US shed blood and Spent a Fortune for China to Take over Iraq

[xhw1986]

US politicians are making their country a laughingstock. They shed their boys’ blood and spent a fortune in Iraq and Afghanistan but then withdraw their troops to let China take over the two countries.

Now they plan to transfer 10% more troops to Asia with the attractive strategy of pivot to Asia. What is the use of those troops? Do they want to fight a war for Japan or the Philippines for some small uninhabited islands? No.

Can that make China reduce its military spending and slow down its development of advanced weapons? No. It is giving China the excuse to increase its military spending and speed up its weapon development.

I should say that US politicians are really difficult for me to understand.

Previously Pakistan was the closest to the US, but now the US has been replaced by China. If those politicians do not know what they have done to have made the US unpopular and China popular there, they shall really do some soulsearch to find what they have done to have made the US unpopular there.

SCMP gives a description of China’s increased influence in the Middle East in its report titled “China pledges to pump more funds into Iraq’s oil sector, infrastructure”. The following is the full text of the report:

Beijing agrees to support Arab nation’s push to revamp economy during foreign minister Wang Yi’s rare visit.

Beijing pledged to pour in more investment into Iraq’s oil and infrastructure sector, as the Chinese government stepped up its presence in the Middle East.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made the pledge on a rare visit to the nation seeking to shore up its economy after a nearly decade-long war. Wang also outlined three broad points for China’s role in the war-torn nation after discussions in Baghdad with his Iraqi counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, on Sunday.

He said Chinese companies had extensive experience in giving Iraq’s energy sector a boost, which would be a fundamental factor in Iraq’s economic overhaul.

Moreover, Chinese companies are willing to help Iraq create a comprehensive development strategy for its oil sector, Wang was quoted as saying in a ministry statement.

Beijing will also participate in major Iraq projects including in electricity, telecommunications and ports development, Wang added. Iraq is sitting on the world’s fifth-largest proven oil reserves.

Baghdad is seeking to raise its oil revenue – which provides around 90 per cent of government revenue, according to economic indexes – to fund the reconstruction of its infrastructure, which sustained heavy damage during the conflict.

Since the end of the war that was triggered by the 2003 US invasion and lasted for years, Iraq has experienced sectarian violence, with bombings by suspected terrorists occurring with alarming frequency.

Chinese companies such as PetroChina and China National Petroleum Corporation already have substantial investments in Iraq’s oil sector. PetroChina has a 25 per cent stake in Iraq’s West Qurna 1 project, which is worth billions and majority-owned by Exxon. The CNPC, meanwhile, produces nearly two million barrels of oil a day from its projects in Iraq, including the lucrative Rumaila and Halfaya oil fields, according to news reports.

Iraq deputy prime minister for energy Hussain al-Shahristani said in October that China was seeking to increase crude sales from Iraq by more than two-thirds to 850,000 barrels per day this year. Iraq plans to raise its crude exports to four million barrels per day.

Asia by far remains Iraq’s largest market, with about 60 per cent of its crude exported to Asia, 20 per cent to American market and the rest to Europe.

Wang said China would uphold Iraq’s sovereignty and its fight against terrorism, and at the same time would push for different political and religious factions in the nation to seek reconciliation through dialogue.

“We believe that different factions of Iraq can be united for smooth completion of the political task of concluding the parliamentary election, paving a solid foundation of infrastructure reconstruction,” Wang said, referring to elections scheduled for April.

The Iraqi government said Wang’s visit was the first by a high-ranking Chinese official since 2003.

Beijing has recently said it desires a greater “all-around” role in the Middle East, expanding its involvement beyond trade and energy to include political and security affairs.

In December, Wang called on Israel and Palestine to forge consensus on peace and lend support for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

China pledges to pump more funds into Iraq's oil sector, infrastructure | South China Morning Post

 

[cirr]

The Iraqis are buying Chinese bullet trains，and for good measure：

出口时速160公里内燃动车组下线|南车|车辆_凤凰财经

160km/h diesel MTU trains by CSR Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd.

 

[Mighty Caty]

The article is a bit misleading, China indeed pay for the oil drilling in Iraq, but they are using American equipment and American technology

Many people see American invade Iraq is because of its vast oil, in fact, it is and it isn't.

It is for the oil, but not they want it for America, but rather they don't want Iran to have them.

What if American do not invade Iraq in 2003?

For start, the war in Afghanistan would attract a serious influx of Iraqi insurgent, if Iraq stay out of the conflict zone, the increase influx of Iraqi insurgent will present a problem with the American troop in Afghanistan, and how do you supposed the Iraqi mujahideen travel to Afghanistan from Iraq? Via Iran of course.

American did not actually formulate a plan on invading Iraq until late 2002 when they realise how steep is the Afghanistan insurgence is and they solely coming from S/SE from Pakistan border.

For the American, their problem is they cannot invade Pakistan as it is their major non-NATO allied, nor can they invade Iran to the west or they will come under the scantily of Muslim country, the only real option for the American is to invade Iraq.

The premises are, if Iraq stay open, there is a good chance Iran May be used to funnel insurgent into Afghanistan, on the other hand that would also mean either Saddam may have to have concession or do something for Iran in exchange

Iraq do not have the money and machinery to drill their oil, after the first gulf war, Iraq is all but bankrupt, while The other rich oil ridden middle eastern country being Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, who would you turn to if you are Saddam Hussein in 2003?

US sees this, invading Iraq and control their regime would serve the American two distinct purpose, first, by fighting in Iraq, it keep the mujahideen at bay, it would mean troop in Afghanistan can now breath easier, second, by installing a pro-American government, it will make sure the government of Iraq would stay in Status Quo with Iran, and hence the oil field is safe.

While American did not have the use for Iraqi oil, when they in deep grip with Saudi, Kuwait and Canadian oil field, they do not actually need Iraqi oil, but that does not mean they want Iran to have them.

 

[IND151]

The Iraqis are buying Chinese bullet trains，and for good measure：

出口时速160公里内燃动车组下线|南车|车辆_凤凰财经

160km/h diesel MTU trains by CSR Qingdao Sifang Co. Ltd.

If its true then they are not bullet trains. They (HSR) have speed of 200 KM plus.

 

[Genesis]

I got to say I go back and forth on this super power deal, on the one hand the prestige, and power, both so wonderful.

On the other hand the responsibility and the criticism You get criticized for things unrelated to you, how is Rewanda a American mistake? Americans didn't encourage it or nothing, they are not obliged to act. But they get the blame just the same.

Same deal for China, when we get to that stage we would need to make this choice, already people are blaming China for Sudan, and Myanmar, as if we are suppose to do something, or that we even could or should.


It's a pickle

 

[Kolaps]

I don't think US don't get any fortune in Iraq.

Instead US get the biggest prize by fulfilling their purpose in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Congratulation.

 

[gambit]

So first it was the US invaded Iraq 'for oil'. Then when that turned out not to be true, we are laughed at for not 'for oil'.

US politicians are making their country a laughingstock. They shed their boys’ blood and spent a fortune in Iraq and Afghanistan but then withdraw their troops to let China take over the two countries.

Now they plan to transfer 10% more troops to Asia with the attractive strategy of pivot to Asia. What is the use of those troops? Do they want to fight a war for Japan or the Philippines for some small uninhabited islands? No.

Can that make China reduce its military spending and slow down its development of advanced weapons? No. It is giving China the excuse to increase its military spending and speed up its weapon development.

I should say that US politicians are really difficult for me to understand.

You do not understand probably because you are still of the old mindset where countries invaded for reasons of: territorial expansion, colonialism, and resources acquisition.

Think Saddam Hussein and Kuwait. B41 and B43 are nothing like the kind of leaders you are used to in the ME. Twenty or even ten yrs from now, it will be clear to all that despite our best intentions and methods, the ME will continue to be known as a collection of squabbling religious primitive countries, no matter how many tall shiny buildings they build.

 

[United]

So first it was the US invaded Iraq 'for oil'. Then when that turned out not to be true, we are laughed at for not 'for oil'.


You do not understand probably because you are still of the old mindset where countries invaded for reasons of: territorial expansion, colonialism, and resources acquisition.

Think Saddam Hussein and Kuwait. B41 and B43 are nothing like the kind of leaders you are used to in the ME. Twenty or even ten yrs from now, it will be clear to all that despite our best intentions and methods, the ME will continue to be known as a collection of squabbling religious primitive countries, no matter how many tall shiny buildings they build.

No where in history has there been more crimes committed against humanity compared to shining Europe of WW2....


The teachers of human values today are the ones who abused humanity the most........

at least we still stand tall and shine in our most tested periods.

UNO has become nothing more than tooth less dying body

crimes committed today against humanity(Syria) are touching those of ww2 period yet the world tends to look the other side......

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

What everybody said we were there for the oil!

Everybody lied to me!!!

 

[Nan Yang]

I don't think US don't get any fortune in Iraq.

Instead US get the biggest prize by fulfilling their purpose in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Congratulation.

Not entirely true. Removing Saddam Hussein help removed the biggest threat and enemy to Iran. Yes US capture Saddam and handed him to the Iraqis. But it was actually the Iranian controlled Iraqis Shiites that hanged Saddam. Remember the slogans the hangman shouted as Saddam was hanged ? Long live Mohammad Baqir Muqtada.

Courage without patience will end up killing or being killed.
If US were more patient, they would have allied with Saddam and used Saddam against Iran like the Chinese Stratagem: Killing with a borrowed sword. In the end it would seems that it was the Iranians that killed Saddam with a borrowed sword.

 

[gambit]

Courage without patience will end up killing or being killed.
If US were more patient, they would have allied with Saddam and used Saddam against Iran like the Chinese Stratagem: Killing with a borrowed sword. In the end it would seems that it was the Iranians that killed Saddam with a borrowed sword.

That is funny...

There was a US-Iraq relatively friendly relationship, friendly enough that much of the ME (falsely) believed the US raised Saddam Hussein from obscurity to prominence then (also falsely) armed Iraq to wage war against Iran. You do know of the Iraq-Iran War, no?

Anyway...What do you think soured that relationship? Hint: Oil.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Not entirely true. Removing Saddam Hussein help removed the biggest threat and enemy to Iran. Yes US capture Saddam and handed him to the Iraqis. But it was actually the Iranian controlled Iraqis Shiites that hanged Saddam. Remember the slogans the hangman shouted as Saddam was hanged ? Long live Mohammad Baqir Muqtada.

Courage without patience will end up killing or being killed.
If US were more patient, they would have allied with Saddam and used Saddam against Iran like the Chinese Stratagem: Killing with a borrowed sword. In the end it would seems that it was the Iranians that killed Saddam with a borrowed sword.

Iraq would never probably sided with Iran unless there are a common goal, that common goal in 2002 is America

The reason why Iraq will never side with Iran is the same reason why China will never side with Japan. Those two belong to a different faction of the same religion.

One the American is gone, Iran will fight Iraq again, that is the same pretences from Iran-Iraq war in 1980.