True, but we wont't need to use them for military bases for too many years longer after we stabalize Iraq. As we are now shutting down and moving bases from Germany to other NATO nations the same can happen in the Mid-East.
1. Aren't we moving out bases out of SA in the near future?
2. Doesn't mid-east oil account for something like 20% of all the oil we (the USA) use? I thought the majority still came from North America (USA, Canada, Mexico), with a significant chunk coming from the North Sea (UK, Norway) and Central Asia (Russia, the 'Stans)? I can't seem to find a quick stat in that link that shows how much of our oil comes from where (US specifically). Theorecticaly, if we just conserve another 5% or whatever it is we use from a place like SA (with a buffer), we could just cut that supply. While I'd love to just kick the oil "habit" completely, this isn't necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.
3. If we were able to cut out SA from our oil supply, their economy and government would be in for a lot of hurt, and would bring the regime that much closer to collapse. Yo uwould thin just this knowledge would put the fear of God so to speak into the Saudi government. Who really wears (or could wear) the pants in this relationship?
Sorry. Try again. Which country is most dependant on SA oil?
I expect you are going to say that Japan is the most dependent, as the majority of its oil imports come from the Persian gulf. But the US still imports more Saudi oil than it does oil from any other country, and Saudi exports more oil to the US than it does to any other country.
How did you propose we 'slam' Saudi Arabia? What would the fallout be? I think those who you think should be slamming Saudi Arabia know more than us that we 'should' be slamming them. The problem is how to do it. It's easy to slam North Korea or Iraq because we don't rely on them for anything.
Smashing the shit out of some poor little nation (in comparison to the US) is not going to help things. Sure, it gets rid of the problem for the next ten years or so, but the systemic problem is still there.... and it has gotten worse.
How many times do we need to hastily rush into military action, only to find out ten, twenty, thirty years later that it only made things worse?
The problem is not the leaders. The problem is not the country. The problem is not the army. The problem is not the people, or their religion.
IT IS THE DAMN US. GWB says 'they hate us for our freedom.' That is completely backwards. They hate us for our oppression. We are the forefront proponent of inequality among nations. We don't care what happens to any nation, just so long as we keep all the oil under their land. We don't care what happens to the people, just so long as we keep our cheap gas, clothes, and extranational labor force. So, when something threatens that, like Saddam Huessein, he is removed. Do you really think that the Iraqis are happy that we came in, and completely clobbered the nation? Of course not! Just look at the situation over there right now... would you like to be an Iraqi now? So, the government might have been toppled, but the basic ideologies have only gotten stronger.
I have been in several third world countries within the past ten years, including Nicaragua and Colombia -- both countries completely fvcked up by the US. Fortunately for me, in both cases I stayed with wonderful families that could look past my nationality, and not blame me, and instead the system.
One quote from my host father in Nicaragua sticks with me... when I asked him if he hated USAmericans from the Contra war, and he said quite astutely, "I realize that the USAmerican public had no idea of what was occurring at the time. We used to have a government like that, too. Sadly, we're moving back in that direction again."
Listen to me: the problem is not the other. The problem is us.
How did you propose we 'slam' Saudi Arabia? What would the fallout be? I think those who you think should be slamming Saudi Arabia know more than us that we 'should' be slamming them. The problem is how to do it. It's easy to slam North Korea or Iraq because we don't rely on them for anything.
Where did I say slam Saudi Arabia? [hint, NOT a rhetorical question, or it is, but not as you read it.]
I refer to the 28 pages which implicate Saudi Arabia, not to mention again a money trail (cheques) that go straight back to the Saudi Royals that were widely ignored in the days after 9-11. I was right about Saudi involvement, not the needed slamming.
The answer to the question of what to do, you might find, puts us in closer agreement that you realize. Iraq makes space for Saudia Arabia, but within Saudi Arabia, you only get to trade one devil for another. What we need is a scheme that destroys the royals and either paralizes the greedily waiting musilm clerics with fear (not likely) or somehow disposes of the aswell.
The fallout is potentially profound if the extrication of Saudi enemies is not carefully managed.
PS, the single most oil dependent nation is without question Saudi Arabia -- with close competition from other large mid east producers. Remnants of colonialism? yes, but basically their own fault at this point.
Doesn't mid-east oil account for something like 20% of all the oil we (the USA) use?
Something like that. Mexico, in fact, is the number 1 exporter of oil to the U.S.
It should be noted that while reduced oil dependence would be a good thing in the long term, it has to happen gradually. Not even the U.S. economy could absorb the impact of an immediate wholesale shift away from oil.
It's pretty rediculous to blame the Saudi-Arabia-royals for financing most of the terrorists that directed the planes into the skyscrapers. The royals in Saudi-Arabia finance a lot of students that go out of Saudi-Arabia in order to study in the western universities, this is a normal procedure for them, they see it as a good deed to spend money for students. Some of them turn out to be terrorists and not using that money for studying but for terrorist-activities, suprise, suprise.
The US-administration knows that, and understands it, but the normal CNN-watching public wouldn't understand it at all. They would see a clear money-trail from royals to the terrorists, and would conclude that Saudi-Arabia actually has told them to be terrorists and destroy the towers.
Regardless of all that US will never ever attack Saudi Arabia, not because it is dependent on their oil, but because it is dependent of the good will of the arabic nations. Iraq and Afganistan weren't arabic nations, so the other arabic nations didn't care for them.
But the US attacking Saudi-Arabia, the one country where the Islam had its origin, the Kaaba destroyed by american missiles, where every year millions of muslims from all over the world are journeing to, in order to prove and renew their faith.
A lot of terrorists groups actually would like the US to do right that...
If you believe the Saudi royals weren't behind Al Queda, you're as naive as those who believe George Bush wants to "liberate" Iraq.
Let's see, the money trail points to the Saudi royals. Bin Laden was a Saudi whom everyone in the intelligence community knows maintained Saudi connections. Experts from Saudi Arabia tell us that there are known terrorists in Saudi Arabia whom the Saudis have not arrested.
For direct evidence, there are the Saudi telethons to raise money and support for palestinian martyrs. Untill this came to the attention of the wider world, the Saudi's actually gave more money to the families of suicide bombers, they later ammended their public presentation say their fund raising was in support of displaced palestinian people. However, their is absolutely no doubt that the long standing intention was to drum up moral and financial support for terrorists and to encourage "martyrs" -- Having been publicly broadcast, this terrorist support activity is actually on tape!
The argument about students is naive, a smoke screen. Alwaleed has been giving "scholarship" money to all sorts of "Islamic" American funds since 9-11. If you recall he wanted to rub Guliani's face in it after 9-11 by giving ten million to NY but insisting that the US re-examine their role in palestine as a contributing factor to the 9-11 attacks, this while "condeming terrorism," wink wink. You don't think that this would have been used, had the money been accepted, in some way by an extremist propaganda machine? The same machine that was proven to have been running Al Queda recruitment videoa in dozens of Mosques on the eastern sea-board?
Does the Saudi royal family put up the money directly and the orders? I don't think their that dumb, but I don't doubt that they contribute to the terror network through tacit understandings that some of their "scholarship/gift/honorarium" monies will/do/should end up in terrorist hands.
If you believe the Saudi royals weren't behind Al Queda, you're as naive as those who believe George Bush wants to "liberate" Iraq.
Sorry Matsu, but this whole argument is bordering on irrational. There is no direct evidence. Palestinian martyrs have nothing to do with 9-11. The scholarship money is legit.
If we were to act based on these ramblings, it would be a worse situation than what's happened with Iraq.
In May 22% of our imported oil. 9% growth in May. over 2 million barrels. Plus if I had to take a guess a good portion of the rest of our oil is from one OPEC nation or another. Who is the head of OPEC? Saudi Arabia.
If you believe the Saudi royals weren't behind Al Queda, you're as naive as those who believe George Bush wants to "liberate" Iraq.
...
Does the Saudi royal family put up the money directly and the orders? I don't think their that dumb, but I don't doubt that they contribute to the terror network through tacit understandings that some of their "scholarship/gift/honorarium" monies will/do/should end up in terrorist hands.
Gosh you are backwards. I believe it was The Atlantic that not only demonstrated in a very long and detailed article a year ago that it was highly unlikely Princess Haifa Al-Faisal had any knowledge of where her money was going (I think it's also been established that the money never even got into the hands of anyone related to 9.11, contrary to intitial reports). It was through a california organization that takes doantions for many arab causes. Anyway, I don't remember too much about it, but it simply isn't true that the Saudi royal family is 'behind' al-qaeda. It's simply a stupid theory unsupported by fact.
What has been established is that the head of the ISI and musharraf's #2, who was meeting with the leaders of the senate intel committee during the attacks, did in fact send $100,000 directly to Atta.
If you really would like to get a clue, start by actually studying 9.11 for real and not just speculating. Read the timeline all the way through: www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline
As for you attempts to equate support for the palestinians with support for al-qaeda, it's ****ing rediculous.
Comments
Synthetics, as well as other oil substitutes are in the pipeline....
err unintended pun....
Originally posted by LiquidR
No it doesn't, but being that we are the most dependent,..
Please prove that we are "most dependent". Do and analysis of each countries oil usage and where they buy it from. Then report back.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Besides the oil, SA also serves as a military base for US troops and intel.
Not it doesn't.
top oil consumers
that's 25% of the world oil consumption, the US is only 3% of the world population, nearly 20 million barrels a day
Originally posted by LiquidR
Certainly,
top oil consumers
that's 25% of the world oil consumption, the US is only 3% of the world population, nearly 20 million barrels a day
Wow, so it looks like we really are SA's bitch.
No wonder we keep bending over for them.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Certainly,
top oil consumers
that's 25% of the world oil consumption, the US is only 3% of the world population, nearly 20 million barrels a day
Sorry. Try again. Which country is most dependant on SA oil?
1. Aren't we moving out bases out of SA in the near future?
2. Doesn't mid-east oil account for something like 20% of all the oil we (the USA) use? I thought the majority still came from North America (USA, Canada, Mexico), with a significant chunk coming from the North Sea (UK, Norway) and Central Asia (Russia, the 'Stans)? I can't seem to find a quick stat in that link that shows how much of our oil comes from where (US specifically). Theorecticaly, if we just conserve another 5% or whatever it is we use from a place like SA (with a buffer), we could just cut that supply. While I'd love to just kick the oil "habit" completely, this isn't necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.
3. If we were able to cut out SA from our oil supply, their economy and government would be in for a lot of hurt, and would bring the regime that much closer to collapse. Yo uwould thin just this knowledge would put the fear of God so to speak into the Saudi government. Who really wears (or could wear) the pants in this relationship?
Originally posted by Scott
Sorry. Try again. Which country is most dependant on SA oil?
I expect you are going to say that Japan is the most dependent, as the majority of its oil imports come from the Persian gulf. But the US still imports more Saudi oil than it does oil from any other country, and Saudi exports more oil to the US than it does to any other country.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...df/table35.pdf
Originally posted by Matsu
Seems I was right.
How did you propose we 'slam' Saudi Arabia? What would the fallout be? I think those who you think should be slamming Saudi Arabia know more than us that we 'should' be slamming them. The problem is how to do it. It's easy to slam North Korea or Iraq because we don't rely on them for anything.
Smashing the shit out of some poor little nation (in comparison to the US) is not going to help things. Sure, it gets rid of the problem for the next ten years or so, but the systemic problem is still there.... and it has gotten worse.
How many times do we need to hastily rush into military action, only to find out ten, twenty, thirty years later that it only made things worse?
The problem is not the leaders. The problem is not the country. The problem is not the army. The problem is not the people, or their religion.
IT IS THE DAMN US. GWB says 'they hate us for our freedom.' That is completely backwards. They hate us for our oppression. We are the forefront proponent of inequality among nations. We don't care what happens to any nation, just so long as we keep all the oil under their land. We don't care what happens to the people, just so long as we keep our cheap gas, clothes, and extranational labor force. So, when something threatens that, like Saddam Huessein, he is removed. Do you really think that the Iraqis are happy that we came in, and completely clobbered the nation? Of course not! Just look at the situation over there right now... would you like to be an Iraqi now? So, the government might have been toppled, but the basic ideologies have only gotten stronger.
I have been in several third world countries within the past ten years, including Nicaragua and Colombia -- both countries completely fvcked up by the US. Fortunately for me, in both cases I stayed with wonderful families that could look past my nationality, and not blame me, and instead the system.
One quote from my host father in Nicaragua sticks with me... when I asked him if he hated USAmericans from the Contra war, and he said quite astutely, "I realize that the USAmerican public had no idea of what was occurring at the time. We used to have a government like that, too. Sadly, we're moving back in that direction again."
Listen to me: the problem is not the other. The problem is us.
Originally posted by bunge
How did you propose we 'slam' Saudi Arabia? What would the fallout be? I think those who you think should be slamming Saudi Arabia know more than us that we 'should' be slamming them. The problem is how to do it. It's easy to slam North Korea or Iraq because we don't rely on them for anything.
Where did I say slam Saudi Arabia? [hint, NOT a rhetorical question, or it is, but not as you read it.]
I refer to the 28 pages which implicate Saudi Arabia, not to mention again a money trail (cheques) that go straight back to the Saudi Royals that were widely ignored in the days after 9-11. I was right about Saudi involvement, not the needed slamming.
The answer to the question of what to do, you might find, puts us in closer agreement that you realize. Iraq makes space for Saudia Arabia, but within Saudi Arabia, you only get to trade one devil for another. What we need is a scheme that destroys the royals and either paralizes the greedily waiting musilm clerics with fear (not likely) or somehow disposes of the aswell.
The fallout is potentially profound if the extrication of Saudi enemies is not carefully managed.
PS, the single most oil dependent nation is without question Saudi Arabia -- with close competition from other large mid east producers. Remnants of colonialism? yes, but basically their own fault at this point.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Doesn't mid-east oil account for something like 20% of all the oil we (the USA) use?
Something like that. Mexico, in fact, is the number 1 exporter of oil to the U.S.
It should be noted that while reduced oil dependence would be a good thing in the long term, it has to happen gradually. Not even the U.S. economy could absorb the impact of an immediate wholesale shift away from oil.
The US-administration knows that, and understands it, but the normal CNN-watching public wouldn't understand it at all. They would see a clear money-trail from royals to the terrorists, and would conclude that Saudi-Arabia actually has told them to be terrorists and destroy the towers.
Regardless of all that US will never ever attack Saudi Arabia, not because it is dependent on their oil, but because it is dependent of the good will of the arabic nations. Iraq and Afganistan weren't arabic nations, so the other arabic nations didn't care for them.
But the US attacking Saudi-Arabia, the one country where the Islam had its origin, the Kaaba destroyed by american missiles, where every year millions of muslims from all over the world are journeing to, in order to prove and renew their faith.
A lot of terrorists groups actually would like the US to do right that...
Nightcrawler
Let's see, the money trail points to the Saudi royals. Bin Laden was a Saudi whom everyone in the intelligence community knows maintained Saudi connections. Experts from Saudi Arabia tell us that there are known terrorists in Saudi Arabia whom the Saudis have not arrested.
For direct evidence, there are the Saudi telethons to raise money and support for palestinian martyrs. Untill this came to the attention of the wider world, the Saudi's actually gave more money to the families of suicide bombers, they later ammended their public presentation say their fund raising was in support of displaced palestinian people. However, their is absolutely no doubt that the long standing intention was to drum up moral and financial support for terrorists and to encourage "martyrs" -- Having been publicly broadcast, this terrorist support activity is actually on tape!
The argument about students is naive, a smoke screen. Alwaleed has been giving "scholarship" money to all sorts of "Islamic" American funds since 9-11. If you recall he wanted to rub Guliani's face in it after 9-11 by giving ten million to NY but insisting that the US re-examine their role in palestine as a contributing factor to the 9-11 attacks, this while "condeming terrorism," wink wink. You don't think that this would have been used, had the money been accepted, in some way by an extremist propaganda machine? The same machine that was proven to have been running Al Queda recruitment videoa in dozens of Mosques on the eastern sea-board?
Does the Saudi royal family put up the money directly and the orders? I don't think their that dumb, but I don't doubt that they contribute to the terror network through tacit understandings that some of their "scholarship/gift/honorarium" monies will/do/should end up in terrorist hands.
Originally posted by Matsu
If you believe the Saudi royals weren't behind Al Queda, you're as naive as those who believe George Bush wants to "liberate" Iraq.
Sorry Matsu, but this whole argument is bordering on irrational. There is no direct evidence. Palestinian martyrs have nothing to do with 9-11. The scholarship money is legit.
If we were to act based on these ramblings, it would be a worse situation than what's happened with Iraq.
In May 22% of our imported oil. 9% growth in May. over 2 million barrels. Plus if I had to take a guess a good portion of the rest of our oil is from one OPEC nation or another. Who is the head of OPEC? Saudi Arabia.
Originally posted by Matsu
If you believe the Saudi royals weren't behind Al Queda, you're as naive as those who believe George Bush wants to "liberate" Iraq.
...
Does the Saudi royal family put up the money directly and the orders? I don't think their that dumb, but I don't doubt that they contribute to the terror network through tacit understandings that some of their "scholarship/gift/honorarium" monies will/do/should end up in terrorist hands.
Gosh you are backwards. I believe it was The Atlantic that not only demonstrated in a very long and detailed article a year ago that it was highly unlikely Princess Haifa Al-Faisal had any knowledge of where her money was going (I think it's also been established that the money never even got into the hands of anyone related to 9.11, contrary to intitial reports). It was through a california organization that takes doantions for many arab causes. Anyway, I don't remember too much about it, but it simply isn't true that the Saudi royal family is 'behind' al-qaeda. It's simply a stupid theory unsupported by fact.
What has been established is that the head of the ISI and musharraf's #2, who was meeting with the leaders of the senate intel committee during the attacks, did in fact send $100,000 directly to Atta.
If you really would like to get a clue, start by actually studying 9.11 for real and not just speculating. Read the timeline all the way through: www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline
As for you attempts to equate support for the palestinians with support for al-qaeda, it's ****ing rediculous.