My take on the Saudi Arabia issue.
- Thread starter bellisarius
- Start date
$200 per barrel would not even come close to covering the cost to future generations.
But, thanks for making it clear that the price of oil is the real reason why Deplorables are rushing to the defense of their favorite despots.
Now, get back to your discussion about why it is perfectly legal to murder people in embassies. That discussion must go on at the same time other threads are denying climate science.
Kirkrapine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Posts
- 5,538
As noted above, I would be tempted to say "regime change," except that never works out well. But, if we ever were going to consider any regime changes in the MENA, SA always should have been at the top of the list, way ahead of Iraq and Iran.
As for what we should do now -- well, all kinds of sanctions (some calculated to destabilize the regime, some not) are available. And since several Liticons insist the U.S. is now energy-independent, why not?! What do we need a friendly SA for any more?!
IDIOT
IDIOT II
this NIGGER screams TRADE WARS hurt everyone and then says since the US doesnt need SA oil, we should sanction em
then the WORLD is fucked =US fucked
Why doesnt the US just SA its LOONS?
I'm flabbergasted that people demand that, because of the murder of one person, US
should change it's entire policy.
Are they that naiive, not to realize that for CIA -and for most intelligence agencies- murder is part of their arsenal too?
The issue should be:
Would an aliance with the Saudis benefit America,economically and geostrategically?
The answer is - Probably yes.
As for Europe - it's not as clear.
There were quite a few fascinating posts in this thread.
should change it's entire policy.
Are they that naiive, not to realize that for CIA -and for most intelligence agencies- murder is part of their arsenal too?
The issue should be:
Would an aliance with the Saudis benefit America,economically and geostrategically?
The answer is - Probably yes.
As for Europe - it's not as clear.
There were quite a few fascinating posts in this thread.
Gemma_0
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2018
- Posts
- 4,600
IDIOT II
this NIGGER screams TRADE WARS hurt everyone and then says since the US doesnt need SA oil, we should sanction em
then the WORLD is fucked =US fucked
Why doesnt the US just SA its LOONS?
Why are you so angry?
So Europe now has four - legitimate or not, official or not - Muslim majority provinces: Turkey, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.
Turkey and Albania have territorial claims towards other countries and have been working towards that, and Erdogan revived neo-Ottomonism. Never mind the Armenian and Greek genocides.
A potential source of destabilization for Europe. Even an extension of the Middle East conflict to Europe and ww3.
It's been written that both Iran, South Arabia and Turkey have been trying to extend their influence in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and have been founding Radical Islam. These two countries currently have the highest percentage of ISIS recruits in Europe.
Now Turkey and Saudi Arabia are both Sunni and enemies. Turkey has always been far more secular than Saudi Arabia, but Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism and territorial claims.
Iranians are shia and have far more affinities with Europe, but they support Turkey and they, too are becoming radicalized. Plus their anti-semitism is ominous.
Which ones are better for Europe?
Turkey and Albania have territorial claims towards other countries and have been working towards that, and Erdogan revived neo-Ottomonism. Never mind the Armenian and Greek genocides.
A potential source of destabilization for Europe. Even an extension of the Middle East conflict to Europe and ww3.
It's been written that both Iran, South Arabia and Turkey have been trying to extend their influence in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and have been founding Radical Islam. These two countries currently have the highest percentage of ISIS recruits in Europe.
Now Turkey and Saudi Arabia are both Sunni and enemies. Turkey has always been far more secular than Saudi Arabia, but Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism and territorial claims.
Iranians are shia and have far more affinities with Europe, but they support Turkey and they, too are becoming radicalized. Plus their anti-semitism is ominous.
Which ones are better for Europe?
DEAD MUSLIMS, you dumb ass BROWN SLIME PAKI
Hei stop clowning around. I axed an important question.
Btw: The cool kids are repulsed by people like myself and EF, aren’t they?
Bless their Liberal non-xenophobic hearts.
Kirkrapine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Posts
- 5,538
It's his default setting.
Kirkrapine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Posts
- 5,538
Turkey. It has the most current and historical ties to Europe.
Yes, also Turks (the European part) are much more secular.
In saying that, it was not ago that long ago that a big chunk of Europe got liberated from centuries of Ottoman occupation.
Which is not ominous by itself.
Because tribalism and wars aren't unusual for that part of Europe, neither was imperialism as in Britain and the Roman Empire for the rest of Europe.
But Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism dream in Europe
coincides with the expansionist mentalities of certain Islamic movements in the Middle East.
EternalF.
Kirkrapine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Posts
- 5,538
Not "coincides" -- "collides."
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
You clearly misunderstood me. When I allowed as to how an action by an agent of a foreign government otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity (which, after all, is the result of a considered treaty executed between those two governments) could spark a war, I was thinking in terms of a most extreme violent act directed against the country! It is why I specifically used the analogy of an attempted assassination of a foreign LEADER by someone covered by diplomatic immunity. That's not just a routine mugging. It is an act directed against the government.
So in this case, if I follow the whack-brained logic of half the people in this thread, the nation who should go to WAR with the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia for killing a Saudi citizen in a Saudi consulate within the borders of Turkey is the United States. Excuse me...???
There is not one thing under international or United States domestic law that would support such an insane response.
Let me be more specific. Do you want to know what would likely happen if you should get into a road rage incident with an automobile with diplomatic plates and the driver runs you off the road and you're killed? Or for that matter if the guy just busted into your house and shot you and your family? Consider the following:
Now....all of those incidents (and the reactions they provoked) took place within and between the countries where the incidents occurred. The United States is not about to do shit about a foreign national, killed by his own government, within the borders of another country simply because the victim held American residency status under a Green Card, and least of all because he happened to work for the Washington Post.
The law matters. Jurisdiction matters. And it matters ONLY wherein those laws and jurisdiction actually apply. And there is absolutely no evidence that any laws or jurisdictions apply in such a way to warrant intervention by the United States.
Diplomatic immunity isn't MY idea of a good idea. It's our government's idea of a good idea.
Meanwhile, Otto Warmbier was an American citizen who ultimately died of injuries suffered at the hands of the North Koreans for stealing a propaganda poster. We didn't do shit about that either. You think this is worse?
Kirkrapine
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Posts
- 5,538
. . . WaPo reporter. That ought to be enough. We can't allow foreign states to fuck with our journalists and get away with it. Some sort of punitive expedition is warranted at the very least, never mind regime change.
