U.S. Says Saudis Refuse To Freeze Bin Laden Assets

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | October 11, 2001 | Unknown

[nagdt]

Can this country get by without Saudi oil? Perhaps we need a new thread to answer this question. I say yes. It's an uneducated answer, but we HAVE to follow through with our promise to consider anyone helping or harboring the terrorists our enemy. Saudi Arabia apparantly falls into this category.

[Fulbright]

The stated US policy could not be clearer in a case such as this.

[CompassionateLibertarian]

With friends like the Saudis, ...

Seriously, I think that this is the most difficult issue that the U.S. faces. Our "friends" in the Arab world tend to be narrow, autocratic regimes that are either in cahoots with or intimidated by radical elements within their populations.

Before September 11, we would never have considered confronting these regimes over their anti-Americanism and authoritarian nature. Now, I see more and more willingness to make those issues. We're starting to think of winning these countries over to democracy, which is how we won the Cold War.

[TADSLOS]

You are either with us...

[gulfcoast6]

They "controll" the United States with their darn oil. Time to get OUR own oil from OUR own ground.

[lavaroise]

With friends like these, who needs Osama?

[InterceptPoint]

Disinfo

I don't think so. In the end the Saudis are not our friends. They are looking out for their royal skin and right now they think that rejecting our requests for help is the right course. They have actually been very consistent in this. The only time we get them to agree with us is when we offer to buy their oil or when we offer to protect their assets from the likes of Suddam Hussein. The rest of the time they are clearly against us.

They had better start getting ready to deal with the Bush Policy: You are either with us or with the terrorists.

[stilts]

If the action in Afghanistan results in stability in this country than all the pieces will be in place to develop the vast oil and gas reserves are Central Asia. Afganistan is needed for the pipeline that would get the oil and gas from the fields to that Arabian Sea where it can then be shipped to the various markets. This should result in lower prices as supply increases and the removal of the oil weapon from the hands of the Arabs. At that point Saudi Arabia and the rest of the state sponsors of terrorism can be "addressed" without concern for our allies dependence on Arab oil.

[CatoRenasci]

Thanks to the left's trashing of nuclear power over the past 25 years, NO, not without rationing and a tremendous disruption of travel and economic activity on a scale greater than in WWII.

You hit the nail on the head though: the Saudis believe they can defy us because they know we need their oil. They don't understand that our tolerance has limits.

As more and more Americans can see, the Saudis are more than just part of the problem, they are the source of the Terrorist problem, with Wahhabism and their support of terrorists. They have to go. The questions are only when and how to do it without disrupting our economies fatally.

[Seajay]

In response to "CAN WE GET BY WITHOUT SAUDI OIL " :

I would like to think so ... in theory we can, but at a great expense. Persian Gulf oil is of superior quality and much much cheaper than any other source. If we are willing to assume a big shortage and greater expense, sure we can. In that case , we can kiss the old world goodbye and prosper here in the new world. (happy Columbus Day) ...

[Savage Rider]

Bush has said that if a bank in a foreign country refuses to cooperate with the U.S. in freezing assets, that bank will not be allowed to do business with U.S. banks. Let's see if that policy works to get more cooperation from the Saudis. And I wouldn't necessarily believe anything the Saudi's say in public. They are a dictatorial regime in a very precarious position with their own people.

[workerbee]

There isn't a difference. A Muslim is one who practices Islam.

[GEC]

This opinion from the startribune would suggest that perhaps the article is disinformation.

The Star Tribune was infatuated with the Durban Conference.

Peace and Social Justice are buzzwords for Communists.

Make no mistake about it.

[Brad C.]

Follow the policy, AND freeze all Saudi owned assets inside the US. If they don't respond as we want them to, confiscate everything and then destroy the assets that we built for them in their country. They won't be needed those airbases anymore.

[rightwingextremist1776]

When do we stat bombing Meca???? That should REALLY piss them off! Kill em all let Allah sort them out!

[Paradox]

In response to "CAN WE GET BY WITHOUT SAUDI OIL " :

I would like to think so ... in theory we can, but at a great expense. Persian Gulf oil is of superior quality and much much cheaper than any other source. If we are willing to assume a big shortage and greater expense, sure we can. In that case , we can kiss the old world goodbye and prosper here in the new world. (happy Columbus Day) ...

And it would take alot more than just finding alternative sources. In this case, I am afraid to say that maybe, just maybe, it IS time to start conserving on our consumption.. that is, start making our cars more fuel efficient. Whether driving smaller cars, or making our SUV's (SUVs are probably the main reason we are dependant on middle east oil, although I could be wrong.. I am not anti-SUV, I am just a realist..) more fuel efficient. Maybe its time, and not from a tree-huggin point of view, but from a national security POV. Lets bust up OPEC by not buying from middle east countries, stick with European (East and west) and south american sources, start drillin in Alaska and offshore. Lets drop consumption enough so we can tell those b*astards to F*** off! That would plunge them into total RUIN. Without firing a single shot.

[veronica]

U.S. Says Saudis Refuse To Freeze Bin Laden Assets

Typical. But not worry - because:

U.S. Is Going To Freeze Bin Laden's Ass.

[ex-Texan]

If they do not agree to freeze assets, then we ought to stop buying Saudi oil and freeze all Saudi assets in the U.S.

"Either they are with us or against us" .....

[Hugh Akston]

I concur. But for what purpose?