Our Great allies the despotic Saudis kill a Washington Post Journalist.

The goal there is to force trade negotiations in order to seek more favorable terms, isn't that obvious? With the trade imbalance, you'd hurt China far more than they'd hurt the US, so it would put you in a position of power going into those negotiations.

 

LOL links and quotes from US Intel

TIA

 

They can try it. We get most of our imported oil from Canada. Justice isn't the same as revenge. Standing by your principles isn't revenge.

 

His ties to extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood among others aren't even disputed.....so yeah.

 

It's not really "standing by your principles" though, that was my point. If anything it would be hypocrisy given that the US has done effectively the same thing murdering their own citizens in foreign countries that they deem enemies of the state....so there's honestly no reason to do it.

 

There are a bunch of sympathizer/apologist to Assad , MBS got his own crowd too ,some chicks just can’t help it but to be attracted to the bad guy.

samples of deemed extremist in MBS prisons below :


https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...authorities-accusing-him-terrorism-1476264171


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loujain_al-Hathloul

 

You misunderstand, no one is arguing in defense of their actions, I'm merely suggesting that it's not any of our business. Numerous countries around the world do all manner of awful things to their own people and the US doesn't get involved with their internal politics, why should the US get involved in this instance? You could come up with a list of awful things China does to their own people, should the US seek revenge on their behalf too?

 

you are underestimating the leverage that the US administration have on Saudi, Trump had said it : " you wont last more than two weeks without us"

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/commodi...ldn-t-last-two-weeks-without-u-s-help~1504798

 

Again, you are misunderstanding the argument, I'm not saying the US CAN'T do anything, I'm saying there's no reason for them to do anything. Everyone knows Saudi Arabia is an awful rentier state that does terrible things to their own people....that's nothing new so what reason is there to go after them now? Should we go after every country that does awful things to their own people? We'd have to go after most of the world if we took that stance.

I just see no reason why the US should even bother with nonsense that has nothing to do with them especially since we have a history of doing essentially the same thing.

 

this may be of interest to participants in this thread . . . another view, fwiw

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/fake-history-from-the-washington-post.php

 

Because the US is up to its neck involved in the internal politics of this country? Do you need a highlight reel of all current and past presidents to understand this?

 

... too much money to lose. Trump said it himself. That's why Bush decided on a war against Iraq and Afghanistan, not Saudi.

It is sad for the US, economically, the transition to renewables is delayed with Trump's presidency. That will likely be his undoing in 2020, unless Hilary keeps running in which case there will never be a democrat president again. Human atrocities are allowed in countries with great natural resources like Russia, Saudi etc.

 

So how does that make it any of our business? Do we have a history of seeking revenge against them when they've executed their citizens in the past? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Allowed? More like encouraged. The willingness of a leader to torture and murder his/her own people or neighbors is a big plus when creating parasitic relationships of that nature. It's part of the reason so many people think it's cultural, because they think people are randomly becoming leaders in these countries and they almost always love to torture. They don't realize it's a job requirement, and the citizens aren't doing the hiring.

As for too much money to lose, I can't really sympathize with that because that's someone else's money being passed around. Doesn't belong to America or the people in possession of it.

Also, no one believes Saudi is going to start buying most of their weapons from a country that prefers Iran to be more dominant in the region.

 

So what you're asking is: How does it make it any of your government's business despite your government inserting itself directly into the inner politics and sovereignty of the country?

I think you're discussing what you wish to be the case, rather than what is actually the case. Even if it were what you (and I) wish it were - i.e. none of your business - it would not be logical that the president of your country would put on a Mexican soap opera to deny these things. If it were a "none of my business" thing, he would love to say it's none of his business.

 

The US government has been involved in Saudi politics for a long time, have they ever gone after them for executing one of their own citizens before? If not, why would they do so now?

That's really what I'm asking.

 

What you were saying is that it's none of your government's business. What I'm telling you is that your government insists on it beings its business. The health of the Saudi government is a prime, intended, integral piece of business to the US government. Not just foreign policy. This has been the case through lines of presidents coming from both parties ranging anywhere from doves to hawks as well as every congress in that span. What Americans vote doesn't matter at all, this issue is not on the table for discussion with citizens.

So if this thing is an existential threat to the Sauds, it is certainly the business of the president and the government of the US. Let me tell you, this thing does not threaten the collapse of a Saudi government, but if you were living in the region you would see two very important things:

1) Many loyalists were lost. I'm talking about probably 2 in every 10 people who would believe anything the Saudi government says are gone for good. That is a major swing. And they know that it has happened and they know that it's significant, because...
2) There are lengths they are going to in order to reverse this swing that no one in the region has ever (EVER) seen.

Whatever it was that possessed the world to finally put appropriate focus/attention on one of these cases, it worked. This is not just another one, not to Saudis or non-Saudis because for once everyone knows what happened. Usually you see an article or two online and people go about their day. This, however, has cause major reverberations in the region. So since the US cares about keeping this government in power, it would make sense that they would involve themselves. There is no one else willing to stick their neck out for the Sauds except the US, UAE, and the countries funded by the Sauds. If the US pulls its name from that list, the Saudi government would be in a very vulnerable position.

 

None of what you've said answers the question I've asked since the beginning, Has the US ever gone after the Saudis for executing one of their own citizens?

Once that's answered we can move on to the follow up question. If no, then why would they do so now?

Once that's answered we can move on to the question at the heart of this issue which is what is the difference between what the Saudi's did and when the Americans murdered several of their own citizens in Yemen that they deemed enemies of the state?

We can talk about other things that are kind of irrelevant to the main points forever, but those are the key questions I need answered. As to the Saudi government being in a vulnerable position, I don't think that can happen as long as they are a rentier state. The government has no need for the citizens since they don't derive their wealth from taxes as other nations do. They'll just end up paying off their citizens, or enough of them to where they can oppress or kill the rest. That's just how life is when you don't pay taxes. Some say "no taxation without representation, but the opposite is doubly true, if you don't pay taxes, you'll get no representation. Right now income from natural resources outpaces the income derived from taxation in Saudi, that has to change if the people want more say in government.

 

That's not the question you were asking in the post I quoted.

Despite having no interest in your follow up question, I still clarified why they would act differently towards this act than they would towards other similar acts in the past.

My only interest was to show you why it is the business of the US government. Which it is because, it is literally the business of the US government.

 

My point from the start was that Saudi Arabia executing their own citizens has never been deemed the business of the US, it's never been something that we've cared about in the past and thus I see no reason why it should be something we care about now......especially given the fact that it would be hypocritical for the US since they've done essentially the same thing to their own citizens in the recent past.