Posted on 06/03/2004 6:02:21 AM PDT by Pokey78
Ping
Unfortunately, I'm sure that plan has our troops going in and seizing the Saudi oil fields and maintaining an armed presence at all costs, while our so called European and Asian allies (along with the gutless POS United Nations)sit back and spill no blood or expense.
But these so-called allies will demand the booty and show no appreciation for our efforts, like the ingrates they have always been, and we'll bend over backwards to placate them, IMHO.
I don't have your faith that air power alone can stop modern mechanized manuever. And I think your hope is misplaced.
If we are forced to secure the oil fields, we should mandate a 'security fee' on every barrel of oil loaded onto tankers not bound for the US. I think $5/bbl would be appropriate. They'll chip in, like it or not.
Just ask the Iraqis how hard it is to maneuver mechanized columns under air attack. They got a hard lesson in 1991 and as a result they hardly even tried to do so again last year. I am unconcerned that whatever force the jihadis could muster would be able to even come close to conquering our allies in the region.
Thanks for the ping, Pokey.
Steyn's insights are astounding -- great read.
Might as well go down swinging instead of like poor Nick Berg. Count me in.
Of course we do.
We are talking about some rinky dink countries. They could get tanks from the border to the airports inside of 2 hours. That is a far cry from manuevering against major US forces in central Iraq. I don't doubt that the air force could inflict damage. I do doubt they could stop them. The air force's best capability is against soft logistic targets...they wouldn't even need to bring logistics to the fight...it would be over before they needed gas. The Air Force just isn't very good at killing tanks except for A-10's, which are very vulnerable to SAMs. At least enough tanks would make it to the POMCUS and air bases to devastate whatever is there.
Not even close. When their supply lines started getting hammered they would have to withdraw. I've been to Qatar, I was stationed at As Sayliyah, that narrow peninsula has a couple of really good choke points (and its not like the Qataris would just be sitting back doing nothing). An attack on the UAE would force the new saudi army to extend its supply lines even further and would leave them vulnerable from a counterattack from us on their flank. I am not at all worried that a jihadi army would sweep the Arabian peninsula. Anyone who has observed any Arab army in action knows how truly pathetic they really are.
Yeah, I think I could support that. It's high time our secret enemies are brought out in the open. It's time to end the B. S.
Given that the president and Vice-President both have an intimate understanding of the oil business and world energy markets, you bet your ass we do.
And, given the utter ignorance of the left, you can bet that Kerry never would.
Pokey78: worthy of Steyn.
Thanks.
The statement I'm about to make would make every liberal, and some on this forum, faint dead away. However, I'll say it anyway.
At some point, maybe sooner than later the way this Saudi thing is boiling over, the U.S. will have to go in - as in "D-Day" go in - meaning years of planning and massive committment - and simply take out the entire region. The oil fields & total power CANNOT be allowed to fall into the hands of these Moose Limb whacko's.
That's all there is to it. Period. End of story. We are going to have to take over.
bump!
The smartest thing Abdullah could do is to pin this on Nayef's incompetence. He could even make it a religous thing if he wants. He could say that Nayef has failed to protect the kingdom and failed God. That would work.
bttt
We will set them back a bit but if we are unable to respond rapidly and massively to situations because we lack the oil then we lose the little control we have in Pakistan and we lose authority in Korea and around Taiwan. China will be hurting for oil, too but if the Chinese Reds think that they can take Taiwan and push US out of Asia with one great spasm, they will do that and we will have to use nukes if we can muster the will. If Kerry or Mrs. Bill is pres and we are taking 911 hits at home we will but probably not judiciously. I don't count on W or a Republican followup doing it at all.
Sounds good to me!
Why do you believe Kerry or Hillary would be more likely to use nukes than a Republican?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.