Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150584)	8/28/2002 3:24:53 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585085

Assuming push came to shove.......which is very unlikely......and Saddam attacked the Saudis, you think the other Muslims would let Saddam take over Mecca. If you do, then you know nada about the Islam culture. The Saudi royal family took Mecca and Medina by force from the Hashemites who presumably took it by force from someone else. Tim, first, it wasn't ten years ago the Saudis took control of Mecca........it was in 1814 nearly two hundred years ago. Secondly, the Hashimites were descendants of the original tribe in Mecca.....I think they were/are called the Wahabis. That's why they ruled Mecca and did not have to take it by force; however, it was more an honorary title because the King of the Hashamites is the same King of what was once Transjordan and is now simply Jordan. If you look on a map, the country between Jordan and Mecca was made up of disparate tribes that were unified under the Saudis. While its true that the Saudis have not controlled Mecca forever, 200 years is a long time. About the same time of the formation of the Saudi kingdom, the German city states were unifying under one ruler. Just as with Mecca, can you imagine the outcry if Poland tried to annex Berlin. I believe the Iraqis would experience the same public outcry if they tried to take over Mecca....and Medina. The only time the Saudis might be at a deep disadvantage would be if the world were in a depression; otherwise, they hold the cards. If they try not to sell oil for awhile they go bankrupt. And we definitely are needy when it comes to oil. They need oil money more then we need the oil. And if we didn't have oil we would go bankrupt. Maybe its me but I'd rather be the one who has the commodity rather than the one who has the need. ted