Iranian revolt Explained - Wake Up!

Russia clinches gas contract with Azerbaijan

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AFP) — Russian gas giant Gazprom clinched a deal Monday to buy natural gas from ex-Soviet Azerbaijan, as Moscow seeks to extend its grip on potential European energy supplies in the resource-rich Caspian Sea.

The agreement was signed by Gazprom chief executive Alexei Miller and Azerbaijani national energy company chief Rovnag Abdullayev in the presence of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev.

"I think that we will be able to take this work further, in view of greater opportunities and greater volumes, which will be increased," Medvedev told journalists in Baku.

So it begins....

Iraqi oil for China if they support sanctions on N Korea
China Gains in Tangled Bidding at Iraq Oil Auction

But only one contract was agreed to on Tuesday. That went to a pairing of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation for the largest field on offer: Rumaila, near the southern city of Basra, which has proven reserves of 17 billion barrels. Once the bid is accepted by the oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, Parliament must issue final approval.

China 'deeply committed' to North Korea sanctions: US official

WASHINGTON (AFP) — China has given its word to the United States that it is "deeply committed" to implementing tough new nuclear sanctions against North Korea, a senior US official said Friday.

The official also said that as part of the effort to put a straitjacket on Pyongyang after its latest nuclear test and missile launches, Washington had set up an inter-agency team to coordinate the sanctions with other nations.

"They are certainly saying quite strenuously that they are deeply committed to full implementation of the provisions that are in the resolution," the senior administration official said, referring to China.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


That's funny. China knows Obama is weak, they are playing nice to get that oil bid, once they have it, their "deep commitment" will enter shallow waters, lol. Obama has proven, to me anyway, that he is a weak president. Whether you like the idea of a weak American president, or hate it, it's how it is.

reply to post by 27jd


Hey thanks for your "OPINION"
All's fair in love, war and oil.

Lots of good ideas and discussion since I last looked.

OT brought up VietNam. I remember something brought up at the time about natural gas fields off the VN coast.

rogue brought up about young Americans. I can remember 40+ years ago family members playing board simulation games, where one actually manuevered world armies around using little game pieces on a world map, not just to reenact a battle but to see "what would happen if..." Can't remember any names. With apologies to my sons, but the "simulation games" nowadays seem to consist of orks and dorks.

Interesting about Georgia. But their pres is still in power I think. And despite John McCain's war of words, France took care of the matter. The article also mentioned tanks, but I remember reading somewhere about the Canadian military saying they found out that tanks were indeed needed in Afghanistan.

In my favorite movie, 2001 A Space Odyssey, primates become human over a fight over resources, food and water, using a bone as a weapon.
Bottom line, humans are still in competition over resources. Nations need them, and corporations need to control them and sell them.

Keep the info coming!

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Hey thanks for your "OPINION"
All's fair in love, war and oil.

I'm not sure how to take that comment, do i use the little quotes too much?...

I do agree about fairness in oil though, except when our country is trying to get it, then it's not fair and we're evil.

reply to post by 27jd


I don't know
"After Talks with Pentagon officials"
Sounds like something may have gotten them spooked.

China says North Korea a "serious concern"

www.reuters.com

BEIJING (Reuters) - China shares the region's "serious concerns" about a nuclear North Korea and urged all parties to keep negotiating, a senior Chinese military officer said Wednesday after talks with Pentagon officials.

Lieutenant-General Ma Xiaotian did not announce any new measures against Pyongyang, but said Beijing was concerned about North Korea, which staged a second nuclear test on May 25, prompting new U.N. sanctions.

"For the regional security of northeast Asia, the North Korean nuclear issue is not only a serious concern for the United States and neighboring South Korea a

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Iraqi oil for China if they support sanctions on N Korea

Gotta love it!
I can see this. A bargaining chip. OK. As the cards are played, the game changes and becomes more interesting at times. New plays.

reply to post by desert


Remember the US and Venezuela have reestablished "Full diplomatic ties" So much for China's major influence in the Americas and their sole interest in that country.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Really? At this point, they are just "words", lol...

From your source:

Lieutenant-General Ma Xiaotian did not announce any new measures against Pyongyang, but said Beijing was concerned about North Korea, which staged a second nuclear test on May 25, prompting new U.N. sanctions.

That says it all, to me....more talk, do a search into articles going back as long as this has been going on, you'll see China "sharing grave concern" about NK's activities since the start. When I see action, i'll start to believe it, as of now nothing "new" here...

[edit on 30-6-2009 by 27jd]

the first 2 Oil contracts in Iraq are British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corporation. most of the bidders are not US companies.

Doesnt that seem funny

Originally posted by werk71
the first 2 Oil contracts in Iraq are British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corporation. most of the bidders are not US companies.

Doesnt that seem funny

Some day someone will explain exactly what the US got out of going into Iraq. Seems the Iraqi government isn't exactly the puppet state everyone said it would be.

I keep being told they are going into these countries to grab all the oil.

Some evidence of that would be of interest.


Mike

reply to post by 27jd

US provides missiles to South Korea

www.presstv.ir

The United States will supply South Korea with 40 surface-to-air missiles to enhance its military might against threats originating from the North amid growing tensions in the region.

Quoting military sources, Seoul's Yonhap News Agency reported Sunday that the Defense Ministry would obtain the missiles for an Aegis destroyer in July.

Meanwhile, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-Hee claimed Tuesday in a parliamentary hearing that Pyongyang was secretly enriching uranium to advance its nuclear program.

With all that is going on China getting desperately needed oil deals with IRAQ Just in the nick of time and no obvious protest or mention of concern out of Beijing over recent US/Allie movement I seriously believe a deal was made. IRAQI oil in exchange for cooperation of The North Korean issue.

This will work out for the benefit of both nations.

reply to post by mmiichael


I always thought that one of the main reasons was to make a stack of money for Dick Cheneys buddies at Haliburton.

Pre WW2, European nations flexed their muscles around the world. After WW2 the United States found more areas in which to do that. It came out of the war stronger than the European countries, so had the resources to take over as the strongman.

Iraq, a war of choice, was a chance (gamble really!) to muscle militarily into that part of the world for geopolitical reasons. Military bases and (huge) embassies could be built. In what other country in that region could we have done that?

You know, I remember watching a talk show after the Iraq war had began, where a tired, exasperated looking general declared that, indeed, the "national interest" was oil! It wasn't 'cause they hated our freedoms, etc. What he was talking about was having a stable source for a natural resource which the US runs on...petro chemical. We could use it and determine who else could use it. Look, armies used to run on bread alone, not so anymore. A military requires fuel, and lots of it, whether that military is from the US, China, etc.

We talk of black military hardware projects, but what really runs this world (with the judicious use of military) are the "black" diplomatic deals we do with other countries. Military use means winners and losers; diplomacy goes for win-win.
Bleeding heart liberals decry dealing with countries that don't have good records on human rights. Bleeding heart conservatives decry deals with countries who they see as being "socialistic" or "communist/Marxist". In the end, these opinions don't always matter. Just as, in the dark, the looks of who you go to bed with doesn't matter, the countries we go to bed with don't matter in the dark either.

Who was helping communist, repressive China before Nixon "opened the door"? Oil companies.

Perhaps the best thing the US could do for itself and the world is to figure out how to get the most out of ALL forms of energy usage and resource management (such as water), and share it with the world. Then we can decide to fight over other things. Until then, we'll go down in history as just another example of a failed empire.
If we truly are a "Christian" nation, as some would want us to be called, then we must remember the parable of the talents. If we don't make the best use of our God given rights and resources, then we have failed Big Time.

I'm still waiting to see how the US somehow got cheaper oil from going into Iraq. The cost of the semi-war and occupation would totally offset any gain above just conventional purchasing.

The politics are complex. The Bush family undoubtedly wanted to take care of old business, getting rid of Saddam. Being in Iraq and Afghanistan worked towards establishing a firmer foot in the region, in the process intimidating Iran.

Various pipeline plans also centred on Iraq/s compliance.

Yes companies like Haliburton benefited hugely as well as other war profiteers. But the hard costs and personnel losses were also huge. Arguably another war could have been contrived elsewhere with more gain if that was the thinking.

Easy to dismiss, but the hope really was to ignite a movement towards more tractable representative governments that would be more accomadating to Western trade and other interests. The people in the region, particularly Iraq, would be better off with more progressive administrations instead of their repressive monarchies and thugs like Saddam.

It may happen one day, though it doesn't look too encouraging now. We project Western values on the Muslim World, wanting personal freedoms, escape from religious tyranny, the options of democratic reforms. They don't see things that way.

Exploitation by paternalistic leadership protecting them from their neighbours and the outside world is what they want in their governments.
They think they are getting that.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


Gone are the days of "Colonial" Type of rule...

It's too expensive!

It's cheaper and more profitable to let them pay for their own administration and just tie them up with legal contracts and political deals. I dont think you'll see the US getting any "Great" oil deals, But it will have influence on who will continue to get Iraqi oil.

reply to post by SLAYER69


The US has been supplying S Korea with military equipment for a long time, I really don't see why China would care about a few SAMs. Now, if they were setting up missile defense systems in SK, and China remained quiet, I'd agree that they've been silenced. Not trying to argue, I just don't see that as significant enough to signal any real change in Chinese policy. I guess time will tell...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Gone are the days of "Colonial" Type of rule...

It's too expensive!

It's cheaper and more profitable to let them pay for their own administration and just tie them up with legal contracts and political deals. I dont think you'll see the US getting any "Great" oil deals, But it will have influence on who will continue to get Iraqi oil.

I agree. We see the Chinese as well as the IMF engineering resource deals with totally corrupt African regimes. Money is loaned which is scarfed away. The collateral is the resource contracts. So whole countries are willingly sold into neo-colonial servitude.

Who wants to adminster a ravaged nation? Not worth the cost and effort.

Mike

reply to post by warrenb

It's interesting to see the mainstream media finally talking about this, but as the reporters and the editors point out, this could be a CIA-"sanctioned" story.
The story itself goes over the basics but doesn't really say much about why the CIA was put up to this, or why they have been involved in any of the other covert destabilization projects they have carried out.

Slayer's post gives compelling strategic reasons but a) we don't know for sure this is the reason and b) it doesn't explain the apparent thirst for this kind of black op versus using more conventional diplomatic channels.

I much prefer to study the data leaked to us by "insiders." I think it gives a better picture of the complexity of the scene and of the struggles that apparently go on between the various major players. Though many would like to think that the insider data is actually more accurate, I don't see any reliable way to verify that.

We should also keep in mind how destructive of human life these tactics really are, not just because of the work of terrorists but also due to the lies being told to the public at large and to politicians in particular.

In other words, besides the obvious moral reasons for condemning these operations, there are also ethical reasons for condemning them. I don't see any "higher good" in them. That's why I support those calling for a fundamental shift in how society thinks and operates, regardless of how unrealistic it might be to expect that such a change could ever occur.

Society has tolerated a huge amount of broad public misinformation down through history. I think we are at a point where there is a compelling rationale for operating at a higher level of truth than has been the custom. Either way, the planet may not survive. But that shouldn't keep any of us from asking ourselves: how much do we value freedom?