When one examines our enemies in the War on Terror

– the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Ba’athists in Iraq, and for the more expansive
among us, the regimes of Syria, Iran, and Stalinist North Korea – one finds
only two things they all hold in common: hatred for America, and support
from the Chinese Communist Party. http://www.dragoninthedark.com/

In 1999, a book by two Communist Chinese officers presented a scenario in
which the World Trade Center is attacked as a situation that the United
States would find difficult handle. The two colonels recommend Osama bin
Laden by name as someone with the ability to orchestrate the attack of that
magnitude via his al Qaeda group
http://www.newsmax/archives/articles...4/143618.shtml

Communist China signed a pact on economic cooperation with the Taliban on
the morning of September 11, 2001, the very day the World Trade Center fell
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Sep14.html

Communist China’s Xinhua press agency later produced a video on the 9/11/01
attacks “glorifying the strikes as a humbling blow against an arrogant
nation”
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$431SABQAAB2BBQF
IQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/04/wchin04.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/04/i
xhome.html

After September 11, U.S. intelligence caught the Communist Chinese military’
s favorite technology firm – Huawei Technologies – building a telephone
network in Kabul http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010928-343125.htm

Raids of al Qaeda hideout by U.S. Special Forces and allies have netted, on
more than one occasion, a large cache of weapons from Communist China,
including surface-to-air missiles,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1007-5307r.htm mere weeks
after the U.S. government warned that al Qaeda terrorists in the U.S. would
try to use said missiles to take down American planes
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020601-74768506.htm
http://asia.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/18/nr.00.html

In the late summer of 2002, almost a year after Afghanistan was liberated, a
three-man delegation from the Taliban, - led by Ustad Khalil, purported to
be Mullah Omar’s right-hand man – spent a week in Communist China meeting
with cadres, at their invitation.
http://www.newsmax/showinside.shtml?a=2002/9/9/155340

In mid-2004, it was revealed that the Communist Chinese intelligence service
had used some of its front companies in financial markets around the world
to help al Qaeda raise and launder funds for their operations.
http://www.geocities.com/china_e_lobby/05May2004.html

In January 2001, Communist China was found to be selling Saddam Hussein
missile technology
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...0112622320.htm

In November of 2002, a Communist Chinese shipment of missile launching
patrol boats to Iraq was intercepted by the U.S. Navy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec11.html

Much mo
http://china-e-lobby.blogspot.com/20...t-iii-communis
t_11.html

Moving on, notice all these former CIA operatives coming out of the woodwork
lately with allegations against Bush?
Now read this: http://www.brookesnews.com/052609cia_print.html

If we cut and run out of Iraq like we did in Vietnam the democratically
"elected" government in Iraq will fall. The result? Absolute Turmoil! And
I guarantee, that by Sept 11th, 2006, Communist China will sign an oil deal
with the Taliban, al Qaeda or the Ba’athists in Baghdad.
http://www.dragoninthedark.com/

Why? Read on...

Last February, the Kremlin imposed a prohibition on any majority
participation by foreign companies in the country's hydrocarbons. Two months
later, Moscow inflicted a punishment on BP's Russian subsidiary that was
more or less the same as the one employed against Yukos - the former oil
giant that escaped Putin's control - by presenting a billion dollar bill for
a suppositious fiscal infraction. The objective of the maneuver? To
discourage BP from taking over any remains and to give them back to Gazprom,
the huge State company that profited enormously from the Yukos implosion.
Let's stick with Russia:

The day after the bittersweet dialogue between Presidents Bush and Putin
during the celebrations for the sixtieth anniversary of the fall of Berlin,
the Russian autocrat made a discreet announcement. He is ready to negotiate
with Beijing for the construction of an oil pipeline that would carry 30% of
the energy resources which China imperatively needs to maintain its present
rhythm of economic progress. One must remember that once the project is
concluded, China will be more captive to Russian black gold than to that of
any other producing country.

If China is tributary to Russia first, then to Iran for all that concerns
hydrocarbon supplies, that doesn't prevent it from all-out stimulation of
energetic nationalism. Unlike other spheres of economic activity, the
[Communist] State's presence in the oil business is dominant. There is no
question of opening the door to private interests in this area. For example,
Beijing fooled Exxon and Shell into believing that, if they got involved in
the construction of an oil pipeline between the country's West and Shanghai,
they would have access to the Chinese automobile market. To make a long
story short, Beijing let things drag along until it had obtained the
technology transfer it wanted. Once that was complete, the Chinese
terminated any further work.

When all these facts are taken into consideration, all given their proper
weight, then - unless you are either totally credulous or fanatical - you
will have to admit that the resources of a certain country take on a
particular importance. What country might that be? Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/37/11131

It's all very simple really.
To which Dear Leader do you wish to be captive? Saddam? China's Hu Jintao?
Russia's Putin? Who?

Instead of pumping your gas from BP petrol stations, we could well be
filling up at SINOpec.

Continuing...

China’s Hypocritical Energy Stance

British Petroleum ( BP ) and its chairman Lord Browne attempted to take a
significant financial interest in China’s largest oil refiner and fuel
marketer, Sinopec. Under the conditions of the proposed deal, BP would have
traded access to certain oil and gas fields in return for an equal or
majority stake in Sinopec which is 80 percent owned by the Chinese
government.

Beijing would have become an equal or minority partner in a high-profile,
state-run enterprise with national security significance; something the
communist government was not prepared to do. “BP has misread what the
Chinese want. They said no; they’ve said they’re not doing it,” one source
close to the deal said.

Does This Sound Familiar?

Beijing’s move to protect one of its most treasured oil assets from foreign
investors brings to mind comparisons of CNOOC’s failed bid to purchase U.S.
oil company Unocal in June.

In response to the failed Unocal bid, the Chinese foreign ministry released
a statement in July saying, “We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its
mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering
in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two
countries.” Recent protectionist actions taken by Beijing involving BP and
Sinopec make these statements all the more hypocritical.

The Bush administration and members of the U.S. Congress took an
unbelievable beating at home and abroad last summer for their stance
regarding oil company Unocal. At that time, legitimate national security
questions related to the deal were roundly criticized as protectionist
attempts by U.S. hawks who feared China’s global rise and influence. Yet,
China has essentially taken a similar protectionist stance with Sinopec,
eliciting little debate in the international community. Why the lack of
scrutiny?

The reason is quite simple -- the world community has come to rely upon
China’s unprecedented economic growth for its own economic vitality. As a
result, countries that normally would object to such protectionist actions
have remained eerily silent for fear of offending a rising China. This
position of tacit appeasement, however, has created a dangerous precedent
that if permitted to continue, will certainly challenge the basic principles
of free enterprise. In essence, an acceptable double standard will be
created exclusively for China. By looking the other way when Beijing
violates the very same open market principles it publicly espouses to
support, the global economic system is compromised.

It is becoming clear that Beijing wants to maintain control over strategic
assets in order to build global dominance in core industries such as energy,
financial services, technology and manufacturing. Why? This will allow
Beijing to influence the geo-political landscape for decades to come.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=20223

Now hold your breath, read this Holy Grail for the Left-wing piece from an
ex-CIA operative, and prepare yourself to confront China over oil Globally.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_111805N.shtml

Be careful what you wish for.