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 (150600)	8/28/2002 7:06:40 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585168

Tim, first, it wasn't ten years ago the Saudis took control of Mecca........it was in 1814 nearly two hundred years ago. I never said it was ten years ago, but it wasn't 1814, it was 1925. Tim, it was 1925 when they got Mecca and Medina back from the Ottoman Empire. However, the Sauds had controlled Mecca and Medina previously in 1803 but then lost the two cities initially to the Egyptians in 1814.....my error on that date. memory.loc.gov@field(DOCID+sa0017) "The Hashemite clan ruled over parts of the Hijaz region of Arabia from 967 CE to 1925 CE in unbroken succession. Moreover, the late King Hussein’s branch of the Hashemite family ruled the holy city of Mecca from 1201 CE until 1925 CE. " The Hashemites originated with the kinghussein.gov.jo Secondly, the Hashimites were descendants of the original tribe in Mecca. See the above quote. They didn't rule until 967. Or really more like 1201. Maybe the Hashemites were like the mayor to Mecca and ruled under the Sauds, or their rule was intermittent.........because its clear Mecca and Medina were under the rule of the Sauds for a while during the first time they tried to develop a united kingdom on the Arabian peninsula in the years between 1500-1800. I believe the Iraqis would experience the same public outcry if they tried to take over Mecca....and Medina. True but would that stop Hussien? Maybe not. And even if it did he doesn't have to take Mecca and Medina. What if he installed a puppet government in Riyadh. Or just conquered the northern oil fields, or even just intimidated the House of Saud in to doing what he wants when he wants it. That wouldn't happen because appropriately we and everyone else would intercede......and he knows that and that's why he wouldn't do it. And if we didn't have oil we would go bankrupt. Probably but the Saudi's can't see to it that we don't have oil. We only import about 10% of our oil from them and about 57% of our oil overall. The Saudi's might have influence over some of the producers of that 57% but probably not over Mexico or Russia for example. Also if they sell to other countries besides the US the oil that they are buying now (the non-Saudi oil) will be available for us to buy, they really need an almost total embargo to have a serious effect and that will really mess up their economy. There would be a substantive dislocation in our economy if we lost 10% of our oil..........we would go into recession easily. What do you think a loss of ten % of their business would do to Saudi Arabia? ted