Harleyman Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 So ... the US is going to bomb Iran to protect US oil imports from Iran, is it? The US doesn't import any oil from Iran. It doesn't import oil from Libya, either. Nor does the US import oil from Syria. The US does import oil - lots of oil. In Sep 2011 the US imported (thousands of barrels per day): 1465 from Saudi Arabia 403 from Iraq 145 from Kuwait 72 from Oman. Total daily import from Middle-Eastern countries: 2085 thousand barrels. In the same month, the US imported 6454 thousand barrels of oil from non middle eastern countries. The Middle East is an important source of oil for the US - but it's not a vital source of oil. The US could probably increase its imports from other countries (notably Canada and Mexico) increase production from its own oil fields, increase massively its production of bio-fuels and wave two fingers at the Middle Eastern suppliers. Remind me again why the US is so interested in protecting its oil imports (totalling zero barrels a day) from Iran, Libya and Syria? Syria's oil production is declining and the country is expected to be a net importer of oil within the next decade or so. If 'oil' is the reason for the interest in Syria, the timing is pretty poor. There are, of course, countries which do rely on Libyan and Iranian oil. - But they are not called the United states of America. (Why on earth would the US want to spend tax-payers' money and manpower protecting oil supplies for other countries? - Some people within the US are beginning to wonder about that.) Should the US decide to accelerate the move towards independence from middle-eastern oil supplies, then significant amounts of agricultural land would have to be used to produce bio-fuels. That would put up food costs in the US, but there would still be enough to feed the country. Pity about the exports, though. Never mind! - Other countries could grow their own food and become independent of US grain supplies. Food prices are more than likely to go up over the next year due to the drought in the midwest where a lot of the wheat crop has perished. That wont mean that the 30 percent of the wheat that the US exports to the poor countries will stop either. We here will make up the lost revenue at the check out counter and I for one have no problem with that as we're helping feed the far less fortunate in the world What's the use of even trying to educate erebus anyway? I'd have more luck with my wife's pet cockatoo even if he is a bird brain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 5, 2012 Author Share Posted August 5, 2012 Nothing has been mentioned on the main news today about anything but the olympics.It would appear nothing is happening in the rest of the world,or in the Country either.Still its good to have the distraction. I wonder if those in Syria have been watching the games! I need to read through the thread again,they're is so much of interest that i havn't absorbed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXTickerXX Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You say the Saudis and the Qauraris are dictorships. I say they're not. They are states that are ruled under strict islamic law and it seems that the Saudis and Quataris are quite happy with that state of affairs and in general enjoying the benefits of the riches from oil production. They may not be democracies in the sense that a westerner thinks of but that doesnt matter. They probably think we're all a bunch of sinners and degenerates on the fast road to hell. Syria and Iraq on the other hand are/were rulled by members of a tribe that passed very little prosperity down to the majority of the people who made up other tribes. Assad gave nothing to his people and many of them exist in near poverty Unlike the Saudis and Qataris the average Syrian dont have an imported servant from Pakistan and the Phillipines to cook his meals, do his laundry and wipe his ass. Assad and Saddam were more inclined to be secular when it came to religion but they ruled like medieval despots nevertheless so comparing Saudi to the likes of Syria and Ghadaffi's Libya makes no sense. You say they are not it must be true then.I guess all the dissidents who are murdered and the brutally oppressed women agree with you and the one ruling family are voted in every year.Imported slaves must be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You say they are not it must be true then.I guess all the dissidents who are murdered and the brutally oppressed women agree with you and the one ruling family are voted in every year.Imported slaves must be great. I dont think the women are "brutally oppressed". That's a very strong statement. Certainly they are subject to Islamic law but so are all the women who live in Muslim societies. If you insist they'r "brutally oppressed" then you're declaring war on a whole religion and we're not going to create Aramageddon by going to war to "liberate" all the women who belong to a religion that may be the largest in the world or at least the second largest. There are no imported slaves either. Pillipinos are one of the poorest people in the world and the Pakistanis scarcely better. No one is forcing them to leave their countries and work abroad but at least in Saudi they live a far better life than back home in the tin shanties, swatting millions of flies and looking for food on rubbish tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 You say they are not it must be true then.I guess all the dissidents who are murdered and the brutally oppressed women agree with you and the one ruling family are voted in every year.Imported slaves must be great. The House of Saud (Sunni) are kept in power by the West, but if they were booted out, then you'd see some real oppression of women (and others.) Wahabi Muslims (the alternative to the House of Saud) are a group of fundamentalists and have an orthodox version of Islam. Wahabis in Saudi Arabia do not allow their females to work side by side with their men and they also are not allowed to drive a car. The women are treated as third rate (not even second rate) citizens and they are bound to wear a long abayaa or garment to cover them from head to toe. Sunni Muslims are moderate and believe in the equality of women as suggested by Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I must admit I lose whatever sympathy I may have had for the rebels when tv/video/phone coverage shows them shrieking "Allahu Akbar" all the time. Hmmm......despotic madman versus Saudi backed Islamists......difficult choice! and british jihadists? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19136630 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I must admit I lose whatever sympathy I may have had for the rebels when tv/video/phone coverage shows them shrieking "Allahu Akbar" all the time. Hmmm......despotic madman versus Saudi backed Islamists......difficult choice! Same thoughts here - I really didn't like the footage of the rebels' war crimes either! It amazes me how the West can get behind anyone who rises up against a despot, if it's politically convenient, even if that means supporting a bunch of raving religious lunatics who would do far more harm to the country/world than the psycho they're getting rid of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Even if the Iranians do get nuclear weapons it's a wild assumption that they would ever even think of using them. They're not stupid and they come from a very old civilisation which was far advanced in its day. ... It might have been far advanced in its day, but now it's so far behind relatively that it's practically Precambrian. I disagree that their use of nuclear (or chemical and biological) weapons is a wild assumption. I consider it far from unlikely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Footage of them executing captives doesn't win them many friends,either. (The Beeb stopped short of the actual shooting and said "there was gunfire then there were bodies lying on the ground.") I wonder how many (and which) nations will be pressing for war crimes trials when it's over? None, I expect. It'll be part of the deal with the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 It might have been far advanced in its day, but now it's so far behind relatively that it's practically Precambrian. I disagree that their use of nuclear (or chemical and biological) weapons is a wild assumption. I consider it far from unlikely![/QUOTE] Meaning that they all have a death wish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.