Who Should We Invade Next?

Who Should We Invade Next?


  • Total voters
    27

Users who are viewing this thread

debbie t

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
thats very interesting gents(i was getting a bit bored of communism;))

so how does that (oil ,money etc) affect the possibility of invading iran next do you think?

and what are your opinions on the possible invasion of syria?








:24:eek:h mattilde ,ive been searching for that vid since the old hiroshima debate ,what a laugh,ive been dying to show pudding time the australia named as iraq bit :24::24:
 
  • 212
    Replies
  • 4K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Is that where we are now Tim? :smiley24:

As for the big deal about selling oil to China, was he even allowed to sell his oil? I was under the impression that the answer was mostly "no."

(Save for a bit on the black market here and there, and what it would take to keep his people in medicine and toilet paper.)

Reserves in northern China are practically extinct. New oil fields in Xinjiang are very hard to exploit. Two-thirds of China's oil imports are from the Middle East: the main suppliers are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen. In 2010, they could be responsible for 80 percent of China's needs. No wonder Beijing is so worried.
Iraq contributes only 0.6 percent of Chinese oil imports - but its strategic importance is increasingly vital. China wants an immediate end to the UN embargo and sanctions. In 1997, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), along with China North Industries Corporation (Norinco), signed an agreement with Iraq for a 22-year-long exploitation of half the Al-Ahdab field. The Chinese were supposed to invest $1.3 billion. In 1998, CNPC kept negotiating for an agreement regarding the Halfayah field. But in the end - because of the sanctions - the Chinese were only able to conduct feasibility studies.
China has been playing an extremely active role behind closed doors in the current negotiations on the text of the new Security Council resolution on Iraq and arms inspections. The dispute only apparently is between a US-led and a French-led text. UN sources confirm the Chinese align with the French position - even though President George W Bush has said that he had a "deal" after he met Chinese President Jiang Zemin in Texas at the weekend. China is positively against an American attack on Iraq: it fears subsequent sky-high oil prices or even the interruption of supplies.
China is also setting up its own strategic oil reserve. Reserves for the moment would only last for a few days. US reserves are good for three months. Until 2010, the Chinese want to be in the same position. The heart of the matter for China is to be less dependent on Middle East oil. Middle East oil travels through the Malacca Straits - controlled de facto by the US. Chinese oil companies have been increasingly active in Kazakhstan. But now, with the American presence in Afghanistan, it's for the Chinese to make the next move: how to combat encirclement by America from the Eastern and Western fronts.
Security Council members China, Russia and France will only follow Washington's plans for regime change if they are absolutely sure of a level playing field in a post-Saddam Iraqi oil industry. Meanwhile, a doomsday scenario is deeply bothering Bush-Cheney and the American oil army: attack against Iraq. Middle East in flames. $60 a barrel of oil. Game over.
But hopes are high on a dream scenario. Saddam is out in no time. Negligible "collateral damage". Iraq starts pumping oceans of oil. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is knocked out. $10 a barrel of oil. Victory.

The above article was written 5 months before the war started. It's funny how they thought the worst case scenario would be $60 a barrel oil. Can anyone say $100 a barrel?
You guys keep talking like the sanctions on Iraq were permanent. Iraq was/is sitting on a fortune in oil reserves that are easy and cheap to extract and export. This oil was going to make it to the market sooner or later, China was just positioning itself to be the one to get it and Bush wasn't going to let that happen. As far as he was concerned, that was OUR oil and we were going to get it one way or another.
 

IntruderLS1

Active Member
Messages
2,489
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Isn't it interesting how they said $60 a barrel was "game over."

The article you posted doesn't support the view of war for oil. It says clearly that China wanted to, but could not get to Iraq's oil.

Also, Iraq's oil on the market place is an increase in world supply. What one country decides they're going to sell to China for moral reasons equals an inverse amount of oil China isn't buying from somebody else who would be willing to accept our superior offers.

An economy like Iraq's switching to the Euro would be like a fly landing on an elephant in order to kill it.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
Isn't it interesting how they said $60 a barrel was "game over."

The article you posted doesn't support the view of war for oil. It says clearly that China wanted to, but could not get to Iraq's oil.

Also, Iraq's oil on the market place is an increase in world supply. What one country decides they're going to sell to China for moral reasons equals an inverse amount of oil China isn't buying from somebody else who would be willing to accept our superior offers.

An economy like Iraq's switching to the Euro would be like a fly landing on an elephant in order to kill it.
But that explanation is too obvious to accept as truth Intruder. :smiley24:
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Isn't it interesting how they said $60 a barrel was "game over."

The article you posted doesn't support the view of war for oil. It says clearly that China wanted to, but could not get to Iraq's oil.

Also, Iraq's oil on the market place is an increase in world supply. What one country decides they're going to sell to China for moral reasons equals an inverse amount of oil China isn't buying from somebody else who would be willing to accept our superior offers.

An economy like Iraq's switching to the Euro would be like a fly landing on an elephant in order to kill it.

The $60 a barrel was only interesting in the fact that it was considered the high water mark if everything went wrong in Iraq. Well we are well above that mark.

This article was only to point out China's interest in Iraqi oil. It doesn't address the cause of war. And don't kid yourself, Saddam made it very clear that he was intending to sell the Iraq oil to China, cutting us out of the loop.

Putting Iraq's oil back onto the market is not increasing the world supply, it's just bringing it back to what it was before the sanctions. If China were to buy Iraq's oil, that would not free up other markets because their demand for oil is growing faster than the worlds supply is. They want to have their strategic oil reserve in place before 2010 so they are trying to find new/cheap markets to supply their reserves. They will not stop purchasing somewhere else just because the Iraq oil fields are opened to them.

As far as trading oil for euro... read this entire article, it goes into the problems and concerns of the failing dollar.

With speculation mounting over the possibility of a US- or Israeli-led military attack of Iran sometime later this year, it has been suggested that real motivation for US antipathy towards the Iranian government has little to do with concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. Some commentators have instead suggested that Iran’s real Iranian threat to the US and its economy is that, in defiance of the US administration, it is attempting to establish an oil ‘bourse’ (exchange) in March of this year which would enable oil to be traded in euros. This would move oil sales away from their usual denomination in dollars and would, it is argued, undermine the American currency with grave consequences for the US economy. (1,2) This internet-based debate is reminiscent of what occurred before the invasion of Iraq when several observers, myself included, hypothesised that Saddam Hussein’s decision to sell Iraqi oil in euros was perhaps one of the reasons the US wanted ‘regime change’. (3,4) The US decision after the invasion to return Iraqi oil sales to dollar denomination and to convert back into dollars all Iraqi foreign currency reserves, which had been in euros prior to the war, was certainly entirely consistent with this theory. (5)
source...
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
But that explanation is too obvious to accept as truth Intruder. :smiley24:

Is there anything of substance you can add to the topic at hand, or do you just enjoy coming into the debate section to agree with all of Scott's posts?
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
Is there anything of substance you can add to the topic at hand, or do you just enjoy coming into the debate section to agree with all of Scott's posts?
I don't enjoy posting much in here because of direct snide comments by folks.

I've already discussed this issue, as have all of you in other threads. I see no need to repeat myself over and over. And if I want to agree with Scott because I find him to be intelligent and also a good friend of mine, I will continue to do so.

Hope that answers your question sufficiently enough for you.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
:24:

Oh please sir enlighten me to what REAL communism is..... Does it work better then fake communism...
No I'm referring to your reactionist post to Pudding when you said you can't take him seriously. That told me you don't know what communism really is and what it entails because anyone who understands it wouldn't react in such as ridiculous manner.
 

Cotton

Active Member
Messages
2,434
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
No I'm referring to your reactionist post to Pudding when you said you can't take him seriously. That told me you don't know what communism really is and what it entails because anyone who understands it wouldn't react in such as ridiculous manner.

I know what communism is and what it entails... and while its all a great and happy utopia on paper it has never and will never work as long as human beings are involved. That's why it's so laughable that any still willingly embraces the concept. TIme and time again it has failed and failed miserably.
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I know what communism is and what it entails... and while its all a great and happy utopia on paper it has never and will never work as long as human beings are involved. That's why it's so laughable that any still willingly embraces the concept. TIme and time again it has failed and failed miserably.
That has little to do with communism and more to do with power hungry men who were despots.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top