You might remember a parody that I cocked up to the point that you took it for the real McCoy not so long ago. A parody on a poster that had, quite out of the blue decided to come join the SDMB and bash the EU and Europe in general in most offensive ways. That’s pretty typical, and sometimes I have the feeling there cannot be mention of Europe without some bigoted slurs being brandied.
My glasses might just be a little too shaded in the Stars on Blue, while I think your glasses shade to the Stars and Stripes and you are judging how much and in what direction the board bashing is going based on that
Go to great debates. Open any thread on policy in the EU, the US or any other nation for that matter and you shall find fair bashing in all directions in each and every one. Sometimes it is mild bashing that leans more toward criticism, sometimes just bigoted crap. Often enough it’s the people of the own nation that forward most of the firing power, once in a while we get the doubtful pleasure of hearing the even more uniformed drivel by people outside the nation that are speaking out of their ass and basing their assumptions on stereotypes and misconceptions.
I follow the debates and post in GD pretty vigorously.
I know of five posters, Americans all, that have history of repeatedly bashing Europe and the EU as soon as they get the chance, out of which two have been banned (I don’t know what happened to my parody victim and he is not one of the five).
I know of four non-American posters with the same history towards the US out of which two have been banned and a third is working on his/her meltdown as we speak.
I think we have some rotten eggs overall and which one of our fair Unions is receiving the moist vitriol seems more dependant on how many debates are carried that have relevance to national issues. Right there the predominance of Americans on the board tends to make a difference.
I just felt we needed some nuance there, I hope no one took offense.
Right. The corrupt, backwards monarchy that we pay to remain in power.
And in order to remain in power, don’t you think they need to throw a bone to the “people” every now and again? If anti-American propaganda is what it takes to keep the monarchists in power, is that not what we are paying it for in the first place?
Pay them? Are you talking about oil money? I hope so. They have enough money that trying to pay them off or bribe them is an exercise in futility.
Furthermore, since they have so much money and power, how do you think we have any ability to overthrow them? And I’m sure they give the people a bone every so often, but it’s in their own self interest to do that. They want to remain in power.
Getting rid of the Saudi Royal family is more trouble than could possibly be imagined. We have no choice but to deal with them. They’re only friendly when it suits them, and of late it has not suited them. But like I said, if we leave, we’ll be back.
This site shows that the United States has, in the last two out of three years, given less foreign aid than Japan. Also that as a percent of GNP, we’re behind practically every wealthy country on the planet. http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
You should be ashamed about US aid, Lola, not bragging.
…
Being well-spoken, polite, and educated, people were often curious about where I came from. They always guessed… Canada. They couldn’t believe it when I told them California.
Doors, I do not think you and I are living on the same planet.
The House of Saud is tottering. It is under fire from the judiciary as well as the powerful clerical contingent, so politically active in Saudi Arabia. The royal family’s mismanagement resulted in a $12 billion dollar deficit for Saudi Arabia in 2001. It couldn’t even remit a $100 million payment to Barclay’s in April due to a “cash flow problem.” Plummeting oil prices, the decline in per capita income, the gulf war, and gross corruption have bled Saudi Arabia dry. Its proportionally large population of young males, 30% of which are unemployed, are crying for blood.
Do I have to mention the hated US military presence?
I hate to disagree with another service member, but seriously Doors
???
The American forces at PSAB are not what’s deterring Iraq for attacking Saudi Arabia. Maybe we’re hiding a huge armor force at Eskon Village that I missed? Be for real. It’s the unavoidable COALITION response the Iraqis know follows such an action that keeps them in check. Why the fuck do you think they didn’t take the KSA in 90? They were hoping the bullshit “wayward province/internal struggle” excuse would be plausible enough to give the west a reason to stay out a war.
Getting back to OP, in the MSNBC article the briefing is quoted as stating:
“THE SAUDIS are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader”
“Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies,” said the briefing prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corporation analyst. A talking point attached to the last of 24 briefing slides went even further, describing Saudi Arabia as “the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” in the Middle East."
This is the key to the issue. I see no one in this thread arguing for or against these allegations. If they are true, then the Saudis are indeed out enemies, whether some official says they are our enemies or not.
Did they offer any evidence, or just handy soundbites like “kernel of evil”?
</cynicism>
Actually, I don’t know enough to judge the Saudi regime’s intentions or involvement in sponsoring terrorism, but that briefing was awfully light on details and heavy on rhetoric.
Wahabism is the dominant sect. There is no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. If you don’t like Shari’a law - find another country. They support terrorism from the funding to the execution. We have been pretending they are our allies all along. Or gas using proclivities make the US essential to Saudi survival, the Saudis have to put a good mask on to sell it to us. Here is a WaPo article on the same issue.
Yea, the article was weak. The Saudi’s are trying to play both sides of the fence. On one hand we are a great customer and a military ally (being pals with the strongest country on earth is a good thing most of the time). On the other hand a large section of the population either actively hates us or at least isn’t pleased with our foreign policy. The fact that we still station around five thousand “infidels defiling the Holy Land” (i.e. US Troops) there doesn’t help. Add to the mix the precarious position Maeglin brought up and they’re (The House of Saud) in a bad spot. They have to do what it takes to keep us happy and at the same time placate the populous. I’d play both sides of the fence too if I were them. It’s probably keeping them in power (lord knows it’s not the powers of freedom and justice…)
To relate this back to the OP I don’t believe Saudi Arabia (meaning the Government) is “turning into an enemy” or that “We don’t like the Saudis anymore.”
Well…I’m certainly not a lover of the US foreign policies, but if there’s a middle eastern country which should be considered as “evil” in my book, Saudi Arabia certainly fits the bill. By comparison, Iran is a heaven of public and religious freedom, and a great friend of western countries…
I can understand why it can be convenient for the US to keep SA as an ally from a “realpolitik” point of view, but the hypocrisy in doing so is so blatantly obvious that it’s laughable…
when the Saudi oil runs out?I know their reserves are vast-but ponder for a moment what will happen to this nation when the wells start to run dry. The country has no industrial base, it has a very limited area of arable land, and it has next to no influence in world affairs. So, outside of its deposits in foreign banks, and the debt obligations it holds, what will sustain this country? I understand that it has a huge population growth, which accounts for the unemployed, disgruntled young men (who were the major source of the 9/11 terrorist-murderers).
Come to think of it. Iraq doesn’t sound so bad after all-maybe we should announce an alliance with Saddam hussein.
Saudi Arabia (in 50 years time) is a disaster waiting to happen.
…so when it runs dry, we’re in deep shit as much as they are. (They need our money; we need their oil.) But it’s gonna be a few years yet.
Iraq is the runnerup with about 40% of what the Saudis have. Here’s the DOE chart of the world’s reserves. Nobody can really replace the Saudis as a supplier of petroleum; they have us, almost literally, over a barrel.
Speaking of making enemies of the entire Middle East, here’s a Christian Science Monitor article about Iran’s nuclear program, and the question of whether it’s aimed at nuclear weapons, or just energy.
To my knowledge, nobody’s accused the Saudis of trying to develop “weapons of mass destruction” of any form. Which can’t be said about Iraq, and probably not about Iran.
And as long as we guzzle the oil we do, we don’t have a whole lot of play in dealing with Saudi Arabia: we need them - and specifically the stable present regime - too badly. If there’s a revolution there, there will be hell to pay here.
Steps 1,2, and 3 in dealing with the Middle East: conserve, conserve, and conserve. (Oil, that is.) Once our economic options are better, we’ll have more flexibility in dealing with them diplomatically and militarily.
But oddly enough, the same conservatives who want to pick a fight with the whole damned region seem to be the ones to whom conservation is anathema. (Of course, that applies to most conservatives of any influence.) I can’t figure that part out, but I guess that’s why I’m here and they’re there.
As for the sentiment in the OP, many have sufficiently pointed out that Saudi Arabia, beneath a paper-thin veneer, has been no ally to the U.S. Find a country in the Middle East where the populace is more anti-American than Saudi Arabia. Go ahead; I’ll wait.
The Saud leaders are sleazy decadents who likely won’t last long. And the alternative is even worse, from the American perspective. A fundamentalist Islamic government in Saudi Arabia seems almost an inevitability.
And I believe the U.S. sees the writing on the wall with this. Hence the rather quiet moving of our key Gulf military base to Qatar in recent months.
John O’Sullivan in the Chicago Sun-Times had a column today on why Saddam Hussein’s regime must go in Iraq.
I don’t agree with some of what he has to say. But he does make an interesting point against the argument that an attack on Iraq will spark a huge Middle Eastern uprising against the US, an idea that has recently been espoused by former Ford and Bush the Elder National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, as well as many Democrats.
Would the Iraqi people welcome us as liberators, as the vast majority of Afghanis did? I don’t know.
But the idea sure is appealing. We, uh, obviously have a better relationship with Afghanistan now than we did under the Taliban. If we remain diligent in supporting the new government there, I think good things could happen. A relatively thriving economy for that region could take root. As could a democratic government heading in a direction away from the religious, repressive hard-line.
A victory in Iraq could help us wean ourselves from the bizarre alliance we have with Saudi Arabia. As strange as it may sound, Iraq could end up a friend to the U.S. in that region, at least relatively speaking. And with a government, like Afghanistan, that bucks a regional trend we should see as a HUGE concern.
Why in the name of Christs fetid kidneys should we be ashamed for forking over money? There are problems here, in the US. There are a lot of people that are loosing scads of money, and unemployment is on the rise, but yet we still dish out the money hand over fist.
And lets not just look at cash, also look at actual goods that are given away… food, in particular.
We would be perfectly within our rights to dry up ALL the foreign aid we dole out every year. It seems to my uneducated self that all we get for it is pain and ingratitude, and sniveling whiners saying that we don’t do enough!
All developed countries give aid. Even pissant little countries like Ireland “dish out the money hand over fist”. And a lot of those countries give a higher proportion of aid per capita and per GDP than the US.
If someone is ashamed that the richest country on the planet doesn’t give as much as less well-off countries, they might just have a goddamned point.
Of course it’s within your rights to dry up foreign aid. But it’s very, very unwise. If you can’t bring yourself to laud humanitarianism, then how about: the more aid developing nations get, the less likely they are to go “rogue”. Or, if you like, the greater the market for US goods.