4 ms·

Last time I checked a lot of that Saudi wealth sits in dollar denominated assets. Good luck with the devaution!

devoply 8y ago
Not only that the US are big fans of "freedom" and regime change for the sake of "freedom" when people want to ditch the dollar.
- thefounder 8y ago
  You kill two birds with one stone but I soubt they will invade SA anytime soon. It would be huge mistake...and for what?
  - devoply 8y ago
    Yes or you dress up genocide and usurping people's resources and pretend as if that's the case.
    - thefounder 8y ago
      Let's face it: who likes dictatorships? To overthrone a regime there is a price to be paid and nobody will pay that price unless there is something to gain(i.e economically or geo-political). I'm ok with that as long as it's done right(which was not case with Iraq) but let's not pretend that it's moral to let these pesky dictators die by natural causes.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        Sometimes we have not developed the methods yet to remove the cancer without seriously hurting the patient. (The country.) That's just life. There should be a Hippocratic oath for geopolitical intervention.
        close04 8y ago
        In a country's case "the cancer" always has to be replaced with something. The US definitely has no working recipe for that, as several decades have shown.
        devoply 8y ago
        The US first gives them cancer and then rushes into to cure it. But all it's got for a cure is snake oil. It makes billion selling that.
        geezerjay 8y ago
        Venezuela and Cuba demonstrate thay letting the cancer fester is not a good solution either.
        jacobush 8y ago
        First of all, how do they demonstrate that? It's not like you can go back in time and test what a Bay of Pigs 2.0 would have resulted in. Secondly, you don't have millions of refugees, genocide and an entire generation not in school, in Cuba. So there's that. Venezuela I don't know anything about.
        close04 8y ago
        Let's not kid ourselves, the US doesn't pour hundreds of billions of dollars every year into the war effort because they want to fix "the cancer" and the locals' problems. They do it for political and economical reasons (power/influence/money). Which is why all such regime changes bring no measurable increase in the quality of life of the local people. So then, from the perspective of the local Venezuelan or Cuban, what exactly is the difference between a festering cancer and a replacement cancer beyond looking at other countries getting richer / more powerful by extending their influence into yet another country?
        GoblinSlayer 8y ago
        They replace it with a puppet cancer that lets money flow into USA that bad dictator cancer didn't let.
  - ilaksh 8y ago
    The US doesn't need to invade Saudi Arabia because it already has a major Air Force base there.

Not only that the US are big fans of "freedom" and regime change for the sake of "freedom" when people want to ditch the dollar.

thefounder 8y ago
You kill two birds with one stone but I soubt they will invade SA anytime soon. It would be huge mistake...and for what?
- devoply 8y ago
  Yes or you dress up genocide and usurping people's resources and pretend as if that's the case.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    Let's face it: who likes dictatorships? To overthrone a regime there is a price to be paid and nobody will pay that price unless there is something to gain(i.e economically or geo-political). I'm ok with that as long as it's done right(which was not case with Iraq) but let's not pretend that it's moral to let these pesky dictators die by natural causes.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Sometimes we have not developed the methods yet to remove the cancer without seriously hurting the patient. (The country.) That's just life. There should be a Hippocratic oath for geopolitical intervention.
      - close04 8y ago
        In a country's case "the cancer" always has to be replaced with something. The US definitely has no working recipe for that, as several decades have shown.
        devoply 8y ago
        The US first gives them cancer and then rushes into to cure it. But all it's got for a cure is snake oil. It makes billion selling that.
        geezerjay 8y ago
        Venezuela and Cuba demonstrate thay letting the cancer fester is not a good solution either.
        jacobush 8y ago
        First of all, how do they demonstrate that? It's not like you can go back in time and test what a Bay of Pigs 2.0 would have resulted in. Secondly, you don't have millions of refugees, genocide and an entire generation not in school, in Cuba. So there's that. Venezuela I don't know anything about.
        close04 8y ago
        Let's not kid ourselves, the US doesn't pour hundreds of billions of dollars every year into the war effort because they want to fix "the cancer" and the locals' problems. They do it for political and economical reasons (power/influence/money). Which is why all such regime changes bring no measurable increase in the quality of life of the local people. So then, from the perspective of the local Venezuelan or Cuban, what exactly is the difference between a festering cancer and a replacement cancer beyond looking at other countries getting richer / more powerful by extending their influence into yet another country?
        GoblinSlayer 8y ago
        They replace it with a puppet cancer that lets money flow into USA that bad dictator cancer didn't let.
- ilaksh 8y ago
  The US doesn't need to invade Saudi Arabia because it already has a major Air Force base there.