NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the Saudi - American alliance the big pink elephant standing in the middle of the room shitting all over the place.


There are no "good guys" in the Iraqi rebellion. Some of the rebels are religous fundamentalists (Al Quaeda types) fighting to establish a pure Wahibist Sunni regime in Iraq, but they are a minority. Most of the rebellion is carried out by Sunni ex-soldiers for money - money provided mostly by the rich Sunni Gulf states who have lots of money and are Sunni. Same as families of martyrs in Israel recieve funding from Saudi coffers, same as Hamas is funded.

Eliminate the payments and the religious support and the rebellion ends. Most of this financial support and religious fervour could be eliminated by a change of regime in Saudi Arabia, but that cannot happen because the USA protects the Saudi regime.

The house of Saud siezed power with the backing of Wahibist clerics and followers. The Saudi regime funds and supports a Wahibist state religion, this religion has educated every boy in Saudi Arabia for the past 50 years (except the son's of princes who go to Eton) that Sunni Wahibists are superior and pure muslims . The royal house is rich while the religious theocrats popular & strong, between them they have snuffed out any modernity, secularism or democratic thought. (The current Saudi elections are a joke at the expense of democracy.)

To survive the royal regime must fund projects of interest to the theocrats, such as madrassa schools for Wahibism in every poor Muslim community. And the Royal regime is rewarded in this because Islam instills a keen sense of community, unity and brotherhood. The royal regime is Islamic and they are funding the families of martyrs, funding Hamas, money is being paid to the Iraqi rebels, funding the theocrats - so they are percieved as supporting the brotherhood of Islam. Therefore resentment at the regime is directed at the regime's non-Muslim protectors which are much easier to blame - Arabs do not do self criticism real well. (This is one of those resentments alluded to by Ward Churchill in his simplistic & insulting, but partly true publication.)


As to why the Americans support the Saudi regime. Economically and strategically it makes no sense. Is it a case of financial expediance to key American politicians who are given massive bi-partisan campaign funding by the House of Saud?

Economically it doesn't matter who is in charge as long as that regime still sells oil. Which any regime will. (As an example the Iranian clerics sell oil & they officially hate America)

There is no vital strategic interest for the USA to support a despotic, repressive, anti-democratic government of a state that sponsors terrorist attacks. A state that has supplied personnel, funding (indirect), religious fervour and leadership to Al Quaeda.

Politically however the Saudis are smart operators and very rich (they have ruled Saudi Arabia for a long time). They think longterm and do not play favorites. The Saudi regime backed both of the candidates in the 2004 presidential elections. They will give more now to Republicans, because the Republicans won. In the past they have donated vast sums to the Clinton Democrats, because the Clinton Democrats won.

Some questions in closing:
Should America continue to support the Saudi regime? Can America win a war against rebels if the rebels have secure funding and support base? When will Al Quaeda launch another attack in America? Whose money will Al Quada use to finance the attack?

Hey, I agree with you 100% the Saudi royal family are a bunch of class A scumbags. But if you take them out Al Quaeda takes over the country. It's a lesser of two evils thing.

Hey, I agree with you 100% the Saudi royal family are a bunch of class A scumbags. But if you take them out Al Quaeda takes over the country. It's a lesser of two evils thing.

But to rule the country they would have to consolidate their power in Arabia which would make them look inward, so less terrorist attacks in the world.

Plus if they rule the country they are the despots in charge and will have as much popularity as any other Arab despot, that is bugger all.

Oh and the west can then say in no uncertain terms, f*ck with us and you lose it all and go back to living in caves - gives them the chance to compromise.

But to rule the country they would have to consolidate their power in Arabia which would make them look inward, so less terrorist attacks in the world.

Plus if they rule the country they are the despots in charge and will have as much popularity as any other Arab despot, that is bugger all.

Oh and the west can then say in no uncertain terms, f*ck with us and you lose it all and go back to living in caves - gives them the chance to compromise.
They'll have control of the most productive oil wells in the world. They could blackmail the world economy.

They'll have control of the most productive oil wells in the world. They could blackmail the world economy.


Plus, they bought a truck load of American assets with all that oil money..

I hate the Saudi Royal Family.

They'll have control of the most productive oil wells in the world. They could blackmail the world economy.

It is very difficult to find Usama as the leader of a small band of infantry fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan-Pakistan. But real simple to target Saudi Arabia. Plus he would have achieved everyhting he had set out to achieve and have it all to lose, so I do not reckon he would do it.

My main question is can the USA defeat the rebellion in Iraq if the Sunni rebellion continues to be funded?

I've said it a million times(although not in these forums)....Let's convert to hydrogen-burning as a fuel source.
And nvm mind that whole "oh but it will screw up the world economy"argument

A)Hydrogen is cheap, clean-burning, and self-renewing.
B)as it is cheap, that means companies who build things that use it as a fuel(cars, airliners, or hell, at the worst, for producing electric power. etc....) will be able to make said things and sell them at a cheaper price. Cheaper prices for these things means more people will be able to buy/use them which in the long run would mean a LOT more profit for these companies. So what if the oil companies and cartels go out of business. The slack in the economy would be taken up by other industries along the lines I just stated.

My main question is can the USA defeat the rebellion in Iraq if the Sunni rebellion continues to be funded?

Most likely.. no.

Unless you can bribe the sunni.

Oh wait...that's right. The government(at least in the US)is controlled by big business interests(of which oil is a major one). It's not likely to happen but one can always dream.

I've said it a million times(although not in these forums)....Let's convert to hydrogen-burning as a fuel source.
And nvm mind that whole "oh but it will screw up the world economy"argument

A)Hydrogen is cheap, clean-burning, and self-renewing.
B)as it is cheap, that means companies who build things that use it as a fuel(cars, airliners, or hell, at the worst, for producing electric power. etc....) will be able to make said things and sell them at a cheaper price. Cheaper prices for these things means more people will be able to buy/use them which in the long run would mean a LOT more profit for these companies. So what if the oil companies and cartels go out of business. The slack in the economy would be taken up by other industries along the lines I just stated.

Hydogen costs about 10x as much as crude. Hydrogen can be obtained directly from crude or by using electrolysis (lots of power) to disassociate water.

Hydogen costs about 10x as much as crude. Hydrogen can be obtained directly from crude or by using electrolysis (lots of power) to disassociate water.
Well, I'm not saying it should be done "overnight". If some effort was put into these technologies I'm sure science could find a way to make hydrogen cheaper than producing oil. After all, imagine how expensive oil would be if we were still using the techniques to produce all of its by-products(gasoline mainly) that were used when oil became the "next big fuel source" back at the beginning of the twentieth century. At the worst, I guess I am saying that its time to give it up and turn to something new. I mean...its a finite energy source and is going to run out eventually.

**edit**You know...this kind of reminds me of the future history proposed by Stephen King in his short story, "The Jaunt". lol (not exactly on-topic but...oh well...just thought I'd bring it up :D )

Well, I'm not saying it should be done "overnight". If some effort was put into these technologies I'm sure science could find a way to make hydrogen cheaper than producing oil. After all, imagine how expensive oil would be if we were still using the techniques to produce all of its by-products(gasoline mainly) that were used when oil became the "next big fuel source" back at the beginning of the twentieth century. At the worst, I guess I am saying that its time to give it up and turn to something new. I mean...its a finite energy source and is going to run out eventually.

**edit**You know...this kind of reminds me of the future history proposed by Stephen King in his short story, "The Jaunt". lol (not exactly on-topic but...oh well...just thought I'd bring it up :D )


You don't need more science, just wait for the economy: When oil starts to go scarce, its price will go up; Eventually, it will be so expensive, that other alternative fuels will become relatively more cheap. Overall, the energy price willl go up, but the increased demand in the now cheaper alternative fuels, will create an increase in production, and a lowering of price.

To give you an example, in my country, as soon as the oil barrel goes over 40USD, it becomes cheaper to buy windmill generated power; Because oil isnt always above such value, the demand for windmill power isnt that big, but all big energy companies are making projects for windmill parks, in preparation to respond to increased demand.

Well, I'm not saying it should be done "overnight". If some effort was put into these technologies I'm sure science could find a way to make hydrogen cheaper than producing oil. After all, imagine how expensive oil would be if we were still using the techniques to produce all of its by-products(gasoline mainly) that were used when oil became the "next big fuel source" back at the beginning of the twentieth century. At the worst, I guess I am saying that its time to give it up and turn to something new. I mean...its a finite energy source and is going to run out eventually.

**edit**You know...this kind of reminds me of the future history proposed by Stephen King in his short story, "The Jaunt". lol (not exactly on-topic but...oh well...just thought I'd bring it up :D )

Hydrogen isn't really an energy source (unless we develop nuclear fusion) it is more a way of storing energy and transporting it. Hydrogen provides a better way of powering your car than batteries but is a lot more expensive than oil.

So like portu says, wait for the price of oil to go up (probably doubles from now) ab=nd then we will start to see hydrogen sold at the gas station.

Didn't think of it that way. Thanx for pointing that out.

**edit**Still, it wouldn't hurt if we started trying to find ways to produce hydrogen more cheaply but like you said, once oil becomes scarce and hydrogen/oil prices flipflop, I'm sure companies will get into doing that anyway. If I were the CEO or major stock holder of an oil company, I'd make it a point to start researching this stuff now but keep it secret(if that's possible). Then when the flipflop starts to happen, my company would be able to get in on the groundfloor on the whole thing and probably end up owning the market. But, that's just me, mind you.

Some questions in closing:

1. Should America continue to support the Saudi regime? 2. Can America win a war against rebels if the rebels have secure funding and support base? 3. When will Al Quaeda launch another attack in America? 4. Whose money will Al Quada use to finance the attack?

[ Numbers added ]

1. Yes, until it becomes obvious that they are engaging in anything other than realpolitic.

2. Yes.

3. Most probably within the next 18 months.

4. Anyone's money they can beg, borrow or steal.

[ Numbers added ]

1. Yes, until it becomes obvious that they are engaging in anything other than realpolitic.

2. Yes.

3. Most probably within the next 18 months.

4. Anyone's money they can beg, borrow or steal.

1. It will never be obvious.

2. Yes - I agree. All that is required is that America out spend and out muscle the rebel funders by the traditional ratio of 15 to 1.

3. Good enough guess.

4. And other than rich Wahibist's can you think of any other group that is going to fund the Wahibist Al Quaeda terrorists?

There was a question of can the US defeat the insurgency. Two ways, kill everybody and everything. Not appealing I must say. Second train the iraqis enough to help themselves and pull out. Thus ending attacks against Americans on Iraqi soil. As far as the Saudis. I say withdraw all US support from them. But that wouldnt happen...

I can't say as I would be too upset to hear that Saudi Arabia had gone bankrupt... it's a pretty damned ass country, and it's the source of most of the jackasses who flew in 9/11, which made OUR country go pretty damned ass.