NationStates Jolt Archive

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aq4URyx808oE&refer=top_world_news
This came, unfortunatly, too late to save Paul Johnson. However, for now, the terrorists responsible have been dealt a major blow. The chief of al-Qaeda operations in Saudi Arabia is dead, and his assistent apprehended. No doubt that those captured will have sleeper cells all over the Arabian Peninsula on the run.
The most important victory, however, is that the US isn't caving into pressure. Colin Powell has expressed confidence that contractors will remain in Saudi Arabia, and so far, not many have any intentions to leave. This was a major goal of al-Qaeda, in their hopes of destabilizing the nation, and cutting off Western oil supplies. I'm glad that this has shown them how miserably they have failed.
Of course, al-Qaeda will be back in Saudi Arabia in a few months. They've always come back, and they'll surely try to accomplish the same objectives again. However, they now need to lick their wounds. What we need to do is safeguard the kingdom, and especially foreign contractors, from this recurring menace. For today, however, I think it's fair to revel in our victory, but remember the sacrifices it took. God rest the soul of Paul Johnson, and whoever else was killed in the fight against terror.

The thing is, to compensate for the loss of reputation as an invincible, godlike force that "can't be defeated with violence", the Al-Qaeda will now be forced to triple their efforts to carry out a big attack elsewhere. If they still can, that is. They will most likely be forced to target Jews or Westerners on Muslim grounds again, like they did in Morocco and Turkey.

The thing is, to compensate for the loss of reputation as an invincible, godlike force that "can't be defeated with violence", the Al-Qaeda will now be forced to triple their efforts to carry out a big attack elsewhere. If they still can, that is. They will most likely be forced to target Jews or Westerners on Muslim grounds again, like they did in Morocco and Turkey.
They probably will, for now. al-Qaeda has seemed to abandon it's "soft target" strategy with the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, however, and that hasn't seemed to work. They'll probably stick to that for a while, but that can't work long. All it means is increased security fo Westerners and Jews in Muslim nations, and it'll be too big of an operational leap for al-Qaeda to plan. They could probably bomb a "hard target" in the Arabian peninsula, however, and while it won't be sucessful, it can at least be efficiently planned.

You can't back down just because the enemy may grow-if you do, then they'll just grow anyway and you won't even be trying to fight. Its a momentary no-win situation, you just have to keep fighting and eventually good will prevail.

We're far from victory. There is still many, many Al Qaida left in Saudi Arabia and around the globe who are going to continue such savagery, and more Non-arabs/muslims will become victims.

The thing is, to compensate for the loss of reputation as an invincible, godlike force that "can't be defeated with violence", the Al-Qaeda will now be forced to triple their efforts to carry out a big attack elsewhere. If they still can, that is. They will most likely be forced to target Jews or Westerners on Muslim grounds again, like they did in Morocco and Turkey.

Also, thats what people said when Israel killed the bastard Hamas leaders. They said there would be massive retaliation, and maybe because of the security wall or because Hamas really did become quite weakened, there have been much less attacks.

You can't back down just because the enemy may grow-if you do, then they'll just grow anyway and you won't even be trying to fight. Its a momentary no-win situation, you just have to keep fighting and eventually good will prevail.

We're far from victory. There is still many, many Al Qaida left in Saudi Arabia and around the globe who are going to continue such savagery, and more Non-arabs/muslims will become victims.
What I meant by victory was victory for the current battle, not the war. I said in my initial post that al-Qaeda will be back in Saudi Arabia. But right now, they probably have no organizational capacity to do more than a few petty crimes, and their cells across Saudi Arabia are probably exposed. At least a handful of them will be annihilated, and virtually all of them will be on the run.

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.

Excuse my ignorance then :lol:

Edit: Addressing Euclid

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

Perhaps you should look at the way Saudi treats its own people and how this gives rise to terrorism and popular support for terrorism.
American ignorants, more of your soldiers are going to die, and this can only be a good thing because you will pull out of Iraq.

Excuse my ignorance then :lol:

Edit: Addressing Euclid
That's okay. I saw how my first post was worded rather confusingly. It's a problem I have.

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.
That would cause WWIII, most importantly because Mecca and Medina would be attacked. Also, some elements of the Saudi Royal Family love al-Qaeda, but most hate them. In fact, al-Qaeda has targeted the royal family before (though with no luck). Iraq, I feel, is the closest the West can get to dealing with Saudi Arabia. If we can pull a republic off, I hope that a new domino effect would give rise. A Middle East full of republics would give far less reasons for terrorists to even exist.

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

Who said anything about hitting SA?????? Christ on a Crutch is violence the only method people can think of???

America props up the vile and corrupt SA regime with the pay off being oil.

You remove the purchase of oil from SA and that government won't last a day.

Of course it means that the US would have to look at its own oil consumption......

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

Who said anything about hitting SA?????? Christ on a Crutch is violence the only method people can think of???

America props up the vile and corrupt SA regime with the pay off being oil.

You remove the purchase of oil from SA and that government won't last a day.

Of course it means that the US would have to look at its own oil consumption......
It's not desirable. The world economy would be seriously hurt if even the US stopped buying Saudi oil. Even though the Saudi economy would suffer even worse, however, the royal family would still be in power, by using their billions to further tighten their grip on the nation. Besides, the instability it'd create would foment terror ten times worse than the terror anyone in Iraq can claim is being produced.

Perhaps you should look at the way Saudi treats its own people and how this gives rise to terrorism and popular support for terrorism.
American ignorants, more of your soldiers are going to die, and this can only be a good thing because you will pull out of Iraq.
I do agree that the Saudis are not up to par. But what are we to do? As I've said, economic sanctions would make the situation far worse. The best is to hope that, somehow, the House of Saud can peacefully abdicate, and a republic would replace it.

I have said this before....for years....we should deal with Saudi Arabia.

Invading Iraq? Rubbish...SA is the spiritual home of the AQ movement.

As the Saudi king has been ill for such a long time the royals were able to set up their own agenda....there are royals who tacitly support AQ.


Hitting Saudi Arabia would be much more complicated then taking out Saddam. However, you have a good point. I would've liked it if we had gone after the weaker and more lawless lands like Sudan and Somalia before going into the Middle East it'self

Who said anything about hitting SA?????? Christ on a Crutch is violence the only method people can think of???

America props up the vile and corrupt SA regime with the pay off being oil.

You remove the purchase of oil from SA and that government won't last a day.

Of course it means that the US would have to look at its own oil consumption......
It's not desirable. The world economy would be seriously hurt if even the US stopped buying Saudi oil. Even though the Saudi economy would suffer even worse, however, the royal family would still be in power, by using their billions to further tighten their grip on the nation. Besides, the instability it'd create would foment terror ten times worse than the terror anyone in Iraq can claim is being produced.

Rubbish

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.

Australians aren't much better, with the obsession with four wheel drives.

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.
The Americans are not about to stop driving cars -- and the Chinese have no plans curtail their economic growth. So stop screaming rubbish and read Kybernetia carefully. Much as one might wish to give Saudis a good walloping they richly deserve, that would be impossible without inflicting massive economic pain on the rest of the world. -- Oh, well, at least this might incentivise the US to use diplomacy, rather than force of arms, to encourage reforms in Saudi Arabia.

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.
The Americans are not about to stop driving cars -- and the Chinese have no plans curtail their economic growth. So stop screaming rubbish and read Kybernetia carefully. Much as one might wish to give Saudis a good walloping they richly deserve, that would be impossible without inflicting massive economic pain on the rest of the world. -- Oh, well, at least this might incentivise the US to use diplomacy, rather than force of arms, to encourage reforms in Saudi Arabia.

Its rubbish as the entire post is predicated on an ill founded assumption.

As for your post....well DOH of course yanks won't stop driving their gas guzzelers....so the US will continue to prop up the corrupt and vile regime in SA.

Remove the purchase of oil and that state will no longer exist....of course this does not sit well with the gung ho attitudes of what seems to be the brain washed majority of Americans. So rather have our arm chair warriors send in Americas youth to wars that are about as winnable as Michael Moore getting an invite to Crawford.

If the really REALLY wanted to deal with the threat of terror it could do so...but that does not play with the politicians as it means a removal of their powers. It actually means making really tough and hard decisions. But seeing as the US is rushing headlong into moral bankruptcy that choice...to sever its oil ties with SA will never happen.

Australians aren't much better, with the obsession with four wheel drives.

If you in the outback you want 4 x 4's....if you are in downtown LA there really is not much need is there??

If the "vile regime" in Saudi Arabia was to be ousted after the US stopped purchesing oil from Saudi Arabia do you think the people that fill the power void will be any better?

If the "vile regime" in Saudi Arabia was to be ousted after the US stopped purchesing oil from Saudi Arabia do you think the people that fill the power void will be any better?

Good question! (at last!!!!!!!!)

I would think that given the population lives under a regime that brooks no personal freedoms I'd say that the likelihood of a 'freer' system has more of a chance than it does now.

There is a democracy movement in SA and there is a large and well educated middle class.

On the down side you still have a nation based on Whabbism....

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.
The Americans are not about to stop driving cars -- and the Chinese have no plans curtail their economic growth. So stop screaming rubbish and read Kybernetia carefully. Much as one might wish to give Saudis a good walloping they richly deserve, that would be impossible without inflicting massive economic pain on the rest of the world. -- Oh, well, at least this might incentivise the US to use diplomacy, rather than force of arms, to encourage reforms in Saudi Arabia.

Its rubbish as the entire post is predicated on an ill founded assumption.

As for your post....well DOH of course yanks won't stop driving their gas guzzelers....so the US will continue to prop up the corrupt and vile regime in SA.

Remove the purchase of oil and that state will no longer exist....of course this does not sit well with the gung ho attitudes of what seems to be the brain washed majority of Americans. So rather have our arm chair warriors send in Americas youth to wars that are about as winnable as Michael Moore getting an invite to Crawford.

If the really REALLY wanted to deal with the threat of terror it could do so...but that does not play with the politicians as it means a removal of their powers. It actually means making really tough and hard decisions. But seeing as the US is rushing headlong into moral bankruptcy that choice...to sever its oil ties with SA will never happen.
Care to explain what's the "ill founded assumption" in Kybernetia's post, how you plan to cut world-wide oil consumption by 10%, as well as get all major oil importers to quit buying the stuff from Saudis?

Care to explain what's the "ill founded assumption" in Kybernetia's post, how you plan to cut world-wide oil consumption by 10%, as well as get all major oil importers to quit buying the stuff from Saudis?

Why should I do your thinking for you?

If the "vile regime" in Saudi Arabia was to be ousted after the US stopped purchesing oil from Saudi Arabia do you think the people that fill the power void will be any better?

Good question! (at last!!!!!!!!)

I would think that given the population lives under a regime that brooks no personal freedoms I'd say that the likelihood of a 'freer' system has more of a chance than it does now.

There is a democracy movement in SA and there is a large and well educated middle class.

On the down side you still have a nation based on Whabbism....

While I acknowledge there is a democracy movement in the region I would assume there is equally a number of opportunist groups lurking, Al Qaeda being one. Also foreign groups could make incursions into the country causing instability and further conflict.

It is a difficult situation...I mean I do not condone the regime in Saudi Arabia but is it a case of better the devil you know for the citizens of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world?

I'm not sure.

If the "vile regime" in Saudi Arabia was to be ousted after the US stopped purchesing oil from Saudi Arabia do you think the people that fill the power void will be any better?

Good question! (at last!!!!!!!!)

I would think that given the population lives under a regime that brooks no personal freedoms I'd say that the likelihood of a 'freer' system has more of a chance than it does now.

There is a democracy movement in SA and there is a large and well educated middle class.

On the down side you still have a nation based on Whabbism....

While I acknowledge there is a democracy movement in the region I would assume there is equally a number of opportunist groups lurking, Al Qaeda being one. Also foreign groups could make incursions into the country causing instability and further conflict.

It is a difficult situation...I mean I do not condone the regime in Saudi Arabia but is it a case of better the devil you know for the citizens of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world?

I'm not sure.

Well given that AQ is given support by some of the 7000 odd princes (who are all incredibly wealthy) the existance of AQ is inextricably linked to that of the House of Saud.

I would be more worried of an uprising by the destitute and really poor who most probably act on a remit based not only on a more radical sect than the Whabbists but also on redistribution of wealth. In this case that wealth will go to the even more radical groups and that funding will make things even more difficult. Hence the removal of the ability to generate wealth. You remove that ability and the House of Saud will fall...eventually....and hopefully with no money around what so ever....

In a way the idea of 'rather the enemy you know' is understandable....but somewhere somewhen a line must be drawn.

BUt what makes this issue so dangerous is that it is one of religion.

Care to explain what's the "ill founded assumption" in Kybernetia's post, how you plan to cut world-wide oil consumption by 10%, as well as get all major oil importers to quit buying the stuff from Saudis?

Why should I do your thinking for you?
You shouldn't -- you don't seem capable of that. Or, for that matter, of rebutting my arguments why taking a hard line on the Saudi regime, as you propose, is unrealistic.

Care to explain what's the "ill founded assumption" in Kybernetia's post, how you plan to cut world-wide oil consumption by 10%, as well as get all major oil importers to quit buying the stuff from Saudis?

Why should I do your thinking for you?
You shouldn't -- you don't seem capable of that. Or, for that matter, of rebutting my arguments why taking a hard line on the Saudi regime, as you propose, is unrealistic.

LOLOL testy testy!!!

May I suggest you attempt to read the posts on this thread before you start making posts like the ones above? Are you able? To not only read but comprehend?

As for YOUR arguements....seems to me that they are Kybernetia's....not yours....are you willing to admit your plagerism? Well no point really as its all there....

Now if you want to debate suggest you grow up a tad.

Care to explain what's the "ill founded assumption" in Kybernetia's post, how you plan to cut world-wide oil consumption by 10%, as well as get all major oil importers to quit buying the stuff from Saudis?

Why should I do your thinking for you?
You shouldn't -- you don't seem capable of that. Or, for that matter, of rebutting my arguments why taking a hard line on the Saudi regime, as you propose, is unrealistic.

LOLOL testy testy!!!

May I suggest you attempt to read the posts on this thread before you start making posts like the ones above? Are you able? To not only read but comprehend?

As for YOUR arguements....seems to me that they are Kybernetia's....not yours....are you willing to admit your plagerism? Well no point really as its all there....

Now if you want to debate suggest you grow up a tad.
Kybertonia deserves a round of applause for providing the numbers that prove why Saudi Arabia matters -- a lot. Well, any answer to Kybertonia, aside from bizarre assertion of some "ill founded assumptions" in his post? -- But lest you be worried that I'm plagiarising his arguments, I refer you to my discussion with Mr "Pheonix" (he, too, tried to claim that SA is irrelevant and got hammered with data):
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150817&highlight=

I'll have to call it a day now (I'll check back tomorrow), but in the meantime I'll repeat my question to you:
How do you propose to isolate Saudi Arabia, given growing world-wide demand for oil and considering that SA 1) produces ~10% of world's daily oil output, 2) is the only nation with significant spare capacity -- to pick up slack when there is trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria, and 3) sits atop ~25% of world's proven oil reserves?

Since, as you assert, you've already responded to these counterarguments to taking a hard line on Saudis, I'm sure you'll have no trouble reposting your responses -- just so that world's top intelligence services have a chance to convey your plan to their political masters and walloping of Saudi Arabia could commence at once.

Kybertonia deserves a round of applause for providing the numbers that prove why Saudi Arabia matters -- a lot. Well, any answer to Kybertonia, aside from bizarre assertion of some "ill founded assumptions" in his post? -- But lest you be worried that I'm plagiarising his arguments, I refer you to my discussion with Mr "Pheonix" (he, too, tried to claim that SA is irrelevant and got hammered with data):
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150817&highlight=

I'll have to call it a day now (I'll check back tomorrow), but in the meantime I'll repeat my question to you:
How do you propose to isolate Saudi Arabia, given growing world-wide demand for oil and considering that SA 1) produces ~10% of world's daily oil output, 2) is the only nation with significant spare capacity -- to pick up slack when there is trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria, and 3) sits atop ~25% of world's proven oil reserves?

Since, as you assert, you've already responded to these counterarguments to taking a hard line on Saudis, I'm sure you'll have no trouble reposting your responses -- just so that world's top intelligence services have a chance to convey your plan to their political masters and walloping of Saudi Arabia could commence at once.


Kybertonia deserves a round of applause for providing the numbers that prove why Saudi Arabia matters -- a lot. Well, any answer to Kybertonia, aside from bizarre assertion of some "ill founded assumptions" in his post? -- But lest you be worried that I'm plagiarising his arguments, I refer you to my discussion with Mr "Pheonix" (he, too, tried to claim that SA is irrelevant and got hammered with data)

See that part in bold? It is obvious that you have not a single clue of what you speak. I never said that SA is irrelevant. I am saying that SA is hugely relevant.

Just this alone makes a mockery of you and your posts so far.

I suggest once more that you go back and re-read what has actually been said rather making kneejerk reactions and plagerising other peoples work and or posts.

Somehow I doubt you will. I fully expect you to reply with more hot air...much in the same way you have done so far.

As for walloping SA I never said that in this thread. In fact I stated the opposite. This is more proof that you have not read a single thing I have posted so far.

I doubt there is a need for you to 'come back' and continue to make a fool of yourself....

Here's another sign of success, from a traditionally liberal publication.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0621/p01s02-wome.html

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.
If only it were that simple. Lifestyle changes that'd wean us off SUVs won't happen overnight. It'd take a few years to happen. Also, I'd love to hear your take on the rapidly accelarating oil consumption of China, now second only to the US (a decade ago, it was almost nonexistent).

If only it were that simple. Lifestyle changes that'd wean us off SUVs won't happen overnight. It'd take a few years to happen. Also, I'd love to hear your take on the rapidly accelarating oil consumption of China, now second only to the US (a decade ago, it was almost nonexistent).

Well can't be any more difficult than invading a country and inposing a democracy....

As for China....what about it?

Ok....scratch my China sentence...I need to look into that....

fact is that though that if the US stops using Saudi oil it will collapse the Saudi economy.

Ok....scratch my China sentence...I need to look into that....

fact is that though that if the US stops using Saudi oil it will collapse the Saudi economy.
And it'd create a hell of a lot of disruptions. There are many clans that want to take over the Saudi monarchy, and the fundementalists will want a piece of the pie. And there'd be no one there to stop it from turning into civil war, or to stop the violence from spreading. Perhaps it'd threaten the whole gulf, or Yemen. Perhaps it may leave sophisticated weapons that terrorists striking at US forces or Israel may want to use. It'd weaken both of us, but it'd leave the Arabian peninsula a total mess.
As for China, I'm not an expert, but I know a brief history of their oil usage. They produce a lot of oil, and have far larger reserves than the US (and I think they produce more, too). In 2002, however, China suddenly became a net importer. By 2003, it surpassed Japan as the second largest oil importer, consuming a total of 7% of the world's oil. It was less than 1% a few years ago.

I did hear something rather disturbing about the terrorist operations in that country, however. We know that some in their security forces sympathize with al-Qaeda. However, some of the captured terrorists say that they captured Paul Johnson by dressing as police, curtosey of their sympathizers in there. They set up a false checkpoint, and snatched Paul Johnson. Until they find where in their forces the mole(s) is/are, how will they know that they aren't being compromised?

@Purly Euclid,

Saudi-Arabia is having a big terrorism problem. But it is also a threat for the Saudi royal family itself. In the past the Saudis hoped the could pacify them so that they only operate outside of the Kingdom. The fact that they strike in Saudi-Arabia proves that the Saudi government has done more against them since 2001.
I don´t think they are capable of overthrowing the Saudi regime.
Think about Egypt. In 1981 the terrorists were able to kill the egyptian president but not the egyptian regime. And after their attacks against the tourists sector in the 1990s the terrorists lost support in the egyptian population.
With the attacks inside of arab countries Al-Quaida is leading a risky strategy (for themselves), since they could loose support, especially if they attack the key economic sectors of the economy (which is tourism in Egypt and oil in Saudi-Arabia). So far Al Quaida has not attacked pipelines in Saudi-Arabia.

Perhaps you should look at the way Saudi treats its own people and how this gives rise to terrorism and popular support for terrorism.
American ignorants, more of your soldiers are going to die, and this can only be a good thing because you will pull out of Iraq.

Why doesn't any one realize we are eventually going to leave Iraq. Probebly if things go smoothly (though I dout it) By next year. Only reason we have yet to leave is becuase of the Terrorist actions constantly taking place. We abandoned Iraq before and that took a bite to our ass and now we are paying for it. It would be unwise to do so again. :?

As far as I can tell, the argument so far is supposed to be about Saudi Arabia, not US energy policy or the habits of consumers. Whether you like it or not, oil is the most important economic commodity in the world right now, because it is the cheapest (and actually one of the less polluting compared to coal and others) energy sources in the world. When oil supplies run low, perhaps energy policy can change. But don't expect that sort of change to happen until supplies do run low, because it makes alot more economic sense to continue using oil till then, regardless of the political costs involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all of the people who believe that Saudi Arabia ought to have been invaded/embargoed/whatever aggressive stance you think should be taken:

Believe it or not, the leadership of Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our allies. The US has actually had the best relationship with the Saudi government of any Western nation for many years. I agree with you that the Saudis aren't doing nearly enough to help us against Al-Qaeda, but the problem is actually an internal one, and it does not mean that the Saudi government is trying to help Al-Qaeda (what individual Saudi princes do is not government policy; there are so too many of them to control, and that's part of the problem). Furthermore, it doesn't make any political sense to invade the country of someone who is "supposed" to be your ally. It couldn't possibly make things better, and would doubtless make things much worse.

People who claim that we ought to help the Saudi people because they are ruled by a corrupt monarchy overlook the fact that it is the Saudi people from whom we have the most to fear. You need only look at the fact that the Saudi government says one thing to us and something different to their own people to realize that the thing they fear the most is open revolt, and they are trying desperately to avoid that by lying to their own people and helping the US as little as possible. The house of Saud has been the only thing that has kept radical fundamentalists from taking power (although it is also their fault that the radicals have so much power these days for allying with the Wahhabis in order to prevent civil unrest), and it wouldn't make any sense to help the Saudi people, for they are likely our true adversaries in the matter. It makes more sense to be a hypocrite who has fewer enemies and more allies because he does not always depose those with whom he disagrees ideologically than it is to be an idealist with many enemies because he doesn't know when not to interfere.

As far as I can tell, the argument so far is supposed to be about Saudi Arabia, not US energy policy or the habits of consumers. Whether you like it or not, oil is the most important economic commodity in the world right now, because it is the cheapest (and actually one of the less polluting compared to coal and others) energy sources in the world. When oil supplies run low, perhaps energy policy can change. But don't expect that sort of change to happen until supplies do run low, because it makes alot more economic sense to continue using oil till then, regardless of the political costs involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all of the people who believe that Saudi Arabia ought to have been invaded/embargoed/whatever aggressive stance you think should be taken:

Believe it or not, the leadership of Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our allies. The US has actually had the best relationship with the Saudi government of any Western nation for many years. I agree with you that the Saudis aren't doing nearly enough to help us against Al-Qaeda, but the problem is actually an internal one, and it does not mean that the Saudi government is trying to help Al-Qaeda (what individual Saudi princes do is not government policy; there are so too many of them to control, and that's part of the problem). Furthermore, it doesn't make any political sense to invade the country of someone who is "supposed" to be your ally. It couldn't possibly make things better, and would doubtless make things much worse.

People who claim that we ought to help the Saudi people because they are ruled by a corrupt monarchy overlook the fact that it is the Saudi people from whom we have the most to fear. You need only look at the fact that the Saudi government says one thing to us and something different to their own people to realize that the thing they fear the most is open revolt, and they are trying desperately to avoid that by lying to their own people and helping the US as little as possible. The house of Saud has been the only thing that has kept radical fundamentalists from taking power (although it is also their fault that the radicals have so much power these days for allying with the Wahhabis in order to prevent civil unrest), and it wouldn't make any sense to help the Saudi people, for they are likely our true adversaries in the matter. It makes more sense to be a hypocrite who has fewer enemies and more allies because he does not always depose those with whom he disagrees ideologically than it is to be an idealist with many enemies because he doesn't know when not to interfere.

Good point. I wo9nder what whould happen if Suadi Arabia was a democracy :?

@Lenbonia

"Believe it or not, the leadership of Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our allies"
absolutely right: without Saudi-Arabia the oil price would have fluctuated much more in the last three decades. Saudi-Arabia is a stability factor at the world markets, as I pointed out in an earlier post.
The use that now as well as a tool for their foreign policy. Saudi-Arabia was the country which pushed the hardest for an increase of the oil output.
The situation is very simple: the US needs Saudi-Arabia and Saudi-Arabia needs the US. Just look to the very close economic links. It is estimated that Saudi-Arabia has invested 2-3 trillion Dollar in the US, just to underline the economic importance of Saudi-Arabia for the US.
But not only the US depends on Saudi-Arabia also all countries who import oil.
And the Saudis need to export oil: they economy completly depends on that.
There is no alternative to cooperation.
Saudi-Arabia is not Iraq. It is much more important and after all a long-time ally of the US (against Iran, and against Iraq in 1990/91)

@Purly Euclid,

Saudi-Arabia is having a big terrorism problem. But it is also a threat for the Saudi royal family itself. In the past the Saudis hoped the could pacify them so that they only operate outside of the Kingdom. The fact that they strike in Saudi-Arabia proves that the Saudi government has done more against them since 2001.
I don´t think they are capable of overthrowing the Saudi regime.
Think about Egypt. In 1981 the terrorists were able to kill the egyptian president but not the egyptian regime. And after their attacks against the tourists sector in the 1990s the terrorists lost support in the egyptian population.
With the attacks inside of arab countries Al-Quaida is leading a risky strategy (for themselves), since they could loose support, especially if they attack the key economic sectors of the economy (which is tourism in Egypt and oil in Saudi-Arabia). So far Al Quaida has not attacked pipelines in Saudi-Arabia.
The only thing, however, is that they soon may not have popular support to loose. As I posted a few posts ago, Saudis were cheering over this latest raid by Saudi forces more than ever before. It may be a public showing of affection for the Saudi government, because no matter how much the people hate them or the US, they know that they are needed to survive. Anyhow, with nothing to loose, al-Qaeda may target the oil infrastructure. It won't do much in the long run, but it'll certainly hurt in the short run. That is, however, if this jubilation by Saudis can last.

Many of you underestimate the Saudi importance for the world economy. The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day: Currently 8,3 million are coming from Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was a STABILIZING FACTOR on the energy markets in almost the last three decades. For example: during the Iraq-Iran war when the Iraqi pipelines were blocked the Saudis took over the Iraqi contigent and therefore stabilizing the prices – otherwise there would have been an oil crisis from 1980-88.
Saudi-Arabia is the country with the biggest reserve capacity. With that they always stabilize the price when there are distortions – like now.
If Saudi-Arabia would really fall out more than 10% of the world oil production would be gone. Other OPEC countries have approximatly a reserve capacities of ONLY 1,7 million barrel per day (that includes Iraq) . Non OPEC-countries have even less – because they would use those reserve capacities at the current price level : estimates for non-Opec members ONLY range from 0,3 million Barrel to 0,8 million barrel), meaning ONLY 20% of the gap could be filled.
What would happen to the oil price in such a situation?? It is speculation, of course. One was made by George Perry, Senior Fellow of the american think-thank Brookings institutition in November 2001. He assumed that the oil production per day would go down by 7 million barrel and that the reserve capacity would be 2,5 million barrel a day leaving a gap of 5,5 million barrel a day. On that basis he estimated a price of 75 Dollar a barrel at a time when the price per barrel was just 25 Dollar. Perry forsaw global recession in that instance. The GDP of the US would drop by 2,7%. By the way: NO COUNTRY IS SAFE from this economic hit. Even countries who don´t import much oil from Saudi-Arabia – like Germany – wouldn´t be spared. The oil is going to delivered to those who would be ready to pay more. The supplieres would even BREACH existing contracts, as we see it as well in the current STEAL CRISIS-situation, where supplieres breach their contracts without hesitation.

But there is good news. No country has protected it´s oil industry as good as Saudi-Arabia.
They have huge reserves on pipelines and technicians which could very fast replace damaged pipelines if terrorist really attack one – so far there haven´t. The pipelines are very good protected. The terrorists were only capable to attack soft targests in Saudi-Arabia – foreigners, offices, e.g. . But there were so far NEVER able to attack a pipeline.
It there is an uprising in Saudi-Arabia – and I don´t think that´s going to happen – think of Egypt after the assassination of Sadat – the Islamists were NOT CAPABLE of overthrowing the egyptian government. I don´t think they are in regard to the Saudi government – but even if: the new rulers would have vital interests in restarting the production. Ironicaly Iran had it´s biggest oil exports in the year when the Mullahs took power – well they needed the money as well.
But it is of course true that any new severe attack in Saudi-Arabia is hurting the global economy.

The world economy needs 80 million barrel oil a day

and how much of that 80 million is needed for americans to drive their gas guzzeling SUV's and other stupidly large cars 200 foot down the road to the local 7-11?

Nice diversion there but complete rubbish as you miss the point entirely.
The Americans are not about to stop driving cars -- and the Chinese have no plans curtail their economic growth. So stop screaming rubbish and read Kybernetia carefully. Much as one might wish to give Saudis a good walloping they richly deserve, that would be impossible without inflicting massive economic pain on the rest of the world. -- Oh, well, at least this might incentivise the US to use diplomacy, rather than force of arms, to encourage reforms in Saudi Arabia.

Its rubbish as the entire post is predicated on an ill founded assumption.

As for your post....well DOH of course yanks won't stop driving their gas guzzelers....so the US will continue to prop up the corrupt and vile regime in SA.

Remove the purchase of oil and that state will no longer exist....of course this does not sit well with the gung ho attitudes of what seems to be the brain washed majority of Americans. So rather have our arm chair warriors send in Americas youth to wars that are about as winnable as Michael Moore getting an invite to Crawford.

If the really REALLY wanted to deal with the threat of terror it could do so...but that does not play with the politicians as it means a removal of their powers. It actually means making really tough and hard decisions. But seeing as the US is rushing headlong into moral bankruptcy that choice...to sever its oil ties with SA will never happen.

Well, if you look at world statistics...you know who the #2 oil producing country in the world is? Just behind the Saudis? The US of A...we produce plenty, but we use too damn much.... But since gas prices are approaching high levels, SUVs have been getting smaller (minus those assinine hummers) and more fuel efficient. The big three are also developing hybrids, and seem to be getting their act together, if for no better reason than to stay competitive and up to date (which is still progress...)

There is no real victory in war.

There is no real victory in war.

That's a generalization if I've ever seen one. It really depends upon what exactly you view as victory. Victory doesn't have to mean that your flag flies over the territory of the enemy, and it doesn't have to mean that your casualties were less than those of your enemy. It doesn't even have to mean that your enemy doesn't succeed in his own war aims, as long as you succeed in your own. Perhaps you are confusing the notion of complete victory with one of partial victory. It is possible to be victorious and yet fail to achieve all objectives.

The negative humanitarian side of war is important, since war is destructive and harmful to civilian populaces. However, sometimes there are bigger issues that need to be resolved, and war is sometimes the easiest way to solve those issues. I will not say that it is the best, as I myself believe that it is better to avoid war if there is any other realistic choice, but I do believe that sometimes war has proven itself to be neccessary. If the war ends and the issue was not resolved, then I would agree with you that no one was the victor. However, if at the war's end the issue that sparked it has been resolved to the satisfaction of the victor, then victory has been achieved.

Contrary to what some people seem to believe, there are very few people who view war as a good enterprise, and even fewer who are actually blind to the horrors of it. But even though war is definately terrible and destructive for all of those involved in it, that does not mean that it may not be necessary in some cases. My heart goes out to anyone who has had to face war, but suffering in war is not the most terrible thing in the world, allowing it to happen for no reason is.

If you mean to make such a statement, define exactly what it is you feel the purpose of war to be, and especially what constitutes a victory int hat sort of war.

Kybertonia deserves a round of applause for providing the numbers that prove why Saudi Arabia matters -- a lot. Well, any answer to Kybertonia, aside from bizarre assertion of some "ill founded assumptions" in his post? -- But lest you be worried that I'm plagiarising his arguments, I refer you to my discussion with Mr "Pheonix" (he, too, tried to claim that SA is irrelevant and got hammered with data):
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150817&highlight=

I'll have to call it a day now (I'll check back tomorrow), but in the meantime I'll repeat my question to you:
How do you propose to isolate Saudi Arabia, given growing world-wide demand for oil and considering that SA 1) produces ~10% of world's daily oil output, 2) is the only nation with significant spare capacity -- to pick up slack when there is trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria, and 3) sits atop ~25% of world's proven oil reserves?

Since, as you assert, you've already responded to these counterarguments to taking a hard line on Saudis, I'm sure you'll have no trouble reposting your responses -- just so that world's top intelligence services have a chance to convey your plan to their political masters and walloping of Saudi Arabia could commence at once.


Kybertonia deserves a round of applause for providing the numbers that prove why Saudi Arabia matters -- a lot. Well, any answer to Kybertonia, aside from bizarre assertion of some "ill founded assumptions" in his post? -- But lest you be worried that I'm plagiarising his arguments, I refer you to my discussion with Mr "Pheonix" (he, too, tried to claim that SA is irrelevant and got hammered with data)

See that part in bold? It is obvious that you have not a single clue of what you speak. I never said that SA is irrelevant. I am saying that SA is hugely relevant.

Just this alone makes a mockery of you and your posts so far.

I suggest once more that you go back and re-read what has actually been said rather making kneejerk reactions and plagerising [sic] other peoples work and or posts.

Somehow I doubt you will. I fully expect you to reply with more hot air...much in the same way you have done so far.

As for walloping SA I never said that in this thread. In fact I stated the opposite. This is more proof that you have not read a single thing I have posted so far.

I doubt there is a need for you to 'come back' and continue to make a fool of yourself....
MWAHAHAH!
When you have nothing substantive to say you go for huffing & puffing, I see. But don't worry: I'm not gonna let go of you.

You claimed I plagiarised my arguments from Kybernetia and I gave you a link where I posted detailed data on Saudi oil exports. You claim your argument is different from that of "Pheonix", but in fact it is not: you both claim that the world can somehow stop buying Saudi oil without suffering substantial economic repercussions.

Lest you attempt to dispute that, here are your very words:

America props up the vile and corrupt SA regime with the pay off being oil.

You remove the purchase of oil from SA and that government won't last a day.

So here's what I would like you to do:
1. Learn to spell verb "to plagiarise" (using apostrophies where appropriate is also a good idea).
2. Answer the question: how do you realistically expect oil importing nations to "remove the purchase of oil from SA" in order that "that government won't last a day" -- given that SA 1) produces ~10% of world's daily oil output, 2) is the only nation with significant spare capacity -- to pick up slack when there is trouble in Venezuela or Nigeria, and 3) sits atop ~25% of world's proven oil reserves?

Stop weaseling. Answer the question.

There is no real victory in war.

I am sure the Jews in Europe would beg to differ..but this is not the topic of this thread.