How does this sound as an idea?
Your comment is flawed in that we can, and do, BUY oil, billions $$ worth. And yet we still provide military forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ratan, but it looks to me like we're getting the worst of both worlds: we pay for the oil, AND we pay for the military and foreign aid that protects the oil-producing countries, notably SA.
If things were as you say, they should GIVE us the oil for all that we spend on their foreign aid and military support.
In fact, that's a DAMN GOOD IDEA: Since SA supports the 5 countries that we officially state support terrorism, SA should, at the point of our gun, supply us with equivilant oil to compensate us for:
(a)terrorism costs, all-inclusive of property damage, casualties, military action, and losses in the economy (I believe our bail-out plan is costing $100 billion so far, plus the WTC of another $40 billion, plus national slowdown of maybe $1/2 trillion or so)
(b) foreign aid to those countries who are likewise affected by SA's support of terrorism, to the tune of something like $15 billion
(c) while we're at it, let's see what China, Russia, Pakistan, and Russia have to say about compensation for Saudi Arabian-sponsored terrorism costs.
How's that, ratan? Do you see a problem with that? |
