Is Obama planning to attack Saudi Arabia?

[Anders Lindman]

Usualy you secure a supply of a commodity by paying for it.

Yes, if the commodity is available in enough quantities. And long-term, that is something that is very important to secure for nations who don't have enough oil production themselves. That's what I meant by the points above about the Saudi oil risking being not enough available, guaranteed and secured seen from a western perspective.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So why not just invade some countries closer to home and secure their oil?

 

[Anders Lindman]

So why not just invade some countries closer to home and secure their oil?

I think it's easier to invade countries like Libya, than for example Mexico or Venezuela. Saudi Arabia will not likely be invaded like Libya. Instead the western conspirators will probably create an Al CIAda, eh...excuse me, Al Qaeda threat in Saudi Arabia that will then give them the excuse to bring in military forces.

 

[Anders Lindman]

"Saudi says 5,080 convicted of terrorism crimes

(Reuters) - A total of 5,080 people have been convicted of terrorism crimes in Saudi Arabia, where al Qaeda launched a campaign in 2003 to overthrow the Western-allied monarchy, state media reported on Saturday."

Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/02/us-saudi-courts-idUSTRE7311HG20110402

 

[Craig4]

I think it's easier to invade countries like Libya, than for example Mexico or Venezuela. Saudi Arabia will not likely be invaded like Libya. Instead the western conspirators will probably create an Al CIAda, eh...excuse me, Al Qaeda threat in Saudi Arabia that will then give them the excuse to bring in military forces.

Have you ever considered actually studying the art and science of war? It's rather complex and requires plenty of discipline to get a solid grasp on.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Have you ever considered actually studying the art and science of war? It's rather complex and requires plenty of discipline to get a solid grasp on.

I'm curious about how they plan the events in the world. For example, I strongly suspect that the attack on Libya has been planned for YEARS in advance.

 

[Craig4]

I'm curious about how they plan the events in the world. For example, I strongly suspect that the attack on Libya has been planned for YEARS in advance.

What evidence causes you to have this suspicion?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What evidence causes you to have this suspicion?

All wars have been manipulated into being by power puppet masters. And often it's several years of preparation and planning.

 

[tsig]

1. Saudia Arabia has, according to several sources, exaggerated their proven reserves and ability to increase their oil production.

2. Saudi Arabia will have to struggle a lot, build many new oil rigs, use techniques such as CO2 and steam injection etc, just to keep the production up at the same level.

3. Saudi Arabia is using more and more of their oil for their own needs. "Last year, the Saudi central bank warned that domestic consumption was accelerating at a faster rate than the country's population growth and its economy." -- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7503336.html

4. China is grabbing more and more of the Saudi oil. "China taking on more Saudi crude" -- http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...aking-on-more-Saudi-crude/UPI-70551300969850/

5. The risk of political instability makes the Saudi oil production vulnerable to sudden severe disruption.

So the western powers, including the U.S. and the EU want to secure the Saudi oil production, and one way of doing that is by sending military forces into Saudi Arabia.

The military blows thing up, not a good method for producing oil.

 

[tsig]

All wars have been manipulated into being by power puppet masters. And often it's several years of preparation and planning.

So Qaddafi was a CIA sleeper agent?

 

[Craig4]

All wars have been manipulated into being by power puppet masters. And often it's several years of preparation and planning.

You have evidence of the existence of these puppet masters? Please do present it.

 

[Corsair 115]

Do you even think before you post?

Perhaps I shouldn't considering the steaming piles of crazy Mr. Lindman has said in this and other threads.

 

[Corsair 115]

1. Saudia Arabia has, according to several sources, exaggerated their proven reserves and ability to increase their oil production.

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia?

2. Saudi Arabia will have to struggle a lot, build many new oil rigs, use techniques such as CO2 and steam injection etc, just to keep the production up at the same level.

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia?

3. Saudi Arabia is using more and more of their oil for their own needs. "Last year, the Saudi central bank warned that domestic consumption was accelerating at a faster rate than the country's population growth and its economy." -- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/7503336.html

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia?

4. China is grabbing more and more of the Saudi oil. "China taking on more Saudi crude" -- http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Res...aking-on-more-Saudi-crude/UPI-70551300969850/

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia?

5. The risk of political instability makes the Saudi oil production vulnerable to sudden severe disruption.

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia? (Especially considering that such an attack would only increase political instability and increase the chances of severe oil production disruptions.

So the western powers, including the U.S. and the EU want to secure the Saudi oil production, and one way of doing that is by sending military forces into Saudi Arabia.

Not a single one of the points you made in any way supports your conclusion. If anything, they refute it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why would that make the U.S. want to attack Saudi Arabia?

The word 'attack' is perhaps a bit strong word. The implementation of a no-fly zone in Libya was basically an attack on that country. The key point is that western powers could want to secure the oil production in Saudi Arabia by sending in military forces.

As for why:

1. Saudia Arabia has, according to several sources, exaggerated their proven reserves and ability to increase their oil production. This means that the international demand for the Saudi oil could become much larger than what they can produce. Western powers want to make sure that they can secure a large enough piece of the Saudi oil pie.

2. Saudi Arabia will have to struggle a lot, build many new oil rigs, use techniques such as CO2 and steam injection etc, just to keep the production up at the same level. Western powers want to make sure that countries like China don't help Saudi Arabia with building new oil production infrastructure.

3. Saudi Arabia is using more and more of their oil for their own needs. "Last year, the Saudi central bank warned that domestic consumption was accelerating at a faster rate than the country's population growth and its economy." -- http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/7503336.html This means that Saudi Arabia may become less and less reluctant to export enough oil.

4. China is grabbing more and more of the Saudi oil. "China taking on more Saudi crude" -- http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Reso...0551300969850/ With western powers taking over the oil production in Saudi Arabia, China can be blocked from grabbing too much oil.

5. The risk of political instability makes the Saudi oil production vulnerable to sudden severe disruption. To ensure long-term stability, western powers want to place permanent military forces in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So Qaddafi was a CIA sleeper agent?

That was a new conspiracy theory to me. Sounds speculative. But I did a quick search and found:

"PanAm 103, UTA 772 and CIA agent Gaddafi

"CIA agent Edwin P. Wilson recruited Gadaffi in 1977, and the CIA shipped Libya over 2000 pounds of explosives," says former CIA agent Lester Coleman."

Full blog post: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/08/panam-103-uta-772-and-cia-agent-gaddafi.html

I don't know how reliable that source is.

 

[Corsair 115]

China is grabbing more and more of the Saudi oil.

So? Saudi Arabian oil is less important to the U.S. than is Canadian oil. Here is the historical comparison from 1993 to the present. The ratio column is the ratio of Canadian crude oil to Saudi Arabian.

U.S. Crude Oil Imports
(Thousands of barrels)

       Saudi
Year   Arabia    Canada    Ratio
--------------------------------
1993   467,753   328,504   0.70
1994   473,356   358,955   0.76
1995   459,826   379,518   0.83
1996   456,896   393,571   0.86
1997   472,093   437,396   0.93
1998   512,452   462,228   0.90
1999   506,272   429,962   0.85
2000   557,569   493,256   0.88
2001   588,075   494,796   0.84
2002   554,500   527,304   0.95
2003   629,820   565,533   0.90
2004   547,125   591,489   1.08
2005   527,287   596,489   1.13
2006   519,236   657,834   1.27
2007   528,189   689,209   1.30
2008   550,276   715,982   1.30
2009   357,874   709,106   1.98
2010   394,280   719,698   1.83

Source: Energy Information Administration

The peak year for Saudi crude oil imports was 2003; in 2009 it was 43% lower, and in 2010 it was 37% lower than the peak year. Indeed, 2009-10 import amounts were the lowest in the entire period.

Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia's importance as a source of crude oil in 2004. In 2009 it supplied twice as many barrels to the U.S. as did Saudi Arabia, and in 2010 it was 1.8 times as many.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So? Saudi Arabian oil is less important to the U.S. than is Canadian oil. Here is the historical comparison from 1993 to the present. The ratio column is the ratio of Canadian crude oil to Saudi Arabian.

U.S. Crude Oil Imports
(Thousands of barrels)

       Saudi
Year   Arabia    Canada    Ratio
--------------------------------
1993   467,753   328,504   0.70
1994   473,356   358,955   0.76
1995   459,826   379,518   0.83
1996   456,896   393,571   0.86
1997   472,093   437,396   0.93
1998   512,452   462,228   0.90
1999   506,272   429,962   0.85
2000   557,569   493,256   0.88
2001   588,075   494,796   0.84
2002   554,500   527,304   0.95
2003   629,820   565,533   0.90
2004   547,125   591,489   1.08
2005   527,287   596,489   1.13
2006   519,236   657,834   1.27
2007   528,189   689,209   1.30
2008   550,276   715,982   1.30
2009   357,874   709,106   1.98
2010   394,280   719,698   1.83

Source: Energy Information Administration

The peak year for Saudi crude oil imports was 2003; in 2009 it was 43% lower, and in 2010 it was 37% lower than the peak year. Indeed, 2009-10 import amounts were the lowest in the entire period.

Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia's importance as a source of crude oil in 2004. In 2009 it supplied twice as many barrels to the U.S. as did Saudi Arabia, and in 2010 it was 1.8 times as many.

Hmm... Wow, that's pretty interesting that the peak U.S. import of Saudi oil was in 2003. I didn't know that. One conspiracy theory I came to think of (of course ) is that maybe the import dropped because of GEOLOGICAL reasons. That the Saudi oil is simply starting to become more and more depleted, and actually already has peaked. And oh my that's a lot of Canadian oil. That's from heavy tar sands! Greenpeace are not happy about that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liwi7sPnQRU

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just repeating your assertions over again when asked to support them isn't how it works.

 

[Corsair 115]

Hmm... Wow, that's pretty interesting that the peak U.S. import of Saudi oil was in 2003. I didn't know that.

Perhaps you should take a lesson from that: you really ought to properly research your topics before posting.

And oh my that's a lot of Canadian oil. That's from heavy tar sands! Greenpeace are not happy about that...

Doesn't matter if Greenpeace is happy about it or not in terms of how important it is in satisfying U.S. demand.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Perhaps you should take a lesson from that: you really ought to properly research your topics before posting.


Doesn't matter if Greenpeace is happy about it or not in terms of how important it is in satisfying U.S. demand.

You underestimate the environmental problems with extracting oil from tar sands. Just because mainstream media is very silent about the problem doesn't make the problem go away. Here is a short clip explaining some these problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaF5NfCjWHs