• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why are the Chinese buying iraq oil if...

Maybe because the Iraqis still decide who gets their goods and natural resources?

If it went by Bush doctrine US companies would swoop in, build up the infrastructure and then reap the benefits. However reality sometimes has other plans..
 
Maybe because the Iraqis still decide who gets their goods and natural resources?

If it went by Bush doctrine US companies would swoop in, build up the infrastructure and then reap the benefits. However reality sometimes has other plans..

As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.
 
Maybe because the Iraqis still decide who gets their goods and natural resources?

If it went by Bush doctrine US companies would swoop in, build up the infrastructure and then reap the benefits. However reality sometimes has other plans..

As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.

But only after the main WMD argument fell through and the secondary objective suddenly became the one and only really important objective ;)

Boy.. this thread will end well :lol:
 
Maybe because the Iraqis still decide who gets their goods and natural resources?

If it went by Bush doctrine US companies would swoop in, build up the infrastructure and then reap the benefits. However reality sometimes has other plans..

As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.

Funny, I dont remember that line being used as a justification until a long time into it when it became clear there were no weapons of mass destruction.
 
Maybe because the Iraqis still decide who gets their goods and natural resources?

If it went by Bush doctrine US companies would swoop in, build up the infrastructure and then reap the benefits. However reality sometimes has other plans..

As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.

But only after the main WMD argument fell through and the secondary objective suddenly became the one and only really important objective ;)

Boy.. this thread will end well :lol:

Umm, I'm able to connect the dots between WMD's and a sadistic dictator. Whether he had them or not didn't matter. The goal was to liberate the country by removing him.
 
The goal unfortunately was, and is, money. Look at all the misery around the world. If people in power really wanted to make people happy and free, things would be much better. I don't believe that 5-6 dictators are more powerful than all the governments of "developed" countries.

The point is that those governments are *not* more powerful than corporations and bankers (and unfortunately, most of the time, they *are* the corporations).

Anyway, this post does not aim to stir things up and is not a reply to TheLonelySquire's posts. I just wanted to share my opinion.
 
As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.

But only after the main WMD argument fell through and the secondary objective suddenly became the one and only really important objective ;)

Boy.. this thread will end well :lol:

Umm, I'm able to connect the dots between WMD's and a sadistic dictator. Whether he had them or not didn't matter. The goal was to liberate the country by removing him.

Oh.. it actually does matter. It's good that you aren't a lawyer or even a judge because these kind of people need hard facts bfore they pass a judgement.

The same should apply to international dealings and accusations. The US acted on the Cuba Missile crisis when they actually had photos of the missiles in charge and not because someone in the White House decided to "solve" the Castro problem.

The goal to liberate Iraq was a secondary one at best.. it was amongst all the other goals to be accomplished but the initial, one and only reason, was that he had WMDs!.

Rummy knew where they were, how many etc.. please don't make me dig up a Youtube vid of the exact claim. Powell went before the UN in an eerie copy of Adlai Stevenson's speech where he tore the Soviet ambassador a new one before he showed real proof.. something Powell couldn't do convincingly.

So you can bury your head so far down into the ground as you can but the initial reason was WMDs. Since there were none to be found except a few rusted up shells from before the first war they switched reasons and pulled this "It was always about the freedom of the people!" and you are repeating it like a mantra because otherwise you'd have to acknowledge the fact the US fucked up the entire thing.
 
Laying aside Gulf War arguements, the Chinese are buying up commodities and commodity companies right and left. They are sinking HUGE amounts into building up their stocks of tangible assets and asset producers.

They're likely positioning themselves to be as much out of paper currencies and debt instruments as they can ahead of a currency crisis. They've made no secret that they don't like the dollar or Treasuries and want a new international exchange currency.
 
Laying aside Gulf War arguements, the Chinese are buying up commodities and commodity companies right and left. They are sinking HUGE amounts into building up their stocks of tangible assets and asset producers.

They're likely positioning themselves to be as much out of paper currencies and debt instruments as they can ahead of a currency crisis. They've made no secret that they don't like the dollar or Treasuries and want a new international exchange currency.

And can you blame them? They are clearly positioning themselves to become the 21st century superpower and they have all what it takes.. they just need time to develop/build it and they are doing it at a rate far faster than anybody.

Barring any catastrophic collapse of China i think we will see them on the same level as the US in a few decades (maybe not on average living standard but they have 4x or more the population).
 
Laying aside Gulf War arguements, the Chinese are buying up commodities and commodity companies right and left. They are sinking HUGE amounts into building up their stocks of tangible assets and asset producers.

They're likely positioning themselves to be as much out of paper currencies and debt instruments as they can ahead of a currency crisis. They've made no secret that they don't like the dollar or Treasuries and want a new international exchange currency.

And can you blame them? They are clearly positioning themselves to become the 21st century superpower and they have all what it takes.. they just need time to develop/build it and they are doing it at a rate far faster than anybody.

Barring any catastrophic collapse of China i think we will see them on the same level as the US in a few decades (maybe not on average living standard but they have 4x or more the population).

I wouldn't be so sure it will take all that long. The US is on the verge of a full out dollar collapse, and China is one of the main cheerleaders for it.

China repeats call for new global currency
26 June 2009 17:19:19

Commodity Online
BEIJING : Reiterating its call for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar, China’s central bank on Friday said it was a serious defect that one currency should tower over all others.

In its annual financial stability report, the Peoples Bank of China said, “An international monetary system dominated by a single sovereign currency has intensified the concentration of risk and the spread of the crisis”.

Start trading in currencies, most happening place to trade

In a veiled call for the United States not to erode the value of the dollar through excessively loose monetary and fiscal policies, the PBOC urged closer supervision of those countries that issue the main reserve currencies.

The report dusted off a call by the bank's governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, for the creation of a super-sovereign currency.

In an essay in late March, Mr. Zhou caused a stir by suggesting that the Special Drawing Right, the International Monetary Fund's unit of account, could eventually displace the dollar as the principal reserve currency.

Friday's report not only advocated a full role for the SDR but said the IMF should be entrusted with managing a portion of its member countries' foreign currency reserves.

“To avoid intrinsic shortcomings in using a sovereign currency as a reserve currency, we need to create an international reserve currency that is divorced from sovereign states and can maintain a stable value over the long term,” the report said.

Chinese officials have expressed growing concern in recent months that the big U.S. fiscal and monetary stimulus will generate inflation, handing Beijing big losses on its large portfolio of dollar-denominated bonds.

“When a national currency becomes the global price-setting currency for primary products, the trade settlement currency and the reserve currency, that national currency has great difficulty attending to both domestic monetary policy goals and the reserve currency needs of various countries.

“And the economic development model of debt-based consumption is most difficult to sustain,” the PBOC said.



http://www.commodityonline.com/futu...epeats-call-for-new-global-currency-2574.html

Also this, from an investment newsletter I got:

At the same time, top Communist party bureaucrat Li Lianzhong said: "Should we buy gold or U.S. Treasuries? The U.S. is printing dollars on a massive scale ... there is no doubt that the dollar will fall. So gold should be a better choice."

On Monday, People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan rushed to say that the nation won't change its currency reserve policy suddenly. "Our foreign-exchange reserve policy is always quite stable," Zhou said soothingly.

What the heck? Is China off its meds? No, the answer is more likely that China sees the slide it triggered in the dollar as too much, too soon. China wants more time to BUY GOLD ... and a bunch of other commodities while the dollar still has value.

Secret Moves in the Gold Market

The problem is the sheer size of China's foreign reserves - $2 TRILLION worth. If China decided to hold 5 percent of its current reserves in gold (the international average is 10 percent) it would need to buy more than 3,000 tonnes of gold - or about one full year of global production.

What do you think that would do to the gold price? It would send it through the roof!

China can't move fast - its foreign reserves are HUGE! It needs time to get everything in place - this could take years.


China has already been making secret moves in the gold market. In April, China disclosed that it had stealthily increased its holding of gold to 1,054 metric tonnes from just 600 tonnes in 2003.

That puts China's gold holdings at 1.8 percent of its foreign exchange reserves - still way, way too low! In fact, in his speech, Li cited the high share of gold in the foreign exchange reserves of the United States, Italy, Germany and France, to argue that China's gold holdings should be much higher.

What would China sell to buy gold? Probably U.S. Treasuries. China is the largest single holder of U.S. Treasuries, with $763.5 billion at the end of April, according to U.S. Treasury data.

Of course, if China sells Treasuries, that would weaken an already troubled U.S. dollar.

This would have a double-barrel effect on the price of gold - pushing gold prices up as China buys gold, and pushing the value of the dollar lower ... which in turn would push gold even higher, because gold is priced in dollars!

Official Gold Holdings
by Country*
Country Metric Tonnes Percent of Reserves
  • USA 8,133.5 78.3
  • Germany 3,412.6 69.5
  • Italy 2,451.8 66.1
  • France 2,450.7 73.0
  • China 1,054.0 1.8
  • Switzerland 1,040.1 37.1
  • Japan 765.2 2.1
  • Netherlands 612.5 61.4
  • ECB 501.4 18.3
  • Russia 536.9 4.0
* World Gold Council, June 2009

And China's not just buying gold. Just since the beginning of the year, China has purchased ...

  • Oz Minerals, the world's 2nd-largest zinc miner for $1.7 billion.
  • $20 billion worth of Rio Tinto, one of the three largest iron ore producers.
  • A big chunk of Fortescue Metals, an Australian iron ore company.
  • $46 million worth of Australia-based lead-and-zinc producer Terramin.
  • Half of Ontario's Liberty Mines, a nickel producer.
  • Verenex Energy, a Canadian oil producer operating in Libya, for $449 million.
  • A 45-percent stake in Nigeria's Akpo oil fields
.
The list goes on and on! There are too many to list here.

Why is China doing this? Its currency is hooked to the dollar (for now) and it wants to buy boatloads of commodities and natural resource companies while the dollar still has value.

So obviously, the cat was let out of the bag last week. China's actions are a lot different from what it says now.

A Race Against Time ... a Race for Gold!

But it's a race against time, as other countries around the world also press for a new super-currency - and also rush into natural resources, including base metals, oil ... and GOLD!

The SDR basket will be revised next year. Right now, it only includes the dollar, yen, euro and the pound.

It is clear that the Chinese will push to include their currency, the yuan or renminbi, in the basket. But Brazil wants a piece of the action, too!
After all, Brazil is a producer of raw materials. There is already a much deeper bond market for debt denominated in Brazil's currency, the Real.

And now the Russians are openly pushing for their currency - the ruble - as well as the other commodity currencies, the Canadian and Australian dollars, to be included in the basket.

The more other currencies go into the SDR basket, the less U.S. dollars are needed - and the more the greenback could tumble!
 
But only after the main WMD argument fell through and the secondary objective suddenly became the one and only really important objective ;)

Boy.. this thread will end well :lol:

Umm, I'm able to connect the dots between WMD's and a sadistic dictator. Whether he had them or not didn't matter. The goal was to liberate the country by removing him.

Oh.. it actually does matter. It's good that you aren't a lawyer or even a judge because these kind of people need hard facts bfore they pass a judgement.

The same should apply to international dealings and accusations. The US acted on the Cuba Missile crisis when they actually had photos of the missiles in charge and not because someone in the White House decided to "solve" the Castro problem.

The goal to liberate Iraq was a secondary one at best.. it was amongst all the other goals to be accomplished but the initial, one and only reason, was that he had WMDs!.

Rummy knew where they were, how many etc.. please don't make me dig up a Youtube vid of the exact claim. Powell went before the UN in an eerie copy of Adlai Stevenson's speech where he tore the Soviet ambassador a new one before he showed real proof.. something Powell couldn't do convincingly.

So you can bury your head so far down into the ground as you can but the initial reason was WMDs. Since there were none to be found except a few rusted up shells from before the first war they switched reasons and pulled this "It was always about the freedom of the people!" and you are repeating it like a mantra because otherwise you'd have to acknowledge the fact the US fucked up the entire thing.

Let's say you're right. You're not, but let's say you are. Was removing this sadistic dictator a good or a bad thing?
 
As did President Bush. Stealing Iraqi oill was not among his objectives. Giving millions of Iraqis freedom for the first time was.


:guffaw:


I guess some-one's forgotten the excused that were used to justify the invasion (involvement in 9/11, WMDs etc) then came the liberation.

Of course that's after elements in Iraq wasnted to topple saddam in 1988/89 but were hung out to dry by the Bush Administration of the time.
 
Also this, from an investment newsletter I got:

[...]Why is China doing this? Its currency is hooked to the dollar (for now) and it wants to buy boatloads of commodities and natural resource companies while the dollar still has value.

So obviously, the cat was let out of the bag last week. China's actions are a lot different from what it says now.
[...]

Well, we'll see if they do this, but ...
China signals end of stockpiling
John Garnaut, Beijing
June 30, 2009

A RECORD-BREAKING run of commodities exports to China that has sustained the Australian economy may be set to end, with Beijing officials and advisers announcing an end to "strategic" stockpiling, and massive iron ore contracts likely to expire today.

A key state planning official has signalled a halt to government buying of copper, aluminium and other high-value metals because prices have risen too high.

"We don't anticipate that the country will continue to build its reserves," said Yu Dongming, the head of the metallurgical department of the National Development and Reform Commission.

China's resource buying spree helped Australia be the only significant economy to record overall export growth since the global financial crisis began.

Chinese buying has more than offset precipitous falls in orders from Japan, Korea and Taiwan, and helped resources and share prices to recover.
 
Also this, from an investment newsletter I got:

[...]Why is China doing this? Its currency is hooked to the dollar (for now) and it wants to buy boatloads of commodities and natural resource companies while the dollar still has value.

So obviously, the cat was let out of the bag last week. China's actions are a lot different from what it says now.
[...]

Well, we'll see if they do this, but ...
China signals end of stockpiling
John Garnaut, Beijing
June 30, 2009

A RECORD-BREAKING run of commodities exports to China that has sustained the Australian economy may be set to end, with Beijing officials and advisers announcing an end to "strategic" stockpiling, and massive iron ore contracts likely to expire today.

A key state planning official has signalled a halt to government buying of copper, aluminium and other high-value metals because prices have risen too high.

"We don't anticipate that the country will continue to build its reserves," said Yu Dongming, the head of the metallurgical department of the National Development and Reform Commission.

China's resource buying spree helped Australia be the only significant economy to record overall export growth since the global financial crisis began.

Chinese buying has more than offset precipitous falls in orders from Japan, Korea and Taiwan, and helped resources and share prices to recover.

Yes, we will see, one way or the other.

Consider though, that having JUST been caught (again) pulling for a commodity-backed international unit of exchange, and NOT wanting their dollar denominated assets to tank (while they still hold them), this is EXACTLY the move I would expect: stop, let the news cycle die down, and quietly start up again in a few weeks or months.

Also, watch out for "proxy plays": purchases that ultimately source to the Chinese via third parties.
 
Umm, I'm able to connect the dots between WMD's and a sadistic dictator. Whether he had them or not didn't matter. The goal was to liberate the country by removing him.

Oh.. it actually does matter. It's good that you aren't a lawyer or even a judge because these kind of people need hard facts bfore they pass a judgement.

The same should apply to international dealings and accusations. The US acted on the Cuba Missile crisis when they actually had photos of the missiles in charge and not because someone in the White House decided to "solve" the Castro problem.

The goal to liberate Iraq was a secondary one at best.. it was amongst all the other goals to be accomplished but the initial, one and only reason, was that he had WMDs!.

Rummy knew where they were, how many etc.. please don't make me dig up a Youtube vid of the exact claim. Powell went before the UN in an eerie copy of Adlai Stevenson's speech where he tore the Soviet ambassador a new one before he showed real proof.. something Powell couldn't do convincingly.

So you can bury your head so far down into the ground as you can but the initial reason was WMDs. Since there were none to be found except a few rusted up shells from before the first war they switched reasons and pulled this "It was always about the freedom of the people!" and you are repeating it like a mantra because otherwise you'd have to acknowledge the fact the US fucked up the entire thing.

Let's say you're right. You're not, but let's say you are. Was removing this sadistic dictator a good or a bad thing?

Of course it was a good thing in the long run but you are missing the point. You as an american citizen have been lied to and misled about the reasons for the war.. Bush and his gang didn't step up to the cameras and said "You know.. this fucker here has broken numerous UN resolutions over the years and he's systematically oppressing and torturing his people. He's also done xyz etcblabla so what do you say we let loose our military machine and remove him from power to free the Iraqi people!"

Instead he said "OMGWTF.. he's got WMDs and he can use them any second to attack us!!! W have to find those WMDs and kick his ass!!"

The government relied solely on the WMD argument as the "heavy hitter" argument but as soon as it became evident that there were none they switched their argumentation and now that Freedom for Iraq mantra is the official version and all the right ever uses. Confront them with the WMD topic and they'll either sweep it under the rug or try to turn it around by mentioning the Freedom shtick.

You are the perfect example.. not once have you really commented on the WMDs.. all you repeat like a broken record, is the Freedom argument. Get a new record man.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top