If the Saudi royal family were about to be overthrown, should the US back them?

[yurbud]

The Saudis have consistently had one of the worst human rights records in the world and we back them because they have made a deal with the oil companies that those companies like.

DC keeps saying if the royal family fell, al Qaeda would replace them, but hearing that same tired line repeated on cable news about Egypt, even as Christians and secular Muslims are part of the revolution, that looks a little more like bullshit.

Also, do we know for sure that a new regime would jack up oil prices? or would they just demand a bigger cut from the oil companies or simply use more of their share of the oil income to better the lives of more of their people instead of one debauched, degenerate family that not only http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html">gave money to al Qaeda through one of their agents, but http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/02/bandar-bushs-terror-threat-to-britain.html">threatened terrorism against Great Britain if they didn't stop investigating Saudis role in a corruption scandal.

I won't lose any sleep over seeing them out, and the last terrorists to jack up our oil prices were speculators on Wall Street. Send the troops in to clear out that terrorist cell before we lift a finger to save the Saudi royal family.

But what do you think? Should we back them and how far?

[arcane1]

1. No. In addition:

we shouldn't be backing them now.

[WinkyDink]

2. "Send troops"?! The same troops the Saudis wanted OUT?! Let Uncle Bandar go hang.

Literally.

[PDJane]

3. No. The US will, of course.......

The same as the US supports all kinds of dictators around the world. Democracy is messy.

[davepc]

4. The US isint the only nation on the globe with a vested intrest in stable oil markets

The EU and China import oil too.

[yurbud]

7. Wouldn't a new government have as much interest in stable oil markets?

My guess is the only difference would be what they do with their cut of the oil income, which wouldn't be importing western prostitutes and painting nipples on statues.

[qazplm]

5. the assumption you seem to have

is that such a revolution would be done by better elements than the royal family, and that it would in fact reflect the will of a majority of the population and wouldn't be radical.

Given the fact that Saudi Arabia has some of the most extreme minor sects of Islam there are suggests to me the real answer to your question is, it depends.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. How about the assumption that it is none of our business

what the people of arabia do with the thugs ruling over them?

[qazplm]

9. of course it isnt none of our business

now, how much of our business it is would be the question.

Certainly it probably wouldn't be enough of our business to invade or provide arms.
Would it be enough however to speak in support of one side or the other? Maybe, I don't know.

The idea that nothing outside of our borders is "our business" and thus we should have no interaction/response ignores the reality of a global world.

What I do know is that a democracy in Saudi Arabia would be very good for them and for us. An extreme and possibly violent fundamentalist theocracy (as opposed to the fundamentalist but more or less not violently extreme theocracy they have now) would be a concern for us and the whole world.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. So you would suggest intervention if we don't like the outcome?

Or messing with the situation right from the start to push the direction things take?

How many people should we kill to get our way?

[yurbud]

14. they have nurtured those sects to keep people ignorant and we have encouraged the export

when it suits us, including currently to try to destabilize Iran.

[bigwillq]

8. No (nt)

[Rectangle]

10. What about our.......Er, Umm......I mean "Their" oil? What happens to oil exports, if a

hostile (to the US,) regime comes to power in SA???


:shrug:

[XemaSab]

12. Rotten fruit?

I'll send them a case of 151 for making "cocktails."

[yurbud]

15. I didn't want to say anything that would get me a visit from al Qaeda or their masters

[revolution breeze]

13. It is in our best interest to promote stability in the region.

But I strongly oppose sending another U.S. troop to fight in any other nation's war. As far as jacked up oil prices, do we really think the Saudi royal family isn't already doing this?

[LSdemocrat]

16. Except Saudi Arabian instability = oil instability

If the Saudi Arabian government faced serious protests, oil prices would shoot up overnight which would of course wreak havoc with the world economy.


What should we do in response? Sadly, there probably is no good response.

[yurbud]

20. some said that would be the result of the Iraq War. Prices did shoot up but...

it turned out to be the work of speculators.

[treestar]

17. We are bad if we interfere with other countries

And now we are bad if we don't.

Our meddling has led to a lot of terrible situations.

Our not meddling leaves people with the government they choose.

Either way, we are wrong?

[Nihil]

18. No (but they will)

Since when has "do the right thing" been a part of US foreign policy?
:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

19. The Saudi government has been untouchable for decades

And as the chief financier and enabler of 9/11, I'd LOVE to see some popular uprising there.

Not to mention of course, SA has one of the WORST records on human rights in the world.

Yeah, let's see some protesters on the streets of Riyadh.

[yurbud]

21. that would be a giant rift between inside the beltway thinking and the rest of us

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. Yes because the US is owned by corporations and their

interest are America's interest......

Can we get another bailout? Come on.... just another $20 trillion
will help.. all we ask is austerity on your part.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Besides.... Isn't CitiBank great and awesome?

because if they go ...... where will you BANK?

[roamer65]

24. The US will invade to keep them in power.

The reason the Arab oil embargo ended in 1973 was due to Nixon's threat to invade if it wasn't lifted.

[supernova]

25. Who is voting for supporting the royal family

and do you really belong on DU?!?

Stupid is as stupid does.

[yurbud]

26. six people...that's about as many DLCers as there are here.