Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Showdown at the Saudi Soda Fountain: Cast your vote!

Filed under: Middle East

Suppose Saudi Arabia rebuffs President Bush's request to reduce oil prices by increasing supply. Should the U.S. invade and seize their fields?
Yes
No
  
pollcode.com free polls

President Bush is in Saudi Arabia pleading with the oligarchy there to increase oil supplies and thereby reduce prices, which have caused an inflationary spike in the U.S. economy (the worst in nearly two decades). This imperils not only U.S. but world economic security. Bush's words alone have already caused a drop in the oil market. He's offered arms sales as a carrot. But the Oil Minister has responded cagily: "We will raise production when the market justifies it." If they refuse, should we simply seize their oil fields? Whatever you may think of the morality of military action, it would be child's play to do it. Saudi Arabia isn't Iraq, it's a largely fictional, sparsely populated country that has alienated itself from the Arab world by, ironically, supposedly befriending the United States, who it now seems more and more to be stabbing in the back. Annexing it would have the additional attractions of liberating its repressed women, cutting of funds to international terrorism and shoring up Iraq's southern flank. Perhaps its something both liberals and conservatives can agree on? If inflation spirals out of control in the U.S. that will drag down the entire world economy.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Ray says:

Yes, we should seize their oil fields. And you, Kim Zigfeld, should be in the front lines. Because you're so brave, you might even some day use your real name.


norm says:

i'd much rather we institute an apollo-like program to rid ourselves of the need for oil. but that probably makes too much sense.


JML says:

So, are we for a free market or not? If the Saudis charge too much for their product, we should turn to other energy sources/suppliers. If supermarket A charges too much for milk, I buy from supermarket B. I don't go into supermarket A and kill everyone and steal their milk.

Or is the free market thing only when it's convenient?

And is it really such a good idea to give the Arabs a bunch of new hi-tech weapons?


norm says:

jml...
the problem is that oligarchies don't really constitute a free market.


JML says:

Norm,

True, the Saudis and the oil companies manipulate the market, but we still have a choice as to whether or not to buy from them. I was thinking "free market" in that sense.

I like your idea about an Apollo-like program, but that won't happen because it would be viewed by many as government intrusion in the marketplace. Whether it is a good idea or not would be overlooked.


Brent says:

Seizing oil fields is why we went to war in Iraq the first time back in the 90's. So, if you want to put the US in the same category as Iraq, well, then sure we should seize them.


La Russophobe says:

NORM:

Don't you mean you'd rather we HAD adopted an Apollo-like program? We didn't though, and now we must deal with reality.

Suppose oil goes to $200 a barrel? Are you really prepared to see Americans freezing in their homes and the world economy sent into recession just to respect the property rights of a largely fictional country that sponsors terror and represses women?

Your statement is way to facile.


Vova says:

Seizing their oil fields is OK provided that we 1)have an exit strategy; and 2)have a plan to get rid of the camel jokeys who currently dwell in the desert (except for brief trips to Marbella and Nice to spend some bucks on caviar and Russian whores)


Liberty's Son says:

A "free" market economy is not dependent on a multitude of suppliers. Oligopolies and monopolies are often the natural result of the distribution of natural resources and/or technology. The commonly understood definition of a "free" market is one where prices and quantities are determined by the equilibrium of supply and demand, regardless of whether that supply is restricted by a limited number of suppliers. This is in opposition to a controlled or centrally managed economy where prices and quantities are determined by some individual or committee.

Regardless of the definition, you can't seriously believe that once the price of oil gets a bit too high for our comfort, we can/should invade and seize the oil fields? Even if you don't care about international treaties and the notion of sovereignty or the free market, or the difficulty in taking on another war, what do you think an action like this would do to our standing amongst our allies? Who would ever be willing to trust us again if we showed that whenever things don't turn out our way (even if this is a result of our poor planning) that we will invade and kill to get whatever we want. We'll be completely on our own. No allies. No reliable trading partners.


Jeff says:

"If they refuse, given their connections to terrorism, should we simply seize their oil fields?"

That is such a brilliant statement. I can't imagine what could go wrong with that strategy. I mean, there's no way that invading a country, destroying its infrastructure, seizing its natural resources, and leaving it in ruins would guarantee a steady stream of terrorists for decades to come. I have a recent analogy of this circumstance on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't think of it right now.

To La Russophobe:
Why is it that you think we are past the point of a massive research program for developing alternative energy? Was there some point of no return that I slept through? I can think of tens of billions of dollars that now go to oil subsidies that could be used to help people with home heating and with a development program.


norm says:

larussophobe...
sure - i wish we had decades ago. i was a teeager pumping gas in the 70's and had to watch for even and odd plates. but i wish we would do a lot of things that are politically difficult but make sense. so we are where we are but there is absolutely no valid reason we can't do it. i do appreciate your nice turn of a phrase though; "... see Americans freezing in their homes and the world economy sent into recession..." dammit i love fear-mongering. and-oh-by-the-way osama thinks oil should be $200 a barrel too. it's nice we are destabilizing the region and helping him get there.


Artfldgr says:

we ARE a free market country, the only thing we WOULD go to war for was if the oil was not available in the market but was assigned by contract in collusion outside of a free market where everyone can purchase what they need.

if opec, russia, china, and parts of africa decide to make 100 or 200 year contracts on exclusive oil sales (a possibility, i can name other contracts for that long. see trinity church case, and the man that made a fortune renting the land that cell phone towers would end up on)

the united states and free countries do not have the means to impose such thefts and maintain them. their people would not stand for it unless the people are being ignored (hint), which would then be describing a state that only had the IMAGE of being free.

to make this more palatable to the people that think that free market means anything goes. it doesnt. capitalism with the gloves off is not fascism, and fascist collusion would be capable (as anyone studying history) of seizing what it wants.

captalists seek win win situations that lead to more, there is nothing to be gained by a win lose situation except short term cash out.

this whole thing is a case of stability vs instability. those markets dominated by raw materials make more money in instability and in creating an artificial drought (like making 100 year contracts). without second order businesses they cant convert that raw material base into products and services which amplify the productivity and make the raw mateirals and things much more value cause using them creates value in excess of the intrinsic value of the raw material.


the countries that are stuck in this situation because they did not use the raw material wealth to create secon order productivity, and are now being left way way way behind those that did do that.

in essence their only position to maximize what they have is to hoard and to dole it out like a drug dealer who forces others into crime to pay for a much higher price after the free addiction has set.

this is not capitalism, this is not rule of law, this is economic warfare.

to collude and to cut countries out of thing in total is exactly that. economic warfare.

it would be to create an artificial situtaion that would result in mass starvation, medical deaths, and on and on..

its would be just as devastating as if they let a bomb off in each and every town and city from the largest to the smallest.

and that state would exist for more than 100 years... or till they rolled in with their well supplied stuff when we are gutted.

in truth its easy to see that that is not capitalism... starving yoru customers to milk more out of them is not free market, as it prohibits meaningful competitors.


tie this to the other situations and we are heading for a convergence of bad that might be too juicy to pass up for such evil opportunists...



Ray says:

The war in Iraq turned out to be such a smashing success, with democracy everywhere, and oil flowing freely now that it's been privatized in free and fair auctions, that we should definitely invade Saudi Arabia and seize their oil fields too. While we're at it, we should also call in Spiderman to help.

This country needs some serious reality therapy. We got our asses kicked by a bunch of sand monkeys, and we're still pretending like we can kick more ass? We lost. We're losers. Face it.


T-Ray says:

@ Ray

We are not losers. We may have allowed some losers to make poor decisions in our name, but there is nothing that can't be done anew. ALL negotiations and/or diplomacy start somewhere. It is time that reason and logic take a forward stance in our foreign policy, not fear and force. As the poet said, "this too shall pass".


Vova says:

On second thought, why kill Saudis? They are people after all, and Semites at that to boot. Why not seize "Russian" oil fields? They are invaders, they occupy the land that is not theirs by right, and they are not human. Isn't that simple? That solves all problems: killi ng two birds with one stone


Laney says:

So y'all haven't figured out that Arabs shoot back? Dumb, dumb, dumb.


Bishop says:

"Sand Monkeys"? It sounds as if the term 'loser' could apply directly to you, so please don't include me in your "we", Ray.

Seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia would be one of the dumbest things this country could ever do, even dumber than electing Jimmy Carter. Every tinpot and fundie psychopath on the planet would point and say "see, we told you so" and we would gain nothing in the end.

Seizing the fields might be possible, holding them without daily attacks up and down the line is another.

Perhaps if a certain American political party that is against every, single alternative energy source would...oh I don't know...face facts, then we might actually get things like nuclear power and oil from OUR OWN oil fields.


Robert in BA says:

I assume the "certain party" you refer to are the GOP.
After all, Jimmy Carter wanted to fund research into alternative energy sources until the GOP rode in on a white horse to save us from that stupidity.


Paul says:

Simply seize their oil fields? Did I read that correctly? Are you saying that invading Saudi Arabia and seizing its oil fields would be in some way simple?

This country desperately needs the idiot republicans out of power. This post provides enough reason!


Dr . F says:

I need a little help with my holiday bills - would it be OK if I just went out and mugged somebody? That basically is what your logic boils down to. Shame on you.


Jim"Heart Attack" Nelson says:

Why take what isn't ours? There are much better ways.

Time to read the Anal Kingdom the riot act. All transfer of infidel brainpower/technology to Saudi Arabia stops, now.

Want to be protected from your insane Sunni muslim enemies in Iran? Tough!

Rich Oil Ticks need heart surgery in the good old USA? Sure, that'll include a special "anti racist" tax of 90,000,000 per hour.

Saudi righteous perfect muslims want to study in the filthy infidel USA? OK, 200 million dollars per student per hour each semester.


Some idiot in this thread said 'we' got our asses kicked, I guess that's why we beat the living shit out the enemy, huh? Arab nations shoot back, at what, kids? Is that why they can't win a war, unless they fight amongst themselves?


mr c says:

When I was young, I lived in a bad area. I watched, first the addicts would purchase, then they asked for a cheaper price, soon it was asking for credit. Lastly, far too often, they would come back and take what they wanted, often resulting in a death.

I logged on to the site because I thought the title was a joke. I then thought the very idea was nuts beyond belief. Upon further thought, I concluded as wrong as it may be, in may come to that.
Where are we at with oil. Time for a "Marshal Plan". We need the type, the distribution and production






Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/597