Go Back   CurlTalk > Life > Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-20-2005, 11:12 AM   #21
 
Cherish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Default

Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil!

It's totally worth going in there:

Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer
__________________
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler - Albert Einstein
Cherish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2005, 11:21 AM   #22
 
Amneris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherish
Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil!

It's totally worth going in there:

Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer
Bring on the bombs!!!!!
What about Castro... is he OK because all Cuba has is cigars, coffee, rum and some cheesy pop music with awesome beats?
What about China? What can we get from them?
__________________
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Amneris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2005, 12:21 PM   #23
 
Cherish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amneris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherish
Oh wait... I just checked, Sudan does have oil!

It's totally worth going in there:

Peaceful Sudan set to be a major oil producer
Bring on the bombs!!!!!
What about Castro... is he OK because all Cuba has is cigars, coffee, rum and some cheesy pop music with awesome beats?
What about China? What can we get from them?
Hee hee!
__________________
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler - Albert Einstein
Cherish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2005, 05:19 PM   #24
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,275
Default

Oh, boy. I just realized there was a politic section on nc.com. Not good. I don't need another excuse to procrastinate.

"Peaceful Sudan?" Is this article a joke? Has anyone heard of the genocide going on in Dafur?

Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
__________________________________________________ _________

July 20, 2005
Joined at the Hip
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


On the question of whether China's Cnooc oil company should be permitted by the U.S. government to purchase the U.S. oil and gas company Unocal, my view is very simple: let the market rule. Oil is fungible. It is all one global market. And if China wants to overpay for a second-tier U.S. energy company, that's China's business. Anyway, the more starved Americans are for oil, the sooner we will adopt alternatives and get off this drug once and for all.

If I seem uninterested in this matter, I am. Because I do not think the important issue is who owns Unocal. The important issue is whether America and China are drifting into a dangerous confrontation over geoeconomics. How so? Well, in brief, the Chinese and U.S. economies have become totally intertwined. While we have been focused on 9/11 and Iraq, China and America have become, in economic terms, Siamese twins.

You know that cheap mortgage you just got? Well, who do you think subsidized it? In many ways it was China. Americans don't save anymore, and import more than they export. Normally, a nation that did that as long and lavishly as the U.S. has would have to raise interest rates to get other countries to hold its currency. But America has not had to do that, in part because China has been willing to hold most of the dollars it has been accumulating - gained from all the goods it is selling America - despite the low interest paid on those dollars and the fact that they have been depreciating against other major currencies.

How come? Call it the Tiananmen-Texas Bargain. After Tiananmen, China's leaders struck an implicit bargain with their people, argued Steven Weber, director of Berkeley's Institute of International Studies. "The bargain is that China's voters give up the right to vote, and the Chinese government guarantees China's middle class 9 percent annual economic growth. China's political stability today depends on that bargain."

The Texas side of that bargain came from the Bush team. For a long time, it ignored China's undervalued currency so China could sell us lots of cheap stuff and would continue holding our devaluing dollars and helping to keep U.S. interest rates low. Our buying binge helped keep China's workers employed and its leaders in power. Their holding our depreciating dollars helped you buy a house with no money down. We've been in symbiotic relationships like this before with Western Europe and Japan during the cold war, but they were allies and democracies, so we could adjust imbalances more easily. Not so with China.

We are Siamese twins, but most unlikely ones - joined at the hip, but not identical. That's a problem. Because we now need to adjust the Tiananmen-Texas bargain. So many U.S. dollars and jobs are flowing to China, it is becoming politically and economically unsustainable for the Bush team. Hedge funds have made huge speculative bets around the T-T bargain. We need China to revalue its currency upward against the dollar, so China buys more stuff from us and we buy less stuff from China.

But China's foreign exchange reserves today are nearly $750 billion and heading for $1 trillion - most in U.S. Treasury notes. If China is compelled by the U.S. to revalue its currency, and effectively devalue the dollar further, Beijing will take a big hit on all of its dollar reserves - especially since most experts say the dollar has to be devalued by 30 to 40 percent against the Chinese currency to have any impact on the trade balance. That would also be likely to affect the dollar's value against other currencies and create pressure for inflation and higher interest rates in the U.S.

"If the dollar falls and U.S. interest rates rise, it could cause a recession or stagflation in America," Professor Weber said. "But if the Chinese currency rises too far too fast and triggers unemployment, it could cause a revolution against the Communist Party. ... We might see our dollar policy as a market adjustment, but they could see it as an attempt at regime change."

As I said, the issue is not Unocal. The real issue is that we have slipped into a symbiotic relationship with another major power that is neither a free market nor a democracy. We have both grown dependent on that relationship - the U.S. for cheap goods and cheap mortgages, and China for high employment and regime stability. We now have to adjust the bargain at the heart of that relationship. Whether we can do that delicately, without destabilizing Beijing or the global economy, could be the big geopolitical story of 2005.



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top
Costenya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 06:24 AM   #25
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

"Anyway, the more starved Americans are for oil, the sooner we will adopt alternatives and get off this drug once and for all"

I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Friedman on this one. We should have been seriously developing alternate fuel sources in the 1970s. If we haven't done it by now, we never will.
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 07:29 AM   #26
 
curlyarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 15,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Costenya

Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
__________________________________________________ _________
I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch!

I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.
__________________

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
curlyarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 10:09 AM   #27
 
Scarlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 12,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyara
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costenya

Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
__________________________________________________ _________
I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch!

I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.
On what is this perception based?
__________________
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 12:31 AM   #28
 
Cherish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Default

I was only half kidding around about oil in this thread as well. Yeah... I do really think that oil is part of it so for future reference:

Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.


We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming
Mr Falah Aljibury
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.


Former Shell Oil USA chief stalled plans to privatise Iraq's oil industry
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."


Amy Jaffee says oil companies fear a privatisation would exclude foreign firms
Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

View segments of Iraq oil plans at www.GregPalast.com

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".

Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will be broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.

Newsnight is broadcast every weekday at 10.30pm on BBC Two in the UK.

You can also watch the programme online - available for 24 hours after broadcast - from the Newsnight website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm[/quote]
__________________
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler - Albert Einstein
Cherish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2005, 07:59 AM   #29
 
curlyarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 15,767
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet
Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyara
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costenya

Amneris, with regards to China, today's op-ed from the NY Times might interest you. Personally, I think China is going to shock our azzes off when they do a 1-2 punch with their military might. China has the largest army in the world. They could annhilate us on foot. The only thing that is holding us down is our technology.
__________________________________________________ _________
I agree with you Costenya. As the saying around here goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch!

I also personally believe China could kick our butts if they wanted to, and I also believe that their sheer numbers are the reason. If they didn't have that strength we probably would have "occupied" that country long ago.
On what is this perception based?
if you're asking why i believe China could kick our butts....i bolded why i think this. the cold war was all about communism and long ago china was (and still is communist). from studying the history of the cold war, we were only working our way around to invading china to kill the communist threat anyway.
__________________

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
curlyarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 03:27 PM   #30
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 195
Send a message via ICQ to ManthaJay Send a message via AIM to ManthaJay
Default Fear

What disgusts me the most about the administration is the way they use fear to justify their agenda. The war was definitely about the oil and the billions of dollars in post war contracts awarded to American companies. The 'spread of democracy' is only supposed to give us another ally to extort for oil, and terrorism made a convenient excuse for Bush to justify his war to the American people. If Sept. 11th hadn't happened, he NEVER would have been able to sell this war. If he was truly noble about freeing the Iraqi people, why isn't he taking an active interest in every oppressed nation in the world.

As for China, we won't even have technological superiority the way things are going, given the fact that the US educates a significant percentage of their scientists. For example, the incoming class of graduate Materials Engineers here at UF is almost 50% Chinese, and I know such percentages exist in most other engineering departments here, and at other schools. Americans just aren't producing engineers in the quantities that the Chinese are, and we can't argue about our better educational system since its our educational system educating a significant portion of their engineers. Its extremely depressing...maybe 10% of this class is American.
ManthaJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Trending Topics[-]hide

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com