To: Grzegorz 246; dervish
In addition to what Grzegorz said I would add that I don't understand how SA's oil production costs are higher than non OPEC producers in that the SA wells have been there forever, the oil is shallow and the gathering systems are already in place. Also, unless they have been multiplying like rabbits I don't see how their standard of living went down so drastically. SA has been taking in even more oil revenue as world demand increases. Your scenario makes no sense to me.
I meant the same as Grzegorz about invading SA. To defeat them militarily would be a snap but occupying that area would be almost impossible without killing them all, which is why I said we wouldn't invade them. Now under the hypothetical of China's involvement in that area, they would have no such compunction.
I know the folks at the Cato Institute are smarter than I am and have lots of resources but I don't understand or agree with their assessment of the SA.
48 posted on
06/24/2005 4:07:04 PM PDT by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
To: Mind-numbed Robot; Grzegorz 246
"Also, unless they have been multiplying like rabbits I don't see how their standard of living went down so drastically."
define "multiplying like rabbits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia
later on the rest. (although this business of taking over SA is a digression since I am not recomending it -- not necessary!)
But for the night think on this. Let's say the US really doesn't need SA oil. What other reasons might we have for smoothing over the relationship?
49 posted on
06/24/2005 8:56:29 PM PDT by
dervish
(multilateralism is the lowest common denominator)
To: Mind-numbed Robot
51 posted on
06/24/2005 9:17:53 PM PDT by
dervish
(multilateralism is the lowest common denominator)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson