NationStates Jolt Archive

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism, they have a government that is, lets just say not on my Christmas card list. They're Muslims, they're a huge economy, they treat women appalingly and the royal family let the religious people travel in groups of six holding nightsticks.

Now, I don't know about you, but from what I see of current western foreign policy, the question would seem to be not why should we invade Saudi Arabia, but why shouldn't we?

Thoughts please.

Well, the simple answer right now is: we can't. We don't have the manpower and our military is tied down in too many other places to be able to mount a legitimate invasion, and we'd have the rest of the world not only opposed, but perhaps even willing to take up arms against us were we to try it.

Seriously, though, the real key to Saudi Arabia is to devalue their only commodity by reducing our energy dependency to the point where we can give them the finger. We're not going to be energy independent any time soon, but we can reduce our need to the point where we're not beholden to the worst of governments.

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, They're Muslims
:lol:

*Gasps* you don't have saudi arabia on your christmas card list?.

Futhermore, what to do with that place is easy, just tell bush that they sold the fuel that powerd the jets that crashed on the 11th. Also that they are'nt supporters of him, or the other more simple solution. Change the best before dates on all the ammo the armed forces has, that way they will be eager to throw it away. *Nods firmly*

I have spoken

"Liberate" them and place troops in Mecca and Medina.

Most importantly, bush's family needs to cut ties with the Saudi Royal family.

Most importantly, bush's family needs to cut ties with the Saudi Royal family.

That would be like Al Qaida giving up on terrorism, just wont happen

Most importantly, bush's family needs to cut ties with the Saudi Royal family.
Bush and his family should move to Mecca.

We cant attack them. The best thing we can do is stop living offf their oil. At least then we can make decisions without destroying our economy.

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism, they have a government that is, lets just say not on my Christmas card list. They're Muslims, they're a huge economy, they treat women appalingly and the royal family let the religious people travel in groups of six holding nightsticks.

Now, I don't know about you, but from what I see of current western foreign policy, the question would seem to be not why should we invade Saudi Arabia, but why shouldn't we?

Thoughts please.


Why does the fact that Saudia Arabia is largely made up of Muslims constitute a reason for an invasion?

Why does the fact that Saudia Arabia is largely made up of Muslims constitute a reason for an invasion?

Cause it did before :D , remember the crusades??

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism...They're Muslims...

Operation: Shock and Awe II

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism, they have a government that is, lets just say not on my Christmas card list. They're Muslims, they're a huge economy, they treat women appalingly and the royal family let the religious people travel in groups of six holding nightsticks.

Now, I don't know about you, but from what I see of current western foreign policy, the question would seem to be not why should we invade Saudi Arabia, but why shouldn't we?

Thoughts please.


Why does the fact that Saudia Arabia is largely made up of Muslims constitute a reason for an invasion?Well it doesn't for me, but I mention it on the off chance that I'd swing someone elses vote. See, I have reasons there that'll appeal to liberals, conservatives, racists, SUV owners. Appeal to all demographics, y-know.

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism...They're Muslims...

Operation: Shock and Awe IIAre we at the point in Iraq where it's become Operation Shock and Aw Shit?

We could bomb their oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker ships. ~ Michael.

Ummm...buy oil from them? I dunno.

What should we do about them? As much as the government is a terrorism supporter, we can't invade or place sanctions on them. They have Mecca, and if anything happens to that, it's WWIII. I guess the best we can hope for is that people will demand democratic reform, perhaps inspired by the (possible) success of democracy in Iraq.

What should we do about Saudi Arabia? They have oil, they have links to terrorism...They're Muslims...

Operation: Shock and Awe IIAre we at the point in Iraq where it's become Operation Shock and Aw Shit?

Operation: "Shock and Awe" is a combination of high altitude, precision, air strikes, low altitude precision strikes on mobile units, and overwhelming presence of technology supported mobility, so devastating it was expected to leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

Basically, a massive hi-tech bombing camaign intended to leave an enemy regime in total disarray and result in a collapse of military infastructure, making it more difficult for senior foreign military leaders to control their military and thus the counrty.

Remember the televised bombing campaign in the first stages of the Iraq War? The "Shock and Awe" strategy has been successful in the past in such cases as: WWI, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nazi blitzkrieg strategy of WWII, and I believe most effectively, in the Gulf War.

The whole world is appaled by terrorism yet when the West bombs and invades this is called a peace action? Tell that to the civillians that die or get maimed. The best way to stop terrorism is not to partake in it! This means all nations especially the US/Isreal.

US is bleeding white in Iraq and you want more in S/A?

Glad I've got flat feet.

Let's open Disney Arabia. We could have camel rides, the Oil Market Rollercoaster, MiG fighter flying rides, and "Depose the Dictator" midway games. ~ Michael.

Reduce trade, with the goal of terminating trade altogether. Reject the Saudi Princes as legitimate rulers; this includes removing them from the UN (if possible). Refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Saudi state. Make all relations contigent on government reforms; if they improve their comportment, then slowly ease them back into the international community. Give them a deadline. If they are unable or unwilling to comply, they should be prepared to be toppled.

Oil, 26% of the proved reserves and also the largest exporter.
Population 24 million with 4 million foreign workers.
1% inflation with 25% unemployment.
Average male age 20. (good age to get riled up over invasion.)
3 million in armed forces and 100% muslim.

You have 4430Km's of land border with 2640 Kms of coast with the following countries Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE and Yemen.

The US would prefer the Status Quo. Sitting in this country with porous borders and what could be a militant population is suicide. Unless of course you cowardly bomb the bejesus out of Saudi Arabia from the air without land forces. Wouldn't that be terrorism?

Nuke 'em to stop worrying about 'em!

if we stopped buying their oil, their regime would end by tomorrow... im starting to wonder if opening up the arctic wildlife refuge is such a bad idea

This is a heavy debate. Saudi Arabia, which is not an ally of the US, is a hotbase for terrorist activities. Their fanatical regime gives support to these terrorists behind the scenes and then make nice-nice with the US when in reality they are working against us. Their oil is of no concern, oil this and oil that, get off that argument its nonsense.

Saudi Arabia is a problematic situation and with that there isn't all that much we can do. Certainly we could justify an attack with Saudi Arabia given their terrorist conections and past histories with terrorists and such but at the same time it would probably be more criticized then Iraq. After all, Iraq was a clear and present danger to the saftey of the US. Saddam was going to make a nuclear bomb and do you know how long he'd possess that bomb? Eight minutes. After that it would be in the hands of a terrorist organization or detonated in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or wherever in Israel they wanted. Why wait until he has one and stop the problem before it becomes a GIANT problem.

Honestly, I don't know what we should do about Saudi Arabia. Sanctions wouldn't work for anything and us pulling all support from the nation I doubt would do all that much. Sure they get A LOT of aide from the US but at the same time I'm not so sure it would matter if we cut that. Personnally, I'd like to see their terrorist ties obliterated as well as their fanatical regime but world politics are a bit more complex then that.

We could bomb their oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker ships. ~ Michael.

The US buys that oil that comes from those oil fields, refineries, piplines and tanker ships. Invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't make any sense, the US already has troops there.

How I'd solve the 'problem' of Saudi Arabia if I was the US President - Withdraw my support for the House of Saud (royal family) and withdraw my troops from its soil. That way I'd reduce hatered felt by Muslims towards the US, they resent having 'infidel' soldiers in the holy land and aren't fans of the House of Saud (who run the country, very, very, badly) . This in turn would reduce the threat of terrorism. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist come from Saudi Arabia?

I'll take what Banana said a bit further. Pull our troops back from everywhere.

But I'll also agree with the other dude that pointed out the need to get off the oil bottle. Let's face it, once the world doesn't need oil the Middle East will go back to what it was - a dry stretch of nothing. Then US troops can go die somewhere else for some stupid reason.

The whole world is appaled by terrorism yet when the West bombs and invades this is called a peace action? Tell that to the civillians that die or get maimed. The best way to stop terrorism is not to partake in it! This means all nations especially the US/Isreal.

US is bleeding white in Iraq and you want more in S/A?

Glad I've got flat feet.

Way to let the point careen right over your head.

I am assuming that all this is about what AMERICA should do about Saudi Arabia.

Firstly, I would suggest forcing all new cars to have low fuel consumption, such as that in hybrid petrol/electric cars.

Next, I would attempt to secure a different partner for all oil demand, which would be reduced by the first suggestion. I suggest a country that is not near the Persian Gulf.

Then, when the Saudi economy has crashed, they would be more amenable to reforms.

The first suggestion would have an overall effect of reducing oil demand within the USA, something that is vital anyway. It would also reduce the price of crude oil.

Honestly, I don't know what we should do about Saudi Arabia. Sanctions wouldn't work for anything and us pulling all support from the nation I doubt would do all that much. Sure they get A LOT of aide from the US but at the same time I'm not so sure it would matter if we cut that. Personnally, I'd like to see their terrorist ties obliterated as well as their fanatical regime but world politics are a bit more complex then that.

if we didnt buy their oil, and nobody else did either, half the problem would be solved. really, the problem with these regimes is they dont need to tax their people since they get all their money from selling oil. no taxes mean no government accountability. no government accountability means the people are going to get extremely frustrated. because all the money in saudi arabi is in the hands of the royal family, they can spend it on things like secret police to keep the people down. they have no reason to keep the people any more happy than they absolutly have to since they dont get their money from their people. so, no oil money, no funding of secret police. however, obviously sanctions dont work. they wont stop the royal family from being more powerful than everybody else in that country. i think i was getting to a point there, but i forgot, so this is just a bunch of pointless rambling. um...oil money and aide leads to no accountability leads to disaster, i guess thats my point.

We could bomb their oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker ships. ~ Michael.

The US buys that oil that comes from those oil fields, refineries, piplines and tanker ships. Invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't make any sense, the US already has troops there.

How I'd solve the 'problem' of Saudi Arabia if I was the US President - Withdraw my support for the House of Saud (royal family) and withdraw my troops from its soil. That way I'd reduce hatered felt by Muslims towards the US, they resent having 'infidel' soldiers in the holy land and aren't fans of the House of Saud (who run the country, very, very, badly) . This in turn would reduce the threat of terrorism. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist come from Saudi Arabia?Aren't our troops already gone? Far as I know they were moved to Iraq right around that whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco.

Honestly, I don't know what we should do about Saudi Arabia. Sanctions wouldn't work for anything and us pulling all support from the nation I doubt would do all that much. Sure they get A LOT of aide from the US but at the same time I'm not so sure it would matter if we cut that. Personnally, I'd like to see their terrorist ties obliterated as well as their fanatical regime but world politics are a bit more complex then that.

if we didnt buy their oil, and nobody else did either, half the problem would be solved. really, the problem with these regimes is they dont need to tax their people since they get all their money from selling oil. no taxes mean no government accountability. no government accountability means the people are going to get extremely frustrated. because all the money in saudi arabi is in the hands of the royal family, they can spend it on things like secret police to keep the people down. they have no reason to keep the people any more happy than they absolutly have to since they dont get their money from their people. so, no oil money, no funding of secret police. however, obviously sanctions dont work. they wont stop the royal family from being more powerful than everybody else in that country. i think i was getting to a point there, but i forgot, so this is just a bunch of pointless rambling. um...oil money and aide leads to no accountability leads to disaster, i guess thats my point.

Good point, I agree with what you said mostly. Coupled with the changes in US foriegn policy I outlined earlier, I think Saudi Arabia would be allot better off and the US would have half the trouble it dose with terrorists. Still buy their oil, just if the money goes back the Saudi people everyone would be allot happier and you'd see support for 'terrorism' in that country dwindle, if not die out completely.

Troops in Saudi Arabia - good point. They have mostly left but just moving them to Iraq isn't going to solve the problem, there will still be' infidel' soldiers in the Middle East.

Honestly, I don't know what we should do about Saudi Arabia. Sanctions wouldn't work for anything and us pulling all support from the nation I doubt would do all that much. Sure they get A LOT of aide from the US but at the same time I'm not so sure it would matter if we cut that. Personnally, I'd like to see their terrorist ties obliterated as well as their fanatical regime but world politics are a bit more complex then that.

if we didnt buy their oil, and nobody else did either, half the problem would be solved. really, the problem with these regimes is they dont need to tax their people since they get all their money from selling oil. no taxes mean no government accountability. no government accountability means the people are going to get extremely frustrated. because all the money in saudi arabi is in the hands of the royal family, they can spend it on things like secret police to keep the people down. they have no reason to keep the people any more happy than they absolutly have to since they dont get their money from their people. so, no oil money, no funding of secret police. however, obviously sanctions dont work. they wont stop the royal family from being more powerful than everybody else in that country. i think i was getting to a point there, but i forgot, so this is just a bunch of pointless rambling. um...oil money and aide leads to no accountability leads to disaster, i guess thats my point.

Good point, I fully agree with what you said. Coupled with the changes in US foriegn policy I outlined earlier, I think Saudi Arabia would be allot better off and the US would have half the trouble it dose with terrorists. Still buy their oil, just if the money goes back the Saudi people everyone would be allot happier and you'd see support for 'terrorism' in that country dwindle, if not die out completely.

i agree with your ideas too, my only question is how do you make sure oil money goes to the people? no way more than a few percent of the people can be employed by the oil industry, since it doesnt take a whole lot of labor to get oil out of the ground and into the first world.

nuke Saudi Arabia.


and take their gas.

Honestly, I don't know what we should do about Saudi Arabia. Sanctions wouldn't work for anything and us pulling all support from the nation I doubt would do all that much. Sure they get A LOT of aide from the US but at the same time I'm not so sure it would matter if we cut that. Personnally, I'd like to see their terrorist ties obliterated as well as their fanatical regime but world politics are a bit more complex then that.

if we didnt buy their oil, and nobody else did either, half the problem would be solved. really, the problem with these regimes is they dont need to tax their people since they get all their money from selling oil. no taxes mean no government accountability. no government accountability means the people are going to get extremely frustrated. because all the money in saudi arabi is in the hands of the royal family, they can spend it on things like secret police to keep the people down. they have no reason to keep the people any more happy than they absolutly have to since they dont get their money from their people. so, no oil money, no funding of secret police. however, obviously sanctions dont work. they wont stop the royal family from being more powerful than everybody else in that country. i think i was getting to a point there, but i forgot, so this is just a bunch of pointless rambling. um...oil money and aide leads to no accountability leads to disaster, i guess thats my point.

Good point, I fully agree with what you said. Coupled with the changes in US foriegn policy I outlined earlier, I think Saudi Arabia would be allot better off and the US would have half the trouble it dose with terrorists. Still buy their oil, just if the money goes back the Saudi people everyone would be allot happier and you'd see support for 'terrorism' in that country dwindle, if not die out completely.

i agree with your ideas too, my only question is how do you make sure oil money goes to the people? no way more than a few percent of the people can be employed by the oil industry, since it doesnt take a whole lot of labor to get oil out of the ground and into the first world.

That's where the US should keep its nose out. I'm no fan of Saddam but before the first Gulf War Iraqis enjoyed one of the highest living standards in the Middle East (I'm not making this up and I don't want to talk about Iraq anymore). How was this achieved? Revenue from oil sales. It's to do with socailist (not communist, big difference) ordering of society, how most of the world ordered their national economies. I think the Saudi Arabians would, if given a truely free election, vote for a democratic socialist government on account that most of them are poor and that's the kind of thing poor people vote for. Look at South America before the US (no offence, it's not your fault personally if you are a US citizen) decided it's commerical interests weren't served well enough by this type of government.

i agree with your ideas too, my only question is how do you make sure oil money goes to the people? no way more than a few percent of the people can be employed by the oil industry, since it doesnt take a whole lot of labor to get oil out of the ground and into the first world.

Well, not that this would happen, but you could create a public ownership system (think Green Bay Packers). Its not the same thing as nationalization, its more or a corperation with the citizenry as majority shareholder. When this system has been implemented it often results in high levels of public interest and scrutiny. This makes it harder for corruption to take root.

Besides, if we stopped buying from the Saudi's prices on just about everything will shoot up even if there was more than enough gas to make up the difference. The scare alone would cause financial panic in the markets in all affected nations. The very mentality of the financial markets would have to change.

i agree with your ideas too, my only question is how do you make sure oil money goes to the people? no way more than a few percent of the people can be employed by the oil industry, since it doesnt take a whole lot of labor to get oil out of the ground and into the first world.

Well, not that this would happen, but you could create a public ownership system (think Green Bay Packers). Its not the same thing as nationalization, its more or a corperation with the citizenry as majority shareholder. When this system has been implemented it often results in high levels of public interest and scrutiny. This makes it harder for corruption to take root.

Besides, if we stopped buying from the Saudi's prices on just about everything will shoot up even if there was more than enough gas to make up the difference. The scare alone would cause financial panic in the markets in all affected nations. The very mentality of the financial markets would have to change.Not to mention that we can't stop buying Saudi oil because they own a lot of our national debt. They could screw with our financial markets far more than we could hurt them with an oil embargo. If memory serves, the only people who own more of our national debt than the Saudis are the Chinese.

They are the world's biggest oil supplier. Disrupting the flow of oil, as was done in Iraq, would throw the world economy into chaos, and possibly bring on a second Great Depression.

I think this is the real reason nothing has been done.

Another reason might be that we could end up with real jihad if we get near their holy sites.

-Rid our economies of the need for oil through alternatives.

-Massive blockade and embargo. Nothing gets in or out, with the exception of aid for population.

-Annihilate everyone who falsely uses religion or religious arguments for terrorist purposes.

I'd try to mainly target the people in charge and the religious leaders though. Oh yeah I hate those f*kers alright.

It has been stated and I would tend to agree that this nation uses 20% of the world's resources....if we simply refused to buy from OPEC, and drilled either off-shore or alternate sites would go a tremendous way to ward independence from them.

Unfortunately...there are literally hundreds of businesses that revolve around the internal combustion engine and gasoline/oil...it would wreck our economy if we did a drastic change to alternate fuels..the retooling of those industries alone would be an economy-buster. But..I also think it is inevitable that we begin the search...although as long as there are oil resources..no energy company is going to spend profits to do the research necessary on the scale we need in order to find those alternate fuel sources...what we need here is a government program of the scale not seen since the Manhattan project that could create a cheap energy cell.

Well, of course the latest idea from the government to reduce dependancy on foreign power suppleis is to restart building nuke power plants.

They just want to do it on the cheap and build them without minor safety features... like containment domes...

:shock:


What you probably tend also to forget is that the rest of the world pays much higher gas prices than the US. This was done for many reasons including ensuring that road costs were recovered from gas taxes. The side effect is that everyone else has moved to smaller. more efficient cars or increased mass transit use. But here there is this mindset that EVERYBODY should be able to afford to run a hemi-powerd SUV if that is the vehicle they want, and instead you have this huge $200B+ highway project bill going through the government. At least by building that into gas taxes it's the people that USE the roads that have to pay for them.

The downside is that the Nroth American mindset has led to crappy planning for urban transit because few people really wanted it - to the extent that retrofitting cities with decent mass transit services would be near impossible in many cases withough huge land appropriations and other costs.

I mean - look at the Bush campaign poking at Kerry for daring to propse a gas tax 10 years ago.

People do, I think, want to reduce dependance on foreign supplies. They just want to be able to drive a 12 mpg vehicle cheaply more.

The environmentalist lobbies shoot themselves on this matter too. They'll complaing about the coal and oil powerplants, but then if you try to build a dam for hydroelectric power some other group will fight it on fish spawning grounds, or because the resevoir will flood the natural habitit of the rare pink polkadotted mosquito. Try to build a wind farm and they complain abour bird migration routes.

No matter what you try and build - somebody WILL fight you on it.

-Z-

Well, of course the latest idea from the government to reduce dependancy on foreign power suppleis is to restart building nuke power plants.

They just want to do it on the cheap and build them without minor safety features... like containment domes...

:shock:


What you probably tend also to forget is that the rest of the world pays much higher gas prices than the US. This was done for many reasons including ensuring that road costs were recovered from gas taxes. The side effect is that everyone else has moved to smaller. more efficient cars or increased mass transit use. But here there is this mindset that EVERYBODY should be able to afford to run a hemi-powerd SUV if that is the vehicle they want, and instead you have this huge $200B+ highway project bill going through the government. At least by building that into gas taxes it's the people that USE the roads that have to pay for them.

The downside is that the Nroth American mindset has led to crappy planning for urban transit because few people really wanted it - to the extent that retrofitting cities with decent mass transit services would be near impossible in many cases withough huge land appropriations and other costs.

I mean - look at the Bush campaign poking at Kerry for daring to propse a gas tax 10 years ago.

People do, I think, want to reduce dependance on foreign supplies. They just want to be able to drive a 12 mpg vehicle cheaply more.

The environmentalist lobbies shoot themselves on this matter too. They'll complaing about the coal and oil powerplants, but then if you try to build a dam for hydroelectric power some other group will fight it on fish spawning grounds, or because the resevoir will flood the natural habitit of the rare pink polkadotted mosquito. Try to build a wind farm and they complain abour bird migration routes.

No matter what you try and build - somebody WILL fight you on it.

-Z-

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?

lol - exactly. And I agree. Although in major urban areas with a good system taking the transit is always faster that lining up on the freeway. Ask a New Yorker if he'd rather drive through Manhatten or take the subway...

But this is why we depend on Saudi Arabia and will likely continue to do so..... because our priorities are what they are.


-Z-

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?

lol - exactly. And I agree. Although in major urban areas with a good system taking the transit is always faster that lining up on the freeway. Ask a New Yorker if he'd rather drive through Manhatten or take the subway...

But this is why we depend on Saudi Arabia and will likely continue to do so..... because our priorities are what they are.


-Z-

I'd rather take my car and leave a little early then either stand or sit on that nasty subway..ughhh...

Blow em' up and take their oil!

I'd rather take my car and leave a little early then either stand or sit on that nasty subway..ughhh...

Well, for some people it's economics. To drive and park from where I live to downtown Ottawa would run you at least $300 per month in an average car (monthly parking pass + gas - not including wear and tear on the car). Taking the bus will cost you $72 and get you there faster most times. A lot of people I know use that option for the economics. Plus you do get to avoid the daily stress of rush hour a-hole drivers and instead sit back for a half hour and read.

Me - I drive. I have no choice what with the schedule I have and getting kids to where they need to get. But I can understand why some do take the bus.

-Z-

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?Well, here in San Francisco, I can get damn near anywhere on mass transit a person can in a car in about the same amount of time (or less if I just have t take the train) if you factor in trying to find a place to park your car. I bring my mp3 player so I listen to my own music and there's generally little to no smell. And I do it for far less than I could ever get away with spending on a car factoring in gas, insurance, and maintenance even assuming the thing is paid for already. $45 a month gets me unlimited use of the trains and buses in the city

But I readily admit that San Francisco is the exception. If I had to rely on public transportation in south Florida, I'd be in a world of hurt. My point is that it can work well if the political will is there to make it happen.

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?Well, here in San Francisco, I can get damn near anywhere on mass transit a person can in a car in about the same amount of time (or less if I just have t take the train) if you factor in trying to find a place to park your car. I bring my mp3 player so I listen to my own music and there's generally little to no smell. And I do it for far less than I could ever get away with spending on a car factoring in gas, insurance, and maintenance even assuming the thing is paid for already. $45 a month gets me unlimited use of the trains and buses in the city

But I readily admit that San Francisco is the exception. If I had to rely on public transportation in south Florida, I'd be in a world of hurt. My point is that it can work well if the political will is there to make it happen.

The point is that is your decision as a person...if you wish to sit around other people and forced to bring your own music, and get off on the stops that mass transit authorizes then that is your business..

If I feel like I just want to zip into a 7-11 and get a drink..or stop for a bit to eat then I want that independence....and you say generally little or no smell..indicating it could be worse...and I don't want to deal with that crap..I want my privacy..and I've been on mass transit..it's uncomfortable and incovienent to my schedule, either work or play.

Ughh...why on earth would I want mass transit..sitting in an uncomfortable seat..next to someone who smells..or has to much perfume on..or obnoxious children...listening to music that I don't like, and might take me an hour and a half to get there when by driving in the comfort of my own vehicle (no SUV thank you) I can get there in half the time and listen to my own music with all the privacy?Well, here in San Francisco, I can get damn near anywhere on mass transit a person can in a car in about the same amount of time (or less if I just have t take the train) if you factor in trying to find a place to park your car. I bring my mp3 player so I listen to my own music and there's generally little to no smell. And I do it for far less than I could ever get away with spending on a car factoring in gas, insurance, and maintenance even assuming the thing is paid for already. $45 a month gets me unlimited use of the trains and buses in the city

But I readily admit that San Francisco is the exception. If I had to rely on public transportation in south Florida, I'd be in a world of hurt. My point is that it can work well if the political will is there to make it happen.

The point is that is your decision as a person...if you wish to sit around other people and forced to bring your own music, and get off on the stops that mass transit authorizes then that is your business..

If I feel like I just want to zip into a 7-11 and get a drink..or stop for a bit to eat then I want that independence....and you say generally little or no smell..indicating it could be worse...and I don't want to deal with that crap..I want my privacy..and I've been on mass transit..it's uncomfortable and incovienent to my schedule, either work or play.

Oh, absolutely. It is the personal tradeoff of economy for convenience.

Not trying to make the case why people should do it. Just pointing out that it is one of the reasons why we our needs outstrip our domestic supply of oil resources.

If we want to wean the country off of the Saudi Teat though, we need to find ways to move to less usage of oil. Hybrid cars as they become more accepted (and cheap) will help without changing lifestyles.

More emphasis on alternative power supplies will also help, but I pointed out that these still usuall still face huge resistance form the same envirnmental groups that advocate them.

Heck, if they just gave tax breaks to put a solar panel on every new home built to feed back into the grid - they could reduce the need for new power plants by a big chunk.

But people don't seem to want to make the changes neccessary to make the country more energy efficient yet. Because the costs still haven't got to the point where it really affects their lives. But as the prices keep rising - eventually it will happen.

-Z-

The point is that is your decision as a person...if you wish to sit around other people and forced to bring your own music, and get off on the stops that mass transit authorizes then that is your business..

If I feel like I just want to zip into a 7-11 and get a drink..or stop for a bit to eat then I want that independence....and you say generally little or no smell..indicating it could be worse...and I don't want to deal with that crap..I want my privacy..and I've been on mass transit..it's uncomfortable and incovienent to my schedule, either work or play.That's very true--I've done the personal calculus and decided at this point that a car is not necessary in my life, and it's the first time since I was 17 that I haven't had the exclusive use of a car. I admit it's been a bit of an adjustment.

The thing you and everyone else who wants that ultimate convenience needs to come to grips with is the fact that gas prices here in the US are extraordinarily low compared to the rest of the world and that just ain't gonna last, and what's more--it shouldn't. The federal government ought to make as a pillar of its national security plan the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil. We'll never get off it completely--we just don't have enough left in this country--but just by requiring more efficient vehicles we can cut our supply needs dramatically. It's really a matter of patriotism--as long as we have to have the amounts of oil that we currently use, we are beholden to governments that hate us and we are hamstrung in our efforts to eliminate potential threats. In the end, there are some things more important than convenience.

Your right stop buying their oil will put them in a world of hurt but where do you propose we get the oil from to make up for it? They'll never let us go drill ANWAR and who else is around to buy from? Kuwait doesn't have as much, Iraq is still in ruins, Iran is an enemy, UAE, Oman, Yemen, whatever they have it isn't as much. You see its a conundrum. If we stopped buying their oil we would cripple them but at the same time us as well. If we had an alternative means of supplying that oil then by all means crush them!

Yea whatever, not buying thier oil will only harm us more. There will be more terrorist attacks and and all that crap. If i was Bush, i would just send in some Navy Seals to kill all the leaders in Iraq and all them screwed up nations. Who cares anymore about the anti-assasanation laws, you know that them SOB's would love to kill Bush. If the Seals don't work out, than turn all them A$$hats into dust and pave a huge parking lot. No offense to anyone that is of Arabian dissent, or practices Islam or Muslim, but i just don't like them nations. They are all snakes and they should be dealt with with brute force.

After all, Iraq was a clear and present danger to the saftey of the US. Thats bollocks

I am assuming that all this is about what AMERICA should do about Saudi Arabia. I'm British actually, so the "we" is the world really.

IMO the Saudis have to democratize much more. And the West has to speed up its automobile fuel cell programs.

Saudi Arabia should have been invaded not Iraq. You are exactly right Spoffin!

The US wont though because it has a good supply of oil from it :roll:

IMO the United Kingdom should pull troops out of Iraq and invade Saudi instead. We can get the job done, quickly install a democratic or puppet government and get out of there by Autum. That way we can be true liberators!

Oh and Kuwait should have been annexed by Iraq as well!

After all, Iraq was a clear and present danger to the saftey of the US. Thats bollocks

So you'd rather wait until Saddam actually had a working nuclear weapon to attack him? I got news for you that its workingness would be tested in the middle of Jerusalem or New York and frankly I've seen enough destruction to my city and I don't need to see any more thank you very much. I liked the skyline before and I've adjusted to it now it doesn't need any more changes.

Thanks in part to the years of boycotts, Iraq was nowhere near attaining nuclear capacity.

Pity Saddams nuke techs. If they told him how far behind they were, how little they had to go on, he would have killed them. He did that once, and the new guys knew better than to tell him the truth.

So Saddam thought he was a nuclear threat but he was a fool.

After all, Iraq was a clear and present danger to the saftey of the US. Thats bollocks

So you'd rather wait until Saddam actually had a working nuclear weapon to attack him? I got news for you that its workingness would be tested in the middle of Jerusalem or New York and frankly I've seen enough destruction to my city and I don't need to see any more thank you very much. I liked the skyline before and I've adjusted to it now it doesn't need any more changes.Right, but being a potential danger doesn't mean that they're a clear and present danger. If you want to argue that they are a potential danger, then thats legitimate (I don't know if its true), but saying they're a clear and present danger is just incorrect.

Yea whatever, not buying thier oil will only harm us more. There will be more terrorist attacks and and all that crap. If i was Bush, i would just send in some Navy Seals to kill all the leaders in Iraq and all them screwed up nations. Who cares anymore about the anti-assasanation laws, you know that them SOB's would love to kill Bush. If the Seals don't work out, than turn all them A$$hats into dust and pave a huge parking lot. No offense to anyone that is of Arabian dissent, or practices Islam or Muslim, but i just don't like them nations. They are all snakes and they should be dealt with with brute force.

You're not serious, are you? What 'leaders' are you going assasinate? Anyway, dose the word martydom mean anything to you? Maybe if the US left the Middle East alone they would leave you alone. What gives the US the right to blow a region all to hell just because they are having difficulty dealing with it? Moreso, the reason why the US is having difficulties there in the first is because of its own meddling there over the past three decades.

No offence, but do some research on the topic before saying things like that.

BTW - I wasn't offended, hope you're not by my reply

We should do what America should have been doing to other countries: LEAVE IT ALONE! :shock:

We should do what America should have been doing to other countries: LEAVE IT ALONE! :shock:

because that strategy worked so well in germany in the 30's

We should do what America should have been doing to other countries: LEAVE IT ALONE! :shock:

because that strategy worked so well in germany in the 30's

Not everything can be brought back to the rise of Facism in Europe in the interwar period. This is no defence for meddling with a countries internal affairs. If the US had left the Middle East alone in the first place it wouldn't be experiancing all the difficulties it is now in regards to terrorism, anit - American sentiment etc. in the region

at the same time, it might be communist. we made some bad decisions, but thats all hindsight.

at the same time, it might be communist. we made some bad decisions, but thats all hindsight.

Hindsight or a lesson learned? If they want be communist (I think that will never happen in the Middle East though, too much religion) I say let them. If it dosen't work out they can always change there economies, as long as there isn't an element of armed rivalry involved. Communism dosen't need to automatically equate military rivalry. But as I said, I think if left to their devices democratic socalism would be the way they would go.

If the US wasn't involved in the region and things went to hell, there would be no way they could blame the US, is there?

at the same time, it might be communist. we made some bad decisions, but thats all hindsight.

Hindsight or a lesson learned? If they want be communist (I think that will never happen in the Middle East though, too much religion) I say let them. If it dosen't work out they can always change there economies, as long as there isn't an element of armed rivalry involved. Communism dosen't need to automatically equate military rivalry. But as I said, I think if left to their devices democratic socalism would be the way they would go.

If the US wasn't involved in the region and things went to hell, there would be no way they could blame the US, is there?

but the us would lose out on oil, and the free trade its counted on to make it powerful would disappear. the could war was about keeping markets open. of course now, all the countries hate it because its medeling so much. sucks for the us, it loses its power either way.

at the same time, it might be communist. we made some bad decisions, but thats all hindsight.

Hindsight or a lesson learned? If they want be communist (I think that will never happen in the Middle East though, too much religion) I say let them. If it dosen't work out they can always change their economies, as long as there isn't an element of armed rivalry involved. Communism dosen't need to automatically equate military rivalry. But as I said, I think if left to their devices democratic socalism would be the way they would go.

If the US wasn't involved in the region and things went to hell, there would be no way they could blame the US, is there?

but the us would lose out on oil, and the free trade its counted on to make it powerful would disappear. the could war was about keeping markets open. of course now, all the countries hate it because its medeling so much. sucks for the us, it loses its power either way.

Good point about keeping markets open, that's how I view allot of US foriegn policy (ie. that's its aim). What I was trying to say that if the US didn't follow this policy and allowed countries to organise their economies how they saw fit, it wouldn't have a bunch of angry people with guns pissed off at it. Still, I see what you mean about the US losing out on cheap oil, but oh well, terrorists attacks are worse than paying more for petrol.