Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2278 times:
Disturbing story out of Islamabad.
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, while traveling through Pakistan, advocated for the Islamic world to use oil as a weapon to be "effective in shaping world opinion on certain issues".
The Prime Minister: "A lot of people say that Muslims are being oppressed and Muslim countries are unable to do anything about themselves because they are all very weak. I have pointed out that they have the production of oil. That can be very effective as a weapon. If they come together they will be able to control the supply of oil to the whole world."
Other semi-coherent statements from the Malaysian leader rejected the association between Islam and terrorism.
"In Ireland, for example, the Catholics are terrorizing the Protestants for years but nobody calls them Catholic terrorists, nor do they call the Japanese groups Buddhist terrorists, [but] for unknown reasons an act of terror [which is] committed by a Muslim... they always relate it to the religion."
As to this reason, Mohammad suggested:
"We should correct it not by (expressing) our anger against people because that will have a negative effect."
Lastly the Prime Minister offered advice that would end "Muslim oppresion":
"We should show that Muslim countries are able countries, able to develop and capable like other countries. When we do that then our countries will become fairly strong and people will not try to oppress Muslims."
I've got a lot to say on this matter, but I want to point out one discrepancy in the Prime Minister's thoughts. He first advocates use by the Islamic nation to use oil as a "weapon" to equal the playing field, but then cautions the Islamic world from getting "angry" at its predicament as it will only further alienate the Islamic world.
So which is it? Alienate the world by restricing the flow of oil, or open your societies, borders, and economies further to fight the false impressions of the Islamic world?
Also, I admit my ignorance on the subject but who are these "Japanese terrorists" the Prime Minister slams?
Does anyone else think this guy is really jet lagged?
Rai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2228 times:
Mahathir Mohammad is famous for his outlandish remarks, so this is nothing new. But he should not forget that it is the Chinese minority of his country that controls the vast majority of the wealth.
By Japanese terrorists he means the Japanese Red Army, which was caught with explosives in New Jersey and is responsible for terrorist attack in Naples that killed five. There is also the Aum Sect, led by Shoko Asahara. In 1995, they unleashed sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system, killing 12, but injuring 6,000. Both groups are largely extinct now.
Bravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2213 times:
Oil as a weapon, to my understanding means placing sanctions on certain countries or making the oil cost for them higer in particular. While every industrial first world country has the right to place sanctions on certain countries, I think that the sanctions placed on these (first world) countries might sound "strange" to many people like you as proud as your are, I'd also like to point out that other than the contracts that have been signed, every OPEC country (and every other as well) has the right to choose not to export oil to any country for any reason.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
Sending the price of oil skyward would certainly create a short-term shock. In the long term, though, it'll probably be the best thing to ever come along to promote more efficient energy use, as long as the price is allowed to rise and fall according to supply and demand.
As for alleviating the short-term shock, perhaps it would be possible to pick out a nation in that pack in need of a favour in some other area (and therefore a potential source of leverage), and offer it a deal in exchange for undercutting its fellow oil producers.
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2200 times:
I agree with Rai, I am anti- Mahathir....somehow... He is getting older now I think he doesnt know what he is talking about albeit he is (or used to be) very smart... Recent comments he made for political reason with no truth made all Malaysian require visa to enter Canada...
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2157 times:
Actually, the countries with the oil have every right to choose what they wish to do with it. Its much better to use oil to make a point than to use a bomb.
We have an overabundance of uranium here, we do NOT blindly sell it to anyone who wants it. Money is not the be all and all .. If petrol gets to expensive (and we pay $1 a LITRE) then simply buy a smaller car. Your vehicle is not really an extension of "big jim" so in this day and age it's irresponsible to be driving great big gas guzzlers anyway.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
Clovis, a 747 is more fuel efficient than is an SUV even if it has to hold over an airport for a bit.
They use less fuel per passengermile on their designed routes than does any other form of transportation.
The idea that aircraft are the worst form of transport in terms of polution is blatantly wrong... The worst are probably electric trains in fact (unless the electricity is generated using nuclear power which in many countries it is not), not only do they use a lot of power, but only about 30% of the energy contained in the fuel for the powerstation reaches the train...
Marco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2092 times:
What's funny is that if it weren't for the USA a lot of Muslim countries wouldn't exist today (Pakistan was helped in its earlier wars against India or else it would have been swallowed by India, the CIS countries, etc). So who really is the enemy? The people trying to help them get rid of terrorism, or the terrorists?
By the way the PM's comments about Catholic/Protestant/Buddhist terrorism was so stupid that there's no need to comment on them.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2058 times:
We're Nuts: Seems like smart politics to me. When you've got an ace card, you use it!
Actually very poor politics and business. In the 1970's, everyone thought OPEC had the world over a barrel. But this unwise practice (the oil embargo's) actually led to the record low oil prices during the 1980's oil glut and historic low price for a bbl of oil today (inflation taken into account).
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2040 times:
I remember an interview of the oil-minister in Saudi-Arabia during the 1970ies,
he was a very clever guy. When Libya and other countries wanted to push up the oil prize even futher, he just told them,-If oil become too expensive, then
people in the West will find other sources of energy.
That´s the story, when oil/LNG become too expensive, then people are prepared to open their wallets and spend money to save fuel. Otherwise not.....
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (11 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
You're right - if oil goes to $100 per barrel levels, you will see the US (and maybe some other countries) launch a project on the same level as the Manhatten or Apollo projects, to develop practical fusion reactors, which is the only long term energy solution. I am convinced that it will happen one day, anyway. Maybe in 50 years, the UN will be informed that 10 years later, there will be no more oil, and people will start investing in fusion.