babble: Why don't the Gulfies pull the finger out?

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » current events » international news and politics » Why don't the Gulfies pull the finger out?

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Why don't the Gulfies pull the finger out?

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 11:00 AM

The gulf states contain most of the world's oil. The gulf monarchs therefore have a massive amount of power over the United States and by extension Israel. They have the power to shake the foundations of the American way of life. To grab the American power elite by its economic balls and pull. So why don't they? Why can't all Al thani and Prince Abdullah and all of the other despots in that part of the Middle East just refuse to give any more oil to the United States. Isn't it obvious to them that they could help the Lebanese by doing this?

[ 16 July 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 July 2006 11:26 AM

The answer is obvious.

Anyone who threatens to take away America's oil automatically becomes an enemy and a "fair" target for war and regime change. All the more so since the loss of mideast oil sources would cause catastrophic economic and social disorder in the USA.

Woe betide the oil sheik who tries to take your advice.

There are no shortcuts to resolving the Palestinian cause.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 16 July 2006 01:51 PM

This thread starts with the assumption that there are a whole bunch of sheiks that are opposed to these conflicts. But, in fact, it is well within their own self-interests to see the conflicts continue indefinitely so that they can reap even more profits and, thereby, exert even more power and control within their own borders.

But M. Spector is right, and i suspect that if the 'evildoers' ever figures out that it is the sheiks themselves that they need to target, then there might well be a dramatic shift in thinking in the area.

[ 16 July 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Odin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12824

posted 16 July 2006 02:05 PM

Because the vast majority of the oil supplied to the USA does not come from Gulf states. Plus, the Saudi Royal Family cares more about $$$ and power than politics.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil (and just think how cheap gas would be with a nationalized gas network. And the gov't could impose efficiency regulations on cars without the oil industry complaining).

From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 02:09 PM

quote:
Anyone who threatens to take away America's oil automatically becomes an enemy and a "fair" target for war and regime change.

Couldn't it be argued that since the American Military industrial complex runs on oil, refusing to sell Bush oil would cause the whole thing to shut down, thus making it impossible for the Americans to change the governments of the sheikdoms?

Doesn't the U.S. only have seven years of oil held in reserve?

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 16 July 2006 03:10 PM

Actually, that was done in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The Gulf states cut off all petroleum shipment to the west. It didn't work. The Gulf states have never been a large supplier of oil to North America. What the embargo did do was stimulate the development of the North Sea oil fields.

From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 03:53 PM

But the north sea is running out of oil. Surely that would increase the chance of a tactic like that working now.

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 04:18 PM

If that is indeed the case why did M. specter say that the loss of mid east oil would cause
"catastrophic economic and social disorder in the USA."

quote:
The Gulf states have never been a large supplier of oil to North America?

[ 16 July 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 July 2006 04:31 PM

quote:
Why don't the Gulfies pull the finger out?

In general, they are a bunch of gutless, bloodless, useless, dictators of brutal regimes backed by Western military force without the support of their subjects and who could care not one bit about other Arabs except to the extent necessary to maintain the laughable charade called "Arab unity".

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 04:56 PM

Are there any exceptions to that rule? What about the king of baraihn

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 July 2006 05:11 PM

Bahrain does not supply any appreciable amount of oil to the US.

Saudi Arabia, however, supplies about 15% of the oil consumed by the US - almost as much as Canada does. A loss of 15% of its oil supply for any length of time would cause chaos in the USA, because there is no readily available alternative source for that much oil.

Even if the Saudis and the Bush family were not best buds, and even if they didn't have a very real economic interest in the continuation of the conflicts, the Saudis would never risk their own safety by trying to extort peace in the Middle East from the USA.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 16 July 2006 06:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Bahrain does not supply any appreciable amount of oil to the US.

If I remember correctly, Bahrain is not an oil exporter. Bahrain's oil reserves were pretty much exhausted in 70s if I am not mistaken.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006 | IP: Logged

Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 16 July 2006 06:51 PM

Well, Canada could stop its oil supply, it probably would be better not to say that we do it in support of a Middle East solution. But we could frame it around US sopport for Kyoto. It would make it easier for us to get proactive about it too. It is risky, because it could put more pressure on Mid-East oil. But maybe the Arabs could frame an oil cut around Kyoto too. After all the environment is by far the bigger problem. If we can co-operate on that then solving the conflicts in the M.E. might not be so difficult after all.

From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged

ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 16 July 2006 06:58 PM

The gulf states are basically military hostages of the US. And, they really don't care about poor Palestinians which are only poor labourers in their countries anyways.

Basically, all the Arab countries are either in a weak position or are totally subservient to the US. They can push forward resolutions, but when push comes to shove, the shadows of the US's Fifth and Sixth Fleets looms large.

From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005 | IP: Logged

Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 July 2006 07:05 PM

Actually, it is the shadows of thier own people without benefit of the fifth fleet in the background that really scares them.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged

CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 16 July 2006 08:17 PM

quote:
The gulf states are basically military hostages of the US...

Did that situation exsist in 1973?

From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: