Orange turd: Losing profits on weapon sales to murderers is not good for us

[Axulus]

On Wednesday, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote to Trump and asked him to impose sanctions against anyone found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, including Saudi leaders. The lawmakers invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, giving the president 120 days to make a decision.

...

Trump dismissed the possibility.

“They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things,” he said of the Saudis. “If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ Or ‘Thank you very much. We’ll buy it from China.’ That doesn’t help us — not when it comes to jobs and not when it comes to our companies losing out on that work.”

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

 

[Deepak]

On Wednesday, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote to Trump and asked him to impose sanctions against anyone found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, including Saudi leaders. The lawmakers invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, giving the president 120 days to make a decision.

...

Trump dismissed the possibility.

“They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things,” he said of the Saudis. “If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ Or ‘Thank you very much. We’ll buy it from China.’ That doesn’t help us — not when it comes to jobs and not when it comes to our companies losing out on that work.”

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

Sounds like Trump and MbS are going to have to have a chat about adoption

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is unsurprising. There was one news report about some GOP Senator ranting on about how there'd be serious consequences for Saudi Arabia if they were found guilty and I remember thinking "How would that be the case? Who exactly is going to have them face consequences?".

 

[Opoponax]

How is this any different from any past administration in any significant way?

The U.S. has always sold weapons to tyrants, and even gone to war and destroyed those very same weapons (see Desert Storm).

Yes, Trump is an immoral asshole, and it likely delights him that a journalist was killed. There's no question about that. But this is longstanding U.S. policy, certainly not unique to Trump.

For christ's sake, Royal Saudi money funded the 9/11 hijackers, and look at our response to that. Bin Laden himself was closely connected to Saudi royalty.

Of course there should've been explosive repercussions against Saudi Arabia then, but there weren't. So what makes anyone think that under Trump this (???) would be any different.

 

[Elixir]

On Wednesday, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote to Trump and asked him to impose sanctions against anyone found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, including Saudi leaders. The lawmakers invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, giving the president 120 days to make a decision.

...

Trump dismissed the possibility.

“They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things,” he said of the Saudis. “If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ Or ‘Thank you very much. We’ll buy it from China.’ That doesn’t help us — not when it comes to jobs and not when it comes to our companies losing out on that work.”

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

Sounds like Trump and MbS are going to have to have a chat about adoption

Adopting murder and dismemberment as a means of suppressing dissent?

 

[scombrid]

On Wednesday, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote to Trump and asked him to impose sanctions against anyone found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, including Saudi leaders. The lawmakers invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, giving the president 120 days to make a decision.

...

Trump dismissed the possibility.

“They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things,” he said of the Saudis. “If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ Or ‘Thank you very much. We’ll buy it from China.’ That doesn’t help us — not when it comes to jobs and not when it comes to our companies losing out on that work.”

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

I don't think that he cares about the jobs $110 billion buys in the M.I.C. sector of our economy. He owes the Saudis money, or they hold the keys to his properties, or they are kicking something his way. He is avoiding a personal hit.

 

[Derec]

If US cuts them off, they'd just buy it elsewhere.
Hell, even Germany sells weapons to KSA
So why not make a killing, no pun intended, selling to the Saudis, as long as they are technically our allies?

And while kidnapping and murdering journalists is not cool, I fail to see the point of all this fawning over Khashoggi. He was (is?) no liberal, but rather an Islamist. It's just that he was part of the Muslim Brotherhood franchise of Islamism, rather than the Wahhabist one. But it's all illberal, authoritarian bullshit.
Death of a dissident: Saudi Arabia and the rise of the mobster state

The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but it’s for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power. This is not just wrong, but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, it’s for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable.

In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for western-style pluralistic democracy. In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence. He was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post. He championed the ‘moderate’ Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favour of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East. His recurring plea to bin Salman in his columns was to embrace not western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kashoggi advocated for greater women's rights and allowance of criticism by press of leaders. Which one do you have a problem with Derec? Is it women's rights or criticism of authoritarians?

 

[barbos]

Kashoggi advocated for greater women's rights and allowance of criticism by press of leaders. Which one do you have a problem with Derec? Is it women's rights or criticism of authoritarians?

After reading Spectator I am not sure who to root for. Prince is sure an authoritarian but he he is not an Islamist. Kashoggi may look like a democrat but he was an Islamist. Reminded me how US and South Korea after WW2. US had to support a guy who was no democrat and who was murdering his opponents left and right. In any case we know what Trump is gonna do, I wonder what Obama/Clinton would have done.

 

[Opoponax]

US had to support a guy who was no democrat and who was murdering his opponents left and right. In any case we know what Trump is gonna do, I wonder what Obama/Clinton would have done.

They would've done the same thing: nothing. They would've made noises about how terrible it is, just like Trump is doing now, but the news cycle would have eventually saved them from having to do anything about it.

This horrible vulnerability to ME oil has been clearly known to the government and the public since the early 1970s, but we are in the same position now as we were then. We have had the motivation to seek alternatives for some 45 years, but haven't done so. Our best opportunity happened on 9/11, but instead of changing the world in a positive way, we engaged in a phony and unnecessary war, thereby quadrupling down on oil dependence.

 

[untermensche]

How is this any different from any past administration in any significant way?

The U.S. has always sold weapons to tyrants, and even gone to war and destroyed those very same weapons (see Desert Storm).

Yes, Trump is an immoral asshole, and it likely delights him that a journalist was killed. There's no question about that. But this is longstanding U.S. policy, certainly not unique to Trump.

For christ's sake, Royal Saudi money funded the 9/11 hijackers, and look at our response to that. Bin Laden himself was closely connected to Saudi royalty.

Of course there should've been explosive repercussions against Saudi Arabia then, but there weren't. So what makes anyone think that under Trump this (???) would be any different.

GW Bush was very close to these dictators.

For some reason he only found the lack of democracy a problem in Iraq.

 

[Derec]

Kashoggi advocated for greater women's rights

Did he now? Care to link to an article where he did that? And if he did, was it only in reference to women's rights in KSA or was he equally concerned with women's rights in Muslim Brotherhood hotspots like Hamas-ruled Gaza, where women have recently been banned from riding motorcycles?

and allowance of criticism by press of leaders.

Sure, as that's what he does with KSA leaders.
And I do agree that press should be able to criticize its own leaders. But that does not mean that Kashoggi was not an Islamist as well.

Which one do you have a problem with Derec? Is it women's rights or criticism of authoritarians?

Are you still beating your wife Don?
I already wrote why I have a problem with Kashoggi. He is an Islamist of the Muslim Brotherhood persuasion (that makes him an authoritarian too) and has used WaPo to propagandize of behalf of the group. For example:
The U.S. is wrong about the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Arab world is suffering for it


By the way, there is an update in the case:
Saudis preparing to admit Jamal Khashoggi died during interrogation, sources say

 

[Derec]

This horrible vulnerability to ME oil has been clearly known to the government and the public since the early 1970s, but we are in the same position now as we were then. We have had the motivation to seek alternatives for some 45 years, but haven't done so. Our best opportunity happened on 9/11, but instead of changing the world in a positive way, we engaged in a phony and unnecessary war, thereby quadrupling down on oil dependence.

Quadrupling on oil dependence? Hardly. US is now producing twice as much oil as we did in 2001, and our net imports are down significantly. At the same time, consumption is flat.

At the same time, there have been huge strides made in electric (both hybrid and battery only) cars since 2001.
These days we have electric cars that have range greater than 200 miles. That's a great step in reducing our dependence on oil, but it definitely has been both a technological and economic challenge. EV technology still costs a lot, which limits its use in the cheaper car segment. But things are moving in the right direction, which is why MdB is trying to diversify the kingdom's economy. He can see the handwriting on the wall as clearly as anybody.

 

[Opoponax]

This horrible vulnerability to ME oil has been clearly known to the government and the public since the early 1970s, but we are in the same position now as we were then. We have had the motivation to seek alternatives for some 45 years, but haven't done so. Our best opportunity happened on 9/11, but instead of changing the world in a positive way, we engaged in a phony and unnecessary war, thereby quadrupling down on oil dependence.

Quadrupling on oil dependence? Hardly. US is now producing twice as much oil as we did in 2001, and our net imports are down significantly. At the same time, consumption is flat.

At the same time, there have been huge strides made in electric (both hybrid and battery only) cars since 2001.
These days we have electric cars that have range greater than 200 miles. That's a great step in reducing our dependence on oil, but it definitely has been both a technological and economic challenge. EV technology still costs a lot, which limits its use in the cheaper car segment. But things are moving in the right direction, which is why MdB is trying to diversify the kingdom's economy. He can see the handwriting on the wall as clearly as anybody.

That doesn't mean our dependence has ended. Not by a long shot. If we didn't need ME oil, we wouldn't still be there. So yes, the situation is better, but it's more aptly described as being less shitty than it was, i.e., it's still pretty shitty.

We wouldn't worry about the ME for a goddamn second if we didn't need them. We sure as hell wouldn't be willing to go to war over dates and rugs.

 

[Elixir]

We wouldn't worry about the ME for a goddamn second if we didn't need them. We sure as hell wouldn't be willing to go to war over dates and rugs.

Rugs ... yes, we need them.

 

[Derec]

That doesn't mean our dependence has ended. Not by a long shot.

Of course not. Nobody claimed otherwise. But it is a complex problem, not one that can be accomplished with a flip of a switch just because we decide to do it.

If we didn't need ME oil, we wouldn't still be there.

Even if US didn't import a single drop from ME, even if US didn't import a single drop from anywhere, ME oil would still be important.
Imagine something takes off the 10 Mbbl/d KSA produces offline. The world oil market would go haywire - oil prices would shoot through the roof. Even in countries that do not import it because oil is fungible.
So yes, ME oil will be important for the foreseeable future. It's an accident of geography and geology and the chemical fact that oil is a highly energy dense and practical energy source that can be easily processed to energy dense and practical fuels. It's not easy to replace because it's so damn good in so many aspects.

So yes, the situation is better, but it's more aptly described as being less shitty than it was, i.e., it's still pretty shitty.

So you acknowledge improvement. That's quite different than saying we "quadrupled down".

We wouldn't worry about the ME for a goddamn second if we didn't need them. We sure as hell wouldn't be willing to go to war over dates and rugs.

Which is a major reason why I find  Desertec such a Schnapsidee.

No good to wean ourselves from dependence on ME oil to become dependent on ME solar power.

 

[lpetrich]

We wouldn't worry about the ME for a goddamn second if we didn't need them. We sure as hell wouldn't be willing to go to war over dates and rugs.

Which is a major reason why I find  Desertec such a Schnapsidee.

No good to wean ourselves from dependence on ME oil to become dependent on ME solar power.

I agree. But a nice thing about solar energy is that it is much harder to monopolize. If one wants to stick to subtropical deserts, one has a lot of real estate to choose from.

• Sahara Desert: 9.2
• Australian Desert: 2.7
• Arabian Desert: 2.33
• Kalahari Desert: 0.9

Areas in millions of square kilometers. So there is 4 times as much real estate in the Sahara as in Arabia, and plenty elsewhere.

 

[Underseer]

On Wednesday, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote to Trump and asked him to impose sanctions against anyone found responsible for Khashoggi’s disappearance, including Saudi leaders. The lawmakers invoked the Global Magnitsky Act, giving the president 120 days to make a decision.

...

Trump dismissed the possibility.

“They’re spending $110 billion purchasing military equipment and other things,” he said of the Saudis. “If we don’t sell it to them, they’ll say, ‘Well, thank you very much. We’ll buy it from Russia.’ Or ‘Thank you very much. We’ll buy it from China.’ That doesn’t help us — not when it comes to jobs and not when it comes to our companies losing out on that work.”

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

Wow, you're admitting that Trump is wrong even though he's really racist?

What did he do to piss you off? Are you mad that he didn't build the wall?

 

[J842P]

How is this any different from any past administration in any significant way?

The U.S. has always sold weapons to tyrants, and even gone to war and destroyed those very same weapons (see Desert Storm).

Yes, Trump is an immoral asshole, and it likely delights him that a journalist was killed. There's no question about that. But this is longstanding U.S. policy, certainly not unique to Trump.

For christ's sake, Royal Saudi money funded the 9/11 hijackers, and look at our response to that. Bin Laden himself was closely connected to Saudi royalty.

Of course there should've been explosive repercussions against Saudi Arabia then, but there weren't. So what makes anyone think that under Trump this (???) would be any different.

Mhmm it is my understanding that one of the principal enemies of Osama bin Laden was the Saudi Royal family. He decried the Saudi government as an illegitimate government and was seeking a true Sunni Islamic government (which does not include a Monarch). Indeed, he was banished from Saudi Arabia for preaching this. He was especially irate of the Saudi government's relationship with the USA, and found it completely unacceptable to have non-Muslims guarding the holy lands of Mecca and Medina.

No doubt, with the Saudi Royal family being vast, there may have some members who supported his extremist religious views, but all in all, I think the only reasonable characterization of Osama bin Laden's relationship to the Saudi Monarchy is that of an avowed enemy.

Now, the Saudi Monarchy walks a tight rope, and has formed a power-sharing relationship with non-other than Al ash-Sheikh, the descendants of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the extremist Wahhabi religious school that dominates the Kingdom's religious matters, and is the main source of anti-American sentiment, and anti-American terrorism.

It's a complex situation.

 

[RVonse]

No surprise here. The turd wants to do business with any kind of scoundral so long as it results in economic gain. Something which China and Russia have no qualms about. He is definitely trying to make us more like them.

I don't want to be like Russia because they are economic losers of the first order. But I sure don't mind being like China taking in all the high value jobs from the rest of the world, thus becoming a superpower. Yea...being more like China on that front sounds pretty good to me! And it should sound good to you too.

All the aforementioned is probably academic anyway. Because of Nixon agreements pairing the dollar to oil, Saudi gets to do things that normal countries just don't get to do. Like flying all of their families out of NY during 911. We have a relationship with Saudi that goes way beyond what you will read in the media.