Author Topic: The Saudi Connection (Read 1330 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:40:03 AM »

Saudi's involved with terrorists? How shocking! Weren't 8 or 9 of the 9/11 terrorist Saudi's?

muckmaw · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:41:10 AM »

Where do these Saudi contributors get their money?

Who's most afraid and most against the development of alternative energy?

Do you honestly believe that with all the technological advances we've made over the past 100 + years, we could not develop an alternative fuel source?

Here's another one for you to chew on. Remember the American Trolley car system? You might not, but basically it was a system of one car above ground electric trains that shared the street with automobiles. They exist as a tourist attraction in one city in america now, San Francisco. There was a time, about 80 years ago where they were the primary form of tranportation in the US.

Do you know who bought up, and dimantled these Trolley car companies? Standard Oil and Goodyear tire using shell companies.

In some cities, the tracks for trolleys were pulled up overnight.

The bottom line is, big oil does not want alternative energy. They've moved to block it in the past and will continue to do so. They help propogate our dependance on saudi oil and the continued funding Saudi provides to terrorism.

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:42:56 AM »

If we invaded saudi.... how much would unleaded preium be a gallon?

lazs

rpm · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:49:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If we invaded saudi.... how much would unleaded preium be a gallon?

lazs

about $10. OPEC would cut us off their teat.

I remember seeing a guy on 60 Minuites in the 70's. He developed a new carburator. Drove a big 4 door Ford from Dallas to St. Louis on 5 gallons of gas with the 60 Minuites guy in the car with him. Wonder who bought and buried that patent?

Dowding · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2003, 08:56:57 AM »

Quote

The bottom line is, big oil does not want alternative energy. They've moved to block it in the past and will continue to do so. They help propogate our dependance on saudi oil and the continued funding Saudi provides to terrorism.

Re-adjust your tin hat. And what do you see the US government's role in all this? Do you think it doesn't help prop up a pro-West government, despite it being undemocratic, inhumane and contrary to any standard of Western civilisation? What about the huge arms contracts that the US and UK arms industries hungrily consume each year from the Saudis?

There are three factors at play in the Mid-East when it comes to western foreign policy, as far as I can see:

1) The desire to have strategic influence over the major oil producing centres

2) The desire to have an outlet for lush new military technologies to boost the economies of the West

3) The need to protect Israel

muckmaw · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2003, 09:11:59 AM »

The U.S. govenment is at the mercy of the lobbyists of Big Business.

What else is new?

Who ever said any govenment had clean hands?

Yeager · « **Reply #21 on:** December 09, 2003, 01:25:54 PM »

There are good saudis and there are bad saudis. Kill the bad ones first.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 09, 2003, 01:30:14 PM »

We can't invade all these countries. Too expensive. Why not just start assassinating the bad people, regardless of who and where they are, like Mossad?

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #23 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:07:27 PM »

because we will be hated and killed on sight like massad out of america or israel.

you wanna be a roman be ready for the barbarians to take over.

part of the territory.

Tarmac · « **Reply #24 on:** December 09, 2003, 03:17:17 PM »

Muck's got it spot on. Alternative fuels are the way to get the Saudis.

Give us a Space Race or a Manhattan Project to develop alternative energy.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:18:42 PM »

Yes, socialism is the answer comrade.

Tarmac · « **Reply #26 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:40:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yes, socialism is the answer comrade.

We've already got it, might as well have it do something useful since it's probably not going anywhere.

The private sector isn't doing it; the oil companies are the only ones with the interest and the capital to try. They're perfectly happy right now.

I see fuel cells as a national security issue. Dependence on anything foreign (especially from hostile foreigners) to fuel our military (and economy, for that matter) is a bad idea. The ANWR should be for emergencies; like when we get cut off and need something to hold us over until we can get our alternative energy up and running.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:47:58 PM »

The problem with politicians making technology decisions is this: What if they choose a suboptimal technology? Imagine if in the infancy of the petroleum industry, the government had spent zillions on whale oil technology and forced people to use it. Or if they had dictated we use steam engines instead of gasoline/diesel engines. Rubber band powered cars instead of internal combustion. Our economy never would have become so prosperous. More like a 3rd world country. Better to let market competition find the most cost effective energy source and the optimal technology to convert it into useful work.

Tarmac · « **Reply #28 on:** December 09, 2003, 04:56:47 PM »

True, but why not make it a government priority to find alternative energy (of any kind)? I didn't mean to imply that only included fuel cells.

I envision it as basically being a defense bid. We want a fuel source to power, say, automobiles. Private companies make bids, the govt issues funding grants or contracts, then picks one or two to pursue at the end. No different from saying "we want a fighter that can equip all branches of the military, has possible VTOL abilities, and is cheap."

The research funding would still go to the private sector, and hopefully only the best technology would emerge.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 09, 2003, 05:58:44 PM »

I dunno, I wouldn't want to be the one writing that spec. It would be a field day for profiteers.

How about this one: Bring all the troops home, use the resultant "peace dividend" to balance the budget while reducing taxes, let petroleum prices rise to their natural level, and let the market take care of the alternative fuel technology development. If the ragheads keep causing problems, we use the low budget methods I mentioned above. If the Euros whine we remind them of the alternative.