• 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!

Saudi Arabia warns U.S. that policy on Syria, Iran straining decades-old [W:70]

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have a relationship purely based on quid pro quo. They provide oil, we provide protection. The Saudi's have overestimated what kind of protection they are entitled too in said relationship. They get gulf war style assistance against overt invasion, not needless attacks on Iran or Syria simply because they are Saudi rivals. The president needs to remind the royal family that they don't have the power to make such demands.

There has been more to the relationship historically than that. Closely aligned political interests, finely cultivated personal relationships, and a historical relationship that goes back to the Roosevelt administration all play into this.
 
Heya VM.:2wave: Most don't want to admit they just like a lil Bush.
burp.gif
Judging by his post, its the Dick thing he is really obsessed about.

Of course...NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Saudis reasons...

Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.

Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.

n unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,'

Obama is embarrassingly bad at the whole foreign policy gig and it shows. Everyone in the world knows it. Well...ALMOST everyone...
 
I disagree. Good riddance. We should never have supported that autocratic theistic monarchy, but arguably had to keep oil supplies flowing. 9-11, which was mostly the work of Saudis trained in the kingdom's extremist mosques, should have opened our eyes to the bad intent of the Saudis.

But now, we don't need Saudi oil supplies anymore (or not as much), due to increasing oil and gas production from fracking, so we don't need to cowtow to that backward country's retrograde policies.

Indeed I suspect the Saudis new anti-American stance in public has more to do with the development of our own oil and gas supplies than disagreements about Syria. The Saudis have consistently threatened the US with oil cut backs every time in the past we tried to increase our reserves or take other actions to avoid the Saudis oil stranglehold.

I don't think it has anything to do with the bolded portion. Quite to the contrary Saudi Arabia has kept record output for much of the past decade despite the increasing Western emphasis on alternative fuels, natural gas development, and the like.
 
It's also worth noting that neither Bandar nor Turki are in the cockpit so to speak when it comes to accessing the reigns of power in the Kingdom. Bandar was brought back on board after a long hiatus following his dismissal as Ambassador to the United States and was only brought out of enforced political seclusion because of his reputation and status as the Kingdom's 'heavy hitter' in international diplomacy. The same to a lesser degree can probably be said for Turki.
 
Judging by his post, its the Dick thing he is really obsessed about.

Of course...NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Saudis reasons...

Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.

Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.

n unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,'

Obama is embarrassingly bad at the whole foreign policy gig and it shows. Everyone in the world knows it. Well...ALMOST everyone...

Don't fool yourself just for the sake of opposing Obama. The real fact is, the world is applauding Obama for his part in the agreement with Syria to destroy chemical weapons. ALMOST everyone...

And now, isn't it sad that hate for Obama is on display as opposing Obama standing up to the Saudis and their blackmail attempts. It just can't get any more obvious than that!
 
America does need Saudi oil so you're totally wrong. You shouldn't make rash claims on something you don't know anything about. Just the fact that the Saudis are trying blackmail should be enough to make you understand. Look up some numbers that tell you where the US gets it's oil and how much it uses every day.

In a decade we'll be producing more oil that Saudi Arabia, a fact that frightens them profoundly, since their prices will plummet and the gangland style kleptocracy that runs the nation will have problems holding on to power. That's the backstory here. The Saudis are lashing out to cause confusion, mostly because they're stupid and they're scared.
 
Judging by his post, its the Dick thing he is really obsessed about.

Of course...NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Saudis reasons...

Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria, members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.

Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief is vowing that the kingdom will make a 'major shift' in relations with the United States to protest perceived American inaction over Syria's civil war as well as recent U.S. overtures to Iran, a source close to Saudi policy said on Tuesday.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan told European diplomats that the United States had failed to act effectively against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was growing closer to Tehran, and had failed to back Saudi support for Bahrain when it crushed an anti-government revolt in 2011, the source said.

n unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,'

Obama is embarrassingly bad at the whole foreign policy gig and it shows. Everyone in the world knows it. Well...ALMOST everyone...

Well you don't have to convince me.....I agree his FP is a total failure. Nor do I believe in the Neo Con/lib concept that we should be dealing with the Sunni under the pretense that they are willing to do business with the west. Therefore this makes us allies. Except for AQ who is Sunni.

Moreover we even have Egypt offering the Russians to put a Military base inside Egypt. Which of course the MB is Sunni. Qatar is controlled by the Sunni, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, UAE, and Bahrain.
 
In a decade we'll be producing more oil that Saudi Arabia, a fact that frightens them profoundly, since their prices will plummet and the gangland style kleptocracy that runs the nation will have problems holding on to power. That's the backstory here. The Saudis are lashing out to cause confusion, mostly because they're stupid and they're scared.

Global demand will likely stay high enough to keep Saudi Arabia at peak or near peak production for the foreseeable future. You vastly over-estimate the emphasis they place on the US energy renaissance. It is also worth noting that Saudi Arabia has weathered oil gluts fairly well in the past (the 1980's and 1990's come to mind). The bigger problem for Saudi Arabia at present is their staggering youth employment crisis. If you want an indicator for potential social or political unrest look no further.
 
In a decade we'll be producing more oil that Saudi Arabia, a fact that frightens them profoundly, since their prices will plummet and the gangland style kleptocracy that runs the nation will have problems holding on to power. That's the backstory here. The Saudis are lashing out to cause confusion, mostly because they're stupid and they're scared.

No, not even in a decade will the US be completely independent of foreign oil. You really haven't looked into the question at all yet. Fracking has so far been a miniscule contribution to the 20 million barrels of oil your country consumes every day. Do you have any idea whatsoever how much of that is domestic oil? Do you have any idea how much comes from Canada?

Become informed and I will continue to discuss the issue with you.

As to Saudi supply, I will add that it's indeterminate at the moment. There are very valid suspicions that Saudi doesn't have the reserves they have claimed but we still don't know exactly what they have in the ground.
 
Global demand will likely stay high enough to keep Saudi Arabia at peak or near peak production for the foreseeable future. You vastly over-estimate the emphasis they place on the US energy renaissance. It is also worth noting that Saudi Arabia has weathered oil gluts fairly well in the past (the 1980's and 1990's come to mind). The bigger problem for Saudi Arabia at present is their staggering youth employment crisis. If you want an indicator for potential social or political unrest look no further.

Right! Saudi oil will continue to be pumped out of the ground as long as it exists in the ground. The US has so far shown no decline in it's dependence on it. The facts on the ground always trump the facts in people's minds and Americans' delusions of grandeur that they will be oil independent on outside sources. Fracking considered!
 
No, not even in a decade will the US be completely independent of foreign oil. You really haven't looked into the question at all yet. Fracking has so far been a miniscule contribution to the 20 million barrels of oil your country consumes every day. Do you have any idea whatsoever how much of that is domestic oil? Do you have any idea how much comes from Canada?

Become informed and I will continue to discuss the issue with you.

As to Saudi supply, I will add that it's indeterminate at the moment. There are very valid suspicions that Saudi doesn't have the reserves they have claimed but we still don't know exactly what they have in the ground.

Net imports of crude have fallen significantly in the wake of increased US production to it's lowest projected levels since the 1980's. But you are right that we still import an enormous amount of crude, however the petroleum market is global. Any increased output can have an impact on prices and supply considerations.

According to the EIA: "Rising domestic supplies have curbed consumption of foreign fuel. Net imports of crude oil and petroleum products will fall to 5.4 million barrels a day by 2014, down from 12.5 million in 2005, the EIA, a unit of the Energy Department, said in the report. "

Fracking Moves U.S. Crude Output to Highest Level Since 1989 - Bloomberg
 
There has been more to the relationship historically than that. Closely aligned political interests, finely cultivated personal relationships, and a historical relationship that goes back to the Roosevelt administration all play into this.

Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy. They use their money to spread religious fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world in direct opposition to American interests. Other than oil, they have nothing to offer. I'll grant you the existence of finely cultivated personal relationships, but those are simply means to an end, not valuable by themselves.
 
Let's pretend that Bush's failed vanity wars didn't give Iran almost complete control of the region. Let's pretend.

Well lets not forget he did have to clean up after Bilbo the Clown got out there to play with the Big boyz.....which as all know. When it comes to Democrats and Foreign Policy. Its the Republicans that take one step forward eager to get their hands on the money. But the Democrats that put us two Steps behind. It is what it is. :lol:
 
Saudi Arabia's strength is that all OPEC oil is sold in US Dollars, ergo all the big oil users have to keep humungous piles of US Dollars on hand to purchase OIL. The treaty to price OIL in US Dollars is with the Saudis. That has worked to our benefit as the World's reserve currency, creating a false demand for US Dollars and you know about supply and demand, eh? If the Saudis dropped the requirement to purchase with US Dollars, then the US Dollar would take a worldwide crap. They are also a big time purchaser from our Military/Industrial/Corporate complex. The Syria debacle has been engineered by the Saudis and the CIA and since when to we let a Monarchy run our Intelligence, or lack thereof, agencies?
 
Net imports of crude have fallen significantly in the wake of increased US production to it's lowest projected levels since the 1980's. But you are right that we still import an enormous amount of crude, however the petroleum market is global. Any increased output can have an impact on prices and supply considerations.

According to the EIA: "Rising domestic supplies have curbed consumption of foreign fuel. Net imports of crude oil and petroleum products will fall to 5.4 million barrels a day by 2014, down from 12.5 million in 2005, the EIA, a unit of the Energy Department, said in the report. "

Fracking Moves U.S. Crude Output to Highest Level Since 1989 - Bloomberg

Your link tells us that fracking has pushed domestic oil production up 124,000 barrels a day. Is that significant when compared with the 20 million a day US consumption? Yes, there has been a decline in the US's imports but it's a long way from oil independence and will remain so. In fact, fracking is in question and that reflects the 124 thousand figure. Canada will continue to be your largest supplier but Saudi will too. That's the reason this issue is not being ignored.

Rising crude supplies from fields including North Dakota’s Bakken shale and the Eagle Ford in Texas have helped the U.S. become the world’s largest exporter of refined fuels including gasoline and diesel. Texas pumped 2.575 million barrels a day in June, according to the EIA, enough to rank it ahead of seven members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

REad that carefully and understand it. There is a lot of politics involved in all these reports. In fact, it should be a little embarrassing to see the obvious attempt to obscure the main issue with this paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy. They use their money to spread religious fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world in direct opposition to American interests. Other than oil, they have nothing to offer. I'll grant you the existence of finely cultivated personal relationships, but those are simply means to an end, not valuable by themselves.

That is an intense simplification that I'll expand upon in a moment.
 

Part of the problem lies in a genuine difference of interests. In Syria's sectarian conflict, Saudi Arabia has large stakes in the toppling of the Assad dictatorship. U.S. interests in the outcome of that conflict are peripheral.

Nevertheless, part of the problem also lies in areas in which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have common interests. Assuring that Iran is not able to gain regional hegemony is a shared interest. Saudi Arabia is highly concerned about possible U.S. rapprochement with Iran, well ahead of Iran's actually making concrete and substantive accommodations related to its nuclear program. Israel shares similar concerns with respect to U.S.-Iran relations. The U.S. should leave the door open to an improvement in relations, but it must make clear that such improvement depends on Iran's making the necessary policy changes e.g., coming into compliance with its nuclear obligations. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are concerned that U.S. policy toward Iran is being driven more by hopes than concrete developments. Addressing those matters of common interest can mitigate the widening Saudi-U.S. gap.

Another area of mutual interest is the U.S.-Egypt bilateral relationship. U.S. hesitation in the face of events there and its taking measures that potentially undermine Egypt's ability to restore stable governance has also alarmed Saudi Arabia. The U.S. urgently needs to develop a coherent and credible policy with respect to Egypt that reflects Egypt's regional importance and demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and others that the U.S. is, in fact, a reliable and understanding partner.

Even as Saudi Arabia has become relatively less important to the U.S. given the rise in U.S. oil production, Saudi Arabia remains highly important to the U.S. and especially its allies in Europe and Asia.
 
Your link tells us that fracking has pushed domestic oil production up 124,000 barrels a day. Is that significant when compared with the 20 million a day US consumption? Yes, there has been a decline in the US's imports but it's a long way from oil independence and will remain so. In fact, fracking is in question and that reflects the 124 thousand figure. Canada will continue to be your largest supplier but Saudi will too. That's the reason this issue is not being ignored.

You misread the link: "Drilling techniques including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, pushed crude output up by 124,000 barrels, or 1.6 percent, to 7.745 million barrels a day in the seven days ended Sept. 6, the Energy Information Administration said today." It was part of the EIA's weekly energy update, not the annualized trend. In and of itself a 1.6% increase is actually rather extraordinary, in this context it is considerable.

According to the EIA the US had an output of around 5,000,000 bbl/d in 2008 which has scaled to over 7,000,000 bbl/d (The EIA had it as high as 7.6 million as of August) so far this year. Some believe the US may breach the 8.0 mm/bbl mark this year. That is an extraordinary boost and it is impossible to discount.

U.S. EIA says six shale areas account for almost all oil, gas output - UPI.com
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)
 
Your link tells us that fracking has pushed domestic oil production up 124,000 barrels a day. Is that significant when compared with the 20 million a day US consumption? Yes, there has been a decline in the US's imports but it's a long way from oil independence and will remain so. In fact, fracking is in question and that reflects the 124 thousand figure. Canada will continue to be your largest supplier but Saudi will too. That's the reason this issue is not being ignored.



REad that carefully and understand it. There is a lot of politics involved in all these reports. In fact, it should be a little embarrassing to see the obvious attempt to obscure the main issue with this paragraph.

I should also mention that Canada and Mexico are our largest suppliers, Saudi Arabia's share of our exports has consistently fallen over the past decade. Over the next few years they are likely to be eclipsed by Nigeria and (if production issues are resolved...) Venezuela.
 
Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy. They use their money to spread religious fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world in direct opposition to American interests. Other than oil, they have nothing to offer. I'll grant you the existence of finely cultivated personal relationships, but those are simply means to an end, not valuable by themselves.

It is a more complex situation then it's made out to be. For all of its repressive attitudes toward religious freedom, press freedoms, and of course women's rights it also a highly developed state with extremely low levels of violence, a well funded welfare and support system, a high degree of economic and infrastructural development, and quite frankly an indigenous Monarchy that enjoys broad popular support. The al-Saud has had three iterations and their history dates back to the 18th Century, Imperialism nor Colonialism played any role in their coming to power.

Saudi Arabia is a state that is as much governed by the existing attitudes of a strong conservative section of its people, as it is about the influence and rule of the Monarchy. There are definite limits to the ability of the al-Saud to pursue reform, that being said I think a very strong case can be made for a track record of progressive reform led from above and abetted by evolving social and political conditions.

The agitators for democracy in Saudi Arabia at present come from a disingenuous Islamist network that has no real desire to see an Islamic democracy, only a chance to unseat the al-Saud, while at the other end of the spectrum you have a mishmash of minority liberals and Shia opponents. I think the situation is beginning to change as economic pressures mount, and the impact of globalized technology and culture expands its impact, but at present the greatest force for liberalization has come from the top down.

However, yes it is true that the Saudi's exported Islamism. This began in the 1950's and 1960's as a means to combat the rise of Arab Socialist/Arab Republicanism which was being used as a weapon by likes of Nasser to subvert and destroy the Saudi state. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Egypt has only been matched in recent times by the one between Iran and the Kingdom. To fortify their rule in the face of assassination attempts, proxy wars, and attempted coups the Saudi's retrenched their religious credentials and created a network of allied Islamist parties abroad. However, this is not the same as funding al-Qaeda. While their religious activities abroad of been brought under a severe international and domestic focus given the nature of our post 9/11 world.

Historically Saudi Arabia has more often than not has been at the forefront of supporting US efforts in the region and abroad. They have backed and supported us in Afghanistan (twice), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Yemen (complicated but arguably yes), Lebanon numerous times, Syria (with independent but congruent interests), Egypt (during the Cold War), Nicaragua, Iran, the Soviet Union, oil prices and crude ouput (quite often with OPEC), etc.
 
Part of the problem lies in a genuine difference of interests. In Syria's sectarian conflict, Saudi Arabia has large stakes in the toppling of the Assad dictatorship. U.S. interests in the outcome of that conflict are peripheral.

Nevertheless, part of the problem also lies in areas in which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have common interests. Assuring that Iran is not able to gain regional hegemony is a shared interest. Saudi Arabia is highly concerned about possible U.S. rapprochement with Iran, well ahead of Iran's actually making concrete and substantive accommodations related to its nuclear program. Israel shares similar concerns with respect to U.S.-Iran relations. The U.S. should leave the door open to an improvement in relations, but it must make clear that such improvement depends on Iran's making the necessary policy changes e.g., coming into compliance with its nuclear obligations. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are concerned that U.S. policy toward Iran is being driven more by hopes than concrete developments. Addressing those matters of common interest can mitigate the widening Saudi-U.S. gap.

Another area of mutual interest is the U.S.-Egypt bilateral relationship. U.S. hesitation in the face of events there and its taking measures that potentially undermine Egypt's ability to restore stable governance has also alarmed Saudi Arabia
. The U.S. urgently needs to develop a coherent and credible policy with respect to Egypt that reflects Egypt's regional importance and demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and others that the U.S. is, in fact, a reliable and understanding partner.

Even as Saudi Arabia has become relatively less important to the U.S. given the rise in U.S. oil production, Saudi Arabia remains highly important to the U.S. and especially its allies in Europe and Asia.

in bold, above ( and in general agreement with the post), Obmama recently suspended Egyptian military aid, this the same week there were mini-riots.

Congress isn't pressing for suspension, no idea why he chose now, but it's seen as waffling on the US part, and cannot be anything but a boost to the Egyptian Msulim Brotherhood.
 
It is a more complex situation then it's made out to be. For all of its repressive attitudes toward religious freedom, press freedoms, and of course women's rights it also a highly developed state with extremely low levels of violence, a well funded welfare and support system, a high degree of economic and infrastructural development, and quite frankly an indigenous Monarchy that enjoys broad popular support. The al-Saud has had three iterations and their history dates back to the 18th Century, Imperialism nor Colonialism played any role in their coming to power.

The Saudi state remains stable because everyone with power is given a cut of the oil revenue. They have avoided the usual revolutions from the oppressed lower classes by importing foreign labor who are utterly helpless politically. Its a reasonably clever system I'll admit, but only exists because of geographic luck regarding oil. Turkey was founded in the time period and they built a real functioning nation state with an actual economy.

Saudi Arabia is a state that is as much governed by the existing attitudes of a strong conservative section of its people, as it is about the influence and rule of the Monarchy. There are definite limits to the ability of the al-Saud to pursue reform, that being said I think a very strong case can be made for a track record of progressive reform led from above and abetted by evolving social and political conditions.

The Saudi's social policies are horrible, even by the standards of the region. Egypt, Syria and Iraq shine by comparison. Our relationship with the Saudi's is necessary under the circumstances, but lets not pretend it isn't an ugly compromise of our nations principles.

The agitators for democracy in Saudi Arabia at present come from a disingenuous Islamist network that has no real desire to see an Islamic democracy, only a chance to unseat the al-Saud, while at the other end of the spectrum you have a mishmash of minority liberals and Shia opponents. I think the situation is beginning to change as economic pressures mount, and the impact of globalized technology and culture expands its impact, but at present the greatest force for liberalization has come from the top down.

I'm not suggesting regime change or anything foolish like that.

However, yes it is true that the Saudi's exported Islamism. This began in the 1950's and 1960's as a means to combat the rise of Arab Socialist/Arab Republicanism which was being used as a weapon by likes of Nasser to subvert and destroy the Saudi state. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Egypt has only been matched in recent times by the one between Iran and the Kingdom. To fortify their rule in the face of assassination attempts, proxy wars, and attempted coups the Saudi's retrenched their religious credentials and created a network of allied Islamist parties abroad. However, this is not the same as funding al-Qaeda. While their religious activities abroad of been brought under a severe international and domestic focus given the nature of our post 9/11 world.

The Taliban were taught in Saudi funded Madrasas during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They are certainly indirectly responsible for the increase in religiously motivated violence across the Muslim world. Aside from terrorism, they have exported gender discrimination even more successfully.

Historically Saudi Arabia has more often than not has been at the forefront of supporting US efforts in the region and abroad. They have backed and supported us in Afghanistan (twice), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Yemen (complicated but arguably yes), Lebanon numerous times, Syria (with independent but congruent interests), Egypt (during the Cold War), Nicaragua, Iran, the Soviet Union, oil prices and crude ouput (quite often with OPEC), etc.

One should also remember the 1973 embargo. Having token political support is nice, but its not something you build a solid alliance around.
 

How so?

Saudi Arabia needs us more than we need it. Canada and Mexico provide more oil to the US than they do.. (Canada on it's own rather does, but Mexico isn't far behind)Just have to make an adjustment here, an adjustment there, easy peasy, and Boom! We wash our hands of them... F-16's don't have a very long shelf life with no replacement parts sent to fix them.

Their passive aggressive behavior with the US is getting kinda old in the first place. Give Israel the "good stuff" in equal proportion to what we've given the Saud's to boost their needs and then let the Saud's deal with the Iranian's and Iraqi's on their own. I'm sure the Shiite's would just love to control Mecca... Better yet, give Turkey the goods and encourage an Ottoman revival.

Saudi Arabia is in no position to be making demands or dictating terms...
 
Back
Top Bottom