Saudi Prince Abdullah

[quade 4]

Ok, it's a little known fact that I'm not a big fan of G.W. Bush, but this knuckle head, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, I'm starting to get a real dislike for.
I especially like this quote, "The message is, if the violence does not diminish, there will be grave consequences for the U.S. and its interests in the region."
Who the fuck does he think saved his country's ass about 10 years ago?
And why is Bush kowtowing to him anyway?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[freefalle 0]

prince ali babba needs to go pound sand up his ass.....

[kmcguffee 0]

When I was in Saudi in 98 there was a lot of talk about Prince Abdullah becoming King. Apparently King Fahd is very pro Western. Prince Abdullah is very anti Western and wants to disengage from the West. This was all from Americans that were living full time in Saudi Arabia. He just might be using the conflict between Isreal and the Palestinians to achieve this disengagement.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

And why is Bush kowtowing to him anyway?

I think because he realizes (at least I hope he does) that things are a little more complex than us just blindly supporting Israel, no matter what they do, like we have in the past.
Things are getting worse & worse, and quite frankly, I think it's in our national security (and economic) interest to try to get some semblance of peace in the region.
For you This Modern World fans, there was a great installment on this just last week. He pretty much nailed my sentiments on religious infighting in general and the current Arab/Israeli morass in particular.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[billvon 3,116]

>And why is Bush kowtowing to him anyway?
Because we desperately need his oil. In addition, he's an important enough leader in the Arab world that he might actually be able to calm things down in Israel.
-bill von

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Because we desperately need his oil. In addition, he's an important enough leader in the Arab world that he might actually be able to calm things down in Israel.

Not only is he an important leader, he's the leaders of one of the few big Arab nations the US has reasonably good relations with.
I am concerned that if he's as anti-us as I suspect, I have little hope for peace in the region.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[quade 4]

Quote

Because we desperately need his oil.

I fear that there is a Bush / Saudi oil connection. Not simply U.S. oil, but specifically Bush backer oil companies. Man, that's going to take some digging though.

Quote

In addition, he's an important enough leader in the Arab world that he might actually be able to calm things down in Israel.

See, I read his statements entirely differently. I read them as, yes, we'll continue to sell you oil not matter what, but I'm powerful enough with the rest of the Arab states to totally mess up Israel so contain Israel's military or else . . .
Re-read his statments and see if maybe I'm reading too much into all this. I don't think so, but I'd like another opinion.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[james1010 0]

He said the fundamental difference between the two nations is that "the U.S. thinks Arafat is the problem, and we think Sharon is the problem." Sharon's actions constitute a real threat to peace in the region and could jeopardize relations between the United States and other Arab nations, Al-Jubeir said
This is where Bush loses me. I understand the need for Saudi oil, so that kind of explains the kowtowing, however, Arafat is the problem, he's always been the problem and he'll always be the problem. No matter what the Israelies have done to appease the PLO, it's never good enough. I don't see the difference between our war on terror and Israels war on terror. Sharon is doing what needs to be done, Arafat has already shown the world that his talks are fruitless. Abdullah and the Saudis are no different from the other Arab states in that they want to bring about the dismantling of Israel.

Quote

Who the fuck does he think saved his country's ass about 10 years ago?

I'm drawing a blank on this one, myself.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

we need his oil

That, my friends, is a complete crock of shit. We ourselves have twice the oil as that whole region on our own property. The problem is, the ecology lobby will not allow us to "spoil" the land it sits under.
My webpage HERE

[diverdriver 7]

Here's a thought....let's get the hydrogen fuel cell technology up to speed and get off the "oil standard". Let them buy fuel from US for a change. Then we can embargo them and see how they like it. Saudi Arabia sends money, even today, to organizations that support suicide bombing. They just held a State SPONSORED telethon for such groups on Saudi TV.
We need to divest ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. When that happens you will see a very changed world.
Chris

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

That, my friends, is a complete crock of shit.

And stated so elloquently. You wouldn't happen to be an NCO would you?

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

maybe I'm reading too much into all this

Yes....all he is doing is trying to look good to his constituency. Period. The Saudi's have no intention of breaking off relations with us. They are smarter than that but they have to lean away from the US just enough to keep their people from breaking in the palace and hanging them. They are not really all that stable.
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[Michele 1]

Hmmmmm.....
Couple of issues going on. The political fight, the oil fight, and one which I am surprised has not arisen yet - the hijackers and OLB connection.
Chuck's right - we have plenty of oil. Should we choose to remain as an petroleum driven economy, we can find additional sources, such as our own oil, and there have been talks with the Russian oil folk to purchase oil from the former soviet bloc countries (I'll have to research further to get more info, but there was some interesting discussion about that yesterday). Furthermore, the Saudi's need our US$$ as much as we currently need OPEC's oil. Should we pull our $$ from the region, nearly 40% (I may be off on the numbers, sorry) of their NGP will be "disappeared"...and tell me what economy and or alliance (I am referring to OPEC) could withstand that kind of chunk leaving...
The political issues are far more delicate and subtle, inasmuch as King Fahd and 41 are good family friends, having done lots of business in the past; this friendship created the opportunity to bring our troops into the region when Saddam decided he liked Kuwait, and attempted to annex it, thereby increasing Iraq's power/economy something like 25% literally overnight. King Fahd is fading, though, and the monarchy will pass to Abdullah. Abdullah is far more shrewd and anti-western, and poses a great danger to the West, albeit unknown danger. We have seen his hand tipped in this, for starters. It will be interesting how this breaks through.
Throw into the mix Osammy been lousey, a Saudi native (born and rasied) who is a longtime friend of Abdullah, and the Bin Ladin family being a close friend to the Saudi royal family. While the Saudi royal family did throw out OBL because his anti-american stance and rhetoric was worrisome and bringing heat onto the House of Saud, the man who made that decision (Fahd) will not be in power for long (long being relative). Guess who was friends with OBL? Abdullah......
And how many hijackers from 9/11 were Saudi? 14 of the 19 actual, or, if you count the alleged 20th hijacker, a full 75% of them. And add into the equasion the wonderful little show Abdullah made on September 18 (??) giving a 10 million dollar check to Rudy Guiliani, and then made a political statement about the US's treatment of the Israeli issue (for which RG returned the check, uncashed), and the recent "telethon" for the Palistinian cause, and the rumors and quiet talk about the Saudi's trying to get our troops out of the Arabian penninsula...and, and, and...
We have a very interesting situation developing; many faceted, and potentially devastating unless we are able to move our alliances elsewhere in the region...and that simply doesn't seem too likely.
Just a thought or two for this friday. And yes, Quade, Abdullah is an asshole.
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
If you really want to, you can seize the day; if you really want to, you can fly away...
~enya~

[Trent 0]

I agree with the moving towards alternate fuels idea. That one thing would allow us to stop buying the ONLY thing the middle east has that ANYONE wants. I wonder what will happen to them once we stop sending them our money? Maybe they'll realize that the only reason they were ever even recognized by the rest of the world was because they were lucky enough to build their houses on oil, not because they earned it. Let the dollars dry up and see how prince albert abdullah turns his country to the desert that it was.
... BUT, the US or Israel will no doubt be blamed for ANYTHING that goes wrong in the middle east (since they can do no wrong) and the violence will continue.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

That, my friends, is a complete crock of shit. We ourselves have twice the oil as that whole region on our own property. The problem is, the ecology lobby will not allow us to "spoil" the land it sits under.

The US certainly has access to a whole lot more oil that isn't nearly as sensitive. If you look at the oil debates you'll notice that the oil companies are conspicuously absent from the ANWR debates. The oil companies aren't interested there, it's really just the politicians arguing over it. The oil companies would rather look elsewhere.
There's more oil locked up in the Alberta Oil Sands then all of the Opec countries put togeather. The dificulty is that it's a bit more expensive to extract the oil because it's literally just saturated in sand, but the cost is currently comming down. Current estimates is it could be profitable at $30/barrel.
Russia literally has TONS of oil and they'd love to sell it to us. The dificulty is the lack of pipelines, they just don't pop up over night. Traditionally talk of pipline building has been to build the pipeline through to the Middle-east, where it would be loaded onto ships and shipped over. More recently there's been talk of building the pipeline over the Bearing Straights into Alaska, and down through Canada. That's a HUGE FRIGGIN PROJECT. It would probably take 20 years to build the pipe, and again it would need to be supported by a higher price for the gas.
There's also huge prospects out on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. They've already built one huge oil platform called Hybernia, which has been pumping for about 5 years now. They're building a second and third now. Again, the resources are huge - there's more oil down there then in most OPEC countries, but again the dificulty in extracting it means it's only profitable at over $25/barrel.
The irony here is that all the horseshit the OPEC countries are doing right now are only making it more feasable to tap more expensive sources.
Americans need to understand it's not about the LACK of oil. There's more then enough oil around the world to polute the planet for years. It's about CHEAP oil. Americans also have very short memories, I remember 10 years ago buying gas at .99/gallon and thinking it was cheap. Assume now an average price is $1.40 / gallon - going up 40% in 10 years is less then inflation! Once you consider inflation gas now is cheaper then it EVER has been.
The reasearch going on with fuel cells is just TOO cool. Companies like Ballard Power Systems are just doing incredible things, plus the technology is spawning 'scale ups' to home power systems (eat your heart out, Bill), and scaling down to laptops and portable electronics. Again, the early adopters will be expensive. It will take some people willing to pay more for this for it to come online in a big way, just as VCR's cost $1200 when they first came out.
All of the major auto manufacturers have committed to the fuel cell research. At the same time, companies like Honda are comming out with cars that get 50/MPG! 50? Am I the only one here how thinks that's just incredible? Too bad they're so expensive.
The Arabs are doing us a HUGE favor by driving up the cost of gas. Americans are starting to realise they DON'T need two sport-utes in every driveway. Cars like the AUDI allroad Quatro, the BMW sports wagon, and the Subaru series are reminding us we don't need Canyonero's in every drive way. People are realising these are SWEET cars, do nearly everything the big sport utes do, but burn about $800 less in gas every year.
If Americans could accept a higher cost of gas, they'd have access to huge supplies in Canada and Russia, and provide a financial incentive for ultra-high efficiency vehicles, both through fuel cells and gas-electric hybrids.
It seems like people are just so narrow minded that they MUST have cheap oil. Personally, I think expensive oil is SO much more attractive.
The only problem is I don't think we could retrofit an otter with fuel cells.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[Zennie 0]

Quote

I agree with the moving towards alternate fuels idea.

Absolutely. IMHO fuel cells aren't a matter of "if", but "when". There are several benefits:
1. It's a clean technology. The by-product is good 'ol H2O.
2. The raw materials (i.e. oxygen & hydrogen) are two of the most abundant elements in the Universe.
3. We (and everybody else) would have economic independence.
In addition to automobiles, fuel cells could also replace utilities as the primary source of household & commercial electricity.
Of course, I'm personally enthusiastic because my company, Air Liquide, is one of the world's biggest producers of industrial & medical grade gasses.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[billvon 3,116]

>That, my friends, is a complete crock of shit. We ourselves have twice the oil as
> that whole region on our own property. The problem is, the ecology lobby will not
> allow us to "spoil" the land it sits under.
Uh, no. ANWR, if we allowed the oil companies to drill as they please, would yield about 5% of our total oil consumption. Take every single reserve we have and pump it as fast as we could and we could get to 15%. Note that this includes things like near-offshore drilling along the Florida coast. We import over half our oil, and over 25% of that comes from OPEC (12% from the Persian Gulf alone.)
If, on the other hand, we increased fuel economy standards to 40mpg CAFE, we'd eliminate 25% of our demand. Combine _that_ with domestic drilling and you'd have something. Of course, the big-truck-and-caddy crowd would never let you "deny them the freedom of choice" (even though you can easily build a 40mpg hybrid truck, and even though CAFE limits do not prohibit the sale of 10mpg monsters.)
-bill von

[billvon 3,116]

>Here's a thought....let's get the hydrogen fuel cell technology up to speed and get
> off the "oil standard".
We don't have any hydrogen. It is no more a viable non-petroleum fuel than gasoline. Both hydrogen and gas have to be either refined from hydrocarbons or synthesized from raw ingredients (water, carbon dioxide) - and that synthesis takes way more energy than you would get back.
If you want to get off imported oil, natural gas is a good first step, because our domestic reserves of that are much higher than our reserves of petroleum. In fact, most cars will run on NG with only minor mods.
-bill von

[quade 4]

Ok, the National Review is pretty biased even by my standards, but HERE is an interesting article about comments made on the telethon.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[billvon 3,116]

>There's more oil locked up in the Alberta Oil Sands then all of the Opec countries
> put togeather. The dificulty is that it's a bit more expensive to extract the oil
> because it's literally just saturated in sand, but the cost is currently comming
> down. Current estimates is it could be profitable at $30/barrel.
True, and at $100/barrel synthetic fuels become cost effective (generally, these are synthesized from methane, which is essentially natural gas.) It's not oil we're fighting for, it's really cheap oil.
>The reasearch going on with fuel cells is just TOO cool. Companies like Ballard
> Power Systems are just doing incredible things, plus the technology is
> spawning 'scale ups' to home power systems (eat your heart out, Bill), and
> scaling down to laptops and portable electronics.
I don't see fuel cells as a huge boon. If home cogeneration is your thing, get a NG generator and use the waste heat to heat your water. A fuel cell uses the same sort of fuel and does the same sort of thing but with ten times the parts and twice the maintenance. An IC engine is less efficient, but if you need the heat anyway, you don't really care.
>It seems like people are just so narrow minded that they MUST have cheap oil.
> Personally, I think expensive oil is SO much more attractive.
Yep. I always cheer when I see gas prices go up, because if they stay high enough for long enough, everyone benefits - car companies (more sales of more efficient cars) oil companies (more money for drilling the harder-to-get-to oil) the transportation industry (more stable prices as more of our oil is domestically produced) and the environment. The only pain is temporary consumer pain while we transition to more efficient cars. Given the amount of grief we've already experienced in the middle east (and the number of our soldiers who have died over there) I think that's a small price to pay.
-bill von

[bill2 0]

I'm not sure what you mean by reasonable good relations with the US, but 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, their particular brand of Islam is very harsh and anti-western, and I don't think he cares about the US at all. They export the radical brand of Islam so it doesn't bite them in Saudia Arabia. I think it's time we got out of there, and let whatever happens happen. It's time for a change in government for more than one government in the Middle East. As for the gulf war, I think this prince was the one who stated on a news show here in the US that "Saudia Arabia helped out the US in the Gulf War", completely forgetting that it was his country that was in serious shit and we got him out of it.

[billvon 3,116]

>and I don't think he cares about the US at all.
Oh, I think he cares about our money a great deal. Something like 75% of their GNP comes from oil sales.
>I think it's time we got out of there, and let whatever happens happen. It's time for
> a change in government for more than one government in the Middle East.
Yep. The sooner we stop depending on their oil, and trying to prop up one country over another, the better.
-bill von

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Who the fuck does he think saved his country's ass about 10 years ago?

And what does that have to do with the situation today?
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[ChromeBoy 0]

he he...Abdullah Oblangata...What body part is that?

[quade 4]

You're right. What was I thinking?
There was a mad lunatic just a few miles away that was going to march into his country and we helped keep that from happening. In return, he's now becomming allies with the same lunatic and threatening a country that neither shares a boarder with. (See attached. Map courtesy CIA) Now he threatens US?
I don't know, call me silly, a thing called loyalty keeps coming up.
quade
http://futurecam.com