use of the same toolkit of rhetoric on Iran could upset the balance with china
The president is again using the line about military intervention being the last in a line of solutions in our efforts to curb Iran's "nucular" aspirations. So, I am going to assume that they have already got plans to invade Iran and it is a done deal. I mean, what is the difference? From my perspective they planned to invade Iraq before the Afghani attack (of mostly Saudis). So what actually could be the difference between attacking Iran as well. For one, China. You know, that country that funds most of our debt.
Well currently Tehran is in a stance to make China its' biggest customer for petroleum. How does this effect the executive branch's apparent war designs on Iran? Well, mightily it would seem. Last year China bought a 30 year supply of oil from Iran. It would seem that unless Condi has some deal afloat to rape Iran of their oil and ensure China gets their designed quantities then Crawford, we have a problem. Also keep in mind that the best chance we have of deflating the North Korean "nucular" program also lies in the crux of this Sino~Persian petro-deal.
Now jump over to Blondesense and see the bloggyness about the numbers of attacks on pipelines since we started our little stewardship of the Iraqi oil network. If we can't ensure security and integrity of the Iraqi oil supply, how are we going to do it in Iran? I mean, this is Gulf War II. We ALREADY had the lay of the land in Iraq. We've been flying over no-fly zones since W's daddy was in the whitehouse.
Next time you see a USA flag lapel pin at the drugstore. Flip it over. It says, MADE IN CHINA. China, Iran, Iraq, 'nucular', oil
posted by Eric2 @ 11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home