Article

2004-09-29 Arabia

MEMRI TV Project: Saudi IQRA TV Examines Public Attitudes toward Jews

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2004-09-29 9:53:37 PM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Remember, the Saudi government finances the dissemination of propaganda that teaches these people to believe this sort vile crap. The Saudis have NEVER been our friends. The White House's ongoing and decades-long love affair with the Saudis is a national disgrace. Bin Laden's family should have been held in America for extensive interrogation after 9-11. They almost deserve to be confined to a penthouse suite in New York's Freedom Tower. Let them wet their pants every time a jet liner flies by their windows.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-29 1:10:24 AM|| 2004-09-29 1:10:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The answers all use similar wording - i.e., slogans. What further proof is needed that these attitudes are the result of indoctrination. It's taught in their homes, in their schools, in their mosques, on TV - everywhere. You can't eliminate terrorism by adjusting your own foreign policy because the Jihadi mindset is deliberately fostered and will continue to be so no matter what your policy is. There is little connection to real grievances.

If it's ever going to change, it's going to take decades to do so. But until it changes, the whole Middle East will remain a cesspit and the rest of the world will suffer the consequences. I hope one day there will be a reckoning with the Saudis the Wahabis.

One way to counter it would be to expose it to the wider world audience. But no one wants to hear about it. Places like MEMRI or LGF are ostracized and marginalized. They are labeled racists for promoting negative stereotypes of Muslims. They'd rather focus on events closer to home. What did we do? It must be our fault. Or maybe it's just Dubya's fault. The problems will go away if we elect someone who promises to be nice to them.

I finally saw Fahranheit 911 the other night. It's a perfect example of the common thinking. Moore denigrates the Saudis but he never really examines who they are and what they're about. They're just ciphers for Moore's own local obsession with Bush and Conservatives. They're nothing more than a convenient brush to tar Bush. But the American public and the rest of the world too needs to know about this stuff.

Posted by John in Tokyo 2004-09-29 1:27:07 AM|| 2004-09-29 1:27:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I love the quote about how it would just be so simple to wipe out Israel, if only the Arabs were united in Jihad! They're living in a fantasy world - dreaming of triumph and annihalation.

Could anyone in Saudi Arabia dare point out how deluded this is (not to mention immoral)? Would someone be willing to mention directly, in public, that they already tried this a few times and failed? Could anyone dare speak the cold truth, namely that they are currently less likely to or capable of accomplishing this goal than they were in the past?! I wonder if anyone at all would have the guts to suggest that, maybe, just maybe, the answer is less Sharia and Jihad, not more. How many Wahabbis ever consider that the reason they are incapable of competing with Israel, much less destroying it, is because they are backward? And do they realize that the main reason they are backward is because of all the obsession with Jihad and Sharia?

Here is one of the central paradoxes and I believe that many Wahabbis are very aware and conscious of it. They cherish the dream of destroying Israel. They realize the need to reform their own lands in order to achieve the kind of level that Israel has. But recognize that bringing reform would mean relinquishing their dream. So they have an option. Guess which course millions of them chose to follow?

Posted by John in Tokyo 2004-09-29 1:53:50 AM|| 2004-09-29 1:53:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Someday a breakthrough in energy production will happen and the Saudis will be in deep doo doo.

I hope I live to see it.

Posted by mhw 2004-09-29 8:39:48 AM|| 2004-09-29 8:39:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Any UK viewers - isn't that Borat asking the q's?

Posted by Howard UK 2004-09-29 8:47:30 AM|| 2004-09-29 8:47:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Someday a breakthrough in energy production will happen

It's called nuclear power.

Posted by phil_b 2004-09-29 9:08:33 AM|| 2004-09-29 9:08:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 To repace the raw energy content of all US oil imports (10M bbls/day), my calculations say it requires about 600 nuclear reactors (1000MW each). But since the nuclear power is output as electricity, the net reactor count required is about 300, assuming 45% net oil to electricity generation efficiency. This is definitely doable, but requires almost all new passenger cars be electric powered. Depending on electricity-battery-electricity conversion efficiency (wihich I don't know), the net reactor count could be as low as 200, assuming gas engine efficiency is 25-30%.

Economically, I think this is a long term winner, not only saving oil import cost, but also defence costs, and allows us to tell the Arabs to go pound sand. The problem is there is a HUGE up front cost of building reactors and retooling the auto industry, but once done, operating costs are very low. Only a national initiative with government mandates can overcome the initial capital barrier.

FYI, about 100 nuclear power reactors are in US operation accounting for about 20% of electical power.

Posted by ed 2004-09-29 9:31:03 AM|| 2004-09-29 9:31:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Yes 300 new nuclear reactors would be nice. But you can't just grab an icon and point and click it into existance. Each reactor would cost $1-5 billion.

Posted by mhw 2004-09-29 10:56:23 AM|| 2004-09-29 10:56:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 10M bbls/day oil import at $50/bbl = $182.5Billion. That is almost 2% of GDP and half of our trade deficit. If that amount of money stayed in the US and circulated 4 times, it would add 7% to our GDP.

A 2x1000MW PWR electric generating plant is going for about $8Billion after all regulations and legal challenges. A more realistic figure is probably $1Billion when mass produced and regulations and court challenges are streamlined. For instance Iran is paying Russia ~800Million for Bushehr. With simpler, mass produced, inherently safe designs, costs could be even lower. But for our purposes, lets use a high figure of $2B per reactor/generating plant combo. That means for the cost of 3 1/2 years of oil imports ($550B), enough nuclear generating capacity can be on line to replace all oil imports (and possibly double the figure).

Lets say 1/4 of our defence budget (~100B) is spent ensuring the flow of oil. That would buy between 50-100 of the above power plants per year. The real defence spending to ensure energy flows is probably closer to $200B, or 100-200 generating plants per year. Worst case, for $100B/year, it would take 6 years, of what we already spend to defend the mideast, to replace the 10M bbl energy import capacity, and 1.5 years in the best case.

So now which is cheaper, spend $150-200B each year on oil imports and an extra $100-200B in defence spending, or build our own nuclear generating capacity (at $600B), which once built can last 40 years. Of course one can't click a power plant into existence, but there is no good reason to take 10 years to build a nuclear power plant. Once the assembly line is in place, why can't it take 3 years to build the same plant, beginning a few the first year and ramping up to 50 plants or more a year? Same for the electric cars to use the power.

Better to ensure our domestic energy production and let the rest of the world fight over the mideast.

Posted by ed 2004-09-29 12:00:59 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:00:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Amen. Count me in for nuclear. Believe it or not, you'd have willing allies among the greens on this.

Just to reinforce the above analysis, note that all of the above assumes oil does not rise beyond $50/bbl, which could well happen given that 1) OPEC's excess production capacity is already being pushed to its limits; 2) we can expect more, not less, instability in Nigeria, Russia and other potential swing producers; 3) given the spread btn Treasuries and euro-denominated debt, the dollar is still overpriced and probably should drop another 15-20%, which in turn would raise the price of imported oil by not 15-20% but 18-25%.

Go nukes. Sooner the better.

Posted by lex 2004-09-29 12:09:15 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:09:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Correction:
That means for the cost of 3 1/2 years of oil imports ($640B),

Posted by ed 2004-09-29 12:15:48 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:15:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Howark UK:

What, in the name of all that is holy, is that deranged Turkish man talking about? Why would I know about such things if I were Brittish?

Posted by Secret Master 2004-09-29 12:37:50 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:37:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Trouble with the calculations:

1) not all oil is used for electricity production, and we'd still have to import oil for gas/diesel. Domestic production isn't enough.

2) you haven't included the cost of disposal of nuclear wastes, nor of decommissioning the plant when it's time to do so. We just went through that in Illinois with an old plant, and it's a high cost.

That said, it's a viable option, and as Lex notes, some Greenies are beginning to realize that the environmental problems of nuclear energy production are preferable to the problems associated with gas/oil.

Posted by Steve White 2004-09-29 1:36:32 PM|| 2004-09-29 1:36:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 But if we used the nucular plants to produce hydrogen fuel cells we could eliminate the need for gasoline and diesel.

And with no income from oil, the Arabians would probably appreciate it if we gave them a few bucks to store our used-up nucular plants in their no longer productive deserts.

Posted by Fred 2004-09-29 1:44:55 PM|| 2004-09-29 1:44:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Fair is fair:

How about this?

"No. Because the Muslims are eternal enemies. The murderous Muslim violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me."

Posted by mojo 2004-09-29 2:18:46 PM|| 2004-09-29 2:18:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The vast majority of oil is used for transportation with smaller amount used for electric generation, heating, and petrochem feedstocks (in US nat. gas is preferred feedstock). The US imports ~60% of oil consumption with more than half coming from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The first priorty is the replace the fraction from the mideast, then any imported portion. This goal can be met my replacing oil generated electricity and replacing the majority of personal cars with either electric cars (available) or hydrogen fuel cells (per Fred). Long haul trucks and high use cars can still use domestically produced (or even Americas produced) petrol. A 10 year time frame of people buying electric cars will accomplish this.

As far as decommissioning. Let's say it costs as much to decomm a reator as it does to build the reactor/generation plant ($2B+$2B). At 300 plants over 40 years comes to comes to $30B/year to build and decomm. While the cost of oil imports and defense of resources comes to $250-400B/year. Of course nuclear fuel, operation, maintence, transmission, and battery or fuel cells adds to costs, but so does refining, storage, and transportation of fossil fuels. Now increase the cost of nuclear plant, decomm, or operation, or car price increases by any justifiable amount and you are still hard pressed to come within 1/3 what oil imports cost the US. Finally, additional energy capacity build is under our control. We won't have to beg, coerce, or compete with other nations for a declining resource.

Posted by ed 2004-09-29 2:23:54 PM|| 2004-09-29 2:23:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Another part of this arguement is that there are developments for thorium powered nuclear reactors that have the ability to mix in nuclear waste and convert it into either non-nuclear or short-lived (ca 100-200 years) isotopes. And we have plenty of thorium in our own backyard.

Posted by Chemist 2004-09-29 3:11:54 PM|| 2004-09-29 3:11:54 PM|| Front Page Top

20:24 JJ
10:52 JINSA
09:53 Heartless Bastard
13:03 Heartless Bastard
23:33 Heartless Bastard
23:31 Heartless Bastard
23:01 Heartless Bastard
20:16 Heartless Bastard
00:28 007
00:20 007
00:24 007
00:24 007
00:22 007
00:22 007
00:16 Anymoose
00:16 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
10:25 Floting Clanter5218
19:28 Flagum Whagum2319
00:24 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
21:33 Super Hose
13:36 lex
10:41 lex