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.
