| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
There is no reason to do anything to appease Saudi Arabia. Yet the assumption that the West must do this is commonly made. In order to obtain oil from Saudi Arabia, or from any other oil producer, the only thing that any consumer need do is offer the market price. That's it. And if for some reason one producer -- let's say Venezuela -- decided it did not want to sell oil to the United States, or all the Arab countries decided that they would not sell oil to Israel, or to Denmark, or to the Netherlands, it doesn't matter. Oil is fungible. Oil can be obtained through dozens of possible sellers. If buyer X won't sell, buyers Y and Z will. It is actually easier for buyers to put pressure and organize boycotts of sellers of oil, than vice-versa.
The repetition of the phrase above, and the unexamined belief of so many that we need to placate or appease Saudi Arabia, a backward land that is totally dependent on the West for its professional and managerial class, and dependent on the West for advanced education, medical care, arms, and protection for the Al-Saud, needs to be held up for inspection, analysis, and ridicule.
Now, there are those who, on the Saudi payroll, directly or indirectly, in the capitals of the West, keep parroting this nonsense. It is their job to make Western policymakers believe that "of course we can't offend the Saudis." But we can. We can and we should. They will still have to sell their oil on the world market. And as the rich Arabs have now been acquiring assets -- not all of them liquid, by any means -- in the Western world, these assets can be seen as hostages to fortune. For even if we were to seize all the assets of those countries that were funding the worldwide Jihad -- not the violent Jihad, but the Jihad that is proceeding through non-violent and stealthy means -- there is nothing that the daggers-and-dishdashas rulers of Saudi Arabia, or the rulers of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other places could do about it. (Why not seize the assets of countries funding the violent Jihad? No country is doing that outright. It is merely individuals in various Muslim countries who are doing what comes naturally. Or more likely, in the cases of some rich and decadent and outwardly westernized rich Arabs, funding the Jihad may be the best way they have, as they see it, of making up for their personal decadence -- financing the true-blue dedicated muhajideen, as a contribution to The Cause of Islam.)
Those states would still have to sell their oil. They need the money. And they have no way of imposing their will, other than to slyly buy up enough corrupt people, who in turn will attempt, and have attempted, and have succeeded, for quite a while in fooling some of the people all of the time. But only "some" of the people. The clear-sighted will understand that while it is very much in the interest of particular Westerners (those who are hirelings of the Saudis, those who can benefit directly from Saudi largesse or contracts) that policies in the West be made by those who have wrongly been made fearful of Saudi Arabia and the lesser sheikdoms of the Gulf, it is not in the interests of this or any Western nation, or of the West as a civilization, or of Western infidels as individuals, to continue to believe, and what's more to build policies on the belief, that anything at all needs to be done to placate those Muslim states. Nothing at all needs to be done. In fact, the more unbending we become, the more they will bend. For we have a thousand ways to make their lives more uncertain and unpleasant, beginning with the threat of seizing the assets of enemy aliens. And that is certainly a threat that should be carried out if Saudi Arabia, for example, does not stop funding, with public and private money from Saudis, the mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa, and armies of Western hirelings all over the Western world. This should go all the way to military measures that, in another age, we would not have hesitated to have used long before now.
Posted by Hugh at April 12, 2008 7:32 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hugh I would like to know your opinion about which one of the presidential candidates you feel is most likely to stand up to these Middle Eastern Islamic maniacs and which one you feel is least likely. I admit I haven't been able to devote enough time to research their "promises" against their previous political history. I have a feeling we're in trouble no matter what. Thanks
Posted by: islamnomo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 12, 2008 11:27 AM
Actually I would welcome comments from anyone on this subject. Thanks
Posted by: islamnomo at April 12, 2008 11:47 AM
I have to second the notion that we don't have to appease the Sowdis.
They can withold their oil from the market. The rest of the oil producers will simply sell more. The Sowdis as a result will be able to learn how to eat the dirt and rocks that seem to be in abundant supply.
They can't anymore direct their oil than anyone else. It will flow into the market and be sold at the going price.
We will gradually substitute other energy sources for their oil and eventually they will run out. This is why the push is on by Islam now to overrun the world. They know when they run out of the oil, they will have only the rocks, sand and dirt. For literally hundreds of years they had only this and their so-called religion. You can easily see what sort of influence they had on the world then and what their futures are going to be.
Posted by: credit man at April 12, 2008 12:02 PM
There is no reason to do anything to appease Saudi Arabia.
Sorry to say that the president/commander-in-chief of USofA, given that his dad, who was also a US president, sacrificed American lives to save their beloved extended-family in Riyadh. Thanks to Saudi wealth (and American ignorance), daddy and son Bush enjhoy the untimate power on the planet. It is just business, that they should pay Riyadh back with more favors (including spreading Islam in America). Unfortunately, few Americans know that they have been sold out time and time again by corrupt presidents. Americans who know, cannot do squat, but to watch the selling-out of America to anyoneone with a petro-dollar or a peso. To Bush family (and Clintons also), Presidency is a lucrative BUSINESS. period.
Posted by: Alert at April 12, 2008 1:52 PM
It is hard to know what to say because at this point, when it comes to the candidates and Islam, which is not the same thing as wanting to continue the war, or to withdraw from Iraq, so much is unclear. At this point there are worrisome -- differently worrisome -- things about each of the three candidates. And there may be at the last minute, for the Democrats, another candidate, if the Clinton supporters will not accept Obama and the Obama supporters will not accept Clinton. Who might that be? Gore? Edwards? And what do they know, what have they said, about Islam? Or what might they do that, objectively, would do the most to weaken the Camp of Islam?
Posted by: Hugh
at April 12, 2008 2:38 PM
Hugh - you are absolutely right. As for the Arabists at State, we should begin by recalling the US Ambassador to Saudi, who has just called for upping Saudi Students at US universities by 30,000. We need to send home the 10000 or so that are here already.
Not only confiscate their assets, cut the flow of funds to madressas, mosques, and the various Muslim Brotherhood spreading all over the country, and revoke passports of all Saudi Imams - send them back to the desert.
We should recall our ambassador (not just this guy but semi-permanently until they have an epiphany that we are not going to take it any more.
I think McCain is up to this task. The other two definitely are not.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 13, 2008 1:02 AM
Standing up to Islamic jihad--iolent and silent (infiltration):
McCain on a scale of 1-10 is about a 4. The two current Democrat candidates rate -1.
at April 13, 2008 6:24 AM
I wish the saudis would cut off the oil. And I wish Pooter would turn off the gas taps. Because then we in the west would have to invest heavily in real alternatives, and we would build the nuclear power stations we need to become self sufficient.
It would also deal a fatal punch to islam. Without oil revenues the arabs would be left with nothing to eat but sand, nothing to drink but sand, and nothing to do but pound sand.
Even with oils and gas fields, the iranian economy is a basket case. Loss of those oil revenues would result in a severe disenchantment with islam and the theocrats.
We will be forced to do this eventually, and I would rather fight in the first ditch than the last.
Posted by: Monty at April 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Thanks for the input Hugh, Jimmy Bones and Unicorns..I appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by: islamnomo at April 13, 2008 5:15 PM
I was hoping that Bush would pull a switcheroo back in 2003 and in the last minute turn our troops around and grab Saudi Arabia. I would have made him my personal savior if he did.
Posted by: Dumbo at April 13, 2008 7:56 PM
there are those who, on the Saudi payroll, directly or indirectly,the problem here is that the Saudi Arabians have billions of dollars they can give to their control of their fifth column politicians in the West that sold their souls for a taste of the oil jizha but they're not doing anything else have not done for thousands of years since Muhammad stole and plundered his way across the Arabian Peninsula and Fitzgerald is right all they really have is Islam and oil along with over active birth rate means they have to sell their oil and if we did get our environmentalists out of their trees and being sensible the USA and Canada has enough oil to be self-sufficient for a long time and how well do you think the Saudi's would last if they lost their biggest oil customer one thing we need to do is make it illegal for politicians and former politicians to accept bribes they are offering disguised as million-dollar speaking fees are giving a three hour speech to a group of Saudi businessman who could not care less
Posted by: crusader at April 13, 2008 9:45 PM
Wow, some really unrealistic comments, including the one from Hugh re a democratic candidate other than hillary/barak.
First, to the person who wrote that, if the Saudis cut off their oil, other oil producers would be happy to fill the gap. Total bs; there isn't much extra productive capacity around and the supply gap could not be filled.
Then the writer who hoped that the oil supply would be cut off immediately, to force us to find alternatives. You better pray, bud, that your wish doesn't become reality, or you'll be walking, and it won't be to work, because most of everything will grind to a halt.
THE REALITY IS that we are protecting the saudi regime, because Iran controlling the oil would be much worse. Iran would cut off the saudi supply, or charge the world twice as much. When Saddam in Iraq, stopped fighting Iran and started making kissy kissy with them, we invaded Iraq and killed the bugger. Our fear was that Iraq would ally with Iran and threaten the Saudis, or invade, to take control of 50 % of the world's oil supplies ( Iran, Iraq, S.A. and the gulf states ). That's the real reason we went in, not the weapons of mass destruction and not to bring democracy etc; and it was a damn good reason. We really had no choice.
As to Hugh's speculation that the dem's could choose a candidate other than hil-obam, forget it. Foolish stuff. That would guarantee the dems lose, and they aren't going to commit suicide like that. Hillary would be my choice, were i a dem, but maybe they, and the country, will try to get over the coloured bs once and for all, and choosing obama would do that. Anyway, i'm a canuck, and only get to watch from the sidelines.
I do agree with the various posters who write of the bribery, and undermining of our system, that is taking place from saudi oil money flowing into various pockets and institutions in the west, including high profile universities.
at April 14, 2008 2:32 AM
but you forget the pricing mechanism. Yes oil prices would go up, but equilibrium pricing will return as people move to circumvent the cut-offs. I have no problem with that. Besides, don't we have enough oil sands and other energy sources here we were to simply invest? Didn't I hear last week about some oil find in N.Dakota? C'mon, let them pound the sand. As for the Dems, i think they are worse than the republican. It is all about victimization and self enrichment with that party. makes me sick.
Posted by: lonewolf at April 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Re oil finds -
here's a story about a possibly HUGE oil find by Brazil -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/16/2218076.htm?section=justin
and from an earlier story on the same topic
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2086256.htm
"Brazil has discovered huge new petroleum reserves in its south that could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world, the Government and its state-controlled oil company announced.
"If one of the deposits turns out to be as vast as it appears, Brazil will be in the same league "as the Arab countries, Venezuela and others," the senior minister in charge of the cabinet, Dilma Rousseff, said."
Iran has partly stymied hopes of a supply of oil untainted by Islam, by seducing Venezuela.
If the non-Muslim free world had any sense, we would be moving heaven and earth to prevent the Muslims (and the Chinese!) from seducing/ co-opting Brazil into playing janissary/ traitor and enabling the Islamosphere to keep its near-monopoly on oil.
at April 16, 2008 5:00 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)