Where is Iraqi oil going?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Right. So in one breath you say it was about oil, and in the next about ?Saddam. Make up yer mind, lass.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    And you'd be quite correct in doing so.
    The complicated answers are what most trade in. Most can't quite grasp the simple concept that those in power really aren't much more in the brain department than anyone else. The common man looks for for complexity, conspiracy, the great mystery. Illuminati. In spite of his distaste, he still can't let go of the thought that those who have risen above him are more intelligent.

    Our "leaders" are all very human. Looking for a way out. Looking for profit, without much in the way of thought for a generation beyond their own.

    You now, the more I play poker, the more I see the world in action. It's a very educational game.

    The Chinese are rather good at it. The Americans are not.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Never discount fear.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    America is letting China pay more so that Iraq can have more money to rebuild with. Why have American dollars rebuild Iraq when other countries can help out as well by buying their oil at world prices?
     
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Bullshit! There is no way that China could be paying more. No way.
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Marquis

    I will be back at you on all fronts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. cennar Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    millitary industral complex... The USA in it's long gun toting history has one big ass complex for guns. I don't think this was for nothing. I don't think mobalizing all that hardware (and ordering those fucking stealth, some times jumpjet, some times supersonic planes) was not thought about... Two party system, Plus HUGE defence contracts, plus Debt to China so huge, Equals yeah the Americans need to go to war for china. WE (canada included, we don't need to be any ware near afganistan thank you) are fucking thugs for Arms dealers when we dick around like this just to sell sort to pay our bills.

    It's like my friend clintion, great artist, sells all his paintings. Only gets off his ass to do it when he's late on rent or needs drugs. His paintings are cheap but he paints the style people are looking for and has a tallent to sell any thing because he knows the right buyers... how ever Clinton like the USA, doesn't pay his bills (Come on california BC is waiting for it's power bill like 3o years over due now)

    Back to square one.... PETTY WAR
     
  11. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    Do you have a source to back up your opinion?
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    They might if they wanted to convert their soon-to-be-as-valuable-as-toilet-paper greenbucks into assets that would not depreciate as rapidly. The Chinese have been "investing" their dollars into more tangible assets at a very rapid pace the last few years- just look at all the information Billy T has given on China and its 50 year energy plan

    The reasons for the war in Iraq are like that Agatha Christie novel variously called "Ten little niggers", "Ten little Indians" or "And then there were none"
     
  13. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Don't be silly. There are always reasons, that you don't happen to like or agree with them does not erase them from existence.

    You have a habit of using them yourself, when they suit your purposes.
     
  14. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    are you serious? are you actually asking that question? why do you think u.s.a was their in the first place? to save people maybe, or to make a noble job? usa and effcorse not only usa, only go into a country that have have resources, and a dictator that is not a pupp et to usa like the other dictators, and where there's security troubles
     
  15. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Does paying more guarantee US troops in the deal? Is that how it would be brokered? Pay more for oil and as a bonus you get to use US troops to guard the oil infrastructure? If so then how do the Americans benefit from that deal? The deal is made with the Iraqi government so then shouldn't it be iraqi troops and not the US who guard these facilities? Why would the US government agree to guard facilities of a private commercial deal made between the government of China and the Iraq's?

    Can anyone ask 'who's your daddy'?:shrug:

    I mean really its not surprising that China and other non-coalition countries have oil deals with the Iraqi's. What is amazing is that the US is using its troops in those deals. So again I want to know how is it that the US has benefitted if they are not benefitting from the oil, if they were the ones to pay for the war and its reconstruction and in some strange twist their troops are also being the handy men to outside interests?
     
  16. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Right. Only the others that do this don't get as much airtime, do they?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They had a complete economic plan for Iraq in place and launched on the ground within a couple of weeks of declaring the invasion a victory, "Mission Accomplished".

    They had the first overseer fired for lack of rigor and diligence, and Paul Bremer installed in his place, soon afterwards. Bremer's essential setup has been in place ever since.

    They had a plan. It was just crazy and evil, and didn't work very well, is all.
    There is no reason to suppose "the US", as a country, was the planned beneficiary. The oil, for example, was not likely to have been designated for shipment to the US in any event - oil is fungible, on a planetary scale, and just as Alaska's oil is most likely headed for Japan, physically, while a great deal of Venezuela's oil motors to heavy oil refineries in the US, so the point of controlling Iraq's market dominating supply is not to tanker it up and ship it to Lousiana: it's to control its access to the world market, and get some leverage on countries that need it - like China.

    There's nothing geopolitically mysterious about the US securing and keeping physical control, by force, as a matter of strategical significance, over China's oil supply. And nothing economically mysterious about Exxon, Chevron, et al, using their dominant influence on the US government's foreign policy to ensure their position in the eventual arrangements.
    At world standard prices there is far more profit in Iraqi oil: it's sweet crude, in very large and shallow deposits. That's why the Iraqi fields are projected to control the world market if the security problems can be solved. Iraq can undersell anyone, drive almost any oil country's economy under water. And the US is in physical control of Iraq's oil fields.
     
  18. Mircea Registered Member

    Messages:
    70
    Because Prudhoe Bay is heavy oil and Japan needs diesel and aviation fuel, not but gasoline.

    That would be Bachaquero and Boscan. Nustar runs refineries in Savannah and Paulsboro producing tar and asphalt (which shouldn't be that hard since Boscan is practically tar).

    The Lake Charles refinery does 429,000 barrels per day of Tijuana Light (that's Venezuela not Mexico).

    Not really.

    It's to control the sale in US currency.

    The US government pumped $Billions into the US economy during the Great Depression and $Billions more during WWII, yet there was Deflation, not Inflation.

    Why?

    Well, it's the economy, not a text message. On the macro-economic scale, things don't happen in 3 seconds. The US Dollar was the only currency going during WW II, because it was attached to the only stable government that wasn't invaded. Then after WWII, you had the Bretton Woods Agreement, and so the US Dollar becomes the de facto international reserve currency, and the de facto international currency of trade. Other countries gobbled up US Dollars left and right, and that's why there was no inflation.

    Then the US and UK subsequently barred the East Bloc currencies from ascending, meaning the currencies of Russia, Poland, Romania, DDR etc could not be traded on the world market, so those countries had to sell everything they could in US Dollars in order to have US Dollars to import things they needed.

    When the Euro is introduced, that decreases demand for US Dollars, coupled with a few other things, like Iraq deciding to sell its oil in Euros instead of US Dollars. Well, the US can't have that, because that would weaken the US Dollar even further.

    So the US has to control the sale of oil and natural gas, which is why US troops are guarding the CentGas Pipeline route in Afghanistan and NATO troops are not.

    The Chevron Conglomerate (formerly the UNOCAL Conglomerate -- UNOCAL, Chevron, British Petroleum and Amoco -- until Chevron bought UNOCAL and BP bought Amoco) owns the rights to 75% of the oil and natural gas in the 5 Central Asian States (thanks largely to Clinton's Secret Wars).

    The only way to get the oil and natural gas out of the 5 Central Asian States is through Russia, through Iran, through China or through Afghanistan.

    Afghanistan drew the short straw (since the US doesn't want to go to war with Russia -- at least not until it controls Central Asia -- Iran -- that's in the works and China).
     
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Huh, so, you're saying we're not in Afghanistan to save the Muslims from the Terrorists? That doesn't make any sense? I mean, just the other day FoxNews ....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Actually, that was a very nice summary, I'd like to see some rebuttals ... if there are any.
     
  20. SnowsportsSid Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Yes, I agree, that was a very nice piece Mircea. Not so sure about the closing statement though, re war with Russia and Iran - or was this said tongue in cheek?

    I would have thought war with Russia would be completely out of the question, given they have the capability to deliver nuclear payloads to the American homeland. I'm not so sure about Iran either. I know there's been a build up of rhetoric re their nuclear weapons programme, but do the American people have the stomach for another middle eastern war given the unpopularity of what happened in Iraq? I don't think there's much support for it amongst the public here in England. Perhaps another Pearl Harbour magnitude incident is required...
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So by "not really" you meant "exactly"?

    You go on to elaborate the benefits of such control and leverage - the currency oil is to be traded in a major (perhaps the major) one, but not the only one - however the contributions of corporate interests (e.g. Exxon and Chevron) and ideological interests (e.g. Strauss and Rand) to the actual strategy, tactics, and implementation of policies, are obscured by describing the whole scene in national interest terms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2011
  22. katsung47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    39
    As I have always said, China and US have secret deal. Here is one of my article written five months ago:

    645. Sri Lanka and Thailand (9/1/2010)

    Sri Lanka government had fought against its rebellion - Tamil Tigers for 30 years long. None got upper hand. The balance was broken in early 2009. The government security force launched an invasion at rebellion In January, killed the leader of Tamil Tigers and finished the war in May. The achievement was got under the support of Chinese government with its arm supply to the Sri Lanka government. Usually when such balance was broken, the other side would interfere - by international protest and increase the support to the opposite side. But this time U.S. looked on unconcerned. Tamil Tigers have become a sacrifice as a payment to China. In early 2009, Feds had planned a big operation. The most impressive event was they originally were going to kill people with Bird Flu (H5N1). When the plot failed, they created a Swine Flu (H1N1) crisis to cover up. Each time China would play an important role in the plot and would get some payment for collaboration.

    No resistance or rebellion, or terrorist group - can survive without outside support. Feds is an expert on it. They like democracy - two competitive parties. By supporting the party who promise to give them more the Feds always take advantage. When G.O.P. promised to give them war and power (patriot Act), Bush was selected to be president. The "God" also let him stay for a second term despite a big lie scandal. (W.M.D. in Iraq) Another sample is the Mujahideen. When it was used to fight against Soviet Union, it was called resistance. When the Feds need a false flag terrorist to extort American people, they change the name Mujahideen into Al Qaida though the leader is the same agent - Osama Bin Laden.

    When there is a need, asset became a sacrifice. Sri Lanka is a payment to China in 2009 operation. I think G-man played a role in that deal. Several years ago, he got US citizenship. He then became a businessman to sell Malaysia's oil palm tree to China. Selling Sri Lanka to China was one of his businesses, I think.

    Of course, Sri Lanka is a small payment. If the plot goes through, the payment would be bigger. Thailand is part of it.

    In March and April of 2009, there was a riot in Thailand. The opposition party of the Thailand organized its people (in red shirts) to block the traffic in Bangkok and surrounded the building of Prime Minister for three weeks. The protesters demand a regime change. There was a conflict between the demonstrators and the military. The casualty was more than one hundred. The riot ended on April 14, 2009. It accorded with the end of the mysterious S.A.R.S. alike pandemic. See "605. Swine Flu time table (5/20/09)". The coincidence enables me to believe Thailand was also a part of the payment to China. The opposition leader - former Prime Minister, Taxin, was thought pro-China and was reported being in China sometimes.

    This year in March, April and May, the red shirt movement rose again. Thai troops and protesters clashed, dozens dead, hundreds injured. The Thailand crisis ended like last year's because the main plot in US failed to go through.

    On 8/23 Taxin resigned his job as an economic adviser to the Cambodian government. Cambodian and Thailand government also announced to exchange their ambassador to recover the broken relationship. When I read the news I knew the main operation of this year is finished. The main event in this plot: Google withdrew from China in January; the sinking of the S. Korea warship Cheonan in March 21, the media attack on sex scandal of Vatican in April and Euro crisis took place in Greece; the arrest of Russian spy ring in June. They were so confident that the deal will go through they even put Taxin in a neighbor country so once the deal is fulfilled, their puppet could get back to Thailand as soon as possible.

    Sri Lanka is a small chip paid to China for its collaboration with the Feds. Thailand is big chip and is reserved for next deal. Of course, there is an even bigger one - Taiwan.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Its Thaksin not 'Taxin'.
     

Share This Page