Fitzgerald on "Why We Don't Need the Saudis"

Aug 16, 2008 21:16

The following from Hugh Fitzgerald, "Why We Do Not Need the Saudis" in Dhimmi Watch, Front Page Magazinehttp://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022239.php#moreRead more... )

economics, saudi arabia, diplomacy, oil, islam

Leave a comment

Comments 14

fizzyland August 17 2008, 14:25:53 UTC
Actually they're not unruly vassals either, but a sovereign nation, albeit one we've made an ally of convenience.

Reply

jordan179 August 17 2008, 20:24:26 UTC
Saudi "sovereignity" does not morally deserve the same respect as does, say, French or Japanese.

Reply

fizzyland August 18 2008, 17:24:24 UTC
And why is that?

Reply

jordan179 August 18 2008, 20:00:41 UTC
Saudi "sovereignity" does not morally deserve the same respect as does, say, French or Japanese.

And why is that?

Because they are, compared to us, the French or the Japanese, barbarians. They enforce a state religion, they keep slaves, and they horrible abuse and oppress their own female population. They are worthy only of our contempt.

Reply


ghostwolf August 18 2008, 01:01:05 UTC
The day we take the attitude that we are the sole remaining super-power, we will (again) be a target for every pip-squeak with an axe to grind. And they might be right.

All we need to do is stop buying from them, and stop selling to them. Let them try to be as self-sufficient as we can be ... if we're willing to bite the bullet.

But bullying? How childish does this country need to become before we are asked to leave the room?

Reply

jordan179 August 18 2008, 01:54:51 UTC
We don't even need to "bite the bullet," because Saudi Arabia can't embargo us effectively enough to hurt us much, and to embargo us even that effectively we'd have to commit political suicide. Demanding that another country stop funding incitement to violence in one's own country is not "bullying" -- it is reasonable self-defense. Enforcing one's own laws in one's own country is even less "bullying."

And who is going to ask us to "leave the room?" And what does that even mean?

Reply

ghostwolf August 18 2008, 14:42:20 UTC
Though the US may have veto power as one of the Big Five, that wouldn't stop anyone from "suggesting" we leave the United Nations, which is an oxymoron.

Reply

jordan179 August 18 2008, 15:03:21 UTC
Any number of somebodies may "suggest" we leave the UN, but given our veto power it's hard to see how this would be enforced. Of course, it's not like leaving the UN would make much difference to _us_ anyway. The UN might come to regret it, though, when they lost their headquarters and their main enforcer.

Reply


selfishgene August 18 2008, 17:22:30 UTC
So if the US ceases to back the Saud family and the bin Laden family takes over, how will you feel then?
Personally I don't care, because propping up the Sauds never made any sense to me. Let their own people tear them limb from limb, as they deserve.

Reply

jordan179 August 18 2008, 19:58:40 UTC
So if the US ceases to back the Saud family and the bin Laden family takes over, how will you feel then?

Assuming that the bin Laden family supports Osama's objectives, just fine, because the sequel will be the American capture of the Saudi oil fields -- and hopefully, this time we'll be smart enough to grab them for ourselves, instead of giving them back to the Arabs.

Arabia is a paper tiger. It has vast wealth and very little capacity to defend itself. Even the purchase of Western arms does little to change this, because the Arabs of the peninsula are thin on the ground, and very poor soldiers.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up