New Blood borders a Nazal glazing the Middle East

Magic bullet in Iraq?

Low oil prices actuality helps china
at the expense at Russia. Russia’s Economy is 50% Dependent on oil revenues, cheap oil is only achieved through surplus of oil supplies on the world market. The result being that china faces no military threat, or challenge form Russia in the near future, Russia fears china’s future Economic, political, and military strength that’s why it won’t sell it oil. This leaves it free to lunch an all out attack on America. China has 200 plus years of coal reserves,The world has 300 plus years of reserves. Coal oil would properly sell for $20/25 a barrel. But we getting by on $70 plus per barrel of crude oil caused by speciation, OPEC and Iraq war. Coal right now sells $10 a bag and technology would keep reducing cost of coal liquidation over the coming years. South Africa supplied most of their fuel from coal oil. Nazi Germany produced 57% of all its fuels from coal oil from 25 coal liquidation plants if they had built enough coal liquidation plants say 60 instead of 25 they would prolong the war by just a year. It was difficult to do because the very extensive bombing from the RAF/USAF air forces. Coal and oil are underground sources of energy hence safe from Ariel bombing but refineries/liquidation plants are vulnerable to Ariel bombing. Since china has 200 plus years of coal reserves it could make 100% of its own fuels, it would reduce its reserves 100 years but that’s an other matter. At the moment china is hoping to produce 10% of liquid fuels domestically from its coal and its other energy sources. It also has enormous reserves of shale oil. Denied of access to Iraqis oil wouldn’t make that much of a difference because America won’t buy a once of Iranian oil. Control of iraqs oil does not mean control of all the worlds oil because prewar iraq producted only 4% of the worlds production due to sanctions/"weapons inspections" now its 3% due to bush war. So only a complete denial of oil strategy to china would be needed.The U.S. can lunch a navy blockage of china’s oil from the gulf and other regions. Only a complete occupation of the Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states could America have control of china’s oil exports in theory but unlikely due to reasons listed above. Plus America would never get round or met the time frame for a complete occupation of the Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. Even if Iran is bombed tomorrow, it will still sell oil to china,
A naval blockage of china’s oil from the gulf and other regions would be an act of war. So such an event could would take place over Taiwan but china would never attack Taiwan if it was not sure it could fight the U.S. Armed forced forces. There will no war between America and china because china will always avoid confrontation and very deep economic relationship between the two countries. China’s war plan will be to seek a quick and overwhelmingly victory if war is to take place in the coming decades. If china won a quick and overwhelmingly victory in a U.S./China war. America would automatically lose its petroleum empire and Find very difficult to fight back militarily and economically recover afterwards. China could achieve this victory by sending troops through the Iranian/Pakistan corridor and a dense Iraqi Insurgency.Israel armed forces would start to decay if America stood in “front” of Israel rather than “behind”. Its military strength would so depleted that it would overran by its Arab neighbours in the event of a possible China/America war in the coming decades. Already Israel is sending increasing amounts on Social welfare and decreasing amounts on defence. Also it would be blamed for the iraqi occupation even due this was entirely George bushes Pipedream/enterprise. The final decision for the war/occupation lay with Bush. It will make her Arab neighbours more determined than ever to destroy her. This time for real not a case of getting even as in peveious wars.

no Offence meant just a tought.

This post is going be changed and redited

The Progressive War

www.anti-war.com/stromberg/?articleid=992

ftssoldier.blogspot.com
www.edwardsaid.org

Elmo,Brian Van Reet,Sara You’re missing the point. The problem with Imperialism is that,it cannot function without popular support. Remember Vietnam had no oil and "French" Algeria just didn't have enough oil.Populous Imperialism Demands that Iraq to be occupied indirectly, with the white men keeping real control. The prowar "progressive" supports these aims as much as Niall Fergusons crowd. The main difference is that the Prowar "progressives" it only supports elections so LOOKS Progressive, the more wogs voting the better it looks. Christopher Hitchens' harrys place, Nick Cohen, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George packer basicly all share John Stuart Mill mindset such as Social Liberalism at home, but B52s for Mussies/niggers Abroad.Don't Underestimate it because right now in the U.S. there is no mainstream polical group calling for withdraw of all troops from iraq, just lots annoying bush bashing.IN dublin only 600 took part in this years anti-war domo,there were no young poeple leading it, just leftwing 50 somethings TDs and Senaters.In the europe the iraq war Generally viewed is a clash between the anglosaxon world (bush/Blair) and Francophone world (Chirac/Schroeder)even though it is nothing of the sort plus russia has been spreading "Freedom/liberty" in Chechnya . In britian 25% of "lablour movement" supports the iraq war, this faction calls its self the "prowar left" (harrys place/Nick Cohen) it does so in the loudest possible way on the internet/media.
The hyperlink above should allow us understand this polical mindset, it is a profile of John Stuart Mill.
no Offence meant just a tought

http://exile-blog.blogspot.com/

http://exile-blog.blogspot.com/