# Boycott the Saudi's. dont buy their gas! <-----



## PowermacG4_450 (Feb 11, 2003)

I thought this was interesting, so here goes.... 

GASOLINE SOLUTION! 
We CAN buy gasoline that's not from Middle East. The
Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor. An
interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the
car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia.
Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the
tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family,
and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil
companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import
Middle Eastern oil (for the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01):

Shell...............................................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco................................144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil......................................130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway.........................117,740,000 barrels
Amoco..................................................62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Citgo.....................................................................0
barrels
Sunoco.................................................................0barrels
Conoco.................................................................0barrels
Sinclair..................................................................0barrels
BP/Phillips............................................................0barrels
Hess......................................................................0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each
is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are
importing.They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your car; share
it with friends. Stop paying for terrorism.............

But, to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers.
It's really simple to do!!
Spread the word!


----------



## phatcactus (Feb 11, 2003)

Hmmm...  BP bought out Amoco...  I'm certainly not gunna switch where I buy gas from (I get it free from work!) but I am curious as to how that plays out...


----------



## doemel (Feb 11, 2003)

Boycott the whole industry! Use public transport where possible, start car sharing pools... You'd have to boycott all oil companies to be sure not to support any kind of terrorism, be it state terror (need I name the most obvious ones?), terrorist organizations in the actual meaning of the word or just plain ol' environmental terrorist (did I just invent a new word?).
Oh, yes, not to mention the car industries. We'd be riding completetly different cars today if they were serious about producing "clean cars". For both the oil and the car industry "environmental friendliness" is just a product of their PR department which created it in response to public pressure.

As always, reality is more complicated. I'd tend to say it's even worse than how I put it.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 11, 2003)

I'd tend to agree with Doemel on this one. We all need to do something about our use of oil reserves, and whether that's riding a bike to work or trading your SUV in for a Mini is up to the individual to decide.

Its not a bad time to be on two wheels, with many top quality electric bikes, scooters and even full size motorcycles that get more than 10 times the mileage of a small car. (just as an example, the BMW F650 CS uses only 3.5 litres per hundred kilometres in the city cycle. Compare that to any car. Aprilia's SR50 DiTech scooters are down around the 1.7 litre mark.) 

They don't take up much space in traffic, in parking lots or, when their life is over, in junkyards. They produce less pollution, too. They don't cost as much to own and run, and leave you with more money for more worthwhile investments, such as your home or business.


----------



## toast (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm laughing so hard people around me at work are looking at me as if I had taken some acid trip.

Seriously, you should be aware of the following points. Extracts from your own post stand in italics.

1. _The Saudis are boycotting American goods._

There are good reasons for this. I'll let you educate yourself by reading this objective and exhaustive article from the IHT, International Herald Tribune, published on Thursday, December 19, 2002 and written by Raymond Close.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1219-01.htm

2. _Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends._

This is how the Saudis feel about America, in fact. If you want to behave as stupidly as they do, that's your choice. But don't call it an 'interesting' or intelligent choice, it is completely (if you excuse my abruptness) ridiculous, aggressive, paranoid and primitive.

3. _Stop paying for terrorism..._

Your governement has been the first one to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and to the Arab world in its globality. The US has sold ICBMs and IRBMs they had to get rid of after the SALT treaties to Saudi Arabia and to many other Middle East countries. Moreover, you should know this moreorless underground weapon traffic has not stopped, even though the US are being very directly threatened by terrorism nowadays.

Finally, you should know that if the companies are not using gas from the Middle East, they are members of the OPEC anyway. And this makes them participate to the general Arabic oil market. It is completely impossible to separate the world oil market and the Saudi implication in the OPEC trade.
Check the following links to realize the 'clean' companies you quote are just OPEC members like the other ones:
http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2001/09/10/daily21.html
http://washingtontimes.com/business/20030109-61199200.htm
http://www.ideaadvisor.com/article/article.asp?aid=6519

As you already know what I think of your anti-Arab attitude, I'll just conclude that, aside from the fact your proposition lacks all elementary knowledge about oil world trade as well as any form of realistic pragmatic views on the actual world, it has triggered reactions from symphonix and doemel which are a hundred times more intelligent, carefully thought and realistic than yours.


----------



## Cat (Feb 12, 2003)

I completely agree with Doemel, Symphonix and Toast.

Up to now the simple use and employment of fossile combustibles (gas, petroleum, carbon, etc.) have made way more victims than all terrorist attacks throughout history.
Pollution and diseases generated by the burning of fossile combustibles have a way higher economic cost than the money spent in acquiring them.
There is no way in the current globalized economy to seprate "good" from "bad" compnaies in the simplistic manner you proposed. Companies invest, acquire, deal, merge and possess shares of each other.
The effort of individual consumers to impact such a widespread product through boycot or political action has up to now no chance of succeding or making a significant difference whatsoever.

Your attitude is based on an eye-for-an-eye mentality which I disapprove of and fear. Vengeful sentiments like this will not lead to overcoming differences and conflicts to each others mutual benefit, but will lead to escalation and war.

Have you ever heard the Beatles' song "We can work it out"? Could be educative...


----------



## aisikl (Feb 12, 2003)

-- begin of flame

i'm sorry but i just can't help it (maybe it's because i'm belgian) -- i read something today (in Milan Kundera's Immortality) that i would like to share:

"Forget for a moment that you're American and exercise your brain"

I know this is a harsh generalization and i would be the first to hate generalizations, but i'm just getting sick and tired of how a lot of Americans just have to generalize everything and see the world (that is, them and all the rest) in black and white -- get real, folks, the world is a lot bigger than your continent and a LOT of people think very differently than you -- isn't it your constitution that states something about freedom of ... -- maybe little george has to have the constitution changed to "hypocrisy is what has made us who we are" 

-- end of flame --

PS: just so you know: i do think that Saddam is a dictator -- i do think that Iraq is probably better off without him -- but i do think that war is NOT the only answer -- try visiting a Palestinian refugee camp to get a hint of the hell georgie will probably end up unleashing


----------



## Trip (Feb 12, 2003)

Jeeze, breathing in the US these days supports terrorism.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 12, 2003)

I agree on we all should use public transportation more (when it is available - hint: most of North America is Rural). However, why is it fashionable for Europeans to bash the everyday American?


----------



## aisikl (Feb 12, 2003)

just to be clear: i'm not bashing everyday americans -- remember what i said about generalizations -- i'm just a bit surprised (or even shocked) that someone would start a thread about boycotting another nation about oil -- so easy, lame and naieve -- 
this whole thread is of coursed colored by what americans read about europeans in american newspapers and the other way around -- but come on, all you americans on this forum: have you seen for instance this cartoon in a New York newspaper? it depicts france as a bird with its head in the ground -- or these pics of WW 2 graves with a caption saying something like " thanks a lot" -- i do hope (and i do trust) that the average american doesn't think like that and that it's again the media being silly and naieve -- anyway, i have nothing against america -- some of my best friends are american -- all i'm trying to say is: don't turn your brain off (and try to read non-American newspapers from the time, the world might just start looking a little bit different...)


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 12, 2003)

" ... Americans just have to generalize everything and see the world ... ".  

I see the whole world and it looks like a lot of people hate every American because they don't like the current US President. You have the right to hold such views. However, I have the right to say I believe that you are way off base about most of Americans.


----------



## aisikl (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm super glad to hear that i'm way off base about most Americans and trust me: this is not meant ironically -- it's always good to keep communicating, don't you think? (which is why several countries in Europe don't wanna go to war (yet)) -- and you're right in saying that it's mostly your president that's causing these european views about america -- too bad, but that is just the kinda of power he has and if he's not adult enough to deal with it in a mature and proper way, then ... -- anyway, anyway: once more for the record: i don't have anything against america -- and please, i'd love to hear from the americans on this forum what they think about all of this -- you can even bash me or trash me while you're at it ;-)))


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm not trying to flame your post. I just what to keep the record straight that most Americans hold wildly different political views and yet others vote for who ever is the flavor of the month. So keep voicing your opinions just don't lump all Americans with the current political climate.


----------



## aisikl (Feb 12, 2003)

once more:

1. i don't feel flamed
2. i'm not "lumping all Americans with the current political climate"

by the way, Satcomer, did you see these cartoons that i mentioned? what did you think about them? just curious whether i was the only who got almost angry when he/she saw them...


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 12, 2003)

Sorry to I did not see the newspaper. I read another paper. What you don't see in US news is the rift developing in the republican party over this Iraq war thing and Bush. He's getting it from both sides of the political spectrum. 2004 will be very interesting.


----------



## aisikl (Feb 12, 2003)

that's interesting -- didn't know that indeed --


----------



## themacko (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by doemel _
> *Boycott the whole industry! Use public transport where possible, start car sharing pools...*



I can't agree with doemel's statements enough.  With all the technology we have, it's amazing we are still riding around in cars using the basic engine design of 100 years ago.  Combustion engines are only about 15% productive, that means we lose about 85% of the energry created from fuel in heat.

If you really want to make a statement, walk ... like Gandhi did.


----------



## toast (Feb 12, 2003)

Off-topic (anyway the topic is so stoopid</flame>) : is this you, themacko ?


----------



## chevy (Feb 12, 2003)

Paranoia never helped to solve any conflict.


----------



## dixonbm (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm an American.  I really am tired of this debate.  I believe my country may be acting a bit rash.  I do read a few international sites, the BBC, German papers(occassionally using my rough German), and the Bangkok Post. But when I do I still come away feeling the same.  When I look to the middle east I see a group that largely resents us.  I'm sure they have their reasons.  We've been screwing with them for years, although so has France and Britain, even longer in their case.  I also see a dictator in Iraq, who we have sadly supported in the past, play diplomatic head games with the world.  He has been doing this for the past 12 years.  My question (rhetorical) is why didn't we do something when he kicked out the inspectors in the first place.  Sadaam's end was marked long ago.  For some reason the world just stood idly by.  

I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.  How many overtimes is Sadaam going to get?  

I also believe my President is just persuing any other group or country that in any way threatens the safety and integrity of my country.  You can say what you will about Americans not using their brains.  Maybe we are blinded by the tragedy on 11. September.  All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.  America will not lie idle while the threats against us grow.  

I leave those in Europe with some words.  You might be next.

I have said my piece.  I do not intend to comment anymore in this column.  

God Bless us and keep us safe during this time of imminent danger.


----------



## chevy (Feb 12, 2003)

If I would still believe in God, I would suggest he blesses everybody, including the Iraqi population.

One bomb may kill Saddam. Not many people will cry.

Who will be killed by the other bombs ?

What do you suggest by "Europe may be next" ? Do you suggest that no terrorism attack have been made in Europe yet ? Or do you suggest that Iraq organised 9.11 and that "they" will organize something similar in Europe ? Or do you suggest that Europe will be the next target of the US army ? 

Yes, the danger is imminent, and this is why European diplomats work that hard to prevent it. We in Europe most often think that war is the last solution, the worst one. Sometimes it applies... most often they are better ways. Less impessive, less fun for TVs, less "orgasmic" for some people, less revengeful, less unwinding, less "kick-assing", but so much efficient on the long term.


----------



## Cat (Feb 12, 2003)

> I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.



It would be just and justified if and only if he would go after him like any normal citizen goes after a criminal: not by beating him up but by trail and court, thus through the UN, and by proving his guilt. What unnerves the rest of the world is that the USA seem a bully rather than a police officer. Moreover the support the USA have given in the past to what they now call terrorists throw the shadow of empty rethoric on otherwise noble motives.

Didn't the USA unilaterally cancel treaties like Kyoto (environment) and ABM (nuclear non-proliferation)? Shouldn't the UN send some inspectors to check the nuclear developments in the USA?


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Shouldn't the UN send some inspectors to check the nuclear developments in the USA? *


The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive. Iraq has *relatively* recently invaded Kuwait, not to mention their country is a dictatorship, which in itself is bad enough IMO.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dixonbm _
> *All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.
> *



There is the problem! "destroy".  The mentality I see behind this is:
a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder).

Does this make you different than the guy who hit you first?


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *There is the problem! "destroy".  The mentality I see behind this is:
> a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder).
> 
> Does this make you different than the guy who hit you first? *



Do you have a better alternative? "Talking it over" usually isn't helpful with someone that just hit you, and there's no teacher to tell.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 12, 2003)

Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back. 
You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
Hitting back (war) is no solution!! 
And than again: won't it make yourself a "felon" as well, no matter if someone else hit you first?

And you should admit: in these days there are many different ways to put other nations under pressure than war... We are no primates anymore!


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zammy-Sam _
> *Well, that's the point! You and many other ppl (am not talking about Americans in general) are not able to see any other possibility than hitting back.
> You ask me about alternatives? Alternatives to what? To war or how to solve any "problems"? I seperate boths, because they are irreconcilable.
> Hitting back (war) is no solution!!
> ...


I have yet to hear any viable alternatives, from you or anyone else.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Feb 12, 2003)

Alternative to what, Xaqintosh? What is it you think to solve with war, since "there are no other alternatives"?


----------



## Decado (Feb 12, 2003)

as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq.


----------



## toast (Feb 12, 2003)

*dixonbm*



> I believe my country may be acting a bit rash.



May Iraqis think the same the second before they die as their roof collapses on their heads, blown up by fragmentation bombs.



> I believe my President is just in going after this man who has defied the world through a diplomatic chess game.



You're inverting roles. The USA are the ones playing with world influences. Kissinger, Brzezinski, they all confess it in their works. Read "The Grand Chessboard", 1997, Public Press, for instance.



> All I do know is that most Americans are willing to stand behind their president and destroy those who would threaten America.



You should read polls a bit more. Only one American out of two declares him/herself ready for war without UN approval [source: AP].



> I leave those in Europe with some words. You might be next.



Let me laugh at you on this one. I have strictly nothing against you or your opinion, but this statement is not only paranoid, it's completely ridiculous to anyone who knows the geostrategic positions respectively held by the US and by Europe.



> I have said my piece. I do not intend to comment anymore in this column.



That's what Bush said to the UN a few days ago. Democracy dies at this point.

*xaqintosh*



> The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive.



Nicaragua. Vietnam. Chili. You want more ? I have a ~25 countries list somewhere in my American Foreign Policy class notes.



> "a boy hits you in your face and you just hit back (not to say how much harder)."
> Do you have a better alternative?



Yes. Read last French/German UN paper. It's a viable alternative.

War has never, never solved any world conflict. It may have transformed them (WW2), or replaced them with other ones (WW1), war has never been a long-term solution. War is an irrational way to solve nothing and to delay, amplify and distort problems that can be solved in peaceful means, which are the only means that should be accepted as democratical.

If you want a full Internation Relations class, why not. For the moment, I hope the very restricted amount of info I posted will suffice. PRITHEE, people on the US side, check history books before talking of Iraq, of internatl. 'chessboard' relations, of OPEC oil, of war as a solution, of Yurop.


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *as far as i see it, xaqintosh, Iraq has not "hit" america, so there is no reason for america to "hit" back. And if you say Iraq has threaten america, then one could argue that america has been a threat to Iraq for the last decades. Does that give Iraq the right to attack America? No. and for the same reason America has no right to attack Iraq. *


I don't think I specifically said we *should* attack Iraq, and I currently don't believe we should. I was just responding to the post about how hitting back is not a good alternative. My opinion on this is not to go to war with Iraq but to systematically remove the government (i.e. Saddam Hussein et al) and replace the dictatorship with a democracy.


----------



## Decado (Feb 12, 2003)

Oh, sorry... i missunderstood you. yes, i am too of the opinion that Hussein doesnt seem like the ideal ruler.


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *Oh, sorry... i missunderstood you. yes, i am too of the opinion that Hussein doesnt seem like the ideal ruler. *


No problem


----------



## mdnky (Feb 12, 2003)

Not to flame anyone, but this whole topic about impending war is getting old.  You would think after a quick review of history, we would learn the leason or at least understand, of when it's time to quit bickering like children and smother a situation.

Had this been done in the late 30's we most likely wouldn't read about a thing called WWII or have anything to remember of Sept. 1st 1939.

Today the US is partly to blame, had had it been taken care of during the first Gulf conflict we wouldn't be here.


*Speak softly and carry a big stick...*


----------



## themacko (Feb 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Off-topic (anyway the topic is so stoopid?</flame>) : is this you, themacko ? *


 What do you mean, toast?


----------



## xaqintosh (Feb 13, 2003)

<offtopic>maybe its the new avatar?</offtopic>


----------



## Cat (Feb 13, 2003)

> The thing is, the US doesn't have a history of violence toward other nations using atomic bombs or weapons of mass destruction unless it was defensive. Iraq has *relatively* recently invaded Kuwait, not to mention their country is a dictatorship, which in itself is bad enough IMO.



I can never remember, maybe Toast can help me out: were it the british or the americans who bombed Dresden, an internationally recognized red-cross city, right at the end of WWII? Also AFAIK the only two atom bombs ever used in war were dropped by the USA. Utterly destroying two cities full of civilians doesn't sound very much like a defensive measure, it's more like terrorism and intimidation. Unlike Machiavelli said, ends do not justify means. Democracy is not something you can enforce by a war. You'll only create resentment, fear and anger. In this case there is a higher authority to which an appeal can be made: the UN. Besides the american plans, there are others, like the German/France plan, which moreover is supported by Russia and China. If you want law and order, don't be the first one to disobey.


----------



## toast (Feb 13, 2003)

Cat :

The American Flying Fortresses called B17 (codename: Marauder) bombed Dresden February 14th 1945 using 13.000 tons of phospore bombs, which are incendiary bombs. They were being escorted by Mustang airplanes in their nightly task.

Source: book by Anthony Kemp.


----------



## toast (Feb 13, 2003)

And yes, it's your new avatar macko: is that you ?


----------



## Cat (Feb 14, 2003)

Thank you Toast.


----------

