No one talks about getting rid of the Saudi regime...

[Bonobo]

Funny how the country that gave us Osama Bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, a country where there is no vote, that is under mandatory Shariah law, where women cannot drive and must be covered from head to toe in black, and that is considered one of the most authoritarian in the world is NEVER discussed in relation to the "Arab Spring".

Wow, weird huh?

[struggle4progress]

1. oil

[HiPointDem]

2. sure is weird. and you're correct "never". also the emirates, kuwait, etc. "never". because

there are no human rights problems in those states, no sirreee.

fuck these warmaking, murdering, lying hypocrites.

it seriously gags me to read the recycled boilerplate from iraq and afghanistan they're using in syria -- as they send their operatives in to destabilize it.

lying murderers.

[Politicalboi]

3. Not to mention

The close friendship between Bush and Bin Ladens. There is much more to 9/11 than will ever be known. By not bombing Saudi Arabia is like bombing China for Pearl Harbor. But us "truthers" don't know shit about 9/11. Just conspiracy theories like how our Pentagon let itself get hit, or why the terrorist didn't fly out of JFK. Fake bombs taped to their bodies would have worked. That and "terrorist" that knew how to defend themselves. But we're the ones who are nuts. No public trials of the "terrorist" who did 9/11. All hush hush. But isn't that how we always handle "terrorist" cases. Oh that's right, NO!

[JDPriestly]

56. In Rachel Maddow's book, Drift, she states something to the effect

that the conflict between Bin Laden and Al Qaeda v. the Bushes was due to the fact that Bush I had sent U.S. troops to fight in Iraq in Kuwait the First Gulf War when Bin Laden had wanted his Al Qaeda forces to fight in that conflict.

You can read her book on this.

Who knows? If that is true, maybe we would not have had 9/11 if Gore had been elected.

[OnyxCollie]

4. Weird how watching FOX News

made you more likely believe misperceptions about the Iraq war, thus making you more likely to see Iraq as a threat and to increase support for the war, when the second-largest shareholder in FOX News is Saudi prince Al-waleed bin Talal, part of the Saudi royal family who would really benefit from a US attack on Iraq/Al Qaeda in two ways: First, the Saudi royal family sees Al Qaeda as a threat because AQ rejects the royals' opulent lifestyle as congruent with Islam. Second, if peak oil has been reached and Saudi Arabia is no longer the top swing producer, it needs to knock off any threats to its OPEC leadership.

[Berlum]

6. The Saudis own Fox-Republican "news"?

Ya got to wonder what the average Republican thinks of that strange unAmerican reality that their party leaders so intimately embrace.

[OnyxCollie]

16. They *don't* think about that.

Bring it up and they'll switch the topic to General Electric, even though GE has a minority share in NBC.

[Berlum]

17. But, but, but...it's traitorous to deliberately remain IGNORANT

About the Saudis jerking the Republican puppet-and-propaganda strings....

[OnyxCollie]

18. That would mean learning new things.

And new things means new fears, so it's better not to think about new things and instead think about old (incorrect) things, which makes them feel superior because THEY KNOW all that needs to be done is to get rid of those loony far-leftist, socialist, Marxist, communist, progressive liberals in the Democrat party.

[Berlum]

19. You mean learning & dealing with the fact that virtually all the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis (R)?

[Berlum]

20. Bill O'Reilly (R) thinks his party & company being OWNED by the Saudis is "funny"

[OnyxCollie]

21. Funny thing is,

I've had arguments with alleged Democrats who refuse to consider that 9/11 was MIHOP/LIHOP, yet they dodge the question as to why the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia when nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian.

[Berlum]

28. This kind of factual discussion about who is pulling Republican strings could get us Dungeonized

[sabrina 1]

5. Or the brutal Bahrain regime or the brutal Dictator of Uzbekistan. We were very selective

when it comes to our dictator allies.

[harun]

7. ..., Bronze Age, Iron Age, Oil Age

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. Am I the only one to have a copy?

[Bonobo]

9. +1 nt

[tclambert]

13. Exactly. The Bush family is all kissy, kissy with the Saudis.

So it doesn't matter that all but one of the 9/11 terrorists was a Saudi. It doesn't matter that the money trails led back to Saudi Arabia. They get a pass, and special treatment, and oh, hey, look at Iraq! Axis of evil! Axis of evil!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. They got all kinds of special treatment.

[img][/img]

[woo me with science]

10. Imagine that.

Wake up, America.

[NNN0LHI]

11. If you knew anything about a US company called The Vinnell Corporation you would understand

Has nothing to do with being weird.

Don

[joshcryer]

12. The people protested but the Saudi's upped their monthly stipend.

The people stopped protesting.

Are you advocating for attacking them?

[Bonobo]

14. No Josh, I'm not the one that supports wars.

I thought you and I had talked enough for you to know that.

[joshcryer]

30. Then why are you concerned about "getting rid of the Saudi regime"?

[leveymg]

32. KSA wasn't on the list for regime change. See "A Clean Break" (Perle, Feith, Wurmser, PNAC 1997)

There's a perfectly good reason, Josh, why we never talk about Saudi regime change. It's not part of the neocon agenda as laid out by the guys who invented the cassus belli for War with Iraq. Check. Next, regime change in Damascus, install a puppet in Lebanon, then onward to the ultimate prize on the PNAC list, Iran. The point of the whole thing, the "Clean Break" is to create a Right-wing Greater Israel that feeds off its regional alliances and is no longer constrained by Washington. Just read the document, it's all there, just as was written by American neocons for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997. A remarkably prescient document: http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

The marriage of interest between the Israeli Right-wing and the Saudi Oil Sheiks, and their cooperation in influencing Washington to intervene militarily in regional conflicts to the detriment of US interests and influence -- it's happening again -- is a subject that needs a lot more attention, not less.

Are you suggesting it shouldn't be discussed here?

[joshcryer]

34. The OP appears concerned about Saudi regime change.

I'm fine with such a thing being discussed. I just want to make sure that we're getting our support straight here.

Does the OP support Saudi regime change?

[leveymg]

36. Why does the OP have to clarify his own position? He's asking why the subject isn't raised.

What interest is this to you? Are you picking a team?

People's positions are sometimes so nuanced that they don't want to choose sides, or their own attitudes are undergoing change but want to discuss the subject. It's okay to be deeply ambivalent about this one. Isn't it?

[joshcryer]

37. Right, so basically, it's all about not taking a stance somewhere.

If the Saudi people rose up like any other country in the Arab Spring I would be fully behind the people rising up.

[leveymg]

38. The "Arab Spring" isn't a template that fits all cases. Not every revolution means change

or serves the interests of the people on the street.

I wouldn't assume that the US Government would be behind an uprising of the Saudi people, unless we were in control the outcome. And, we're not. That's one lesson of 9/11 apparently unlearned.

[joshcryer]

41. Nor would I. But I would be behind them.

[Bonobo]

42. It is almost funny how badly you missed the point...but instructive.

Last edited Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not advocating for the overthrow of the Saudi Regime. It simply is not the point of the OP.

The point of the OP is to shed light on the dark relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia.

The point of the OP is to help people to look at issues that are NOT discussed -to focus on what is not said by the MM and not always respond by what is thrown in front of them. In other words, to actively think and question.

When watching CNN, Fox, NBC et al. it is important to ask "Why are we being shown something? Who's purpose does it serve?" and then to ask "What are they NOT discussing and why?"

In your case, you quickly jumped to a conclusion and entirely missed the point.

Furthermore, the fact that you said you would support any military action as long as you view "the people rising up" is laughable. Do you really think that any rebel activity is always "'The People (capital P) rising up"? How could you possibly have the confidence that you could accurately judge when a true people's movement is happening when it is difficult to do so even in retrospect?

In addition, do you mean to day that as long as people are NOT taking military action, it exonerates the government of being an authoritarian swamp that should be overthrown?

[joshcryer]

45. I know that. Basically you want to caricature people who support the downtrodden...

...and oppressed as "warmongers."

[Bonobo]

47. Man, Josh, you really put the "My" in Myopic. nt

[Bonobo]

48. nintended consequences result when you advocate for war. Look.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014180835

[joshcryer]

49. LOL.

Same shit was said about Libya.

[Dokkie]

43. Libya did the same thing

When Saudi upped the stipend and salaries for citizen govt workers, Libya did the same for citizens and non citizen govt workers. Funny the country with the highest standard of living in Africa is revolting against the govt who presiding over it.

[joshcryer]

44. Libya did it after the uprising not before.

[Dokkie]

46. and what difference does it make?

Actually the foreign fighters were already on the way. Gaddafi could have given everybody a 100% raise and it wouldn't have made a difference.

[joshcryer]

50. Half the country was under opposition control?

The Saudis paid out within days of the protests. DAYS.

Gaddafi didn't do it for months.

[Selatius]

57. +1. They pre-empted the whole protest movement by bribing it in its infancy. nt

[treestar]

22. Why haven't protests arisen as in the other countries?

It may be that they at least take care of everyone enough - they have so much money that there isn't anyone there who doesn't feel like they are part of it in some way. At least as to money and riches. Women's rights is a different type of thing.

[FSogol]

23. Not that weird. The US has always favored stability over Democracy in foreign affairs

If Saudi Arabians want reform, they'll need to do 99.9% of the work before getting any support from the US.

[Odin2005]

24. Sunni Muslims considers the Saudis to be the protectors of Mecca.

Ousting the Saudis would lead to a holy war.

[leveymg]

33. The Saudis are already engaged in a holy war, against the Shi'ia.

And, after we helped them in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Muslim former Soviet states in Central Asia, the program "blew back" against us on 9/11. Apparently, we've learned nothing because we're in bed with Saudi paramilitary and al-Qaeda again in Syria.

Iran is next on the list of apostate states that the "protectors of Mecca" want to annihilate.

[raouldukelives]

25. Some of the biggest money in Wall St.

Once you have large ownership & control of assets the bought out "leaders" in this country will bend over backward to appease you. Even if it means working directly against Americans.
They don't care about borders or fanciful notions on liberty. About human rights or environmental crimes. Only about money and the need for more above the needs of humanity and animals. As does anyone with money mingled with them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. Stop! Don't they own Fox News?

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, 7% of Rupert Murdochs News Corporation and in bed with the Bushes.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Hey, what's this have to do with Romney/Palin/Paul...?

Americans have gouged out their own eyes. K&R.

[indepat]

29. Heavens no. Everyone has seen how the Saudi rulers are our kissy-face buds

[Coyotl]

31. Saudi Arabia’s $36 Billion Insurance Policy Against Regime Change Protests

They can afford to avoid it!

http://themoderatevoice.com/102436/saudi-arabias-36-billion-insurance-policy-against-regime-change-protests/

[MNBrewer]

35. Mittens said Iran was the most destabilizing nation in the world. I think Saudi is at least as bad.

[spanone]

40. but isn't the 'soviet union' the gravest danger?

[KansDem]

61. I remember when China was the "gravest danger."

They were going to march down through Vietnam, then SE Asia, then Australia, and then...MainStreet, USA!!!

The Commies were going to take away our freedoms and put us into re-education camps!

I'm not sure when, exactly, but then Big Corp saw a country with cheap labor and resources, and now we buy China's products and services on MainStreet, USA.

Gone are the days of air-raid siren-testing, and "duck and cover." It's bizarre, but I now have clothes made in China, Cambodia, and Vietnam...

[MNBrewer]

62. True, the Romney camp is very concerned about the Soviet threat.

[spanone]

39. i have a sudden gas attack

[jberryhill]

51. Osama Bin Laden did

That was basically his gripe in life. After Gulf War I, it became apparent that the US would indeed mobilize to support the House of Saud, and that is how his grudge became personal with us.

[Bonobo]

53. Osama focused a lot of his energy on taking down the House of Saud then, I suppose? nt

[jberryhill]

54. Yes, and several attacks there

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,451935,00.html

[Bonobo]

55. Thank you for the link. NT

[JCMach1]

52. the current king is as liberal

As you are likely to get. IF KSA became a democracy you would not like the result.

[crimson77]

58. The problem with getting rid of the saudis

Is A) we like their oil and B) they have such brutal security forces that the second a problem starts, they end it and the perpetrators.

[Bonobo]

60. Tell B) to the idiots here who say "No uprising = No problems". nt

[Arctic Dave]

59. If ever there was a capital in need of carpet bombing.

From the king to the last prince needs to go to the trash heap.