Unfortionatly just not buying oil from the Saudis wont solve the problem of them supporting terriosm. There is Japan, Germany, England, France, and a host of other countries who will buy thier oil even though they know it funds terriosm. Global industries dont care about people only makeing money. The only way to stop this country is the same way we went after Iraq , who by the way dident have anything to do with global terriosm, as much as it pains me to say so. I dont really want any more wars and dead american soilders.
rabel22
It is not a question of making money. Oil lubricates the machinery of the economy. At this time the lack thereof or it's curtailment would result in a worldwide depression. The only answer to the nonuse or curtailed use is the development of a viable alternate source or sources. Like the weather everybody talks about it but as long as the oil industry can buy presidents and government officials nothing will be done about it.
Energy formula:
Oil = unctuous = Dubya
au1929 wrote:Craven
Our alliance with Israel has nothing to do with oil. If Anything it acts as a detriment to our relations with the Mid Eastern oil producing countries.
I agree. But you had said that the west would not be involved in the mid east were it not for oil. I find the statements contradictory.
Craven
I was referring to the oil producing countries. Yes, we still would in all likelihood have supported Israel. Consider, if these countries were drinking oil and eating sand {figuratively speaking} would they have the money and wherewithal to support a Israeli/palistinian conflict. That conflict would have been resolved long ago. IMO it never would have escalated to the level it has
Those applying their minds should appreciate that, contrary to the official line, the true costs of financing terrorist acts by any enemy are miniscule.
If one believes the Bush version of events, even September 11th logically cost little in financial terms and certainly not tens of thousands or millions of dollars. Travel to America, followed by hotel rooms followed by the purchase of one-way airline tickets.
Remember that bin Laden was supposed to have many terrorist training camps around the world training thousands of potential terrorists and yet the fairly rare acts were carried out by local dissidents in the nation's concerned using home-made devices? bin Laden's so-called camps appear to have been incredible failures in terms of achievements.
Then, we were told that Saddam was giving Palestinians millions of dollars a year. Yet they kept on killing themselves with cheap home-made bombs. Where did all the money go?
It would seem wiser to seek the hidden agenda behind the highly publicised claims, rather than believe the official allegations.
au,
John has answered you in the fisrt sentence of his reply.
My only disagreement with his first sentence is that even the "official line" does not contradict it.
Terrorism is as cheap as life is perceived to be.
John Webb
Would there be a Bin Ladin If we did not have troops stationed Saudi Arabia. Would there have been a Bin Laden if we had not supported the Saud family? Would there have been a Saddam If we had not supported him. If there were no oil or need for oil the answer is obvious. Oil is the energy that fuels the world and also the Mid East.
craven
Would the US be involved in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the oil producing states if there was no oil. Would Bin Ladin who except for his recent injection of the Israeli situation into his agenda have been planning terrorist activities against the US. His gripe was against the Saud family and the stationing of infidel troops on the sacred sand of Saudi Arabia. In addition no Bin Laden no 9/11 and therefore no Afghanistan. IMO without oil the situation in the Middle east would be minimal at best.
Who knows au. We get involved around the globe for so many reasons and oil is just one.
Maybe they'd be "commies" and we'd have seen red.
I suspect we'd be less involved but still involved. The mid east gets more attention than it deserves (from people like myself who follow every single bit of news from there). Our involvement elsewhere is often underreported in comparison.
John
Quote:
Those applying their minds should appreciate that, contrary to the official line, the true costs of financing terrorist acts by any enemy are minuscule.
What would be the Impetus I don't believe the Palistinian/.Israeli conflict would have triggered a 9/11 of the other bombings.
But au, you claimed that without oil the Palestinian terrorists would ahve no funding.
Palestinian terrorists need little to no funding. They are the poorest people on the globe and that has not stopped the terror.
Sure they get contributions but I posit that they'd get them even if there were no mideast oil.
Craven
I can only give my opinion and in my opinion without oil the Mid East would not be a hot spot and our fears of terrorism would be non existant.
To a large degree I agree. But if we delve into what ifs then we might consider that with no mideast oil we could simply have other hot spots.
BTW, my fear of terrorism is non-existant.
A leading Republican senator on Sunday called on the Bush administration to release most of the classified portions of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks, saying the sections were withheld only to avoid harming relations with other countries. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who helped spearhead last year's probe into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said the administration wrongly blanked out 27 pages dealing with suspected foreign support of those responsible for the attacks. More...
Hello, new here, but I'm going to stick my neck out...
I think that the al-Quaeda organization has more in common with the Islamic Brotherhood organization in Nasser era Egypt, than with any sort of quasi-political movement. Having said that, I doubt that there is any way that a reasonable human being could have imagined that that an essentially millenarian religious organization, like al-Quaeda, would be involved with totalitarian secularist like Hussein.
Now, having said that, let me also add that it is not unlikely that an organization like al-Quaeda would receive support from members of the al-Saud family. At the least, funding of such groups allows the family to deflect internal criticisms by the Whahabbist theologians, who call regularly for repeal of "modern" aspects of Saudi life.
If there is complicity in the Saudi ruling family, then I would suppose this would tend to lead one to question whether the Bush administration's "war on terror" was actually proceeding at full tilt, would it not? After all, in order to truly search for and destroy al-Quaeda the US would have to behave severly toward an erstwhile ally. Is this not the same charade being played out between the US and Pakistani governments?
hobitbob,
I think you are batting 3 for 3. Welcome to the site. I think you are a very interesting addition to the gang.
And greeting to all. I am a refugee from the land of ad hominem attacks, the Baltimore Sun forum!
well no one is immune here but its kept to a minimum, nice to have you here.
