Posted by Catch of the day (18.104.22.168) on January 05, 2002 at 02:01:12:
CNN reported today an article by General "Peter" in the "The Wall Street Journal", ( I hope some one know how to find the article) in which he recommended occupying the Saudi Oil Fields, because the Royal Zmaales of Arabia are not letting Uncle Sam ride them far enough.
Is this a good idea ? Occupy Saudi Oil Fields !
The gallon of Gas is now selling for one US Dollar, half of this goes as Tax to the US government, and probably 25% goes for the expense of extracting the oil, refining it, transporting it, paying profit to the selling company and Gas stations....if the Saudi are lucky they will get 25% of the already cheap price of their oil.
Would occupying the sand of the Saudi improve the profit margins for the US ?
I do not think so.
The US has to pay for the American Soliders who will occupy Saudi, and as we have seen in Afghanistan, and else where, each American Solider needs 5-6 army employee to keep him functioning in comfort. One to provide him with real time video phone with his family, one to tell him about the latest sport results from back home, one to supply the bottled water (each Gallon of the bottled water is more expensive than a Gallon of Gas), one to fix his night vision glasses, and his air conditioned tent, and one to hire local Saudis to do the actual fighting, and dying, while he does interviews with CNN, with his cool big gun on his shoulder.
Occupying Saudi Oil fields may be a big bonanza to the military, and to General Peter, but for America, it makes no economic sense at all.
The Saudis are providing free guards for the American Oil fields in Saudi. They provide free diplomates to go argue for a lower oil prices in OPEC, and even that 25 % Saudi profit share is recycled and returned back to Las Vegas economy, thanks to a Kindom which has more spoiled Ameers, than working people.
Also today we heard that the US dropped leaflets in Afghanistan, with fake pictures of Ben Laden dressed up in Western suite, and saying that Ben Laden has turned his back to the people who supported him....to create the impression for the Afghani who has little access to news, that Ben Laden is a traitor, and now is working and cooperating with the West.
Again this is stupid.
Sooner or later the people of Afghanistan will know that the picture, and the information on those leaflets are fake and false. And after the "mistakes" in translating the OBL Tap, and the double mistake of bombing the Red Cross food storage, and Al-Jazeera TV in Afghanistan, the Afghani may start to notice there is something fishy about the US information, and may start asking questions about the accuracy of US News.
Second that fake picture of Ben Laden in an Armani fancy suite looks exactly like a picture of the Northern Alliance man Abdulla, or a picture of Chalabi. Is that a good idea ? To call Chalabi, and Abdulla look alike a traitor, because he is dressed in Western cloth, working with the West, and has turned his back to his people ?
Osama Ben Laden is evil dower, as Bush himself has assured us, you do not need to use computer generated fake pictures and dress him in Western cloth, and say he is collaborating with the West to prove to us that he is bad.
Post a Followup