posted on November 6, 2001 02:25:06 PM new
This is one of those not often discussed State Department dilemmas. Unfortunately there is a whole lot of truth to this. Conversely to there not being many Afghan-Americans, there are millions of Arab-Americans. Can you imagine what kind of domestic hostility issues such a proposed severance of relations would create?
posted on November 6, 2001 04:59:41 PM new
There's nothing revolutionary about these ideas, but the United States kisses the butt of Saudi Arabia with complete and blind diligence, even to the point of ignoring evidence against them in cases such as the WTC attack. There are a couple of reasons for this not the least of which is the fact that 80% of the imported oil used by the U.S. comes from Saudi Arabia. Other reasons are strategic in that we continually work to remain in Saudi favor in order that they grant use of their airspace and ground bases while engaged elsewhere. Our favor is also freely granted by refraining from investigations of Saudi investment and money exchange activities in this country. We not only do not investigate, we participate with them for large pieces of that pie.
Yet evidence has shown that all of the WTC hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is evidence that Saudi financial interests gained tremendously in the trading of airline and insurnce stocks prior to and after the attack. These things are given only the slightest lip service and then immediately discounted publically.
The article suggests taking away such advantages in U.S. interests. It may be too late for that, and the actuality of the situation is that the Saudis will and have been taking away U.S. domination around the world. In that scenario it is in the best interest of the continuation of the U.S. as a prominent force in world interaction to do whatever possible to assuage Saudi Arabia in all of it's interests in the hope that they will not follow the Islamic call to eliminate us at least for the time being. The threat of such elimination is very real and drives every U.S. action in world relations. The United States must continue in Saudi favor if it is to have any hope of survival.
posted on November 6, 2001 05:35:00 PM new
Ken- I agree with what you say except the conclusion that we must continue in Saudi favor if we are to have any hope of survival. It is bad enought that we probably have to do that for now, but to assume that the Saudi's are so stupid as to attempt to "eliminate" us at some point, says that their leaders have as little concern for life as do the Taliban. The Saudi's incredible materialism belies that, doesn't it? Would they really want to live on a planet filled with radiation? Are they really fearless regarding a nuclear war?
posted on November 6, 2001 05:59:50 PM new
No, of course not. They are very clever and they have the experience of many thousands of years to give them wisdom. They would not destroy the U.S., they would preserve it and dominate it as a captive market for their product. The changeover could be very subtly done--in fact there are some observers who have concluded that it has already taken place. The democratic systems would appear to be in place but the result would be strictly controlled.
posted on November 6, 2001 07:13:33 PM newkrsThere are a couple of reasons for this not the least of which is the fact that 80% of the imported oil used by the U.S. comes from Saudi Arabia.
Find another source for your information. Venezuela and Mexico are the largest suppliers of imported oil to the US. Your 80% figure doesn't wash.
posted on November 6, 2001 07:35:01 PM new
This all ties in to the Salman Rushdie piece, in that what does Saudi Arabia have in common with Afghanistan, or for that matter the PLO, or Syria, or the the Sudan, Egypt, or Somalia ?
The only common thread is Islam.
The head Imam of the NYC mosque was interviewed tonight. He had several interesting things to say. First and foremost was that he was just recently installed as the head Imam. It seems the former Imam left unannounced on 9-12-01 and went back to Egypt and starting spouting that the Jews had carried out the WTC attack. The new Imam refuses to say if Islamic radicals were behind the attacks, and that his 3000 member flock would have no information that would help the FBI, so there is no reason for any of them to come forward with any information.
As I said several weeks ago, I wonder if the U.S. govt is willing to go after terrorism wherever the trail leads ? Politically it doesn't seem possible.
The fact that we purchase 80% of our oil from Saudi Arabia is irrelevant when dealing with a world market. I think the figure as conpared to the world market for Saudi Arabian oil production is less than 20%. But 20% is none the less significant, and how many oil producing ME states can we embargo before oil is $100 a barrel ?
As the trail of terrorism leads more and more to petro-dollars, do you think the West will take serious steps to find alternatives to oil ? By this I mean not conserving oil, but finding a flat out renewable replacement for oil. Perhaps a genetically altered bacteria that produces energy from sea water ?
This terrorist attack may be the turn around point for using petroleum.
posted on November 6, 2001 07:45:30 PM newREAMONDThe fact that we purchase 80% of our oil from Saudi Arabia is irrelevant when dealing with a world market.
Not only is it irrelevant it isn't a fact. That 80% number is so far off it isn't even a good rumor.
posted on November 6, 2001 07:57:30 PM new
Regardless of the figure, it is a world wide fungible commodity. If we don't buy it from Saudi Arabia, someone else will, and we just buy it elsewhere.
I think the majority of the Alaskan oil goes to Japan.
Even though the rather anal specificity of your 'additions' may be correct, which is easy enough to say in a field in which rounder figures are at play, I have a difficult time lending credence to them coming from you, a person who would take his own wife's insecurities to a thread and attempt to make jokes about them and their effect upon you. To me the demeaning attitude displayed by such behaviors sets the character of a person out on display for all to see and that character, or rather that lack of character, is abhorrent.
I hope now that you can understand why it is that I pay little attention to any of your paltry quibblings.
posted on November 6, 2001 08:58:40 PM newkrsI hope now that you can understand why it is that I pay little attention to any of your paltry quibblings.
Hopefully in time you can pay so little to my paltry quibblings you won't have to even respond to them.
BTW, thanks for acknowledging that the rather anal specificity of your 'percentages' were incorrect.
posted on November 6, 2001 08:59:52 PM newreamond,
"This terrorist attack may be the turn around point for using petroleum."
I know that I'm not alone in hoping for that, but I don't see it as a realistic hope at all. The entire economy is solidly enmeshed with oil. It's use extends to our every industrial and supply activity and the costs to re engineer our modes of travel, transport, and the mechanization of industry would be more than any single entity could bear. Such an attempt would need extraordinary governmental funding and direction in the face of the very large influence of the oil producers here and worldwide. Just to think of refueling a single airliner which traverses between two world capitols of countries which have disparate fuel needs would be difficult and to compound that difficulty to a worldwide scale would be impossible given the level of dependence now in place. That's but one area of difficulty, and there are a thousand for each one.
posted on November 6, 2001 09:00:02 PM new
As foolish as President Bush may be, he is not stupid enough to make the promises he did, and then let the matter drop with Bin Laden.
If Bush wants to convince the American people he is serious about stopping terrorism, he'll have to stop kissing the asses of Middle Eastern oil-producing countries.
Bush has made the war on terrorism the cornerstone of his presidency. No way he will let the matter drop after a few months. I imagine Bush will do everything to discourage foreign oil. Interesting how this will play out.
Petro-dollars may be the world currency today, but that will soon change. And we'll still be left with bloodthirsty tyrants holding weapons of mass destruction. America must make the tough decisions now and disarm the world, before it's too late.
posted on November 6, 2001 09:02:19 PM new
Weakly responding, uaru once again shows his lack of the ability to read. It was "anal specificity of your 'additions'", addressed to you, uaru.
posted on November 6, 2001 09:06:22 PM new
Hi Stevie!
There's a distinct "hands off Saudi Arabia" nature in the negotiations and dealings that go on during all of this. It's an unhealthy sign, and makes me wonder at the depth of the Saudi influence, whether it's dollars, oil, or 'petro-dollars'.
posted on November 7, 2001 05:52:41 AM newTo me the demeaning attitude displayed by such behaviors sets the character of a person out on display for all to see and that character, or rather that lack of character, is abhorrent.
Good to know this forum is still good for a few belly laughs.
Kenny, no doubt U.S. policy is changing in the Middle East. We've got our noses up the butts of Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. Is it about oil, political influence, leverage, or what?
Given that Bin Laden is behind the terrorist attacks, I think the U.S. is scapegoating Afghanistan. By that, I mean, we are ignoring daily terrorist attacks occurring in Israel, committed by another head of the terrorism Hydra. Despite Bush's promises, we are in bed with many of the very same nations that sponsor terrorism.
posted on November 7, 2001 11:11:51 AM new
We do have some leverage with Saudi Arabia. We could let Saddam loose for awhile, and the Saudi royal family's heads would be displayed on pikes on the streets. But then again we could probably get the same results from the Saudi Arabian people.
If the terrorists were serious about disrupting the West, blowing up oil tankers in or around the Persian Gulf would do the trick. The West could be brought to its knees in a couple of weeks if the oil flow was disrupted.
I don't think Bush will not follow terrorism wherever it may lead be because he doesn't want to. I think he won't follow the trail because it will be politically impossible on an international scale. We won't know about a failure to follow up on terrorism networks unless the press does an extraordinary job of investigation.
What can the U.S. do if the trail of support leads to China or North Korea ? We are already being nuclear blackmailed by North Korea for money and aid.
We are already ignoring the Pakistan connections. We have to start thinking seriously about the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable countries like Pakistan.
The success of this war will not be measured by who we destroy, but who we fail to destroy.
posted on November 10, 2001 06:04:04 PM new
MSNBC is reporting tonight that the Saudis have arrested numerous people with ties to Al-Qaeda. What do you guys make of this?
posted on November 11, 2001 01:57:15 AM new
One of the main reasons we import so much oil is WE are the biggest consumers of oil related products. WE love to drive large V8 cars, trucks, and SUVs. This is caused by our "need" to have two of these in the driveway.
One for dad to drive to work, all alone. The other for mother to take the 2 kids to school about three miles away. She usually follows the same route the school bus travels. WHAT A WASTE!
Now, what is the matter with dad driving a 4 cylinder to work. Mom can do well with one also. There are plenty roomy enough cars out there with 4 cylinder engines. The reason why we can't is because "we NEED a larger car."
The simple business model is that price follows demand. WE ARE THE SAUDI CANCER.
