Posted on 06/10/2008 7:27:21 AM PDT by MrCFdovnh
Here's a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?
If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you're right.
Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
—Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?
Because they told him to.
Ah. A very onjective source of information. Perhaps Markey would prefer the Germans do it? Or the French? Russians? Chinese?
Ironic that oil producing countries will have nuclear energy a a viable national source long before we do and we’ll still be buying their oil instead of using our won or building our own nuke plants.
Repeating: I trust my government to take care of me...I trust my government to take care of me... I’m getting dizzy...
I think it’s because to Wash, $$$ talks louder than anything else, even it’s citizens. They know what we need, and what is good for us much better than we do...afterall, we elected them, so it must be true.
“While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions.”
That would be a bit misleading. They aren’t going to lower the price of oil if we tell them we won’t help them build nuclear reactors. In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that selling nuclear reactors to them is reducing the price of oil, since it represents a counter-flow in the balance of payments.
My suspicions are that Bush realizes that if we don’t sell this technology to the Saudis, they will get it from the Russians, which is what the Iranians are doing.
The other aspect of it is that he’s giving the Saudis an opportunity to counter the Iranian nuclear bomb threat. My guess is that on the day that the Iranians test a nuclear bomb, we will sell a few nuclear bombs to the Saudis to counter the threat.
Nope, the reason is simple in my eyes - this administration is just as much in the Saud's pocket as the previous one was with the ChiComs.
And all for the same reason - money, influence, power. Some things in this old world just never change, ever.
*sigh*
I’d prefer that no one do it and the U.S. make certain of it.
I think that the Chinese are slightly less likely to nuke us than the Saudis.
Exactly! The Saudis are signed onto the NPT. Either we do it or as you say, the French, Russians, or Chinese will do it.
Saudi is industrializing. The oil should remain available for export rather than increasingly being consumed domestically.
Apparently a few people in this thread understand what can be done realistically, and what can't. Either we get in first, and do our damndest to ensure it's a safe program, or we let someone else in, and have *no* influence.
As much as I completely disagree with Ed Markey on just about everything, he is right to raise concerns about the Saudis building nukes. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that Saudi Arabia is a literal terrorist factory. It is not unreasonable for us to expect that every nickel we send to them, be it in the form of payments for oil, nuclear technology, and any other sort of military weaponry stands a very good chance of being used against us in the form of a terrorist attack.
Why not solar?
Because you can't export solar a few kg at a time...
German and French nuke businesses were selling the technology and had already done so to Israel and S Africa.
So the Saudis put up the money with the agreement that they would be able to purchase finished nukes at a heavy discount. The Saudis were primarily concerned about Saddam's (and to a lesser degree Ghaddafi's) nuke program and unsure if America could project enough military power to counter Saddam.
When we threw Saddam out of Kuwait, the Saudis were satisfied that America would stabilize/garrison the Middle East and protect the Saudis.
We knew all about their nuke weapon ambitions and got them to stop in return for saving them from Saddam and agreeing to underwrite an energy-only reactor program.
The Saudis agreed, understanding that their own natural gas that currently supplies their domestic energy needs, could then be sold world-wide for much more than the cost of nuke powered electricity.
It is a very simple and highly profitable business arrangement for the Saudis and takes one more nuke weapon player out of the doomsday game. Our Israeli "partners" are very supportive. La heim, ya'all.
And either way, it is perfectly reasonable and logical to assume that any Saudi nuclear technology will be used in terrorist activity against us.
They are rich.
Mainly because our own folly. Of course, the Democrats believe above all else that the USA should be subservient to other nations, so even though the terrorist threat from a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia is real, they still won't support domestic drilling for oil.
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.