28 pages later...
If you haven't heard, you will.
We can't read them, but I suggested this often and early in the days after 9-11. Seems I was right.
Back then I asked why we didn't slam Saudi Arabia. Of course I knew the answer to my rhetorical question, but still. If the Iraq campaign has done it's job (nothing to do with weapons, though everyone in the know and not playing politics knows there were weapons there, and Iraq's own defiance is a matter of public record -- reason enough for regime change actually, no matter) If Iraq has served it's purpose, it's time to squeeze the vise on the Saudi royals. However, our justified distaste for those twitchy bastards must be tempered by a cautious approach to a population leaning dangerously towards a reactionary embrace of theocratic extremism.
It's gonna be a mess.
We can't read them, but I suggested this often and early in the days after 9-11. Seems I was right.
Back then I asked why we didn't slam Saudi Arabia. Of course I knew the answer to my rhetorical question, but still. If the Iraq campaign has done it's job (nothing to do with weapons, though everyone in the know and not playing politics knows there were weapons there, and Iraq's own defiance is a matter of public record -- reason enough for regime change actually, no matter) If Iraq has served it's purpose, it's time to squeeze the vise on the Saudi royals. However, our justified distaste for those twitchy bastards must be tempered by a cautious approach to a population leaning dangerously towards a reactionary embrace of theocratic extremism.
It's gonna be a mess.
Comments
Anyway. This one issue gets me madder than any other. FSCK those unworthy assholes! A country like Saudi Arabia has done nothing to earn the respect of the US or any other country. Except backward islamic theocracies.
The US needs to cut them lose. They will still sell us oil. Maybe not at the price we want but post 9-11 it would cost us more in the long run to play nice with them rather than do what's right.
Let's see the 28 pages.
Dependent is Dependent. You shut off the oil to any modern country, things will grind to a halt. It's pointless to make note of who's using more/who's using less. Either it is dependent and it grinds to a halt, or it isn't. If your point is simply to make light of why doesn't the US conserve more (and become more like Mexico, production-wise), that belongs in another topic. If you just wanted to make light of who the "oil-whore" is, welcome to reality- the WORLD is an oil-whore.
It's a matter of logistics, if an imminent need were to arise a conversion to fuel cell would take less time in say Great Britain than in the US. US pop = aprox 300 million
Great Britain pop = aprox 60 million. If change over time of the neccessary infrastructure to support said population = X per 1 million then 300 million multiplied by X is far larger than 60 million multiplied by X.
And you guys keep bitching about those darned Al Qaeda hijackers
Rest assured, if you cut the oil line to Great Britain, they will grind to a halt. Dependent is Dependent. If fuel cells suddenly become the answer somehow, the country that can produce the most of them (not the one having the least per capita to supply) will be in the best shape. It's a good bet, that country will be a superpower, and it will create surplus so as to aid other countries that lack the brute manufacturing capacity. So this theory that the country that has "highest per capita" will be SOL is just FUD.
Now if we can be through with playing the "only the US is the evil oil whore" game, by all means lets get back to talking about "28 pages".
B. I'm talking about the logistics of converting, more people in an indutrialized nation = more infrastructre, more infrastructure = more time and complexity neccesitated for conversion
C. Until a conversion on the majority of our fuel needs we still have to play delicate politics with Saudi Arabia, beint that they are the big boys of OPEC
D. You are repeating yourself with nothing new to add
E. you are trying to goad me
PS
F. OPEC couldn't halt production to all the industrialized nations, for most of the OPEC nations oil is their major (if not only) source of income
The US is so oil dependent that we're the economic b*tch for SA. C'mon fuel cells!
...utterly pointless. It's like pointing up at the sky and saying it is blue. Well, it happens to be blue all over the world when you look up. Worrying about rate of logistical conversion is pretty much beside the point if your country has ground to a halt after the oil supply is cut. Once it is ground to a halt, that pretty much means you were dependent. That pretty much describes every single modern country in the world with some degree of economic influence.
Originally posted by LiquidR
F. OPEC couldn't halt production to all the industrialized nations, for most of the OPEC nations oil is their major (if not only) source of income
Ironically, that makes them as much a "bitch" to the oil as it does us. They have to sell it, or they will grind to a halt.
Somehow, I get to feeling that you are deliberatly missing the points of my argument. What I am stating is that while it might take the UK 30(arbitrarily chosen) years to become oil independent due to a smaller infrastructure, we will still be dependent, meaning we've got to be more careful in our politics than the others. Yes, to please the public we creatively point our fingers to sources in SA, but we are careful to not point them directly at the Saudi royal family.
Yes, OPEC is a b*tch to the oil. SO, sayonara suckas when we do get oil independent