8 ms·

The United States sends them billions of dollars worth of arms, surveillance tech and other tools to oppress the Saudi populace. It does this (and has done this

The United States sends them billions of dollars worth of arms, surveillance tech and other tools to oppress the Saudi populace. It does this (and has done this for many decades now) in order to keep the oil flowing. In other words, it props up an illegitimate dictatorial family, and in turn they keep the oil flowing at a fairly stable and cheap price. And now you wonder why young Sauds who are oppressed by this situation hate the United States? The people's oil is taken out of the ground by an illegitimate government propped up by the people who buy the oil at what they perceive to be below the fair price. Make no mistake, the source of the problem is the United States.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
No, the source of the problem is the local rulers. Sorry, they don't get to be absolved of responsibility for their actions. They make their own choices.
- colanderman 14y ago
  By that logic it is OK to donate money to terrorist groups, because they make their own choices and are solely to blame for their actions. Correct?
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Please refrain from making strawman arguments. We're discussing the source of the problem. The source is in fact the local rulers. They make the choices. The US sells arms to the rulers, as does the UK. Europe buys oil from them, as does China, in large amounts. But none of these nations force the KSA government to be oppressive. That's a choice the government there makes.
    - colanderman 14y ago
      No one forces terrorists to terrorize. Therefore donating no-strings-attached monetary aid to terrorists is not to blame for acts of terrorism, correct? I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so. Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. What do governments exist to do? To govern. There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people. Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people. So it's not really analogous. In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.
        sandollars 14y ago
        > what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. Seriously? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.
        ars 14y ago
        > One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible. If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.
        Someone 14y ago
        Somebody should help terrorists choose names for their organizations, then: - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom - IRA = Irish Republican Army etc. I would call someone whose goal is killing a soldier or a murderer. IMO, the reason terrorists kill civilians is the same as why, in a dispute between two children of largely different strength, the one who is verbally weakest will start fighting, and the one who is physically weakest then will start fighting dirty (biting, nail scratching, hair pulling, etc)
      - clarky07 14y ago
        It breaks down because our government exists to serve us, not the Saudis. Supporting terrorists is obviously 100% bad for us. Supporting cheap oil, while maybe not 100% good, certainly is an easier argument to make. Would we prefer they didn't put their women in de facto slavery? Of course. Does it effect us? No. Would a rebel govt that disrupts oil production effect us? Yes.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      Some would say that being buddies with these rulers (Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Saudies were close friends and allies), buying oil and selling arms is exactly what enables KSA and co. to be "oppressive".
- freshhawk 14y ago
  And of course there has to be a single source right? What a childish worldview. By your logic: It's not the royal family's fault either since all the awful stuff gets done by employees, who don't get to be absolved of responsibility of their actions. They make their own choices.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
Make no mistake, the source of the problem is the United States. Yes, you're quite right. There was absolutely no oppression of women in the region before the United States came on the scene, or before oil was discovered there. (sarcasm, in case it's not clear)
- maurits 14y ago
  Thomas Friedman, in "hot flat and crowded" makes an elaborate case linking the price of crude oil to the undemocratic and oppressive nature of (middle eastern) governments.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    How does he explain the undemocratic and oppressive nature (in general) of middle eastern governments for millennia before oil was even discovered?
    - mkhattab 14y ago
      Undemocratic and oppressive nature of mideast governments for millennia? Seriously? :) I'm sensing a prejudicial subtext from your comment and other comments you made, that you think the governments and the people they represent, are incapable of producing prosperous and just societies.
    - pvarangot 14y ago
      Millennia? You do realize democracy is a less-than-four-hundreds year old concept? At least in its modern sense, which I would like to think is the one you are referring to when speaking about women rights (i.e. "democracy" that abhors slavery/serfdom... those slave athenian woman definitely had no rights).
      - 001sky 14y ago
        You do realize democracy is a less-than-four-hundreds year old concept? --Wait, WAT? In general, you confuse citizenship with democracy; and more particularly, you confuse a republic, with a democracy (the USA is the former, not the latter). Democracy is an ancient concept. Equally as old and well known are its many "problems", of which the ancients were well versed. The notion of a republic is an (historically) more sophisticated take on a democracy, and is well over two millenia old (Rome, etc).
legutierr 14y ago
To keep the oil flowing? No, I don't think that's the US's primary motivation. With so much money to be made, there is very little that could stop the oil flowing (think how quickly Iraq's oil came back online, even in the face of insurgency). No, the main thing that the US has at stake is the fact that the petroleum markets are denominated in US currency. It is this fact above all others that makes the dollar the world's reserve currency, and it is what makes the US the world's economic hegemon. As Meyer Rothschild said, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I don't care who makes the laws." Such is the case for the United States because of petrodollar, which is truly what is at stake in Saudi Arabia.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

No, the source of the problem is the local rulers. Sorry, they don't get to be absolved of responsibility for their actions. They make their own choices.

colanderman 14y ago
By that logic it is OK to donate money to terrorist groups, because they make their own choices and are solely to blame for their actions. Correct?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Please refrain from making strawman arguments. We're discussing the source of the problem. The source is in fact the local rulers. They make the choices. The US sells arms to the rulers, as does the UK. Europe buys oil from them, as does China, in large amounts. But none of these nations force the KSA government to be oppressive. That's a choice the government there makes.
  - colanderman 14y ago
    No one forces terrorists to terrorize. Therefore donating no-strings-attached monetary aid to terrorists is not to blame for acts of terrorism, correct? I'm merely forming an analogous argument to yours: mine is in support of subsidizing terrorists, yours is in support of subsidizing systematic violators of human rights. If you can point out why the analogy is not valid, please do so. Re: your edit: at issue is not that the US purchases goods from the Saudis (though it could be argued that we have a moral obligation to impose an embargo), but rather, as the parent of your post suggested, that the US subsidizes artificially low oil prices from the region.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. What do governments exist to do? To govern. There are all sorts of choices to make about how to govern, many of which do not oppress the people. Any form of terrorism by its nature will harm people. So it's not really analogous. In no way is the source of the oppression the US, or Europe, or China. The source of the oppression is the Saudi government.
      - sandollars 14y ago
        > what do terrorist organizations exist to do? To terrorize. Seriously? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is always an agenda, and terrorism is merely a means to an end that frustrated and (usually) deeply disturbed human beings turn to when they see no other viable course of action.
        ars 14y ago
        > One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter People say this a lot, but actually one mans terrorist is another mans terrorist. Legitimizing targeting civilians as "freedom fighting" is horrible. If you actually fight for freedom, then freedom is the goal. But the goal of a terrorist is killing.
        Someone 14y ago
        Somebody should help terrorists choose names for their organizations, then: - PLO = Palestine Liberation Front - ETA = Basque Homeland and Freedom - IRA = Irish Republican Army etc. I would call someone whose goal is killing a soldier or a murderer. IMO, the reason terrorists kill civilians is the same as why, in a dispute between two children of largely different strength, the one who is verbally weakest will start fighting, and the one who is physically weakest then will start fighting dirty (biting, nail scratching, hair pulling, etc)
    - clarky07 14y ago
      It breaks down because our government exists to serve us, not the Saudis. Supporting terrorists is obviously 100% bad for us. Supporting cheap oil, while maybe not 100% good, certainly is an easier argument to make. Would we prefer they didn't put their women in de facto slavery? Of course. Does it effect us? No. Would a rebel govt that disrupts oil production effect us? Yes.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    Some would say that being buddies with these rulers (Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Saudies were close friends and allies), buying oil and selling arms is exactly what enables KSA and co. to be "oppressive".
freshhawk 14y ago
And of course there has to be a single source right? What a childish worldview. By your logic: It's not the royal family's fault either since all the awful stuff gets done by employees, who don't get to be absolved of responsibility of their actions. They make their own choices.

Turing_Machine 14y ago

Make no mistake, the source of the problem is the United States. Yes, you're quite right. There was absolutely no oppression of women in the region before the United States came on the scene, or before oil was discovered there. (sarcasm, in case it's not clear)

maurits 14y ago
Thomas Friedman, in "hot flat and crowded" makes an elaborate case linking the price of crude oil to the undemocratic and oppressive nature of (middle eastern) governments.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  How does he explain the undemocratic and oppressive nature (in general) of middle eastern governments for millennia before oil was even discovered?
  - mkhattab 14y ago
    Undemocratic and oppressive nature of mideast governments for millennia? Seriously? :) I'm sensing a prejudicial subtext from your comment and other comments you made, that you think the governments and the people they represent, are incapable of producing prosperous and just societies.
  - pvarangot 14y ago
    Millennia? You do realize democracy is a less-than-four-hundreds year old concept? At least in its modern sense, which I would like to think is the one you are referring to when speaking about women rights (i.e. "democracy" that abhors slavery/serfdom... those slave athenian woman definitely had no rights).
    - 001sky 14y ago
      You do realize democracy is a less-than-four-hundreds year old concept? --Wait, WAT? In general, you confuse citizenship with democracy; and more particularly, you confuse a republic, with a democracy (the USA is the former, not the latter). Democracy is an ancient concept. Equally as old and well known are its many "problems", of which the ancients were well versed. The notion of a republic is an (historically) more sophisticated take on a democracy, and is well over two millenia old (Rome, etc).

legutierr 14y ago

To keep the oil flowing? No, I don't think that's the US's primary motivation. With so much money to be made, there is very little that could stop the oil flowing (think how quickly Iraq's oil came back online, even in the face of insurgency). No, the main thing that the US has at stake is the fact that the petroleum markets are denominated in US currency. It is this fact above all others that makes the dollar the world's reserve currency, and it is what makes the US the world's economic hegemon. As Meyer Rothschild said, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I don't care who makes the laws." Such is the case for the United States because of petrodollar, which is truly what is at stake in Saudi Arabia.