Rattle wrote:

Two things that have been said often apply here. First, Chinese foreign policy consists of one word: oil. Second, its likely that any conflicts with China would be fought out on an economic battlefield.

So what does everything think? Should we be concerned about this?

The problem with the Chinese argument is that there is an asymmetric economic investment risk here. In the event of conflict -- or a poorly brewed pot of tea for the party chairman -- China would be all too likely to nationalize whatever resources it wanted. The complaint already exists that even private enterprise is guided by the government; just add direct policy initiative. China, like Russia, can nationalize foreign investments because they are so obviously growth markets that foreign investors are willing to accept the risk. And CNOOC is already state-run.

The US can not afford to seize investments because of our governance and because our markets are the best in the world because of foreign investor confidence. The US Treasury is considered a risk-less investment and the global markets would completely meltdown if there was ever even a whiff that the US Government was no longer playing by honorable rules. And the US economy is about the least robust economy without the global capital markets.

So if China decided CNOOC should shut down Unocal's operations but preserve the assets, we couldn't do much. And the US couldn't reciprocate by buying PetroChina and doing the same -- PetroChina wouldn't last long as a company with non-government owned assets.

It makes me nervous. Particularly that China is so vehemently attempting to pretend that this isn't a problem, it is just a business transaction. They are spilling their propaganda machine onto the global stage, where they expect everyone to know that what they say is unlikely true but go along with it anyway.

Ever play a strategy game where a player telegraphs their intentions early and there still isn't much you can do about it? It sucks. Like watching our trade deficits and fiscal policy.

Rattle wrote:

Two things that have been said often apply here. First, Chinese foreign policy consists of one word: oil. Second, its likely that any conflicts with China would be fought out on an economic battlefield.

So what does everything think? Should we be concerned about this?

There is a book that talks about China's energy grabs. This book was written before 9/11, with half the book talking about oil, and half talking about water.

The South China sea has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves in the world. The 1st is of course the Middle East (inside which the largest is on the "border" between Omar, Yeman, and Saudi Arabia. The 2nd largest in the gulf is in Iraq). The 2nd largest proven reserve in the world is the Caspian Sea. The book (remember, pre-9/11) mentions Hamid Karzai, and attempts by the US to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, including our deals with the Taliban.

I'll come back to that, on to China. The UN has resolutions stating countries have mineral rights for 200 miles off their coasts. Lets look at that map here

China has been claiming all these islands in the middle of the SCS, because they desire all this oil. These "islands" are covered by the tides for 3 months of the year! China basically claims the whole SCS. The author lists something like 13 or so military conflicts through 2000 between naval ships of the countries bordering the SCS. China has even invaded and controls some islands that belong to the Philippines. The author suggests that China isn't building its navy to invade Taiwan, but to control the SCS.

Now, frame this in world politics. China is our largest enemy right now. They are advanced rapidly both technologically and economically. They have a huge standing army and their needs for oil are increasing at a very large rate, and their engery demands will surpass the US in 30 years. It is clear what the Iraq war is about: securing vital oil resources that we need to remain a super power. Human rights and "democracy" are just as worthless of an excuse as Germany saying it invaded Poland because of Polish saboteurs.

Acidus wrote:

Rattle wrote:

Two things that have been said often apply here. First, Chinese foreign policy consists of one word: oil. Second, its likely that any conflicts with China would be fought out on an economic battlefield.

So what does everything think? Should we be concerned about this?

There is a book that talks about China's energy grabs. This book was written before 9/11, with half the book talking about oil, and half talking about water.

The South China sea has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves in the world. The 1st is of course the Middle East (inside which the largest is on the "border" between Omar, Yeman, and Saudi Arabia. The 2nd largest in the gulf is in Iraq). The 2nd largest proven reserve in the world is the Caspian Sea. The book (remember, pre-9/11) mentions Hamid Karzai, and attempts by the US to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, including our deals with the Taliban.

I'll come back to that, on to China. The UN has resolutions stating countries have mineral rights for 200 miles off their coasts. Lets look at that map here

China has been claiming all these islands in the middle of the SCS, because they desire all this oil. These "islands" are covered by the tides for 3 months of the year! China basically claims the whole SCS. The author lists something like 13 or so military conflicts through 2000 between naval ships of the countries bordering the SCS. China has even invaded and controls some islands that belong to the Philippines. The author suggests that China isn't building its navy to invade Taiwan, but to control the SCS.

Now, frame this in world politics. China is our largest enemy right now. They are advanced rapidly both technologically and economically. They have a huge standing army and their needs for oil are increasing at a very large rate, and their engery demands will surpass the US in 30 years. It is clear what the Iraq war is about: securing vital oil resources that we need to remain a super power. Human rights and "democracy" are just as worthless of an excuse as Germany saying it invaded Poland because of Polish saboteurs.

Acidus, you are idealistic and consumed by conspiracy theories. Has it ever occurred to you that an international action can have multiple benefits? Iraq is better off without Hussein. They are better off as a democracy and cheaper gasoline sounds like a great tradeoff. After all, we spent a few hundred billion dollars on the war effort. We could have approached this peaceably with places such as the EU or Australia, but when a hostile rogue nation cannot come to the table in a civilized manner, they do not deserve to exist on this planet in that form. They need a new mouthpiece, as it were. When we are done, the world will be a better place. These changes are inevitable. You need to see things from more than one limited perspective.

Vile wrote:

Acidus, you are idealistic and consumed by conspiracy theories. Has it ever occurred to you that an international action can have multiple benefits? Iraq is better off without Hussein. They are better off as a democracy and cheaper gasoline sounds like a great tradeoff. After all, we spent a few hundred billion dollars on the war effort. We could have approached this peaceably with places such as the EU or Australia, but when a hostile rogue nation cannot come to the table in a civilized manner, they do not deserve to exist on this planet in that form. They need a new mouthpiece, as it were. When we are done, the world will be a better place. These changes are inevitable. You need to see things from more than one limited perspective.

Vile, this is the best arguement I have ever seen you make! In fact, I agree with most of your points. It is extremely difficult to have a successful UN-like body when not everyone plays by the rules. Having people like Saddam certain makes things much hard to deal with, and sometimes it makes sense to take your marbles and go home. I don't deny Iraq/the World is better without Saddam in power. I believe it will be very difficult to meet our energy demands. I can understand (but not condone) America invading to protect vital national intersts

What pisses me off is the continued denials of the Bush administration about the reasons for war. Don't piss on my face and tell me its raining. Don't feed me bullshit about UN violations or "bringing democracy" when we ignore Israel and Saudi Arabia. After 1700+ dead Americans and $200+ billion, the president needs to come clean.

Acidus wrote:

Vile wrote:

Acidus, you are idealistic and consumed by conspiracy theories. Has it ever occurred to you that an international action can have multiple benefits? Iraq is better off without Hussein. They are better off as a democracy and cheaper gasoline sounds like a great tradeoff. After all, we spent a few hundred billion dollars on the war effort. We could have approached this peaceably with places such as the EU or Australia, but when a hostile rogue nation cannot come to the table in a civilized manner, they do not deserve to exist on this planet in that form. They need a new mouthpiece, as it were. When we are done, the world will be a better place. These changes are inevitable. You need to see things from more than one limited perspective.

Vile, this is the best arguement I have ever seen you make! In fact, I agree with most of your points. It is extremely difficult to have a successful UN-like body when not everyone plays by the rules. Having people like Saddam certain makes things much hard to deal with, and sometimes it makes sense to take your marbles and go home. I don't deny Iraq/the World is better without Saddam in power. I believe it will be very difficult to meet our energy demands. I can understand (but not condone) America invading to protect vital national intersts

What pisses me off is the continued denials of the Bush administration about the reasons for war. Don't piss on my face and tell me its raining. Don't feed me bullshit about UN violations or "bringing democracy" when we ignore Israel and Saudi Arabia. After 1700+ dead Americans and $200+ billion, the president needs to come clean.

If you know the real reasons for the US invasion of Iraq, then good for you. I'm inclined to agree with you, in fact. However, let's examine the US right now. Then let's examine Israel and Saudi Arabia. If President Bush were to publicly announce that this was an oil war, then this extremist, polarized version of modern America would throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. We would have faced an era of inaction. Now, I feel that the primary motivation for the Iraq war was to strengthen the region's bond to the rest of the world. If we stabilized Iraq, North Korea and Iran, then we have eliminated all nations that pose a direct threat to world peace in the long term. At the point at which the EU, The USA, the Eastern Middle East, Eastern Asia and Australia can stand together in civility, then they can all put the screws to Israel, Darfur, the former Burma, Saudi Arabia, et. al. to clean up their acts or face a cleaning at the consensus of the rest of the world. With a proven track record of dealing with dangerous, despotic nations with the gloves off, these countries would do well to listen to the world. At the point this all plays out, we could conceivably move towards a world without international war (Civil war i... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Acidus wrote:
It is clear what the Iraq war is about: securing vital oil resources that we need to remain a super power. Human rights and "democracy" are just as worthless of an excuse as Germany saying it invaded Poland because of Polish saboteurs.

Is it? This has been a favorite theory of the left since the start but I have never found it particularly compelling. The logic is:

1. Bush says there is an imminent threat that Saddam will give WMD to Al'Q.
2. Turns out there probably wasn't a significant amount of WMD and the connections between Saddam and Al'Q were tenuous at best.
3. The real reason for the war MUST be [insert my favorite conspiracy theory here].

Obviously, 3 does not follow from 2, regardless of what 3 is. 3 must have its own justification which exists independently from the validity or invalidity of 1.

In fact, I don't think taking over Iraq would have significantly reduced our price for Iraqi oil, if all other things were equal. The primary reason the oil wasn't available is because the international community wasn't buying it from Saddam, because Saddam was a problem. If this was all just a greedy resource grab we could have simply not embargoed him in the first place and the resource would be far more available then it is now. We embargoed him because he was a problem. Ergo, even if we really DID go in there to free up the oil, it was really about Saddam, and not about the oil per say. Were Saddam not a bastard there would have been no need for a "resource grab."

I think 1 is oversimplified. I'm not convinced that the war was justified. However, I'm not convinced it wasn't either. The trouble with the dialog is that no one on the right is willing to accept 2, and everyone on the left is convinced of 3. I think the reality is that 1 was not totally unreasonalbe but not compelling enough to justify a war, and that 3 is totally unreasonable, but because we can't let both theories go we can't really have a national dialog about what the hell we ARE actually doing.

And this has gone on long enough now that it really doesn't matter anymore. The damage is done. We're in there. And frankly, we need to stay engaged until the situation is sustainable. It doesn't matter why we went in the first place. We cannot simply withdraw because we decide we're no longer happy with our original justification.

I think the recent Senate hearing and Bush's statement which was discussed here was orchestrated to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for domestic security. I don't think that after all of this, people in South Carolina are now suddenly wondering whether we ought to be in there, nor do I think the Republicans would be taking such a sentiment seriously if it weren't in their interest to do so. You're going to hear more about how the American people are getting tired of Iraq. You might even see a return of the protests. This is how we're going to negotiate with the Iraqi's. They rightly think its our mess to clean up, but if we're unwilling to do that they have to do it or live in it. They'll do it.

Our next problem will be keeping them from hating us for making them do it.

Rattle wrote:

Two things that have been said often apply here. First, Chinese foreign policy consists of one word: oil. Second, its likely that any conflicts with China would be fought out on an economic battlefield.

So what does everything think? Should we be concerned about this?

There is a book that talks about China's energy grabs. This book was written before 9/11, with half the book talking about oil, and half talking about water.

The South China sea has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves in the world. The 1st is of course the Middle East (inside which the largest is on the "border" between Omar, Yeman, and Saudi Arabia. The 2nd largest in the gulf is in Iraq). The 2nd largest proven reserve in the world is the Caspian Sea. The book (remember, pre-9/11) mentions Hamid Karzai, and attempts by the US to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, including our deals with the Taliban.

I'll come back to that, on to China. The UN has resolutions stating countries have mineral rights for 200 miles off their coasts. Lets look at that map here

China has been claiming all these islands in the middle of the SCS, because they desire all this oil. These "islands" are covered by the tides for 3 months of the year! China basically claims the whole SCS. The author lists something like 13 or so military conflicts through 2000 between naval ships of the countries bordering the SCS. China has even invaded and controls some islands that belong to the Philippines. The author suggests that China isn't building its navy to invade Taiwan, but to control the SCS.

Now, frame this in world politics. China is our largest enemy right now. They are advanced rapidly both technologically and economically. They have a huge standing army and their needs for oil are increasing at a very large rate, and their engery demands will surpass the US in 30 years. It is clear what the Iraq war is about: securing vital oil resources that we need to remain a super power. Human rights and "democracy" are just as worthless of an excuse as Germany saying it invaded Poland because of Polish saboteurs.

skullaria wrote:

Chinese state-controlled oil and gas company CNOOC Ltd. is waging a high-stakes public relations campaign to focus its bid for U.S. energy producer Unocal Corp. on shareholder value, and away from politics.

Even before making public its $18.5 billion for Unocal last week, competing with a $16.6 billion deal with Chevron Corp., members of Congress sent President Bush a letter warning him of the threats posed by China's "pursuit of world energy resources."

"This is a commercial deal, a commercial bid from one New York Stock Exchange listed company to another New York Stock Exchange listed company designed to improve shareholder value for both," said Mark Palmer, a managing director at Public Strategies Inc. of Austin, Texas, one of two public relations firms hired by CNOOC.

Paul Krugman thinks we should be worried about this.

Two things that have been said often apply here. First, Chinese foreign policy consists of one word: oil. Second, its likely that any conflicts with China would be fought out on an economic battlefield.

So what does everything think? Should we be concerned about this?

I agree. I'm worried about this. Our dependance on oil is our biggest weakpoint. Its like having a insecure modem pool bypassing your firewall.

Three is nothing wrong with this. Let them control the oil, they will always need to sell it to us. If they don't sell it to us, we'll seize the company's assets (so sorry China).

Same goes for France's Airbus USAF contract bid. Not a problem.

The thing noone seems to mention here is - the power of the American consumer controls everything.

ibenez wrote:

Three is nothing wrong with this. Let them control the oil, they will always need to sell it to us. If they don't sell it to us, we'll seize the company's assets (so sorry China).

Same goes for France's Airbus USAF contract bid. Not a problem.

The thing noone seems to mention here is - the power of the American consumer controls everything.

Even if oil prices did boil down entirely to buying power, China's energy requirements will outstrip the US' in a matter of years. Their rampant population growth coupled with a obsessive desire to "be like the West" pits their middle class on the verge of an explosive consuming force. AND, China doesn't give a shit about controlling governments in far off lands so long as their staggering energy needs are met. So, who has the greater power: China, at 1.44 billion people in 2025, or the US, at 350 million (or 24% of China's population)?*

The answer to the riddle of world energy powers isn't _consumption_ but _reduction_. Whosoever can beat the exponential growth of population with a low-sloping linear growth in energy consumption wins.

BTW: Everyone should read "Resource Wars". 1997 wasn't that long ago, and the book will open your eyes with facts and figures, not baseless conjecture. It will make you think twice about everything, even whether to buy that incandescent bulb (which puts out 9 times more heat than light) or a 5-year compact fluourescent with an energy efficiency 5 times that of the century-old incandescent technology.

-janelane, realistically

*http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp

janelane wrote:

ibenez wrote:

Three is nothing wrong with this. Let them control the oil, they will always need to sell it to us. If they don't sell it to us, we'll seize the company's assets (so sorry China).

Same goes for France's Airbus USAF contract bid. Not a problem.

The thing noone seems to mention here is - the power of the American consumer controls everything.

Even if oil prices did boil down entirely to buying power, China's energy requirements will outstrip the US' in a matter of years. Their rampant population growth coupled with a obsessive desire to "be like the West" pits their middle class on the verge of an explosive consuming force. AND, China doesn't give a shit about controlling governments in far off lands so long as their staggering energy needs are met. So, who has the greater power: China, at 1.44 billion people in 2025, or the US, at 350 million (or 24% of China's population)?*

The answer to the riddle of world energy powers isn't _consumption_ but _reduction_. Whosoever can beat the exponential growth of population with a low-sloping linear growth in energy consumption wins.

BTW: Everyone should read "Resource Wars". 1997 wasn't that long ago, and the book will open your eyes with facts and figures, not baseless conjecture. It will make you think twice about everything, even whether to buy that incandescent bulb (which puts out 9 times more heat than light) or a 5-year compact fluourescent with an energy efficiency 5 times that of the century-old incandescent technology.

-janelane, realistically

*http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp

I agree with you but I still don't think China is ultimately going to be a problem. Once oil becomes to expensive for us in the states, we'll invent something new. If we don't invent something new, we'll take someone else's invention and "actualize" it.

For example, here are things that Americans either invented or "actualized".

Cars, Planes, Spaceshuttle, transistor, cell phone, regular phone, GPS, stealth technology, Taco Bell, and the list goes on and on.

The best thing that can happen to us is that we lose out oil supply - then we'll do what we always do - reinvent.

You know GM already has a hydrogen powered car - not very practical right now, but I'd bet the farm that if push came to shove, the USA would just invent. So I say bring it on.