SinoDefence Forum

AssassinsMace · 01-30-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by pla101prc

iran is a great card for energy security, you are wondering why Sinopec keeps on getting those deals on iraqi oil, sometimes beating British oil companies to it, its because the US knows that China needs oil from iran. so they figured if China gets a good deal in iraq, maybe it'll support the west in iran.

I think the reason why China is getting Iraqi oil deals is much like why China makes inroads into Africa. China will go places that no Westerner will. No Western company could get enough people at home they need to go places that can prove to be dangerous. There was some hoopla in the US about China getting Iraqi oil deals when it was their people who died in Iraq. Remember how Cheney sold the war saying Iraqi oil was going to pay for it? I'm sure if everything went according to the delusions of Cheney, his predictions would come true. But the fact is the US would've had to place a soldier for every 10ft of pipeline to protect it throughout the country especially if the US was taking Iraqi oil and keeping the profits for themselves. Right now the US will settle for the Iraqis getting back into the oil business so they can pay for their own bills instead of the American tax payer doing it. So for now they will accept Chinese oil deals with Iraq.

pla101prc · 01-31-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

I think the reason why China is getting Iraqi oil deals is much like why China makes inroads into Africa. China will go places that no Westerner will. No Western company could get enough people at home they need to go places that can prove to be dangerous. There was some hoopla in the US about China getting Iraqi oil deals when it was their people who died in Iraq. Remember how Cheney sold the war saying Iraqi oil was going to pay for it? I'm sure if everything went according to the delusions of Cheney, his predictions would come true. But the fact is the US would've had to place a soldier for every 10ft of pipeline to protect it throughout the country especially if the US was taking Iraqi oil and keeping the profits for themselves. Right now the US will settle for the Iraqis getting back into the oil business so they can pay for their own bills instead of the American tax payer doing it. So for now they will accept Chinese oil deals with Iraq.

good points, but i really doubt how much sway the US government had on iraq's oil. afterall the main goal of the gulf war was to ensure that oil will be flowing into the international market undisturbed, preferably through US oil companies. but if a Chinese company is willing to come in and pay a ridiculous price for it (and that's exactly what they are doing), to what extent is the US government able to say to the iraqis "we know they have a lot of cash but we want this stuff for a cheaper price and you are gonna give it to us". the guy who is currently in charge, chalabi, isnt so close to the US anymore, he does give out oil deals through personal connection, but when it comes to huge deals that the iraq government personally looks at....i doubt there is much room for cheating. the US oil companies in iraq i assume will have the advantage of having their assets better protected and all that, but when it comes to business transactions their advantages are limited to personal connections with the iraqi bureaucrats, it makes a lot of difference on lil things, but when it comes to major deals they'll prolly still go for the guy with more cash. international markets nowadays dont work the same way as it used to back in the 19th century where if the british makes a deal with the manchu gov they can make it only beneficial to themselves. not a zero sum game anymore. of course i am sure the US government still exerts an influence, i am just trying to figure out how much.

Finn McCool · 02-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by pla101prc

the guy who is currently in charge, chalabi, isnt so close to the US anymore, he does give out oil deals through personal connection, but when it comes to huge deals that the iraq government personally looks at....

I suggest you do a Google search or even maybe (going out on a limb here) read the news every once in a while. Ahmad Chalabi isn't in a position of power in Iraq, and hasn't been oil minister for years.

Ali Khan · 02-02-2010

Well why should china do that?while EU and usa have banned arms exports to china and even russians are supplying iranians with weapons?t

Infra_Man99 · 02-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

I think the reason why China is getting Iraqi oil deals is much like why China makes inroads into Africa. China will go places that no Westerner will. No Western company could get enough people at home they need to go places that can prove to be dangerous. There was some hoopla in the US about China getting Iraqi oil deals when it was their people who died in Iraq. Remember how Cheney sold the war saying Iraqi oil was going to pay for it? I'm sure if everything went according to the delusions of Cheney, his predictions would come true. But the fact is the US would've had to place a soldier for every 10ft of pipeline to protect it throughout the country especially if the US was taking Iraqi oil and keeping the profits for themselves. Right now the US will settle for the Iraqis getting back into the oil business so they can pay for their own bills instead of the American tax payer doing it. So for now they will accept Chinese oil deals with Iraq.

In my opinion, a popular myth is how China will go places no Westerner will. American and European personnel (both government workers and civilians) have a long history of interfering with and working in unstable nations in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other regions.

There are LOTS of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. I read the number of workers from US company contractors is equal to or greater than the number of US soldiers. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a large number of US military personnel are in harm's way. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a large number of employees from US company contractors are in harm's way. Europeans are smaller, but significant numbers. China refuses to get involved with Iraq's internal fights and problems unless it absolutely has to. China mainly wants business.

There are lots of US and EU government workers, civilian workers, and proxies in unstable regions across Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on. Historically, China is the nation that stays away from dangerous, unstable, or troublesome regions around the world. Currently China is struggling to obtain international trades without getting stuck in other nation's problems. China's foreign problems are still not as bad as America's and Europe's foreign disputes, but foreign relations is very complex and unpredictable, so China could easily share the same wars, covert wars, proxy systems, onerous alliances, and other foreign traps.

I think China mainly wants business with Iran, but the US and EU want business deals, political agreements, and military relations. These 3 factors could easily force China to accept zero to very bad business deals with Iran, if not worse. I don't think China (and Russia) wants the US or the EU to dominate the Middle East.

AssassinsMace · 02-02-2010

In Iraq they're all concentrated in the green zone protected by their military who is also mostly concentrated in the green zone. "Contractors" can get paid a lot of money to risk going to places like Iraq and Afghanistan and even then their numbers are low in the big picture. When I'm talking dangerous, it's not just the human ones. The West has been in Africa for centuries and in the last decade China builds roads that cut through the most desolate areas, something they would not do at any time. China isn't hiring mercenaries or sending an army to protect their workers overseas. And because that's expensive it doesn't happen often which is why the West has never built any viable infrastructure in places like Africa. Unless the claim is the West never had any design to build infrastructure so that no viable economy can take root thus remain dependent on them. Either way the Chinese do go to places that the West never would which is what frightens them seeing China in Africa.

pla101prc · 02-02-2010

i vaguely remember reading some article that talks about US firms unwilling to accept the low marginal profit that comes out of these deals. but that's just American firms, British firms signed contracts with iraq, so its prolly not a "westerner" thing. as for why the US went to iraq, i think its more of a macroeconomic thing. it could be a need to get a better grip on the oil price, or as some claims it could be because saddam decided to trade oil in Euro rather than dollar, in conjunction with some work by the israel lobby of course. because if they were really after specific business profits, why is it that bush sr refused to take over iraq in 91? and keep in mind that bush sr and his aides scowcroft and baker all opposed to going into iraq in 03, powell opposed as well. its because the balance of power that contributed to a stable oil price is prolly more important than taking over an oil producing country. that was bush sr's approach to iraq's invasion of kuwait.

pla101prc · 02-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

I suggest you do a Google search or even maybe (going out on a limb here) read the news every once in a while. Ahmad Chalabi isn't in a position of power in Iraq, and hasn't been oil minister for years.

lol yeah i thought that part of my info might have been outdated.
but it doesnt negate what i said about the dynamics of iraq oil markets.

pla101prc · 02-02-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

I don't think China (and Russia) wants the US or the EU to dominate the Middle East.

i dont see it being a east vs west thing, frankly russia will be the country that benefits the most if US does invade iran, even if that doesnt happen, an escalation of frictions in the region would bump up the oil price and cash will be starting to flow into kremlin's pocket. EU prolly wants to appease to the US and israel as much as possible so that they would not feel that negotiations are going nowhere. meanwhile i dont think the government of iraq and afghanistan would approve of going to war with iran either.

GreenestGDP · 02-06-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by AssassinsMace

This is all smoke and mirrors. If the West was serious about stopping Iran from getting nukes, then why ... ... You don't hear about Japan supporting evil regimes, do you?

... ...Makes you wonder if the recent cyberattack on a Chinese media website by self-proclaimed Iranian nationalists was ochestrated by outside forces to get China to be suspicious of Iran. ... ...

Quote:

Clinton urged the Chinese government to investigate the attacks on Google but did not even mention those on Baidu, which apparently were carried out from a base in the US.

And what is America's understanding of Internet freedom within its own borders? The USA Patriot Act grants police the right to check phone and e-mail records of citizens.

In many US states, people are often denied access to Al Jazeera news channel and website, because they have hurt Americans' feelings. Isn't Internet censorship the only way to describe them?

The US is using double standards to defend its own Internet security and criticize other countries for not being free enough. This makes Clinton's claim of Internet freedom only an illusion.

In the age of information, the Internet is closely related to politics. The US enlists cyber warfare as an essential quality of its troops. Many a time, the US government has used Internet networks as a tool for diplomacy. The closing down of MSN service in several Islamic nations is a perfect example.

Let's connect the dots and not be gullible.

The Baidu attacks were maliciously performed by Google and CIA cyber-warfare team.
It was Judasly blamed on the good Iranians who are anti-you-know-who.

In short, China should break-up the sanction and dramatically enhance Iran ability to attack Israel and you-know-who Navy ships with all those mobile and portable missiles.

Finn McCool · 02-06-2010

@GreenestGDP

I don't know where you got that quote from, but Al Jazeera is not blocked anywhere in the United States.

Also you casually accuse the CIA and Google of orchestrating a pretty significant cyber attack on Baidu, which is, as we all know, a major part of Chinese internet infrastructure. That would be quite a story, especially if Google is involved. I haven't heard anything about that. Now that might just be because I'm a closed-minded American, and I'm blinded by my biased media, but would you care to provide a link and enlighten me as to the details of this incident that you seem to treat as common knowledge? Can you show that it actually happened, and can you provide some evidence, other than your own speculation, that the aforementioned parties were responsible?

GreenestGDP · 02-07-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finn McCool

1) I don't know where you got that quote from, but Al Jazeera is not blocked anywhere in the United States.

2) ... CIA and Google of orchestrating a pretty significant cyber attack on Baidu, which is, as we all know, a major part of Chinese internet infrastructure. ... ...

Let me supply some public domain information sources.
I will skip off-the-record sources.

1) Do not be so sure on openness of US Homeland Security. Let's take some sample of Muslims communities in USA.
Let's go to Dearborn, Michigan.

Please do a complete survey of Muslims living in Dearborn, Michigan, and ask if they have total free access to Al Jazeera and some other Muslim News Network all the time (24Hx365D) in a year without some timely services interruptions in between, especially when Muslim Media are broadcasting some nasty news that hurt you-know-who feelings.

What do you call that timely selective -- service interruptions ?

2) Who has Google been prostituting with since Google inception?

Answer: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16486.html

Quote:

Google's China Hypocrisy Ignores Deep CIA Connections

Jan 14, 2010 - 11:31 AM

By: Pravda

Politics

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleThe western media is currently full of articles on Google's 'threat to quit China' over internet censorship issues, and the company's 'suspicion' that the Chinese government was behind attempts to 'break-in' to several Google email accounts used by 'Chinese dissidents'.

However, the media has almost completely failed to report that Google's surface concern over 'human rights' in China is belied by its their deep involvement with some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet:

Google is, in fact, is a key participant in U.S. military and CIA intelligence operations involving torture; subversion of foreign governments; illegal wars of aggression; and military occupations of countries which have never attacked the U.S. and which have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

To begin with, Google is the supplier of the core search technology for 'Intellipedia, a highly-secured online system where 37,000 U.S. spies and related personnel share information and collaborate on their devious errands.

Agencies such as the so-called 'National Security Agency' have also purchased servers using Google-supplied search technology which processes information gathered by U.S. spies operating all over the planet.

In addition, Google is linked to the U.S. spy and military systems through its Google Earth software venture. The technology behind this software was originally developed by Keyhole Inc., a company funded by Q-Tel In-Q-Tel , a venture capital firm which is in turn openly funded and operated on behalf of the CIA.

Google acquired Keyhole Inc. in 2004. The same base technology is currently employed by U.S. military and intelligence systems in their quest, in their own words, for "full-spectrum dominance" of the planet.

Moreover, Googles' connection with the CIA and its venture capital firm extends to sharing at least one key member of personnel. In 2004, the Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from his old job directly serving the CIA to become 'Senior Federal Manager' at Google.

As Robert Steele, a former CIA case officer has put it: Google is "in bed with" the CIA.

Googles Friends spy on millions of Internet Users

Given Google's supposed concern with 'break-in's to several of its email accounts, it's worth noting that Google's friends at In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA, are now investing in Visible Technologies, a software firm specialized in 'monitoring social media'.

The 'Visible' technology can automatically examine more than a million discussions and posts on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon, and so forth each day. The technology also 'scores' each online item, assigning it a positive, negative or mixed or neutral status, based on parameters and terms set by the technology operators. The information, thus boiled down, can then be more effectively scanned and read by human operators.

The CIA venture capitalists at In-Q-Tel say they will use the technology to monitor social media operating in other countries and give U.S. spies “early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally,” according to spokesperson Donald Tighe. There is every possibility that the technology can also be used by the U.S. intelligence operatives to spy on domestic social movements and individuals inside the U.S.

Finally, there is a curious absence from the statements emanating from Google - and from U.S. media reports - of any substantive evidence linking the Chinese government with the alleged break-in attempts to several Google email accounts.

Words like 'sophisticated' and 'suspicion' have appeared in the media to suggest that the Chinese government is responsible for the break-ins. That may be so. But it is striking that the media has seemingly asked no questions as to what the evidence behind the 'suspicions' might be

It should be noted that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies have a long history of rogue operations intended to discredit governments or social movements with whom they happen to disagree. To see how far this can go, one need only recall the sordid history of disinformation, lies, and deceit propagated by U.S. government and media to frighten people into supporting the Iraq war.

Whether the attacks on Google email originated from the Chinese government, or from elsewhere, one thing is clear: A company that supplies the CIA with key intelligence technology; supplies mapping software which can be used for barbarous wars of aggression and drone attacks which kill huge numbers of innocent civilians; and which in general is deeply intertwined with the CIA and the U.S. military machines, which spy on millions, the company cannot be motivated by real concern for the human rights and lives of the people in China.

By Eric Sommer

Pravda.ru

Millions Thanks to Mr. Eric Sommer

GreenestGDP · 02-08-2010

Quote:

Let's connect the dots and not be gullible.

The Baidu attacks were maliciously performed by Google and CIA cyber-warfare team.

It was Judasly blamed on the good Iranians who are anti-you-know-who.

In short, China should break-up the sanction and dramatically enhance Iran ability to attack the Judas you-know-who friend Mr. IxxxxL and you-know-who Navy ships with all those mobile and portable missiles.

More Public Domain Evidence that
Google is prostituting itself with the master pimps you-know-who:
Google's alleged tie-up with NSA raises concerns - USATODAY.com

Quote:

Source: Jody Westby, CEO of consulting firm Global Cyber Risk and a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Mellon CyLab think tank

Yet the cyberattackers who breached Google's network, and some 30 other tech, financial and media corporations, used conventional messaging trickery and infection methods. And since top-notch cyber forensics investigators and state-of-the-art network defense systems are readily available on the commercial market, it's not clear why Google might seek the NSA's assistance, says Westby.

Quote:

Source: USA Today

Google has declined comment on a Washington Post report that it has asked the National Security Agency to help track down the cyberattackers who recently breached its databases.

Reporter Ellen Nakashima's front page story on Thursday rekindled concerns about corporations collaborating with government sleuth agencies. You might recall the alarm raised by privacy and civil liberties advocates in 2006 after a USA TODAY investigation revealed how the NSA secretly analyzed phone records of tens of millions of Americans.

At the time, public backlash was directed mainly at telecom giants AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth for so readily giving up their customers' private phone records to a government agency.

In a similar vein, Google, the world's dominant search service, amasses data on the surfing habits of most Internet users, and stores vast amounts of sensitive data belonging to users of its popular Gmail and Google Apps online services, says Amrit Williams, CTO of security firm Big Fix. Because the NSA is an "opaque intelligence organization . . .the potential for abuse of private information at the intelligence or government level is very high," he says.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt did little to allay the fears of privacy and civil liberty advocates in this interview last December with CNBC financial reporter Maria Bartiromo. Schmidt says on camera:

The reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

It's understandable that corporations might covet the NSA's expertise about quelling cyberattacks; the agency possess unsurpassed intelligence gathering know-how, says Jody Westby, CEO of consulting firm Global Cyber Risk and a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Mellon CyLab think tank.

Yet the cyberattackers who breached Google's network, and some 30 other tech, financial and media corporations, used conventional messaging trickery and infection methods. And since top-notch cyber forensics investigators and state-of-the-art network defense systems are readily available on the commercial market, it's not clear why Google might seek the NSA's assistance, says Westby.

"Companies don't usually run and ask the government to get involved in their business," she says. "These attacks may be more sophisticated than we think. I think they (Google) are really trying to preserve their brand."

Gunter Ollman, head of research at security firm Damballa, says definitively proving involvement by the Chinese government is very difficult. Cyberattacks on Western corporations that can be traced back to China are usually considered to be "state-sponsored, state-endorsed or, at the very least, ignored by the Chinese government," says Ollman.

All of that said, Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, wonders what Google, a commercial search service, might possibly stand to gain by turning to a U.S. spy agency for security help. Pointing to job openings at Google's Washington D.C. offices, Chester says the search giant may be "working to curry favor with the NSA, CIA, DoD and others in order to sell its services (to the government) and make greater profits."

A Google spokesperson pointed to the company's Jan. 12 public statement about cyberattacks and censorship in China and declined any further comment.

"What is most troubling about this event," says Big Fix CTO Williams, "is that we continue to become insensitive to infringements on our civil liberties, which allows more egregious violations to become acceptable practice."

By Byron Acohido

Finn McCool · 02-08-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenestGDP

Let me supply some public domain information sources.
I will skip off-the-record sources.

1) Do not be so sure on openness of US Homeland Security. Let's take some sample of Muslims communities in USA.
Let's go to Dearborn, Michigan.

Please do a complete survey of Muslims living in Dearborn, Michigan, and ask if they have total free access to Al Jazeera and some other Muslim News Network all the time (24Hx365D) in a year without some timely services interruptions in between, especially when Muslim Media are broadcasting some nasty news that hurt you-know-who feelings.

What do you call that timely selective -- service interruptions ?

2) Who has Google been prostituting with since Google inception?

You still haven't shown one shred of evidence that the US government blocks Al Jazeera. If they did they would be sued and lose I promise you. I used to get Al Jazeera in my satellite TV package, but then I went to a cheaper one that doesn't give you all the foreign channels. You're making the assertion that Al Jazeera is blocked in the US, so you have to prove it. Instead you tell me to go door to door and ask Muslim people in Dearborn, Michigan if they can get Al Jazeera all the time, which is really sort of funny to me.

Secondly the article you provided is from Pravda, which I think you have to admit isn't exactly the most reliable source. Also, half of the things that Google has done for the CIA and NSA according to that article are "providing search engine technology for databases" which basically just means that they use Google's search algorithms for a fee to search their own information. Most likely this site uses a similar type of arrangement.

At best, you've shown that Google cooperates with US intelligence agencies in the sharing of data. You haven't shown what I asked you to, which is that A) a large cyber attack on Baidu took place recently, and that B) the CIA and Google in cooperation were responsible.

I'm quite tired of people on this forum making wild assertions without any evidence.

challenge · 02-09-2010

turkey come under pressure by the US to join economic embargo against iraq,the embargo cause tremendous economic hardship in turkey.
and If china did join economic sanction,will iranian government cave in to the western demand? not really, if Iran wanted the bomb,they going to get it.the nuclear bomb after all was insurance.in case another neo con will be sitting in the oval office.

SinoDefence Forum

Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

Similar Threads

vBulletin Tweet Poster