It's time to cut all ties and end all cooperation with the House of Saud

[Ken Burch]

We know they fund ISIS.

We know that, in doing that, they are bringing nothing but chaos and misery to the region and the world.

We know the blood of the Paris dead may be on their hands.

We know that they do not care, and will never care.

We know that they not only treat their country as if it were their personal property(and had the arrogant egotism to actually name their country after their own family), but that they have deliberately nurtured Salafism, the mutated, twisted distortion of Islam that created what the West sees as "Jihad&quot a term that originally meant nothing more than a fervent effort to propagate the faith, not an idelogy of killing for killing's sake), simply to preserve their own illegitimate grip on power.

We know that they will never stop doing or being any of the above.

We know we no longer gain anything strategically from allying our country with their regime.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship fails the Test of Utility, and the test of morality.

It's time to repudiate the House of Saud, once and for all.

Nothing that replaced them could ever be worse.

Oil can't be worth a nation's soul, or anyone's violent death.

[n2doc]

1. So hard to do

When they are so generous with certain charities and Initiatives….

[elias49]

6. Like what?

With whom are they generous?

[leveymg]

13. IS, to the tune of about $1.5B/year.

That burden is shared with Qatar and the other Gulf states, but KSA has been the principal funder. Lots of bang for the buck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026192755

[Sienna86]

2. Amen. Follow the money.

It will be hard to do as they donate to a lot of causes with political connections.

[Fuddnik]

3. I know a woman that worked there for a year with her husband.

After she came back, all she wanted was for that shithole to be turned into a sheet of glass.

[smirkymonkey]

19. What did she say it was like?

Would be interested to hear more.

[tomp]

4. the propagation of a faith should be illegal.

it always starts out as fervor and leads to brutality.

Believe whatever you want to believe, just keep it to yourself.

[starroute]

18. This is more about politics than about religion

They promote jihad abroad as a way of keeping the lid on at home. It gives young hotheads a way to make trouble somewhere else rather than overthrowing the regime. It keeps the support of hardline clerics who might otherwise be grossed out by the corruption and ostentation of the Saudi royals. It serves as a convenient propaganda line to pacify the Saudi people.

But none of that will be sustainable once the oil money is no longer there to prop it up.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/imf-saudi-arabia-151022110536518.html

Saudi Arabia could burn through its financial assets within five years, as the country grapples with slumping oil prices.

The Middle East’s biggest economy is expected to run budget deficits of 21.6 percent in 2015 and 19.4 percent in 2016, according the IMF’s latest regional outlook.

That means Riyadh needs to find money to meet its spending plans. Just like its oil exporting neighbours, it plans to make substantial cuts to its budgets.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2015/11/10/saudi-arabia-preparing-to-fuel-its-100-billion-oil-war-with-debt/

Saudi Arabia has probably spent around $100 billion of its foreign reserves by now to prosecute its war against American shale and other low-cost oil producers. The oil kingdom’s decision one year ago not to cut production to support oil prices has driven the price of both Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate down below $50 a barrel, but Saudi Arabia will have to spend a lot more to win the battle.

Now, there are signs that Saudi Arabia is preparing to double down on its strategy with debt. The Financial Times reports that Saudi Arabia is getting ready to borrow funds in the international bond market to further finance its big effort to protect its market share in the oil world and make life impossible for U.S. shale. Saudi Arabia needs the money to keep its expensive social contract going in the face of rising budget deficits that are the result of its fast diminishing oil revenues. The oil kingdom is under further financial stress because of its costly military intervention in Yemen.

[Hortensis]

50. Good post. The collapse of Saudi Arabia's royal family, and

almost certainly with it the central government, will not be a good thing for anyone except violent opportunists -- to put it mildly.

[burrowowl]

66. Good insight!

[Blue_In_AK]

68. Their little tactic is killing Alaska's budget.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Dangerous nonsense.

Freedom of speech now, freedom of speech tomorrow, freedom of speech always.

[Hortensis]

51. +1000.

[tomp]

72. "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater?

Lies from the government?

Sorry, but there must be limitation when danger to the public is involved.

Besides, proselytizing is just so damn annoying. Making public religious speech illegal is just my fantasy of a perfect world.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. People always get that quotation wrong.

What Wendell Holmes actually said is that it should be illegal to *falsely* shout fire in a crowded theatre. It's not relevant to people who genuinely believe in a religion.

And if your notion of "danger to the public" is so general that you include "preaching religion" - and hence also presumably things like "encouraging voting for the Republican party" - then what you have isn't a democracy with some necessary limits on freedom of speech, it's North Korea or 1984.

[Sunlei]

7. Time to keep pushing them to provide the ground troops needed in their area of the world.

Took long enough for their air support to ramp up. Jordan, Egypt & Saudis have to send their 'sons' to places like Syria. Ground troops to support their jets.

[CJCRANE]

29. They aren't bombing Isis. Most of the gulf countries dropped out after the first few photo ops.

Plus they have (unofficial) boots on the ground, fighting for the rebels.

[Sunlei]

40. Saudis have 100 jets in the coalition. Saudis need to lead the ground troops needed in places

like Iraq, Syria, Afg. They need 'official" troops that do NOT include any American troops.

[CJCRANE]

41. I'm pretty sure they're bombing Yemen instead. I haven't seen anything

about them still being involved in Syria recently. I could be wrong but without further evidence I'd doubt it.

[Sunlei]

46. doesn't matter it took months to get the SA to even start with 100 jets regular missions.

Saudis/Jordan/Iraq Gov. need to Lead in their "Fight against IS" , they need several thousand of their countries ground troops and to stop depending on America for war support.

[Blue_In_AK]

69. Too bad they don't all fight like the Kurds.

[Demeter]

8. It was time a long time ago

Unless the world pushes back, the House of Saud will have no need to change.

[mountain grammy]

9. Now that would upend the world as we know it.

It's way past time.

[Ken Burch]

11. If any world needs an upending, it's this one. n/t.

[Fred Sanders]

10. But not getting all that oil will cause gas prices to go up at least a dime a gallon....will

Americans tolerate such an outrage or just continue looking the other way at the most evil regime on the planet, bar none?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

21. It would be more than a dime. Way more. nt

[Fred Sanders]

22. Of course Iran now in the game and Iraq always willing and sometimes able and with green energy

maybe it would go down a dime?

[Sunlei]

43. we can buy cheap crude from africa and places like south america/russia, they beg for customers &

are glutted with dirt cheap, quality crude.

[Ken Burch]

53. Better to get off Venezuela's case then to keep appeasing the House of Saud.

Also a justification for greater ties with Cuba(they have recently had major offshore oil discoveries, as I understand it).

[blackspade]

12. +1000

[reformist2]

14. YES. How do you stop war & senseless violence? STOP FUNDING IT!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

15. President Carter told us more than 35 years ago...

Get off the oil - work for peace and change in the world by helping to educate and develop the third world.

We elected raygun and turned away from a rational course - let the BFEE take control and unleashed the military industrial complex.

We have the perfect storm.

No more of the same - Do not support the same - please

[Betty Karlson]

16. And Carter was right.

But then the Bushes happened.

[nyabingi]

17. Great post, and an issue

that would receive a lot more consideration from our elected officials if our media were actually doing their job of holding the powerful accountable. Pressure needs to be put on American officials because it's not exactly a secret that Saudis, Qataris, Kuwaitis and other Gulf allies are providing funding for ISIS and other terrorist groups.

[Herman4747]

20. Free Raif Badawi & Other Political Prisoners!

Raif Badawi Awarded 2015 Sakharov Prize by European Parliament

[Duppers]

23. K & R

[oberliner]

24. The US economy would be severely damaged

It would be extremely unpopular.

[TexasBushwhacker]

25. Since the economy pretty much sucks for the bottom

80%, I'm not sure that's as big an issue as you think it is. What the top will want to do is ramp up the MIC (jobs!) while continue to do business with Saudi Arabia.

[oberliner]

31. Wouldn't the bottom 80 percent be hurt the most?

Prices for basic consumer goods would rise. The cost of gasoline would go up. It would be more difficult not only to get to work but to make the paycheck stretch far enough if prices rise but incomes don't.

[riderinthestorm]

27. Can you please elaborate on that?

Latest figures are that we only get about 13% of our oil from the Saudis anymore. If we had a plan to use our reserves to cushion the blow and ramp up imports from others like Canada to further soften the pain of cutting ties with KSA, it needn't damage our economy that badly.

Yes, cutting that off would be a bit of a wrench but I don't think it would "severely damage" the economy.

Besides, I think a lot of Americans are coming around to the fact that we must detach from the toxic Wahhabis...

[oberliner]

30. Rise in prices for consumer goods

Potential calls for increased drilling and domestic oil production.

I think the combination of a rise in prices for not only gasoline but also consumer goods in general, plus a greater dependence on US drilling to try to meet our short term oil needs will create an unpopular combination of circumstances.

(I also don't think it would do much to stop ISIS)

[riderinthestorm]

32. I don't think there's any recent studies on the economic impact

And I've outlined ways to ameliorate the potential pain.

Cutting off ties to the Saudis frees us from the pretense of "friendship" and allows us to do the hard work of stopping Saudi money from flowing to ISIS (and AQ and other terrorist outfits).

Defunding the terrorists is one of the most sure fire ways to begin eradicating them imo.

[CJCRANE]

34. I think the PTB are more worried that if we unfriend them, then the Russians and Chinese

will befriend them.

However, the Russians and Chinese wouldn't put up with the double-game of both supporting and pretending to fight terrorism at the same time.

They already have authoritarian societies, they don't need contrived boogeymen to get their populations into line.

[riderinthestorm]

35. The Chinese and Russians have allied with Shia Islam

Iran, Syria etc. They've chosen the other side which means KSA and the other
Gulf Sunni states will never "befriend" China or Russia.

But I agree completely that China and Russia have no need to play the duplicitous game. They simply act without regard for what their populations want or need.

[CJCRANE]

36. I'm not sure they act with no regard for their population, they just have a more communitarian

approach.

Our western leaders don't have much regard for what the population wants either.

I also think that Russia and China are more on Iran's side because they see that the west just wants to roll over them and break them apart.

Just look at what's happening to Europe, look at what's happened to every country the west has intervened in.

[riderinthestorm]

37. Very true

my absolutist statement isn't accurate and I appreciate the revision



I think we're basically in agreement however.

Peace!

[totodeinhere]

39. Nothing is so cut and dried in that region. I think it's possible that if the Russians see an

opening they will try to find a way to go for it. If nothing else at least they could provide clandestine support for the regime.

[riderinthestorm]

45. There aren't many international relationships that are black and white

Consulate in Libya (or Russia or China etc) for example....

I don't think the U.S. would ever 100% repudiate their relationship with the Saudis - they're too tied up economically but I definitely think revisions to our coziness are required.

And frankly, the current mood in the ME means the Sunni/Shia divide is hotter than it has been in centuries. It would be very hard to play footsie under the table. Not impossible but pretty damn hard.

[leveymg]

47. Seizure of Saudi assets would be extremely popular as would

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

trial of billionaires. Extremely popular.

[Scootaloo]

49. Yemeni children should not pay the costs for our "cheap" gas

[PeoViejo]

26. Great Idea but I don't think it's going to happen.

Saudi Arabia owes the International Banksters too much Money. There's no better way to have leverage.

Who is going to write-off the Trillions they owe.

[tabasco]

28. Well, we certainly agree on that point.

This next phase of anti-terror operations must include a sharp focus on the corrupt and deceitful Saudi monarchy.

[totodeinhere]

38. Sometimes what seems like a logical policy in that region has unintended consequences.

I can think of two undesirable possibilities. First of all, such a policy could drive the Saudis into the open arms of the Russians and the Saudis would only increase their brutal tactics toward women, gays and guest workers.

Or worse yet, withholding our support could result in the toppling of the regime only to be replaced by something much worse such as total chaos which would allow that area to be taken over by the likes of ISIS.

I know your OP means well. Yes, it is a very frustrating situation. But be careful what you wish for. I think you need to think this through a bit more.

[ashling]

42. I agree ... mostly

Nothing that replaced them could ever be worse.

That's a pretty broad assumption that has gotten us in trouble before ....

What could be worse than Saddam? Qadaffy? Republicans? Tea Party (in it's original iteration)?.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. "We KNOW the blood of the Paris dead MAY be on their hands." Come again? n/t

[meow2u3]

48. We need to go one step further

Cut off all terrorist financing, and this means starting by freezing the assets of the Saudi royal family. Then the SRF needs to have their diplomatic immunity revoked, opening them up to charges of financing terrorism. Next, the US and our allies ought to broker a rule that the Saudis must pay all the victims of terrorism restitution, paid for out of their frozen assets. Western nations, especially the US, Britain, and France, should be paid in the form of unlimited free oil. If we gather world leaders to cut off the Saudi money supply to terrorists, I think the attacks will dwindle and eventually be limited to their own backyards.

That's my solution. Question is, will the repigs go along with defunding the Saudis, as well as the banksters who bankroll those barbarians?


We've been fighting terrorism with the wrong weapons, according to Charles Pierce. Instead of reacting with military might, which will make us look like bumbling brutes, attack them where they live--right in their wallets.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

[JDPriestly]

64. I agree with Charles Pierce.

Any country that funds ISIS is deviating from socially acceptable behavior and should be ostracized by civilized countries.

The best way to do that is to freeze the country's bank accounts and assets outside its borders.

[TTUBatfan2008]

52. Well said

Saudi Arabia is a morally bankrupt country. We should not be in bed with them. We have plenty of oil here.

[SoapBox]

54. Yes.

Period.

[thebighobgoblin]

55. Wishful thinking.

Not gonna happen.

Next?

[packman]

56. We are the paid mercenaries in that part of the world

The SA will NEVER get involved officially in a killing match with fellow Moslems. They want to stay above that fray. Sure, they want the infidel Americans, French, Russians or British to do their killing for them. It is anathema to them to sully their faith and hands with the blood of fellow Arabs so they pay a bit there, lay some money there, buy arms from that country, or cut a deal for cheap oil with another country. SA is supposed to be the spiritual center of the Arab world, to expect them to engage openly with another Arab country is rather far-fetched.

[SereneG]

57. Wrong!!

The house of Saud is scared of ISIS. You're so wrong.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. They're more afraid of cheap gas.

[Ken Burch]

59. If they were scared of it, they wouldn't be funding it. n/t.

[ErikJ]

62. Like the GOP establishment of the Tea Party.

Saudis have been funding Wahhabism schools which teach Jihad extremist Islam to kids all over the ME for decades. They are now bearing the fruits of their evil.

[Initech]

60. Members of the Saudi royal family own Fox News.

And remember W's holding hands with Saudi royalty after 9/11? This is going to be like prying a vice grip.

[Blue_In_AK]

70. I always found that kind of funny

that our friends on the right are getting their news from a Saudi prince and a transplanted Australian megalomaniac. You just have to shake your head...

[DesertRat]

61. k&r

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Agreed.

ISIS exists to kill Shias--that means they kill other Muslims. Sort of like Catholics v. Protestants. Any other murders they commit are extras. Their real purpose is to prop up the Suni Muslims who support monarchy--i.e. the Sauds with their extravagant lifestyles and crimes against the people. Shia, like those in Iran, do not support monarchy. When we support Saudi Arabia in its war against Shia, we are propping up monarchists. Pretty funny behavior for a democracy.

The Sauds are a French Revolution waiting to happen. They know it.

[Blue_In_AK]

71. From what I've been reading,

fundamentalist Sunnis believe they are the only original and true Muslims. I think the Shia broke off later - right? - and are therefore seen as heretics. Kind of like our Protestant reformation maybe. An article I read said that the goal of Da'esh is first and foremost to rid the world of the heretical Shia, Kurds, and other splinter sects. The rest of us in the world are kind of afterthoughts to be subjugated but not necessarily wiped out, kept as slaves basically. It is such a crazy ideology, but people can be led to believe anything, especially if they're of an apocalyptic mindset. We've seen it over and over.

[Yorktown]

65. Agree wholeheartedly. One correction though about "jihad"

"Jihad&quot a term that originally meant nothing more than a fervent effort to propagate the faith, not an idelogy of killing for killing's sake)

While jihad has four different meanings, by rate of occurence in the Quran + hadiths,

the most widely used sense of the word is jihad = violent war to propagate the faith.

[Blue_In_AK]

67. Yesterday.

It should have been done decades ago.