Posted on 03/26/2016 4:36:39 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump told the New York Times he would consider stopping U.S. oil purchases from Saudi Arabia unless the Saudi government provide troops to fight Islamic State.
Trump’s comment on Friday was included in a lengthy foreign policy interview published by the newspaper on Saturday and came in response to a question about whether, if elected president, he would halt oil purchases from U.S. allies unless they provided on-the-ground forces against Islamic State.
“The answer is, probably yes,” Trump said, according to a transcript.
Trump has said the United States should be reimbursed by the countries it provides protection, even those with vast resources such as Saudi Arabia, a top oil exporter.
“And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long,” Trump told the Times.
“… We’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries. Now Saudi Arabia’s one of them.”
Trump also named in the interview retired Major General Gary Harrell, Major General Bert Mizusawa and retired Rear Admiral Charles Kubic as additional foreign policy advisors to the five named earlier this week who were criticized as obscure.
Trump has faced questions about his reluctance to reveal who was advising his campaign. He told the Times he was willing to rethink traditional U.S. alliances should he become president.
(Excerpt) Read more at oann.com ...
+1
That's right. Who would be so stupid as to want to destroy a reserve of oil?
Freezing out USD's as a reference currency will be a serious situation.
Agreed, as long as we're on track to be ENERGY INDEPENDENT. Then we charge the bastards $50/loaf of bread and see how they like it after ripping us off for so long.
The United States of America feeds the world. WE have the upper hand in ALL things and it's high time we started acting like it.
trashytrump still upset he sold his yacht and hotel to saudi prince
“will get the damn Keystone pipeline built.”
Are you sure?
I believe most of the pipeline already exists and is in operation.
You must be talking about Keystone XL, and only the most northern part that crosses the Canadian border.
If it looked like some force would take over Saudi Arabia, Europeans could step in to defend the Saudis or Saudi Arabia could buy what it needs to protect itself. Europe can get their contracts for oil elsewhere, perhaps from us, and the oil from Saudi Arabia is sold to Russia or China or whatever.
It’s all the same basic commodity and even if the Saudis are taken out, we have plenty here now that we never knew before.
I don’t see the problem, still.
I'll let you take the baton this time. :)
We should destroy the little amount ISIS has control over.
You should have posted a link to the Kuwait invasion, where many hundreds of oil wells were destroyed. But we survived that with out great issue, and now we have incredible excess reserves.
I don’t see the problem.
Too much Rah Rah, and not enough answers. The "at least we're talking about it" doesn't me diddle if it can't really be accomplished, or do we embrace monarchical rule as long as it's from our guy. And I still want to know what we are going to do with the Saudi owned refineries in America, they are surely a significant source of income.
“It’s a shell game with no benefit.”
Of course there is benefit.
The Chinese and Russians would love to be on even better terms with the Saudis, particularly selling them military equipment.
So you've been saying it for about 15 years. I've no idea really how long I've been saying it. Probably just as long, maybe longer, maybe shorter.
I'll gladly take that baton. I've been called worse than a heartless bastard by better than is here on FR! ;-)
WE hold the cards. AMERICA feeds the world. Respect us. Stop bashing us. Pay up, pay your fair share. If not, screw off and starve. That's your problem then.
If they are strong enough to dislodge the House of Saud, they probably are a larger or stronger entity than an Islamic group like ISIS.
Anything larger than that that triggers massive European intervention might be the start of World War III.
We could sell to them, too.
Why should we protect for free? Get real.
It’s way past time for this country to be a leader again.
Let Europe and the Saudis defend something, for once.
It doesn’t always have to be your younger neighbor down the street losing his life, or a tax increase on you to pay for another country’s defense when they have untold riches.
Europe is a military wimp because we protect them, allowing them to fund their liberal utopias and rag on us for being racists against illegals.
What gain is there FOR US?
“Don’t forget....depending on the field , shale is only profitable in and above the $50 - $80 bbl range.”
A complete fabrication.
The operating cost to continue pumping shale oil and be economically profitable is far far below that.
You are explaining new capital drilling instead, and the variability is quite a lot larger than the number you quoted, too.
“We could sell to them, too.
Why should we protect for free? Get real.”
YOu will have to please clarify what in the world you are talking about.
First you say there is no benefit in taking their oil, then you are saying we can sell them something(oil, weapons?) too.
Get clear and perhaps we can have a real conversation.
I have been in the oil industry for 35 years, how about you?
Now that you made me look it up..... and btw, the $50- $80 range is widely accepted by API too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/oil-is-cheap-but-not-so-cheap-that-americans-won-t-profit-from-it.html
And for your information the term "Project" includes the entire life of the extraction field.
You are preaching to choir on that one brother.
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.