Apply the Bush Doctrine to Saudi Arabia

CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM ^ | October 7, 2002 | Tym Parsons

[hgro]

Give the poor president time. You can bet the Saudis and the Iranians are shaking in their boots.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Uncle Miltie]

Wow! Somebody is more anti-Saud than me. Thanks for the post.

[TheDon]

Shhhh!! Don't spill the beans!

[swarthyguy]

It's been over a year and we aren't saying boo to the Saudis. Why. We all know why.

I'm tired of waiting.

All this loveydovey with islam only engenders contempt for US.

I'm getting very pessimistic but it;s good to see increased calls against saudi.

The question is, is Bush listening. And if hears, is he going to do anything about it. I doubt it.

I'm tired of waiting for Saudis to be targeted. Our complacency will be the death of us.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

We are using the saudis for now, when we're done they'll get theirs.

[fourdeuce82d]

The author is an idiot.

we let the Saudis help themselves to oilfields created by Western capitalists from unused desert...the capitalists did all of the work—prospecting, pumping, and refining the oil—that made it an indispensable value to the modern industrial world. Under the Western notion of private property, that means the oilfields belong to them, not the House of Saud.

Complete crap. Whether or not we should go for "regime change" is a question that can be debated- given the absence of an opposition in the country, other than the really hard core muslims, I don't think it's a winner. But suggesting that developing a resource under contract makes the resource itself yours, in the absence of that language in the original contract, is asinine.

One other thought- "taking" the oil is easier said than done- as the author noted, a lot of work went into devloping the infrastructure to lift the oil, pump it, de-gas it, store it, and either load it onto VLCCs/ULCCs or pump it out via TAPLINE. All that infrastructure takes a lot of manpower to run, and is extremely vulnerable to sabotage.

Guy doesn't have a clue.

[fourdeuce82d]

Guy doesn't have a clue

noticed others have "guy" in their handle- I meant the author of the article, not fellow freepers.

[alpowolf]

Seizing control of Saudi Arabia inevitably follows from that. Then we must press on to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and other places to finish the job

Does this fellow think this is a game of Risk? Just go conquer the whole world?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Just go conquer the whole world?

No, just the Fundamentalist Muslim Theocracies.

[BulletBrasDotNet]

Wow! Somebody is more anti-Saud than me.

Nice grammar. "Somebody is more anti-Saud than me am." Try I am.

[alpowolf]

Oh, what the heck, piece of cake. That only covers the entire Middle East (except Israel) plus Iran.

[alpowolf]

And Pakistan and a good part of the former Soviet Union.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Just go conquer the whole world?

No, just our enemies.

[Man of the Right]

Tactics 101: 1 enemy at a time. When Saddam falls, the dominos will totter or fall all over the Middle East.

[Tailgunner Joe]

America's domino theory

[BulletBrasDotNet]

We are using the saudis for now, when we're done they'll get theirs.

I hope you're right. I tend to beleive that W is working his political capital in that sh!t infested part of the world.

[JohnGalt]

Rommel's Afrika Corps had greater humility than these neo-Con/Tories/Armchair warriors.

[alpowolf]

Ah sure. They'll all just sit still and wait for us to pick them off one at a time.
And when the regimes fall they will of course all be replaced by benevolent democracies.