Is Obama planning to attack Saudi Arabia?

Craig4 said:
So there is a change in government in Saudi. They're not going to sell oil anymore? There are so many other natural resources there that they probably wouldn't notice the loss of income from oil sales.
Click to expand...

Of course they want to sell oil. And Obama wants to make sure that they can continue to do that, which means ensuring military stability in the country.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course they want to sell oil. And Obama wants to make sure that they can continue to do that, which means ensuring military stability in the country.
Click to expand...

Wow you just don't get it do you? Any government in Saudi will sell oil. We aren't going to invade to get them to keep producing oil because the only option of any government in Saudi Arabia has to keep selling oil.
 
Craig4 said:
Wow you just don't get it do you? Any government in Saudi will sell oil. We aren't going to invade to get them to keep producing oil because the only option of any government in Saudi Arabia has to keep selling oil.
Click to expand...

Obama wants to ensure that the protests don't spread into Saudi Arabia. And for that he needs to put military troops on the ground in that country.
 
Craig4 said:
How would they do that from Iraq, Afghanistan or in their garrisons? We'd have to send troops to invade and we're clearly not about to do that.
Click to expand...

Not invade, only troops to 'ensure political stability in the region'. Could also be NATO and/or UN troops.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course they want to sell oil. And Obama wants to make sure that they can continue to do that, which means ensuring military stability in the country.
Click to expand...


Rather than spending billions and billions of dollars on such a military operation, wouldn't be easier to spend that money in Alberta to boost oil production there? The U.S. is already getting twice as much oil from Canada as it does Saudi Arabia.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Rather than spending billions and billions of dollars on such a military operation, wouldn't be easier to spend that money in Alberta to boost oil production there? The U.S. is already getting twice as much oil from Canada as it does Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Obama needs to buy time. It takes a while to get the heavy oil shale production started. The reason why it hasn't already started is that the oil price must up towards $200 a barrel before the economy allows for production of such heavy oil resources. Boosting the production of the Canadian tar sands would be possible probably at a lower oil price, but that also takes time.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Obama wants to secure the control over the oil and oil production in Saudi Arabia. Protests against the Saudi regime could lead to disruption of the oil production.
Click to expand...

Same claim, different words, still meaningless.
 
So lets say the house of Saud falls. Then what? The new government won't sell the only useful resource they have?

The only point in any intervention in Saudi Arabia would be to stabilize things so the flow of oil see only minimal disruption. An invasion would be doing the opposite of that.
 
Doubt said:
So lets say the house of Saud falls. Then what? The new government won't sell the only useful resource they have?

The only point in any intervention in Saudi Arabia would be to stabilize things so the flow of oil see only minimal disruption. An invasion would be doing the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

But if there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia then it can take years before the situation is stable again. By putting U.S. troops their the political situation can be stabilized so that a revolution is prevented and the oil production secured.
 
So you're saying that - since the occupation of Iraq turned out to be such a quick, simple and inexpensive operation - Obama decided that instead of simply continuing to buy oil from the Middle East, it would be a better idea to destabilise the whole region and then invade to re-secure oil supplies.

This illogical garbage would be rejected as a movie script, never mind in real life.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So you're saying that - since the occupation of Iraq turned out to be such a quick, simple and inexpensive operation - Obama decided that instead of simply continuing to buy oil from the Middle East, it would be a better idea to destabilise the whole region and then invade to re-secure oil supplies.

This illogical garbage would be rejected as a movie script, never mind in real life.
Click to expand...

It's a bit far-fetched idea I admit. But that's why I posted it under the conspiracy theories section. The theory is that western powers, especially the U.S., want to secure the long-term oil production in oil-producing countries like Libya and even in Saudi Arabia. And in order to achieve that they first stage and fuel protests in those countries and then use the political turmoil created as an excuse for implementing no fly zones, bringing in military troops etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom