Saudi police say Barbie dolls are a "Jewish toy" and a threat to morality

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ming


I feel like americans now a day overlook anything a democrat did, but has to harp on a republican that is doing the same thing the democrat did

unfortunately i dont run media, so i dont matter.

[Agathon]

This is absurd! No Jewish women are as good looking as Barbie - not even Zylka's one.

[Dinner]

Can we please get back on topic? Would anyone care to defend the Saudis? I'm sure we have to have a bleeding heart type out there some where. Failing that someone could tell us about some other outragious statement or barbaric act commited by the Saudi government.

[Arrian]

I doubt anyone here will defend the Saudis, Oerdin. Some may defend the U.S. stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia on purely amoral grounds, but I'd be shocked to find someone defending the House of Saud.

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is absurd! No Jewish women are as good looking as Barbie - not even Zylka's one.

Barbie neither have nipples, nor pubic hair. Is that the style you like?

[Shi Huangdi]

This is an interal policy regarding their own people. Disgusting? Yes. A basis for foreign policy? No.

[chequita guevara]

Destroy the Saudis!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
I doubt anyone here will defend the Saudis, Oerdin. Some may defend the U.S. stance vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia on purely amoral grounds, but I'd be shocked to find someone defending the House of Saud.

-Arrian

Ok, then if nobody wants to defend the Saudis then perhaphs someone can explain why we are always helping the Saudis. They are after all a government who's policies produce more crazed fanatics who want to kill us then any where all. At least if 9/11 is any guide.

Why hasn't our government moved to remove oil from our economy where ever possible? Why haven't they enforced European style fuel economy laws? Why aren't we using subsitutes for oil like coal which can be produced domestically without funding Arab terrorist organizations? Why haven't we invested more in mass transite and raised CAFE standards so that we'll consume less oil? Why aren't we subsidizing and then preferentially buying oil from non-Arab sources?

It seems clear to me that doing these things will lesson the funds which terrorists have and thus save the lives of innocent people around the world.

[MRT144]

Oerdin, republicans in the government is the answer.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Ok, then if nobody wants to defend the Saudis then perhaphs someone can explain why we are always helping the Saudis."

AS chegitz says, the people wanting to overthrow the house of Saud are even worse.

Hasn't Saudi Arabia been doing more to combat terrorism, getting in the news about a bunch of Islamists killed in their country? Perhaps this move that they are doing is done to combat criticism that may arise from Islamic circles from doing that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This is an interal policy regarding their own people. Disgusting? Yes. A basis for foreign policy? No.

yeah, if all they did was ban barbies, and didnt fund wahabism abroad, and didnt have preachers inciting hatred( now im gonna hear somebody turn this into a discussion of Pat Robertson) , and really faught terrorism on their own soil, it would be ok. Its more troubling as yet one more reminder of what kind of state we are dealing with. Given how much of the important stuff that goes on in Saudi society is hidden, one tends to seize on trivia like this.

[Arrian]

disclaimer: I'm not defending.

There are a lot of reasons.

The main ones:

1) Oil
2) What Che said regarding the people who would take over if the House of Saud fell. So our choices are bad and worse. We've chosen bad, and hoped it could keep worse in check. It did - inside Saudi Arabia. So worse left and went international.

Why hasn't the government moved to get off of oil? Because the oil companies have a ton of clout, and "getting off of oil" isn't an easy thing. It requires long-range planning and funding, and governments tend to be pretty bad at that, it seems (by long range, I mean more than an election cycle or two).

I happen to absolutely agree that investing heavily in alternative energy is a good idea. Anything that reduces our dependency on oil is a good thing, and the benifit to the environment (that varies, depending on which alternative energy source we're talking about) is also a plus. I also agree that getting away from support of dictators and other various nasties is a good idea, even if short-term it's problematic. But that's easier said than done, considering how much of the world is not democratic.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

The Saudis still occasionally crucify criminals.

But, their demand for American military hardware and training is insatiable.

[MRT144]

F15s baby

[chequita guevara]

I would point out that this current government is especially tied to the House of Saud. Right after 9/11, Neil Bush was sent over to reasure them that our administration wasn't mad at them. This current Administration isn't just in bed with the oil companies, it is made up of oil men.

When Bush came to power, all investigation into the Saudi sources of terror money was quashed (to be fair, it's not as if Clinton made this a high priority and it wasn't a top priority). Any agent wishing to persue investigations into the Saudis would quickly find their career over. (Which is why the FBI's top terrorism expert ended up leaving and working as the head of security for the WTC. His 1st day was 9/11/2001.)

In the days following 9/11, over 150 Saudis were whisked out of the country by the government, including two of bin Laen's brothers. See this month's Vanity Fair for details.

Finally we have the Congressional Inquiry which the Bush Administration had classified (and the Saudis made a pretense of wanting it relesased because it would clear them--despite Congressmen saying the opposite).