What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Support For the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
8,279
Points
1,108
One thing about that family. When they don't like you they really let you and everyone know they don't.

And you know this how?
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?
Trump sold the saudis nuclear technology. We don’t want murderers getting nukes.

Did he? I know the Saudis have been planning for nuclear desalination for years because it provides clean water AND cheap electricity.

When did Trump sell it to them?
Google it. It wasn’t nuclear weapons but I wouldn’t sell them anything nuclear.

The Saudis have opposed nuclear proliferation in the whole region for over 60 years.

Nuclear power and desalination is another matter. They could have easily bought the technology from the French or Germans or Japanese.


U.S. approved secret nuclear power work for Saudi Arabia ...
Mar 28, 2019 · The Trump administration has quietly pursued a wider deal on sharing U.S. nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia, which aims to build at least two nuclear power plants.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
8,279
Points
1,108
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
They are the lesser of two evils.

Meaning what? You have never set foot in the country.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
92,100
Reaction score
9,234
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
One thing about that family. When they don't like you they really let you and everyone know they don't.

And you know this how?
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?
Trump sold the saudis nuclear technology. We don’t want murderers getting nukes.

Did he? I know the Saudis have been planning for nuclear desalination for years because it provides clean water AND cheap electricity.

When did Trump sell it to them?
Google it. It wasn’t nuclear weapons but I wouldn’t sell them anything nuclear.

The Saudis have opposed nuclear proliferation in the whole region for over 60 years.

Nuclear power and desalination is another matter. They could have easily bought the technology from the French or Germans or Japanese.


U.S. approved secret nuclear power work for Saudi Arabia ...
Mar 28, 2019 · The Trump administration has quietly pursued a wider deal on sharing U.S. nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia, which aims to build at least two nuclear power plants.
Could you imagine if they could turn the desert into an oasis? Green, water, gardens, trees.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
92,100
Reaction score
9,234
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
They are the lesser of two evils.

Meaning what? You have never set foot in the country.
I don’t need to go to Iran to know what it’s like. Or Hawaii. I’ve read books. I’ve talked to people whove been.
 

Oz and the Orchestra

Platinum Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
1,395
Points
938
Location
Lake District England
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.


Except for when they are supporting groups like ISIS, flying airplanes into buildings, and brutally murdering American Journalists, you have a point there.

ISIS Is their enemy.. If a Saudi fights for ISIS, he goes to prison if he returns home. The Saudis didn't do 9-11. They revoked OBL's citizenship in 1994.. He wanted to hurt the US and have them blame the Saudis.

We don't really know what happened to Khashoggi. We do know he was Muslim Brotherhood and a friend to OBL.
" We don't really know what happened to Khashoggi"

Why are you saying that? we know exactly what happened to him even before the Crown Prince admitted his men murdered him in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey. He did go on to say there are 3 million workings for the Saidi regime and they did it of their own volition without him being aware.
It was his top security personnel who flew to Turkey to commit murder and he expects us to believe they didn't get his permission? Does he seriously think we were all born yesterday?

Even if he's telling the truth he is still responsible.
Are the International community just going to wring our hands, shuffle our feet and let him get away with murder?

The US & UK have no other choice as I can see other to apply full sanctions.
If it causes the Saudi regime to collapse well they should have thought about that before committing the crime.

As for who takes over it is not our concern - it might be worse but then it might be a lot better as it couldn't get much worse.
 

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
92,100
Reaction score
9,234
Points
2,060
Location
Michigan
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.


Except for when they are supporting groups like ISIS, flying airplanes into buildings, and brutally murdering American Journalists, you have a point there.

ISIS Is their enemy.. If a Saudi fights for ISIS, he goes to prison if he returns home. The Saudis didn't do 9-11. They revoked OBL's citizenship in 1994.. He wanted to hurt the US and have them blame the Saudis.

We don't really know what happened to Khashoggi. We do know he was Muslim Brotherhood and a friend to OBL.
If you want to have an honest discussion don’t lie. Don’t try to slander the victim. Sounds like you’re lawyering up. I guess the prince should have his day in court
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
One thing about that family. When they don't like you they really let you and everyone know they don't.

And you know this how?
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?
Trump sold the saudis nuclear technology. We don’t want murderers getting nukes.

Did he? I know the Saudis have been planning for nuclear desalination for years because it provides clean water AND cheap electricity.

When did Trump sell it to them?
Google it. It wasn’t nuclear weapons but I wouldn’t sell them anything nuclear.

The Saudis have opposed nuclear proliferation in the whole region for over 60 years.

Nuclear power and desalination is another matter. They could have easily bought the technology from the French or Germans or Japanese.


U.S. approved secret nuclear power work for Saudi Arabia ...
Mar 28, 2019 · The Trump administration has quietly pursued a wider deal on sharing U.S. nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia, which aims to build at least two nuclear power plants.
Could you imagine if they could turn the desert into an oasis? Green, water, gardens, trees.
Funny enough I was just talking about greening efforts in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia; the likelihood of doing so and the targeted areas specifically.
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I never understood why the US cowers to that evil, corrupt regime.
After 9-11, we ignored the Saudis role in the attacks and went out of our way to cower before them.
After the Khasgoggi atrocity, Trump played dumb and said he was not sure if the Royal Family was involved. Even if they were, Trump was willing to ignore it as long as they bought our expensive weapons
Now Biden is doing the same. While supposedly distancing himself from the Saudis, he refuses to condemn the Royal Family.
Do you believe the next regime will be any better? Is it our concern if they are? Is it our job to infiltrate at this point or do we watch what happens and go from there?
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
Ignoring the wise- trade with all, ally with none- has led us down a path of which there is no return- no matter what the US does it won't be the right thing- when you sell your soul, no matter who purchases it, you are in debt to the purchaser-
So where do we go from here then?
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
8,279
Points
1,108
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
8,279
Points
1,108
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
Examples
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
8,279
Points
1,108
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
Examples

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates aren't a mess. They are quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous. Arabs value a civil society.
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
Examples

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates aren't a mess. They are quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous. Arabs value a civil society.
Saudi Arabia was just recently bombed by Iran. They also have a lot of issues with their religious police alongside rioters and people who are against the prince is always starting trouble.
The UAE has been fighting Iran both in maritime and on land. Ethiopia just caught a recent band of terrorists from Iran heading to the UAE with a nice little attack for them.
Kuwait is about to start fighting a war and has been saddling up with Iraq in the fights there are with Iran and maybe the US well see. Not to mention the...wait for it... extremist groups kicking down doors and showing their "quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous value of civil society.
Bahrain has also been fighting vigorously against terrorist plots and is constantly suffering from those attacks. The people who die in those explosions and shootings would disagree with you on their prosperity as you so willing gave them.
 
OP
Pythagoras

Pythagoras

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
36
Points
46
Location
Samos, Greece
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
Examples

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates aren't a mess. They are quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous. Arabs value a civil society.
Any other ones you'd like to call peaceful and prosperous?
 

Disir

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
25,841
Reaction score
8,245
Points
910
Pythagoras,

The push right now is for Biden to further punish Saudi Arabia.
Here:

and here: Ex-CIA director urges Biden to hold MBS ‘accountable’ in Khashoggi’s death

What do you think should happen and why?
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
53,818
Reaction score
14,612
Points
2,180
I never understood why the US cowers to that evil, corrupt regime.
After 9-11, we ignored the Saudis role in the attacks and went out of our way to cower before them.
After the Khasgoggi atrocity, Trump played dumb and said he was not sure if the Royal Family was involved. Even if they were, Trump was willing to ignore it as long as they bought our expensive weapons
Now Biden is doing the same. While supposedly distancing himself from the Saudis, he refuses to condemn the Royal Family.
I am still upset about Trump kissing Saudi ass.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
53,818
Reaction score
14,612
Points
2,180
I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.

The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.

This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)

My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?

Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.

Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...

The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.

I'm not optimistic.

KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.

The whole area is NOT a mess.
Examples

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates aren't a mess. They are quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous. Arabs value a civil society.
Any other ones you'd like to call peaceful and prosperous?
surada hangs out with Muslims.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top