• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny[W:43]

Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

TheDemSocialist said:
You advocate an absolute monarchy based on radical religious law?
Click to expand...

It certainly has more local legitimacy than new dictatorships. That is the main difference to the House of Assad, Saddam's one off dictatorship or the South American Colonels we needed during the Cold War. Of course these regimes all do things you or I might find terrible. But we have to live with that sometimes till the UN or some other supra national organization guarantees personal security to all. For now the structure of security defines a competitive situation of everyone for herself with recurrent negotiations involving the same players in game theory, which means you do not trash the arch on which your survival is built.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Gathomas88 said:
As far as the 1953 coup is concerned, I really don't care much for the issue one way or the other. Mosaddegh was moving to align Iran with the Soviets, and was frankly kind of an incompetent boob besides. If the coup hadn't removed him from power before he could make any major public missteps, he'd likely be remembered as being little more than just another petty Middle Eastern despot with delusions of grandeur. We probably did the guy a favor by making him a martyr instead, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Except despots are rarely voted in by democratic means, are they? In any case, it wasn't a coup in the normal sense in that it wasn't an internal plot, but an overthrow by a foreign power to impose a puppet government. Iranian antipathy towards the US and UK is pretty understandable in a modern historical context.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

annata said:
They have been reliable allies for the most part (and please don't start with ISIL)
Click to expand...
Why not? Is it just too uncomfortable to think about?
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Gathomas88 said:
To be fair, there is a bit of a difference between the two, simply in that Iran's government actually is modeled after the modern Republican example, albeit in a rather authoritarian form. Saudi Arabia is authoritarian in the more traditional monarchical sense.
Click to expand...
While they may look different in regards to government structure, Iran is ruled by the ayatollahs just like the house of Saud rules Arabia.

As far as the 1953 coup is concerned, I really don't care much for the issue one way or the other. Mosaddegh was moving to align Iran with the Soviets, and was frankly kind of an incompetent boob besides. If the coup hadn't removed him from power before he could make any major public missteps, he'd likely be remembered as being little more than just another petty Middle Eastern despot with delusions of grandeur. We probably did the guy a favor by making him a martyr instead, all things considered.
Click to expand...

So getting rid of a democratically elected government because they attempted to nationalize British-American oil interests (because the oil companies refused to negotiate) and ultimately replaced by a repressive dictatorship which then gave rise to an Islamic theocracy was "doing them a favor"? :shock:

FYI, our alliance with the Saudis brought about Al Qaeda and 9/11.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
Why not? Is it just too uncomfortable to think about?
Click to expand...

ISIL is more about Iraq/Syria. The Baathists set out to create an insurgency, once the US disbanded the Iraqi Army.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself is an Iraqi. so was the founder of AQI = Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi..

AQI since 2003 has used Syria as a facilitation hub and transformed this facilitation and logistics network into an organization capable of conducting sophisticated explosives and firearms attacks.
Click to expand...
Al-Qa‘ida in Iraq (AQI) - Terrorist Groups


ISIL is a direct outgrowth of AQI, not from Saudi Arabia.
SA is Wahhabi, yes, but that's less of a jihadi religion then salafism,which is world wide.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
Except despots are rarely voted in by democratic means, are they? In any case, it wasn't a coup in the normal sense in that it wasn't an internal plot, but an overthrow by a foreign power to impose a puppet government. Iranian antipathy towards the US and UK is pretty understandable in a modern historical context.
Click to expand...

PoS said:
So getting rid of a democratically elected government because they attempted to nationalize British-American oil interests (because the oil companies refused to negotiate) and ultimately replaced by a repressive dictatorship which then gave rise to an Islamic theocracy was "doing them a favor"? :shock:
Click to expand...

You're both being suckered in by propaganda. In reality, Mossadegh had basically lost most of his democratic support by the time he was deposed. He'd crashed the economy, indefinitely dissolved parliament, alienated the religious establishment of the country, taken to imprisoning his opponents, and was ruling off of basically unlimited emergency powers instead.

Mossadegh, 1953: history swallowed up in legend

I’m reluctant to give the 1953 coup a “today in history” treatment, because those are everywhere and most of them at least get the historical details right. But the real problem with 1953 nowadays is that its mythology is far more potent than the historical reality. Mossadegh is portrayed almost as an Iranian Gandhi by people who are looking for a cudgel to beat up on US policy toward Iran. But Mohammad Mossadegh wasn’t an Iranian Gandhi (heck, Gandhi wasn’t even really Gandhi, you know?); he was a politician and a human being who did some good and some bad.

.....

Ruling under emergency powers for months on end, as Mossadegh did from mid-1952 on, and then indefinitely dissolving parliament, as he did in early August 1953, were not good ideas (they were certainly not in keeping with Mossadegh’s modern image as a symbol of democratic governance). In truth, Mossadegh’s political support was probably waning as 1953 wore on and Iran’s economy grew weaker, and as his political coalition began to come apart for a variety of reasons. He had lost the support, for example, of the influential cleric (and parliament speaker) Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani, who had been a Mossadegh ally but was angry at Mossadegh’s secularism and his unwillingness to allow Kashani to have a bigger role in governing the country, to the point where Kashani actually went along with the coup. Kashani was one of Ayatollah Khomeini’s mentors, and Khomeini not only opposed Mossadegh in the 1950s, but he also had nothing but nasty things to say about the former PM when people began to evoke Mossadegh’s memory in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Bear that in mind the next time you hear Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, complain about America’s role in the 1953 coup.
Click to expand...

He was basically an Iranian Hugo Chavez, that the West was less willing to tolerate because he shared a border with the Soviet Union.

The coup, while funded by the CIA, was also primarily internal.

PoS said:
While they may look different in regards to government structure, Iran is ruled by the ayatollahs just like the house of Saud rules Arabia.
Click to expand...

The Sauds are basically just traditional monarchs. The Ayatollahs are something different entirely.

Iran actually has an elected government, complete with political parties and presidents. It's just that the Ayatollah sits over it all in a "supreme executive" position. It'd be like having the Pope over Obama or Congress here in the US.

FYI, our alliance with the Saudis brought about Al Qaeda and 9/11.
Click to expand...

The war in Afghanistan brought about Al Qaeda.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Gathomas88 said:
You're both being suckered in by propaganda.
Click to expand...
LOL and youre not? :lol:

I wonder what you would say if Iran overthrew our government... overthrowing a democratically elected government to put up your own puppet dictator for oil is pretty much indefensible but you went ahead and did it anyway. :doh


The Sauds are basically just traditional monarchs. The Ayatollahs are something different entirely.

Iran actually has an elected government, complete with political parties and presidents. It's just that the Ayatollah sits over it all in a "supreme executive" position. It'd be like having the Pope over Obama or Congress here in the US.
Click to expand...
What is the point of having an elected government if it can all be overridden over by the Ayatolahs? It's no different than the Saudis.

The war in Afghanistan brought about Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

"In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] US support of Israel,[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] and sanctions against Iraq."
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

PoS said:
LOL and youre not? :lol:

I wonder what you would say if Iran overthrew our government... overthrowing a democratically elected government to put up your own puppet dictator for oil is pretty much indefensible but you went ahead and did it anyway. :doh
Click to expand...

After the leader of our government crashed the economy, indefinitely dissolved Congress, and basically appointed himself "dictator for life" using special "emergency" powers?

There's a reason Iranians actually weren't terribly shaken up about losing Mossadegh, you know. Hell! Even the Ayatollah at the time supported his overthrow. The Revolutionary Government simply revived him as a white washed martyr figure after 1979 because it made for first class anti-US propaganda.

What is the point of having an elected government if it can all be overridden over by the Ayatolahs? It's no different than the Saudis.
Click to expand...

It is and it isn't. They're both ultimately authoritarian regimes. Iran, however, is a tad more "liberal," in a paradoxical kind of way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

"In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] US support of Israel,[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] and sanctions against Iraq."
Click to expand...

Which he formed in the 1980s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Frankly, all of these things are mere excuses anyway.

Al Qaeda was and is an organization bound and determined to start trouble regardless of their specific target.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
Or support it, as is the case in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria albeit covertly.

To really combat terror, end support for Saudi Arabia | Owen Jones | Comment is free | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Some elements of the regime being sympathetic to AlQ (whom the regime fought openly in Yemen) is better than Iran - the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

No one is claiming SA is perfect, but it's the most reasonable of the bunch.

joG said:
Their progress is really glacial, but in the other points I should say you are right on.
Click to expand...

True, but there's a willingness to progress. Aside from the government of Iraq, I'm not sure that's to be found anywhere else in the Mideast. That's leaves one option: no presence in the Mideast, and I think most can agree that would be worse.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

ecofarm said:
Some elements of the regime being sympathetic to AlQ (whom the regime fought openly in Yemen) is better than Iran - the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Click to expand...


How do you define the word "Terrorism"? Were the founders of Israel not terrorists?

ecofarm said:
No one is claiming SA is perfect, but it's the most reasonable of the bunch.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Art_Allm said:
How do you define the word "Terrorism"? Where the founders of Israel not terrorists?
Click to expand...

I'm not a "Da Joos!" guy.

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

SA is the best of the bunch in the Mideast. What more can we do than align with the least of evils; we need a presence.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

ecofarm said:
I'm not a "Da Joos!" guy.



SA is the best of the bunch in the Mideast. What more can we do than align with the least of evils; we need a presence.
Click to expand...


You have ignored my question and you are just repeating that you believe that SA with its extreme form of Islam is better than moderate states with a Muslim majoity who do or did not promote a radical form of Islam, like it is the case with Syria, Iran, or was the case with the former Afghanistan, Iraq or Lybia.

The more Zionitst interfere in the Middle East, the more the radical forms of Islam are spreading around the world, due to the support of SA.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Art_Allm said:
You have ignored my question and you are just repeating that you believe that SA with its extreme form of Islam is better than moderate states with a Muslim majoity who did not pay so much attention to Islam, like Syria, Iran, or the former Iraq or Lybia.
Click to expand...

Syria is a hellhole, we should have helped them. Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism in the world. Iraq is in reformation and the US, along with th rest of the world, is helping them. Libya is in Africa. Of them, only Iran is a functional state. Would you rather the US align with Iran?

Sorry, but your logic is very strange.
Click to expand...

Sorry you can't understand. I really don't put it on myself.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

ecofarm said:
...
Click to expand...

You ignored my question, and you just repeat what you believe in without furnishing any proves to support your argumnts.

I am not interested in such kinds of "discussions".
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Art_Allm said:
You ignored my question, and you just repeat what you believe in without furnishing any proves to support your argumnts.

I am not interested in such kinds of "discussions".
Click to expand...

I answered to every example you provided, even those not in the Mideast and misspelled.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Van Basten said:
It's been a mutual relationship of both nations using one another.
Click to expand...

Been a little one-sided, I'd say.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Moderator's Warning:
The off-topic and personal comments need to stop. Please be productive in the thread

Also, remember this is the ME forum.

Thank you.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

ecofarm said:
True, but there's a willingness to progress.
Click to expand...
Where? And how? Can you show us any evidence of Saudi Arabia having progressed towards a more pluralist, democratic régime demonstrating an improved respect for human rights? I don't believe you can, because it doesn't exist. They are still beheading dozens of people (mostly poor migrant workers given no fair trial) every year.

Show us the progress, Eco. Show us in what way it is 'the most reasonable of the bunch'. It is not. It, not Iran, is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Mosques all over Saudi Arabia are still permitted to openly collect funds and donations for ISIS and AQ is essentially run by Saudis.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
They are still beheading dozens of people (mostly poor migrant workers given no fair trial) every year.

Show us the progress, Eco. Show us in what way it is 'the most reasonable of the bunch'. It is not. It, not Iran, is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Mosques all over Saudi Arabia are still permitted to openly collect funds and donations for ISIS and AQ is essentially run by Saudis.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with you.

Saudi Arabia is the most radical islamistic state, they live according to the laws of the Stone Age.

And this country is sponsoring the backward varieties of radical Islam, like Al Kaida or ISIS.

Is is not strange that the most backward forms of radical Islam that has its origin in Saudi Arabia is supported by the USA, and they use these backward Islamic fanatics to destroy rather secular or moderate states, like Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt or Syria?

All the mentioned states had a moderate version of Islam, and Syria was not an Islamic state, it was a multi-religious state without any Sharia law.

And they try to persuade us, that there is a clash of civilization, that Christians are fighting against the backward Islam.

How stupid!

Iran was a secular state, run by a western educated leader (Mohammad Mosaddegh), but the CIA bribed the Mullahs to install a medieval Puppet, the Shah.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

We should not be directly supporting this ****ed up regime militarily.. When it comes to the empire economic interests trump humanitarian interests any day, and that is a damn shame. We should not be directly propping up this kingdom. "History has not been kind for kings", and one day their time will come.
Click to expand...

That family is so crooked they're tied like a rubber band ball. Of course the free market protects them however. The only way to free ourselves of their insidious oppression is to pull away from them. That's how we solve the Middle East Problem.

Elon Musk is doing his part to lead the way.
 
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
Where? And how? Can you show us any evidence of Saudi Arabia having progressed towards a more pluralist, democratic régime demonstrating an improved respect for human rights? I don't believe you can, because it doesn't exist. They are still beheading dozens of people (mostly poor migrant workers given no fair trial) every year.

Show us the progress, Eco. Show us in what way it is 'the most reasonable of the bunch'. It is not.
Click to expand...

:

However, women's status has changed in recent decades. Women were previously forbidden from voting or being elected to political office, but in 2011 King Abdullah declared that women would be able to vote and run in the 2015 local elections, as well as be appointed to the Consultative Assembly.[7] More university graduates in Saudi Arabia are Saudi women than men,[8] and female literacy is estimated to be 91% (though lower than male literacy) far higher than just 40 years ago. The average age at first marriage among Saudi females in the kingdom is 25 years.[9][10][11]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia


It, not Iran, is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Mosques all over Saudi Arabia are still permitted to openly collect funds and donations for ISIS and AQ is essentially run by Saudis.
Click to expand...

You'll need to learn to separate private individuals from a government if we're to discuss this objectively. The Saudi government shares intel with the US and fights against AlQ.

And I'm guessing you don't have a citation for your claim.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Real House of Saud - Saudi Arabia's Oil-For-Tyranny

Andalublue said:
Where? And how? Can you show us any evidence of Saudi Arabia having progressed towards a more pluralist, democratic régime demonstrating an improved respect for human rights? I don't believe you can, because it doesn't exist. They are still beheading dozens of people (mostly poor migrant workers given no fair trial) every year.

Show us the progress, Eco. Show us in what way it is 'the most reasonable of the bunch'. It is not. It, not Iran, is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Mosques all over Saudi Arabia are still permitted to openly collect funds and donations for ISIS and AQ is essentially run by Saudis.
Click to expand...

In the past 2 years women got the right to vote, passport confiscation was outlawed, and immigrants are no longer not allowed to change jobs before two years, they also signed numerous international labor agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom