It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America To Still Hold Sactions Against China: Iran and Oil

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   


WASHINGTON — With less than three weeks to go before sweeping American sanctions take effect against countries and banks that do business with Iran, the Obama administration announced on Monday that it would exempt seven more nations— but not China — from the sanctions, saying the seven had “significantly reduced” purchases of Iranian oil.


So... the US has exempted 7 more nations?

How is this not going to look bad in regards to our foreign relations with China!




Administration officials said the United States was continuing to negotiate with China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, after a confusing period in which Chinese purchases dropped sharply in a price dispute with Iran, but later rebounded.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the administration had issued waivers on Monday to India, Malaysia, South Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Taiwan, all significant importers of Iranian oil. They join Japan and 10 European countries that were given exemptions earlier.


This is craziness... It's plain as day what is the underlying sentiment behind this decision. The US needs to slow down a bit, or just state the obvious.




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


I am not entirely sure who died and left the US in charge, but Iran will have access to markets and sell its products in this free world.


"Today's announcement underscores the success of our sanctions implementation," she said in a statement. "By reducing Iran's oil sales, we are sending a decisive message to Iran's leaders: until they take concrete actions to satisfy the concerns of the international community, they will continue to face increasing isolation and pressure."

Clinton urged Iranian leaders to address the nuclear concerns quickly, and pointed to an upcoming meeting in Moscow, with negotiators from Iran and world powers, as an ideal opportunity to do so.

U.S. officials said Iran's oil exports have declined from about 2.5 million barrels a day last year to between 1.2 and 1.8 million barrels a day, choking a key source of revenue for the regime which remains defiant of international demands to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful.



No one said they had to use the nuclear power for peaceful purposes when it was given to them.

It was given to them like Pakistan etc to form a coalition against totalitarian regimes such as the United States of Americahousen.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


and USA has already started the murder of its citizens.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


You guys are playin hardball.

So what is the question? "Who is in charge of managing the resources?" and that would be Robert and below him if he had his way, Harvard University.

So, I think personally we should have university wars, and see if we can't get them to fight over whose advice we will be taking.

But we will just give them a year to reach a consensus, At present I think the struggle is to raise oil prices while reducing supply. To encourage alternate forms of energy and to protect a non renewable resource.

So that is easy for us to remember, what is difficult is a strategy that will work effectively on the ground in situ.

Which you just know the G20 can handle that if we give them a folder full of studies and we show them the best path to follow.
They are economists.
Then from there NATO stationed in Afghanistan which I hope will become this giant sized military base, can be used to maintain security in the region by their presence playing war games with such amazing capabilities, that no one would really want to mess them.

In theory.

The silk road. Afghanistan is key to trade routes on the ground. And it has always been a good place for trouble of all kinds as a result. And, people immigrate on that route or always had. And they also escape or hope to along that route. For any number of reasons. So we should turn it into a commercial center. A giant commercial center protected by military presence around it but maybe not visibly in it. No need for machine guns in the malls etc.
But anyway I am not against Harvard being given a mandate to manage the oil reserves so game on.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


The fact is that Afghanistan is just too strategic a location to not have it managed by some proper force.

I think that realization was established a long time ago but no one had the capability to do it effectively in the past.

A landlocked country, with a lot of other countries bordering it, that has a constant influx of foreigners from all sides. Its almost impossible to play risk under those conditions. If your net worth is almost zero, and your total gross income (not profit but total income if in business and basic food value if not) GDP per capita 962 bucks.

On average meaning some make more and most make less.
So unless we just manage the entire country through a NATO military dictatorship, a benevolent one, it will continue to be a place where trouble is born, opium is made, heroine is made and grief hardship and disease is born into the world for others to also suffer from in their own neighborhoods through transfer of social ills.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Well? Build a giant commercial center in the heart of Afghanistan, a NATO protectorate, and develop an on-line sales economy, whereby you have shipping by ground and the air at least if not by sea.

What you do have is incredible low cost well made goods that are begging for markets.

An incredible labor force of 4 billion people able to manufacture goods. And themselves emerging so they also will be buying from that center since the price to us may be low, but to them it is standard.

It would help the global economy and redistribution of wealth. And make people rich of course and also help nations deal with customs by just saying here, you handle the details how much will it cost?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


You could negotiate a corridor to the sea. It's their goods you want to ship to markets.

You just have to give em a cut a the action see. As a global economic strategist, it behooves me, to consider de possibilities.

From a commercial center like that, the G20 can meet and help countries solve their customs and excise issues and help them to manage their emerging economies if they want help with that.

You see by having a center such as that, people can work together to resolve trade issues. And yes, impose order if need be, to protect the lives of innocent people, and their children and that may be in the form of keeping the food heading to markets.

So a very useful little area. One that might also some day find itself flooded with refugees from some natural disaster. People who would just migrate through and whatever in search of food. Something to plan for as I said previously. By flooded I mean 10 to 20 million people would be nothing when China alone has 2 billion, and India 1 billion.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
These countries, especially India, would do well to tell the US to shaft itself at this juncture, and should buy their way into the vast and cheap supply of Iranian oil.

A large portion of the American position in Asia is its relationship with India, if that can be reduced, the US position can be reduced thus freeing independent sovereign states from US aggression.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Location, location, location.

goo.gl...



The US, Afghanistan and the 'India card'
Involving India in the US war in Afghanistan could further polarise Pakistan and turn the country into a proxy war.

www.aljazeera.com...


I repeat location location location. Lets not lose site of what we are dealing with here which appears to be a handful of dirt poor penniless people, managing a few goats along mountain passes. For the most part.
In search of water.

I was looking at the road system and you know, goods might be shipped through Iran if an agreement could be made but probably not military equipment. Pakistan is a key member of the SCO and so cozying up to America at present is not something they want to do especially since America was not respecting their borders.

But you know if we would just decide on an economic strategy then base our diplomacy around it.
And I have stated what I think should happen in Afghanistan. Infrastructure costs money, so you need to raise money, and you raise money through capitalism by shipping goods to markets.

It requires initial investment but once the investment has been made it pays dividends. If there are goods that need markets, and it is the silk road after all, then it has potential.
Clearly water management has to happen.

But I can see a time when there is a modern center in there and people are moving along expressways shipping goods to markets.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


So if you examine google maps Afghanistan, you might notice that the communities often look more like settlements in gorges at strategic road junctions, most suitable to ambush a caravan.

Which is what made so many empires in the past in this otherwise desolate place.

But it also could be interesting for military purposes. Shall I lapse rhapsodic and say how glorious it might be, to have a place like Afghanistan, where the military might train and practice and be a strong force and maybe be rarely used in battle. But still churn out virtuous men and women for the benefit of society as a whole.

And perform a function of security in the region, which would at some point be sanctioned by the G20, and maybe be a more passive police type force than a military bombing enterprise.

It just takes a bit of cooperation to build that force, and use it in the entire region when called upon.
Pirates and shipping lanes on the ground air and sea need to be managed by a secure force because commerce wants to be sure its goods can move without interference and loss. Thats not going to happen if we don't do it. What will happen is China and Asia will just ship things their way and that doesn't help that poor desolate region at all.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I really hate to butt in here, but you do realise that a debate requires more than one person to post something, right?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Yes that is exactly what I am saying. We could be pirates. Land pirates in Afghanistan. Imposing tariffs and keeping the world safe for pirates like us.

Thats why I said this incursion into Afghanistan is not different than any other in history, it was just our turn.

And so? What did everyone else do? They made a dynasty.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Yes that is exactly what I am saying. We could be pirates. Land pirates in Afghanistan. Imposing tariffs and keeping the world safe for pirates like us.

Thats why I said this incursion into Afghanistan is not different than any other in history, it was just our turn.

And so? What did everyone else do? They made a dynasty.



What in the name of all that is holy are you rambling on about? I've reported this thread.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


So then what we need are some bull dozers, big ones, some cement, some asphalt, (which we can get from the west of there). and we start making a giant airport, and giant warehousing and build some roads.

Piece a cake, but in order to do that, you should get the NATO general's land use plan, which they probably have somewhere.

And if we can't get a corridor to the sea, we will use our boring machinE! (rubbing hands) and go deep into the earth under them.

Or go north but why go north again? To get heavy objects to the sea I guess. You see its not really militarily suited for a modern dynastic empire with all the trappings of military industrialism. But it would be ok for war games and training.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



Here is a nice topographical map of Afghanistan...

upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
It all seems kindof futile now since on May 1st Obama snuck over to Kabul and announced the withdrawal of troops. With what appears to be some sort of plan to have Pakistani trained Taliban act as some sort of security council or something there.

All I see strategically are low cost goods going through there on their way to markets where the goods are inexpensive since the people receiving them in the middle east do not have much for money. So then who really should be managing that but the SCO.

The images I have seen look to me like the men are tired of that terrain after 10 years. Well thats kindof one of the last places to play war games on land. And the people are getting angry because of atrocities by a few soldiers.

And its a Islamic Republic. In a continual state of civil war.
And its been at war for what seems like thousands of years. You know fences, checkpoints, how do you deal with a region that is historically a tinderbox? It costs money and you have to give them irrigation and then they will farm. Thats it. And have babies.
edit on 12-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join