3 ms·

This reeks of condescension. I don't believe US made Saudi Arabia, but I do think Saudi Arabia benefited from US and US from Saudi. The partnership was a good o

This reeks of condescension. I don't believe US made Saudi Arabia, but I do think Saudi Arabia benefited from US and US from Saudi. The partnership was a good one for both probably, but America through it ingeniousness and also through circumstances ended up being the country with highest GDP. Now Saudi has capital and resources, it is upto it on how it uses it, it is interesting article from NYtimes that talks about the challenges Saudis face, but I dont believe that "Saudi" or any country for that matter is destined for failure.

dpc59 11y ago
Saudi aramco was a company built by occidental capital, the saudi regime was propped up by occidental politicians, saudi arabia's borders were drawn by england.
- thetruthseeker1 11y ago
  Not sure why I got down voted for this! I hope I am not down voted just because people disagree with my view point? I thought the guidelines clearly said that you only down vote when I say something that does not add value to the discussion. If Saudi's borders were drawn by England, how did US make Saudi by that definition. I still stand my ground that there is some kind of a we(US and England) are better than you (Saudi Arabia ) tone here. Occidental Capital is a private enterprise it looks like, a private enterprise is not a nation. A private enterprise can relocate, it can shut down, it can spin off, it can undergo merger and a complete metamorphosis to a degree that it has no resemblance to the original company (unlike a nation). If occidental capital funded the initial setup of Saudi Aramco, it does not mean US nor UK did it!
  - elthran 11y ago
    I believe he is using the word occidental as the opposite of oriental - rather than the easier to comprehend western
- thetruthseeker1 11y ago
  I find the argument really odd. For eg: India's borders were drawn by the British in 1947. Is the British responsible for the staggering growth rate of India or any success attributed to India since. Same thing with Saudi: US or any other country did what they did, I am sure taking into account their interests. Since both India and Saudi Arabia are sovereign nations, it is their actions that have either propped them up or otherwise.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

dpc59 11y ago

Saudi aramco was a company built by occidental capital, the saudi regime was propped up by occidental politicians, saudi arabia's borders were drawn by england.

thetruthseeker1 11y ago
Not sure why I got down voted for this! I hope I am not down voted just because people disagree with my view point? I thought the guidelines clearly said that you only down vote when I say something that does not add value to the discussion. If Saudi's borders were drawn by England, how did US make Saudi by that definition. I still stand my ground that there is some kind of a we(US and England) are better than you (Saudi Arabia ) tone here. Occidental Capital is a private enterprise it looks like, a private enterprise is not a nation. A private enterprise can relocate, it can shut down, it can spin off, it can undergo merger and a complete metamorphosis to a degree that it has no resemblance to the original company (unlike a nation). If occidental capital funded the initial setup of Saudi Aramco, it does not mean US nor UK did it!
- elthran 11y ago
  I believe he is using the word occidental as the opposite of oriental - rather than the easier to comprehend western
thetruthseeker1 11y ago
I find the argument really odd. For eg: India's borders were drawn by the British in 1947. Is the British responsible for the staggering growth rate of India or any success attributed to India since. Same thing with Saudi: US or any other country did what they did, I am sure taking into account their interests. Since both India and Saudi Arabia are sovereign nations, it is their actions that have either propped them up or otherwise.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]