PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Hillary to China: Vote for Iran Sanctions, or Face Gulf Conflagration and Oil Cutoff


KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:47 AM
Webster G. Tarpley
www.tarpley.net
February 6, 2010
Download:
FLVMP43GP

For her Jan. 29 speech at the Ecole Militaire in Paris, Mrs. Clinton was evidently wearing that stylish new French perfume from the House of Sarkozy called Chantage – meaning blackmail. Mrs. Clinton gloats because she thinks she has the Chinese leadership in a bind. As she stated, she knows that China increasingly depends on oil from the Gulf. She demanded that China vote for crippling sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council this month, while Sarkozy — the craziest of all western leaders against Iran — controls the presidency of that body. For China, approving crippling sanctions against Iran means in all probability the loss of 10% to 12% of its oil imports, the aborting of some $80 billion in development projects by Beijing in Iran, the sacrifice of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil which the Chinese have locked in via futures contracts, and, above all, a farewell to the best chance of getting a secure overland oil pipeline far away from the US-UK fleets — the pipeline from Iran via Pakistan into China.
If the Chinese fail to captitulate on this point, Mrs. Clinton darkly hinted, the US would no longer restrain the Israelis, who might then launch their long-threatened air attack on Iran, which the US has emphatically vetoed over the past two years. At that point, the Iranians would try to interdict Gulf maritime traffic and close the strait of Hormuz, meaning that about a third of China’s oil could be cut off. (The other 20% comes from Saudi Arabia.)
The US-UK elite is in a state of collective hysteria about the growth of Chinese economic power. China is now the largest exporter in the world, and officially about to become the second largest economy, passing Japan to challenge the US.
The US is way behind China in fast rail, and will soon fall behind in modern nuclear energy production. China is clearly aiming to put astronauts on the moon, but the Obama-Orszag NASA budget makes clear that the US is going nowhere when it comes to manned space flight. If US elites really want to keep pace, they should put aside their feckless attempts to contain China by subversion, economic warfare, and fomenting conflicts in the Guif and on the India-China border. Match the Chinese programs in nuclear reactors, fast rail, and manned space flight, or prepare for the status of has-been.
But for right now, the Iran attack scenario, which had been pushed to the back burner by the US National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 — which stated that there was no Iranian nuclear weapons program — is once again operational, this time as a means at striking at China’s oil supply.

Tarpley talks with Priya Sridhar of Russia Today about the growing US-China confrontation.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BJ42OcVRNM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BJ42OcVRNM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://tarpley.net/

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:10 AM
Such talk is the run up to war.....world war.

The right libertarians were right, to get American's attention off our homewrecking, a war will be created next.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:19 AM
Such talk is the run up to war.....world war.

The right libertarians were right, to get American's attention off our homewrecking, a war will be created next.

A war with Russia/China on one side and us on the other is one i really am not interested in fighting because among many reasons we would have no chance in without Nuclear exchanges and that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to anyone.

Tango&Cash
02-10-2010, 09:57 AM
A war with Russia/China on one side and us on the other is one i really am not interested in fighting because among many reasons we would have no chance in without Nuclear exchanges and that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to anyone.

Make sure you fire first and make an example out of them.

YOU DON'T FUCK WITH TE USA!!!

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 10:04 AM
Make sure you fire first and make an example out of them.

YOU DON'T **** WITH TE USA!!!

Like Germany did? Nice aspirations there. Let's bully the world, even when they're not trying to kill us.

Hog Farmer
02-10-2010, 10:29 AM
You don't become the worlds super power by being a pacifist.

KC native
02-10-2010, 10:35 AM
A war with Russia/China on one side and us on the other is one i really am not interested in fighting because among many reasons we would have no chance in without Nuclear exchanges and that doesn't sound like a lot of fun to anyone.

Horseshit. The Chinese military isn't even close to the level of our military. They may have more people but if they tried to invade we would mow them down. Their technology is no where close to ours. The same goes for Russia with the exception of the standing men portion of the argument

I have no problem playing hardball with the Chinese on this. The Chinese have been screwing us over for at least two decades with their currency manipulation and trade policies. The Chinese can go get bent if they don't want to go with the rest of the world.

KC native
02-10-2010, 10:37 AM
Worst case scenario, IMO, is a cold war with China. We're already experiencing the beginnings (the Taiwan arms deal, currency issues). Fortunately, China is a paper tiger. None of their statistics are believable and there are serious issues with government stability since the global recession has exposed many weaknesses in the Chinese economy.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:49 AM
Good.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:50 AM
Horseshit. The Chinese military isn't even close to the level of our military. They may have more people but if they tried to invade we would mow them down. Their technology is no where close to ours. The same goes for Russia with the exception of the standing men portion of the argument

I have no problem playing hardball with the Chinese on this. The Chinese have been screwing us over for at least two decades with their currency manipulation and trade policies. The Chinese can go get bent if they don't want to go with the rest of the world.

KC native is right. Let's have a party and celebrate.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:05 AM
You don't become the worlds super power by being a pacifist.
No one is recommending being a pacifist which means to never fight and oppose all wars. We mean we aren't militarists or war starters.

We became the world's superpower because we became a rich nation, a result of our liberties. That enabled us to be in a winning role in two European wars already begun. But we did NOT become a superpower by starting wars. We are not an aggressor nation. That same wealth has allowed interests to use our country for a globalist Manifest Destiny.

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. " — Ronald Reagan, Star Wars" speech (1983-03-23)

I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. — Ronald Reagan Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter (1980-10-28)

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:10 AM
No one is recommending being a pacifist which means to never fight and oppose all wars. It means we aren't militarists or war starters.

We became the world's superpower because we became a rich nation, a result of our liberties. That enabled us to be in a winning role in two European wars already begun. But we did NOT become a superpower by starting wars. We are not an aggressor nation. That same wealth has allowed interests to use our country for a globalist Manifest Destiny.

"The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. " — Ronald Reagan, Star Wars" speech (1983-03-23)

I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security. — Ronald Reagan Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter (1980-10-28)

Did you verify those Reagan quotes? You and I both know you've been duped before.

Our current GWoT isn't an aggressor's war. It's a war that came after decades of turning the other cheek.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:24 AM
Did you say something pat?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:29 AM
Thank you Hoggie! Here's another.


"The only way there could be war is if they start it; we're not going to start a war."— RONALD REAGAN, Declaring what he would tell Yuri Andropov, head of the Soviet Union, were he in the room; in an interview for People magazine (1983-12-06)

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:36 AM
Have you got Reagan's autobiography yet, BEP?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:44 AM
Was there a noise?