the current Iraqi gov't. might not really be that attached to the U.S. deep down inside. They have repeatedely asked us to remove our troops, and have kept trying to speed up the removal timetable. We removed what had been a ruthless but non-secular gov't. under Saddam Hussein, and replaced it with one that is now open to control by extremist groups. We have to keep troops' there now, not because of secular violence...but because of the possibility that this gov't. will either fall to Iran, or will ally itself with the extremists' wholeheartedly. IMHO, we've made the largest Geo-political mistake we could have made in the Middle east.
stop saying that cuz it sounds like US deny them freedom of choice...lol
-
Who here thinks oil is not a reserve worth protecting ?
And why should we let it fall in the hands of Islamic fascists?
-
Who here thinks oil is not a reserve worth protecting ?
And why should we let it fall in the hands of Islamic fascists?
IMHO, we should avoid it as much as possible (I'm talking using Nuclear power for our electricity grid here.)
And if the oil happens to be in countries where the 'Islamic fascists' already live, then...technically, We didn't 'let it fall into their hands', as it was in theirs all along. By that argument, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead.
-
Saudi Arabia doesn't seek nukes or repeatedly violate the four conditions which can cause a nation to lose it's sovereign status.
Like Iraq did..(serial violator)
-
Saudi Arabia doesn't seek nukes or repeatedly violate the four conditions which can cause a nation to lose it's sovereign status.
Like Iraq did..(serial violator)
And...what are those four conditions, and who set them?
-
The decision for war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, war on terror, UN weapons inspections, WMDs, Iraqi human rights,Regime change or any number of other reasons the Bush/Blair spin machine would like us and surprisingly some actually still do believe. Funny how quickly they shifted from WMDs to human rights and regime change as the main reason once it was obvious their were no quantities of WMDs certainly to the degree that Bush,Cheney,Powell argued for to the UN.
Securing the Oil fields of Iraq for increased global supply has always been the strongest most obvious reason for the war. Just unfortunately for Bush it ended up taking a lot longer then the few months they intially thought it would. And certainly a lot costlier in lives and money.
Increased supply = less per barrel for everyone. Whether it comes out of Iraq,Saudi Arabia or the North Sea.
Whether the contracts are going to China,US or Europe, makes no difference at all. If you can't understand those basic economics of supply and demand then I see why you might still clutch to the WMDs and war on terror spin argument.
Plus I'm sure some of that money will eventually make it's way to the US directly one way or another over time.
<S>...-Gixer
-
why would they go to war when they could just buy the oil from Iraq?
-
why would they go to war when they could just buy the oil from Iraq?
Same reason why you can't buy oil from Iran today.
<S>...-Gixer
-
And...what are those four conditions, and who set them?
The UN
#1:Repeated transgressions vs neighbouring states
#2:Violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
#3:Giving shelter to terrorists and wanted criminals
#4:Using WMD(weapons of mass destruction)
-
Funny how quickly they shifted from WMDs to human rights and regime change as the main reason once it was obvious their were no quantities of WMDs certainly to the degree that Bush,Cheney,Powell argued for to the UN.
Regime change in Iraq was Bill Clinton's signed foreign policy..It passed the senate unanimously 98-0.
Why didn't you complain then?
-
Regime change in Iraq was Bill Clinton's signed foreign policy..It passed the senate unanimously 98-0.
Why didn't you complain then?
Because Clinton didn't invade Iraq and whack on some other false pretences for reasoning. :rolleyes:
Try the Left/Right argument on me is pointless. I don't care whether it was Clinton or Bush.
<S>...-Gixer
-
The UN
#1:Repeated transgressions vs neighbouring states
#2:Violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
#3:Giving shelter to terrorists and wanted criminals
#4:Using WMD(weapons of mass destruction)
Does that mean that the United States should dissolve itself? We are guilty of all four as well.
-
Does that mean that the United States should dissolve itself? We are guilty of all four as well.
yes but for good reason!
-
Some time ago every barrel of oil was sold in US dollars. Saddam started selling oil in his own currency direct to whomever wanted it. Now Iran has started and so has Venezuela, both of these countries have become black listed and when ever the associated press can they will bash them.
Iraq was invaded to stop the selling of oil in currency other than the US dollar. And so shall Iran and Venezuela in due time. :huh
-
people used to say the same thing about the japs just a few short decades ago.. They were buying America!!!
They bought everything in sight.. most of it worthless and they lost their butts on most of it. Movies and media portrayed an America that by now would all be speaking japanese
Everything old is new again.. especially to the vacant headed.
lazs
The difference ... I will pause for the full headed one to actually read this...
Is that Japan bought property.. lots
This problem is that we are BORROWING money from China.... we OWE them money
Grasp that ...make some room by leaving the know it all attitude out...
-
The difference ... I will pause for the full headed one to actually read this...
Is that Japan bought property.. lots
This problem is that we are BORROWING money from China.... we OWE them money
Grasp that ...make some room by leaving the know it all attitude out...
Couldn't say it better :aok
-
The US made a defense pact with the kingdom of Saud in the '40s. The US policy of containment toward Saddam Hussien was causing a major rift in Saudi-American relations. The US had to finish Saddam so that it could pullout of Saudi Arabia. So ultimately, yes it was about oil. Anybody here old enough to remember when the US threatened to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil restrictions?
-
As long as MORE oil is reaching the world market, it doesnt matter WHO buys it, price per barrel same no matter from whom you buy it--china buys more from Iraq, means it buys less from Saudi, etc. As long as there is breathing room between supply and demand, all is well
-
Anybody here old enough to remember when the US threatened to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil restrictions?
i bet no one here is old enough to remember US invading Japan to make them open their market for US
-
i bet no one here is old enough to remember US invading Japan to make them open their market for US
The US invaded Japan?
-
The US invaded Japan?
news? or you miss history classes?
-
news? or you miss history classes?
We occupied Japan after WWII, but the invasion never happened because Japan surrendered. I am not aware of an invasion of Japan by US forces.
-
dig earlier, history of US conquers starts much earlier ;)
-
The US made a defense pact with the kingdom of Saud in the '40s. The US policy of containment toward Saddam Hussien was causing a major rift in Saudi-American relations. The US had to finish Saddam so that it could pullout of Saudi Arabia. So ultimately, yes it was about oil. Anybody here old enough to remember when the US threatened to invade Saudi Arabia because of oil restrictions?
Suave, could you post a link to that info?
-
dig earlier, history of US conquers starts much earlier ;)
A google search only brings up Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan during WWII.
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
I can find no references where America did that to Japan other than the Allied occupation of Japan at the end of hostilities in WWII.
-
There was no 'invasion'. Americans shipwrecked there.. all 'gaijin' in fact, were summarily executed when they set foot on Japanese soil. The Japanese for 200 years had maintained an extreme isolationist policy. American merchants wanted trade, safe harbor, normal relations. Perry was sent there with a force considered large enough to press the point and the japanese agreed.
Perry's Second Visit to Japan
Perry returned to Japan in February, 1854. He came with seven ships, four sailing ships, three steamers, 1,600 men and dropped anchor 26 miles from the Japanese capital, Edo. The Japanese, worried about the American ships, activated the harbor defenses which included mobilizing soldiers and sending them to harbor forts and batteries.
As soon as the East India Fleet dropped anchor two guard boats came up to Perry’s flagship, but were turned away and sent to the Powhatan where they could talk to Captain Henry Adams. Later, when Perry had recovered from the arthritis attack that had forced him to turn the Japanese away initially, he responded to Japanese demands that he leave and negotiate somewhere else by saying that trade must begin soon, and that all further negotiations were to be carried out in Edo. The Japanese took this as a serious threat because Perry had told them that he planned to move up the bay toward Edo if demands weren’t met soon. He would also shell the city if necessary to get his point across.
The Landing
Perry landed for peace and trade talks on March 8th, 1854. Three naval bands were there playing the Star Spangled Banner. He told the Japanese how the Chinese and United States had both benefited from trade. After much intense negotiations, the Japanese gave in and signed the Treaty of Kanagawa on March 31st, 1854. The treaty guaranteed that the Japanese would save shipwrecked Americans, that they would provide food, coal, water, and other provisions for the American ships that docked in Nagasaki. Then in five years the same supplies could be procured at Shimoda and Hakodate. It also granted the United States permission to build a consulate in Shimoda. The Japanese would sign to all of these things but wouldn’t sign for trade. Eventually the Japanese gave in and trade was granted as well. This ended Japan’s two-hundred year isolation policy.
Ramzey, yup; America understood the rules of the Era.. POWER. Her chief competitor and protagonist for trade... the English Empire. Yup; we fought the Spanish and stole the Philippines, then slaughtered morro's and indigents left and right, ran all over central and south america, invading here, setting up puppet governments there, and did all kinds of stuff the liberal pinheads of today would shed their hair over.
Big freakin deal. Japan should count herself lucky it wasn't a British Fleet that showed up in Tokyo bay. By the standards of the era, we were in fact, benevolent. Even the act of dropping a pair of nukes on them a 100 years later... to end the war THEY started.. especially after Nanking, Bataan and Okinawa was benevolent.. saved several million lives on their side, half again as many on our side.
Deal with it.
-
I have no problem with that, so is nothing to deal with for me
But its funny to look at all those people who think US is always innocent and they do it for best interest of invaded countries. Messiah of all nations.
Bottom line is, you have to play dirty to gain power, make profit and scare others.
US as well as Russia do the same things, one difference US have better PR specialists.
As for Japan, iirc there was like 2000 marines on shore + ships in the bay. I would call it invasion and treaty signed with gun pointed at head.
There was a reason for JP to hate US for so many years..........
-
one difference US have better PR specialists
Really? Where were you educated? Just curious.. I'm guessing you ain't from 'round here. ;)
Regarding the post above.. You think Japan's crazy exeno-phobic racist policies in China and the rest of the pacific rim a 100 years after we opened Japan to trade is why they 'hate' us? A LOT can be said about the utter disconnect between western and eastern attitudes about what constitutes decent treatment of humans in the 20th century, but your gonna have a heluva time 'PR'-wize sellin us the sack of crap that the Japanese were justified in bombing pearl harbor because Perry 'invaded' a century earlier with a dinner invitation and three marching bands playing the star spangled banner.
Well.... maybe if the bands really sucked. But, that's still no reason to rape Nanking. and invade China
'PR" Hunh? You think Japan would have gotten a better deal post war from the Soviets? You think the Philippines would have fared better in Spanish hands or American?
Is it just our 'PR' is better, or maybe we did a little better job benevolence -wise than the other big powers of the Era?
-
As for Japan, iirc there was like 2000 marines on shore + ships in the bay. I would call it invasion and treaty signed with gun pointed at head.
So we invaded with 3 naval bands.....gotcha. :D
While Perry did use threats of force, honestly......do you really think he could have conquered Japan with less than 2000 men? I'm pretty sure he realized the futility of such an action, just as I do, and if you are honest, you do also.
-
Suave, could you post a link to that info?
During the 1973 oil embargo the US administration made it known that military action against Saudi Arabia was a consideration.
Do a video search on "The House of Saud". It is a very educational piece on the history of saudi-american relations.