NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe we are starting to see a change in the US-Saudi relationship since this is the first time that Saudi Arabia has made this list.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6009836/

Finally we are taking a just stand against the true axis of evil.

This is very good news.

What goes on there is sometimes worse than in "1984"

I hope they realise now that they better be a little nicer. Once the world has enough alternatives, these Arab nations will constantly be in great danger of invasion and war if they keep acting like they do now.

Their army isn't that scary. Most Saudi-Arabian casualties in the Gulf war came from their own incompetence. Usually by crashing American vehicles.

Invasion??.. Yeah, maybe Saudi Arabia, because they are "the bad guys".. Funny how Americans figured this out after Septermber 11.. I never saw Saudi Arabia on that list when they were your "buddies"...

But other gulf states, no.. they are still in line.. they don't dare anger Uncle Sam..

Invasion??.. Yeah, maybe Saudi Arabia, because they are "the bad guys".. Funny how Americans figured this out after Septermber 11.. I never saw Saudi Arabia on that list when they were your "buddies"...

But other gulf states, no.. they are still in line.. they don't dare anger Uncle Sam..
The Saudis have been bad guys for a long time. Normal Americans weren't aware of the hatefull, repressive nature of our "ally" because it was covered up. They are the world's biggest oil pusher.

Invasion??.. Yeah, maybe Saudi Arabia, because they are "the bad guys".. Funny how Americans figured this out after Septermber 11.. I never saw Saudi Arabia on that list when they were your "buddies"...

But other gulf states, no.. they are still in line.. they don't dare anger Uncle Sam..

Oh, Saudi Arabia is still a "buddy" of the US. maybe this is an attempt to get the Saudi's to crack down on the extremeists before it is too late. For some reason the Saudi's have to be pushed to take action that benefits them more than anyone else.

Oh, Saudi Arabia is still a "buddy" of the US. maybe this is an attempt to get the Saudi's to crack down on the extremeists before it is too late. For some reason the Saudi's have to be pushed to take action that benefits them more than anyone else.
The reason is easy to understand. The rich house of Saud can keep their population angry at the US instead of letting them get angry at Saud greed and corruption. They're playing both sides.

The reason is easy to understand. The rich house of Saud can keep their population angry at the US instead of letting them get angry at Saud greed and corruption. They're playing both sides.

Yes, but even Al Qaeda has called for them to be overthrown. They need to do something about the extremists before it is too late and we end up having to send troops in to prop them up.

Yes, but even Al Qaeda has called for them to be overthrown. They need to do something about the extremists before it is too late and we end up having to send troops in to prop them up.
They've created a monster and keep feeding it in hopes it will kill them last.

I think we should first say that the U.S. does not have enough troops to invade Saudi Arabia, even if we wanted to. Pretty much as long as they have oil the U.S. will try to stay on their good side. The Saudis probably sponsor some degree of terrorism, and remeber, the Bin Laden family is Suadi by nationality.

I think they need reform there, in a big way, but how would we go about it. Invasion - stretched too thin. UN - probably not effective. Sanctions - Usually only hurt the poor if the nation and have no effect on the ruling class.

Does anyone have a way to get them to reform short of military action? I know alternative fuels would tank their economy, but they are not cheap or widespread enough to be effective yet.

I think we should first say that the U.S. does not have enough troops to invade Saudi Arabia, even if we wanted to. Pretty much as long as they have oil the U.S. will try to stay on their good side. The Saudis probably sponsor some degree of terrorism, and remeber, the Bin Laden family is Suadi by nationality.

I think they need reform there, in a big way, but how would we go about it. Invasion - stretched too thin. UN - probably not effective. Sanctions - Usually only hurt the poor if the nation and have no effect on the ruling class.

Does anyone have a way to get them to reform short of military action? I know alternative fuels would tank their economy, but they are not cheap or widespread enough to be effective yet.
Targeted assasinations? ;)

I think we should first say that the U.S. does not have enough troops to invade Saudi Arabia, even if we wanted to. Pretty much as long as they have oil the U.S. will try to stay on their good side. The Saudis probably sponsor some degree of terrorism, and remeber, the Bin Laden family is Suadi by nationality.

I think they need reform there, in a big way, but how would we go about it. Invasion - stretched too thin. UN - probably not effective. Sanctions - Usually only hurt the poor if the nation and have no effect on the ruling class.

Does anyone have a way to get them to reform short of military action? I know alternative fuels would tank their economy, but they are not cheap or widespread enough to be effective yet.

It would not take much to take the Saudi's out. They don't have much of a military. Most of it, like Kuwait's is made up of contracted soldiers from third countries. Bangladesh in the case of Kuwait.

Normal Americans weren't aware of the hatefull, repressive nature of our "ally" because it was covered up. They are the world's biggest oil pusher.
*Laughing hysterically* Just goes to show that the US government is only interested in $$$. Their train of thought must've been along the lines of "The Saudis do things that would upset US citizens (the voters) but they provide lots of oil (the $$$) so we're going to cover it up so we still make money and get votes."

Geez... :headbang:

I have to say this much for the Arabs, they stick to what they believe. Islam has been over there for centuries and chances are that only foreigners would be the non-Islamic people because the locals grew up with Islam and it's all they know.

I think we should first say that the U.S. does not have enough troops to invade Saudi Arabia, even if we wanted to. Pretty much as long as they have oil the U.S. will try to stay on their good side. The Saudis probably sponsor some degree of terrorism, and remeber, the Bin Laden family is Suadi by nationality.

Does anyone have a way to get them to reform short of military action? I know alternative fuels would tank their economy, but they are not cheap or widespread enough to be effective yet.

So??... The Bush family is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, right-wing, ultra-religious, fanatical family... Do we go around characterizing all Americans as just that??..

If you really believe Saudi Arabia is corrupt just because the "Bin Laden" family is of Saudi nationality, every molecule of respect I have for you is flushed down the drain, sir.

I know alternative fuels would tank their economy, but they are not cheap or widespread enough to be effective yet.
Not true! Alternative fuels sources do exist but because of the major $$$ the oil generates, the modern "oil barons" have the cash to suppress any competition trying to push for alternative fuel sources. At least, they have the money until the oil is gone...

[QUOTE=Greenmanbry]So??... The Bush family is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, right-wing, ultra-religious, fanatical family... Do we go around characterizing all Americans as just that??..QUOTE]
So?

So??... The Bush family is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, right-wing, ultra-religious, fanatical family... Do we go around characterizing all Americans as just that??..

If you really believe Saudi Arabia is corrupt just because the "Bin Laden" family is of Saudi nationality, every molecule of respect I have for you is flushed down the drain, sir.
The're also good friends of the saudi royal family who have used their connections with the bushes to get fat and have spent the excess money to incite people to terrorism. Both families are corrupt. The difference is that the saudis are relentlessly spreading their corrupt ideology throughout the world.

Yes, but even Al Qaeda has called for them to be overthrown. They need to do something about the extremists before it is too late and we end up having to send troops in to prop them up.

Yes.. send in the troops, send in the troops.. let these fanatics who brainwash our kids thrive and continue to target your children.. after all, if you do invade the gulf states, the premise they have for destroying the West, which is solely founded on the fact that the West does not leave the Middle East alone, will be strengthened.. So what would happen?? => More death, more destruction, more havoc..

Prop them up.. ahaha.. you've been supporting them after you "propped them up" for decades now.. it's time for change.. even if America decides to intervene, it will not succeed in keeping US-friendly regimes in power..

[QUOTE=Greenmanbry]So??... The Bush family is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, right-wing, ultra-religious, fanatical family... Do we go around characterizing all Americans as just that??..QUOTE]
So?

I see.. Muslim extremism is bad..

but Christian extremism is good..

nice argument..

oh man gotta love you yanks
world policeman as always..
and when saudi arabia withdraws its funds from american banks and stops giving oil your economy goes bust and your army the means and purpose of existance then we're all in deeeep shit...

mad max here we come...

The're also good friends of the saudi royal family who have used their connections with the bushes to get fat and have spent the excess money to incite people to terrorism. Both families are corrupt. The difference is that the saudis are relentlessly spreading their corrupt ideology throughout the world.

But the concept of "American freedom" you're spreading through tyranny, terror, violence, and imperialism is... not corrupt??

Yes.. send in the troops, send in the troops.. let these fanatics who brainwash our kids thrive and continue to target your children.. after all, if you do invade the gulf states, the premise they have for destroying the West, which is solely founded on the fact that the West does not leave the Middle East alone, will be strengthened.. So what would happen?? => More death, more destruction, more havoc..

Prop them up.. ahaha.. you've been supporting them after you "propped them up" for decades now.. it's time for change.. even if America decides to intervene, it will not succeed in keeping US-friendly regimes in power..

I do not think we should invade Saudi Arabia or any other country in the middle east except maybe Iran. However, the Saudi's have allowed a monster to grow in their house and it is getting much bigger. religion is a terrible thing when it gets out of hand and lets face it, a theocracy allows extremists to grow in influence and that is a very dangerous thing. Once Saudi is toppled by them, Bahrain and the rest of the middle east will soon follow.

I see.. Muslim extremism is bad..

but Christian extremism is good..

nice argument..
Who claimed christian extremism is good? It's just the lesser of two evils. (christian extremists don't stone women to death etc.) The optimal situation would be secular governments that respect freedom of and from religion.

oh man gotta love you yanks
world policeman as always..
and when saudi arabia withdraws its funds from american banks and stops giving oil your economy goes bust and your army the means and purpose of existance then we're all in deeeep shit...

mad max here we come...

Yeah....that will happen. The Saudi's ONLY exist because they can sell their oil. Take that away from them and they would collapse in short order.

oh man gotta love you yanks
world policeman as always..
and when saudi arabia withdraws its funds from american banks and stops giving oil your economy goes bust and your army the means and purpose of existance then we're all in deeeep shit...

mad max here we come...
It would be a hell of a hit on our economy, but it might be worth it to stop the spread of wahabi islam.

Who claimed christian extremism is good? It's just the lesser of two evils. (christian extremists don't stone women to death etc.) The optimal situation would be secular governments that respect freedom of and from religion.

And Christianity does not advocate stoning??.. The Bible does not refer to stoning as a method of punishment?

But the concept of "American freedom" you're spreading through tyranny, terror, violence, and imperialism is... not corrupt??
We don't have an empire. We don't spread terror (with the exception of Bush's unjust iraq war) We are a force for democracy more often than not. We are not in the same league with Saudi evil.

I see.. Muslim extremism is bad..

but Christian extremism is good..

nice argument..

ALL extremism is bad. However, the Muslim extremists are far more dangerous than any other group. Maybe it has something to do with the belief in a place in "paradise" for martyrs.

I don't know enough about them to determine the exact reasons.

And Christianity does not advocate stoning??.. The Bible does not refer to stoning as a method of punishment?
They do not. The old testament does, but Jesus stoped it. No christian culture in living memory has stoned people to death. It's routine in many muslim societies.

And Christianity does not advocate stoning??.. The Bible does not refer to stoning as a method of punishment?

Yeah....the old testament does, but that has been superceded by the new testament.

No, I am not religious, I am an agnostic and will see who is right one day I guess.

So??... The Bush family is a war-mongering, blood-thirsty, right-wing, ultra-religious, fanatical family... Do we go around characterizing all Americans as just that??..

If you really believe Saudi Arabia is corrupt just because the "Bin Laden" family is of Saudi nationality, every molecule of respect I have for you is flushed down the drain, sir.

Well, after re-reading it, I can see where you got the idea that I thought all Saudis were like Bin-Laden. Excuse me, I did not mean that, I wrote it right before lunch and was a little hungry. I know a person who's parents came from Saudi Arabia and I likehim very much.

The real intent of the statement was that I'm pretty sure the Saudi's sponsor terrorism to some degree. The Bin-Laden family was Saudi, but Osama was apparently the 'black sheep'. Other terrorists could use Saudi contacts to gain funding or protection because of the incredible wealth at the hands of the Saud oil barons. I really don't believe for a minute that Osama was really entirly cut off. He probably received money from his family. If they knew what he was doing with it, well, that I don't know. If other terrorists operate in similiar manners, how do you cope with that, other than freeze funds which the international community does not do lightly.

Well, they're on a list, which is better than nothing I guess, but does it mean anything? From the article: Since the State Department first began making evaluations on religious freedom, sanctions have not been applied against any country on the CPC list.Doesn't look like it. can't say I'm surprised.

Targeted assasinations? ;)
Killing is always bad but if the world (not just the U.S. Back off CIA ;) ) is better off in the end and if it's the least dirty way, then it's okay.