If Iraq was about oil then why no western interest in Chad? Is it that Africa isnt seen as having strategic importance?

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/04/nobody-listened-to-us.html


"That much is evident from the deteriorating situation in Darfur and Chad where, if the world (i.e. the left-wing media) were not so obsessed with appeasing the evil men in the Middle East, attention might turn to resolving a problem which, in comparison, requires relatively modest intervention. The mere 20,000 troops estimated to be required to bring stability to the region, for instance, is but a small fraction of the resource devoted to the Middle East.

Such is the way of the world, however, that the situation in the Darfur region has been festering for over three years and, according to knowledgeable commentators in the region, the current developments were entirely predictable.

Thus, as Chad's president Déby closed his country's borders with Sudan, after Thursday's abortive "invasion", he found it necessary to declare, "Nobody listened to us", criticising the international community for being slow to react.

Such international reaction, if anything, unhelpful, not least the action of the World Bank which is insisting that Chad's oil revenues are devoted entirely to "alleviate poverty". This has prevented Déby financing his own military in a nation that is, after, all, under attack from outside agencies. When Déby, invoking national sovereignty, decided to use some of the money to improve his army, the World Bank suspended support to his government.

In response, Chad is threatening to halt its 160,000-170,000 barrels per day (bpd) oil output unless the World Bank agrees to a new deal, which would leave the country bereft of its main external income.

Yet, all we get from the United States is pious statements, urging "Chad, Sudan and other African countries to try to halt the violence", while France – the former colonial power – and Kofi Annan are merely condemning any attempt to overthrow Déby by force. Yet, all this while Chad is expected to house and sustain the 200,000 Sudanese who have taken refuge in the country.

France itself, has a 1,200-strong military contingent in Chad, and some aircraft, and is sending a further 150 troops, which is hardly sufficient to prevent what the International Crisis Group believes is the threat of a new humanitarian catastrophe on both sides of the border.

Given how highly "Africa" has featured on Tony Blair's agenda, and the recent grandstanding by Gordon Brown, offering £8.5 billion for primary education in Africa, one cannot help but feel that a little less talk and slightly more action would not go amiss.

In this context, the greatest humanitarian need in this part of Africa is a body of disciplined men with guns and orders to shoot to kill, the cost of which could hardly begin to approach the amount Brown has pledged. However, as long as the US is effectively neutralised by the Middle East, and by "world" opinion which would only condemn American intervention, the only credible force available must come from Europe.

That will not happen, since "Europe" has neutralised itself. It is incapable of finding the political will for muscular intervention, which means that hundreds of thousands more Africans must die. The tragedy is that, not only is the slaughter now virtually pre-ordained, much of it will be unreported while the "world" continues with its obsessive condemnation of the US as it tries to stop the slaughter in the Middle East.

Perhaps, on the graves of the countless thousands who have died and will die should be inscribed the words, "Nobody listened to us"."

Irak, on an American strategic point of view, was not about getting oil; it was about stopping China from getting it.
When we speak about Tchad, it is important to point out the fact that we're dealing with far much less oil reserves.

Par St Michel vivent les Paras,
Pour que toujours vive la France...
Et pour qu'au nom de Dieu vive la Coloniale!

"Le fantassin se doit de calquer en tout son attitude sur le morpion, cet animal sublime qui meurt mais ne décroche jamais" (Maréchal Joffre)

One Word ISRAEL

---------------------------------------------------------------






I would have made a good Pope."
- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)


I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals.
- Sir Winston Churchill ( 1874-1965)

As was already pointed out,China has big interests in chad/sudan..it almost certainly has troops in sudan.The US invaded iraq ,not just for its oil but imo to entice iran into a war...a ploy which at the moment seems to be working well.

Isreal certainly comes into the equation somewhere...

"One Word ISRAEL"

I agree with this.
Also,...

Geo-strategically iraq is far more important.
Can and will be used as a base for further invasions.
Has a lot more oil reserves.
Geo-pollitically,the target is CHINA.

I know it sounds strange or weird,but the way US r
thinking,it is not.The us will not stay on iraq.
Once and IF things will stabilize,they will go further...

Cheers Bros



4.500 YEARS OF HISTORY AND ON.....
Must check: www.e-history.gr

The China angle seems right. However if this is anything to go by do the USA also see India as a threat?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/13/china_and_india_change_the_game.php

"First the story. China and India have been busy over the past few years attempting to secure oil fields and other energy assets for their domestic or state-owned oil companies. China, for instance, has secured a major deal to develop Alberta 's tar sands oil deposit, a deposit which places Canada above Iraq in terms of recoverable reserves. It has sealed deals in Africa, notoriously with fellow human rights violator Sudan. India has sealed major energy deals with Iran but, as reported in the FT, "lost out to Chinese rivals in the race to acquire fields in Angola, Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Ecuador." China, of course, was recently rebuffed by the U.S. Congress in its attempt to buy Unocal.

Faced with a market in which politics—be it the U.S. Congress or OPEC or Hugo Chavez—have an equal if not greater influence on price as economics, the two have agreed to coordinate their efforts to secure energy resources. The plan is modeled on their recent joint deal in Syria. India and China will essentially work together to secure their energy resources without unnecessarily bidding up the price of those resources. In other words, the Indians and Chinese have agreed to a consumer's cartel representing 2.3 billion potential consumers.

The significance of the alliance is hard to understate. India and China represent the two leading sources of increased oil demand globally. Each have enormous populations that are entering the modern economy at breakneck speed. As these populations increase their per capita income, they demand products and services that require higher and higher amounts of energy—particularly oil for the new cars their citizens want to drive.

Both the Indians and the Chinese are feeling the pressure of diminishing oil discoveries and flatlined oil production at a time when expansion of their domestic economies is rapidly increasing demand for energy. One unit of Chinese gross domestic product, for example, uses three times as much energy as a unit of American GDP. And 10 times as much as a unit of Japanese GDP.

It is clear is that this pact escalates the global competition for oil. Yet it does so in a fairly sophisticated way. The two nations have agreed to distort the market rather than continue to compete and lose to global market imbalances (India 's concern) or nationalistic politics (China 's). Together, their combined markets and purchasing power offer an extremely attractive partner to producing states—especially states like Syria, Iran and Sudan, who might otherwise feel pressure from Western concerns over human rights and democracy.

At the same time, the deal demonstrates that neither China nor India can, or have an interest in attempting to, secure access to oil through military means, as the British did through World War II and as the United States has done since. This pact is not a military alliance. However, strategic resources have a long and bloody history of attracting military protection, and none less than energy. If this pact does not produce results and if the balance between oil production and demand continues to weaken, we may in the future see an Asian equivalent of the Carter Doctrine.

Here in Washington, however, this news offers leading strategic advisers and their political clients a perfect moment in which to change the strategic narrative—a false narrative—which has been imposed on America since the attacks of 9/11."

"To rush into the breech claiming China and India are the new grand strategic threat is to play into Rumsfeld's hands. It would also hasten the economic disaster that lies just over the horizon. Rather, it is time for really big-picture thinking to figure out just how we can prevent the increasing competition over oil to turn into a strategic threat that destroys the American economy, doing to America what we did to the Soviets. That will require a new grand strategy that bridges our economy and our foreign policy."


This part is very interesting mate.
I guess time will show.

As the article says,it is likely that the
United States will have grand new strategy
concerning their actions and targets.

What iam really curious about,is the amount
of money a prosperous future china would spent
on military purchases.

Cheers







4.500 YEARS OF HISTORY AND ON.....
Must check: www.e-history.gr

LOL @ magnus.. Well I feel his jewish love


__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!

Here's some more love.

It's all about Israel and every one knows it.

Share the love

********************************************




Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses
-George Washington

Lets not forget this was a combined effort by bush and blair. Blaming only America is dishonest. Share the hate people, share the hate.

"The China angle seems right. However if this is anything to go by do the USA also see India as a threat?"

LOL No one is worried about India. India is nothing but an overpopulated 3rd world slumhole that won't exist in 50 years except as numerous smaller nations and new territories of China.

And how has Israel benifited from the Iraq invasion? They never got any Iraqi oil and they now have a new Iraqi government that hates Israel even more than the previous one.

Iraq was about the US neo-con wet dream of replacing international laws and bodies with US policy...nothing more, nothing less.

Read "Future Tense" from Gwynne Dyer it presents a very logical argument for this.

---

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Irak, on an American strategic point of view, was not about getting oil; it was about stopping China from getting it.
When we speak about Tchad, it is important to point out the fact that we're dealing with far much less oil reserves.

Chad is of vital importance to France's, not as a supplier of oil but a base to stablise the region where we obtain our nuclear fuel. THis is the only reason Deby is in power. We helped the Chadian to stop the Libyan invasion for that reason. Luckily Libya has stopped its bullying of its weaker neighbours after that.

---------------------------


De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[