Cheap arms for cheap oil?

MattW · Apr 25, 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24298840/

Senators want oil linked to arms deal

Groups want arms sales halt unless Gulf producers pump more petroleum

In a letter to Bush, the senators noted that Saudi Arabia has dropped oil production by about 2 million barrels a day over the last three years as oil prices have soared well over $100 a barrel. Its current production of 8.5 million barrels a day is well below its stated capacity of 11 million barrels a day, the senators said."At a time when high energy prices are causing widespread anxiety among American households, we question the merit of rewarding members of OPEC with lucrative arms sales," the senators wrote.
"The Saudis have to understand that this is a two-way street," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said at a news conference. "We provide them weapons ... and then they rake us over the coals when it comes to oil."

At issue are administration plans to supply Saudi Arabia with $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology as well as shipments of Patriot missile defense equipment worth $9.7 billion to the United Arab Emirates and a $1.7 billion deal with Kuwait to upgrade their missile systems.

Isn't the reason we even give weapons to the states so that they can lend a hand in protecting our oil interests? And still their cartel limits production and takes advantage of high crude prices. I know much of the oil pricing stems from speculators and refinery capacity constraints, but every little bit would help.

Honestly, I see the wisdom in this plan. Downside is it sets the precedent that Dems may not like - deals with foreign nations are tit-for-tat, maybe even when it comes to charitable aid as well.

The article did cite some other plans to alleviate gas pains ( :tongue

) but unless those are attached as riders to some other bill, I have no comment.

MichaelDeVere · Apr 25, 2008

Where's Ollie when we need him.

cethklein · Apr 25, 2008

Yeah where is he? I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard from him more during this election cycle. He'll probably pop up once the general election campaigning gets into high gear.

Seaclusion · Apr 25, 2008

While all deals may not be tit-for-tat, the only reason for any deal is to benefit the parties involved. This goes for aid as well. While we may be humanitarians giving aid in disasters(and non disasters for that matter) some people in our government do expect some cooperation and tribute in the end. So the only difference between any foreign deals is whether you come right out and say what the tit-for-tat is or just leave it implied and not announce the details.

Richard

MichaelDeVere · Apr 25, 2008

OPEC's problem, and particularly Saudi Arabia, is that there is a question about the true volume of oil left in the ground. With the prices at the current record highs, there's speculation that Saudi Arabia has a perception problem in that if they do not increase production to take advantage of the current market conditions, there may be some backlash (and further pressure on price) because the market perceives that they don't actually have the oil reserves to tap. I think it's going to be very telling in the next few months with the bubble continuing to expand in the demand area.

The good news is that it's almost to the point of everyone telling the granola-eaters to STFU. New oil derricks & refineries will be popping up all over the place.

Seaclusion · Apr 25, 2008

Is anyone out there a card-carrying member of the 'granola-eaters'

Richard

Cheap arms for cheap oil?

MattW

Company Man

MichaelDeVere

cethklein

Seaclusion

Absolute Parsley

MichaelDeVere

Seaclusion

Absolute Parsley