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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (137038)	6/19/2004 4:44:22 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Just a story I made up. I always thought the "War" was to crowd Saudi Arabia. The big problem is really Saudi Arabia. Let's see. All Americans are told to leave Saudi Arabia. The oil there drives most economies. Mr. Johnson was executed by an AQ in SA. Sadr is sending "militants" home. Maybe AQ is moving out of Iraq and into SA. We will, of course, continue to fight terrorism and states that support terrorism. We must protect the Royal Family. Maybe we will spirit them off on a no-doc flight. South Africa is chilly this time of year but the digs are sure to be plush. Rascal @Ludlum.com

To: quehubo who wrote (137038)	6/19/2004 9:30:29 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi quehubo; Re: "Bilow - Did you notice the one thing that US forces protected when we invaded Iraq? Geez we just invaded a country to liberate a vowed enemy of the US and humanity from his oil weapon and you dont even realize it." I agree that oil was a prominent reason for our invading Iraq. I agree that one of the goals of the invasion was to increase Iraqi oil production. Due to the insurrection, that goal has not been achieved, and recent decreases in Iraqi oil production suggest that it will not be achieved for at least as long as US troops remain. The failure to achieve that goal explains why the administration is not increasing the size of the military in preparation for any similar action needed in Saudi Arabia. Need is not a plan. Re: "That is a childish argument that we are going to steal their oil." My argument that we will not invade Saudi Arabia is not a moral argument based on the observation that stealing is wrong. It's an argument based on the military fact that the control of oil in the face of a hostile population is close to impossible. The use of the term "steal" is not germane to the argument, though it is an accurate term to describe how many Iraqis see the US presence there. Our problems in Saudi Arabia would be equivalent or, given the high level of religious feeling there, even worse. Replace "steal" with "liberate" or "pump" or whatever other verb you want (any such word will be translated into Arabic as "steal"), the simple fact is that Iraq is not producing as much oil as the administration hoped, and their extrapolations for what would happen as a result of an invasion of Saudi Arabia undoubtedly are worse. Re: "What you cannot fathom is the value of the marginal barrel." Of course I can "fathom" the value of the marginal barrel. I know that they're damn valuable, and I am quite familiar with the steepness of the supply / demand curve in oil. My guess is that oil will go to $200 per barrel, interest rates will hit 25%, unemployment will run to 15%, and gold will hit $5000 per ounce. I agree with you that the economic results of a halt in Saudi oil production would be very bad. Where we disagree is in our estimates of our military capability of solving that problem, not that it is a problem. Need is not a plan. Re: "When Iran fell the world had plenty of spare capacity available and other sources on the horizon. Today our options are not so generous." I agree, but that doesn't make our military any better. Need is not a plan. Re: "The transition from oil to its replacement cant be an abrupt one without a fight that makes WWII look like a day in the park." You have zero evidence that the Bush administration is preparing for a "fight that makes WWII look like a day in the park". All you have is your faulty logic, while I've provided you with evidence that the Bush administration does not wish to substantially increase the size of the US military. The hell you think they're going to do, send unemployed people to Saudi Arabia to "liberate" their oil? -- Carl P.S. Need is not a plan.

To: quehubo who wrote (137038)	6/20/2004 8:29:55 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes we will learn what to do when Saudi Arabian oil stops flowing or is taken over by Al Qaeda, when hundreds of millions of people are either unemployed or have their lifestyles dramatically altered because of $100 a gallon gasline, people will respond. Oil won't go much higher than $45/barrel or so for long. Above that price, there are a lot of reserves available, even here in the US. Zeev knows more details than I do, but oil won't go over $45 except for relatively short periods of time.