Saudi King dies

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthy


Of course he'll be the same as he has been for the past 10 years.

not necessarily - he may have more power as king, than as Crown prince and regent. Im not familiar enough with the maneuverings in the house of Saud to be sure.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Az
people like snoopy are the reason bad things happen. They're actively uncaring.

I simply happen to believe that I'm not the only smart person in the world, and that I don't have enough information or intelligence to be able to decide for other people what is right.

The philosophy of democracy is that the people should determine how their country is run. Perhaps you should poll the Saudis and ask how many are happy now, versus an elected government. Try it.

The philosophy of Monarchy, on the other hand, is that the people are not smart enough to figure out what they need, and they need someone to tell them what's right and what's wrong.

Which side are you on precisely?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Judging others based on your own cultural and personal beliefs


Fahd did many great things for his nation, and was a friend to the U.S. and to Freedom everywhere. Saudi Arabia does not wish to become a democracy; only an egotistical, selfish idiot believes that everyone must follow their personal opinion on what is 'right'. Or a religious person ... Che, which are you

Tyranny is when a leader terrorizes his people and loots and pillages his nation for his own personal gain. Tyrants are not beloved by their people, but reviled and feared. Fahd was neither - he was a beloved leader, and most Saudis would choose the Monarchy of King Fahd over a democracy any day of the week.

If you believe in "democracy" in theory - i.e., that the will of the people should be followed - then consider that the will of the Saudis is monarchy.

I only hope that Abdullah is as good a friend to the U.S., and as beloved a leader, as Fahd...

Its not at all clear that all Saudis liked fahd - IIUC the Shia dont like the regime much. Theres also a considerable body of dissidents. Its hard to tell how many there really are in KSA, cause, er, KSA isnt an open society.


In any case, our principle concern is with KSA's behavior in supporting imams who support the demonization of non-muslims, and who are alleged to provide support for terrorist groups, including Al Qaeeda. Now of course KSA has cracked down on AQ these last 3 years or so, but theres plenty of questioning about how tough or effective they have been, much of it relating to the question of maneuvering among different members of the royal family.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I simply happen to believe that I'm not the only smart person in the world, and that I don't have enough information or intelligence to be able to decide for other people what is right.

The philosophy of democracy is that the people should determine how their country is run. Perhaps you should poll the Saudis and ask how many are happy now, versus an elected government. Try it.
?

How can you try it, when youd be arrested if you did? And even if you ran such a poll, what meaning would it have in a country where its not legal to debate the monarchy?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


not necessarily - he may have more power as king, than as Crown prince and regent. Im not familiar enough with the maneuverings in the house of Saud to be sure.

More specifically, now he has no-one to blame for his policies other than himself. That makes it a lot easier to make policies that part of your nation dislikes - take credit for the good ones, and leave them to think that Fahd is the one who's soft on American Infidels. Now he has to say that he himself supports America (though I can't say for sure he hasn't said this before ... also not familiar enough with specifics.)

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


How can you try it, when youd be arrested if you did? And even if you ran such a poll, what meaning would it have in a country where its not legal to debate the monarchy?

Because until you provide me with proof otherwise, I see no reason why I should support enforcing change on the Saudi people simply because you or I or anyone else thinks it's what they WOULD or SHOULD want. Iraq I was only very vaguely in support of taking on - and that was entirely due to the realpolitik implications of Saddam remaining in power, combined with the things he did to the Kurds.

Honestly I see it as no different than from telling Israel that they need to be Christian, because their souls are at risk, and they clearly don't know any better.

I'd never say that - because I don't believe I have any more reason to be right religiously than you, or any other person.

That philosophy leads to might-makes-right realities - which is just plain horrible to imagine.

[Az]

I simply happen to believe that I'm not the only smart person in the world, and that I don't have enough information or intelligence to be able to decide for other people what is right.

The philosophy of democracy is that the people should determine how their country is run. Perhaps you should poll the Saudis and ask how many are happy now, versus an elected government. Try it.

The philosophy of Monarchy, on the other hand, is that the people are not smart enough to figure out what they need, and they need someone to tell them what's right and what's wrong.

Which side are you on precisely?

That's not democracy. That's mob rule. What about personal human rights?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Az


That's not democracy. That's mob rule. What about personal human rights?

Who decides what is a human right and what is not?

There's a thin line between democracy and mob rule. It's called respect for others' beliefs.

[Az]

Respect for others' beliefs != respect for others' actions.
You can believe and say pretty much anything, IMO. It's when you get to the doing part, that's where the problem lies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Because until you provide me with proof otherwise, I see no reason why I should support enforcing change on the Saudi people simply because you or I or anyone else thinks it's what they WOULD or SHOULD want. Iraq I was only very vaguely in support of taking on - and that was entirely due to the realpolitik implications of Saddam remaining in power, combined with the things he did to the Kurds.

Honestly I see it as no different than from telling Israel that they need to be Christian, because their souls are at risk, and they clearly don't know any better.

I'd never say that - because I don't believe I have any more reason to be right religiously than you, or any other person.

That philosophy leads to might-makes-right realities - which is just plain horrible to imagine.

No one here is saying we should invade Saudi Arabia to make them a democracy, or that they should cease to be muslim, so stop inventing strawmen.

We are judging, in WORDS, the Saudi regime. And we have every right to do that. And to the extent that the Saudi govt values cooperation with the govts of our countries (sorry, Az ) our govts have the right to consider Saudi domestic policies in our relationships. And indeed, to the extent that Saudi domestic policy, whether in its oppression, or its conservatism, feeds terrorism, we have an OBLIGATION to ourselves to consider it.

and lets remember, KSA itself funds mosques and islamic schools around the world, trying to sway them to its own brand of Islam. What, I ask, gives THEM the right to influence other societies, including other muslim societies, yet ban all outside influences on their own society?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369


More specifically, now he has no-one to blame for his policies other than himself. That makes it a lot easier to make policies that part of your nation dislikes - take credit for the good ones, and leave them to think that Fahd is the one who's soft on American Infidels. Now he has to say that he himself supports America (though I can't say for sure he hasn't said this before ... also not familiar enough with specifics.)

well im not sure hes got complete control now - hes had to recognize Prince Sultan (a Sudeiri) as crown prince, and Prince Nayef remains as Interior Minister. If hes going to reduce the influence of the Sudeiri Seven, that will take some time, some subtlety, and some luck.

[Az]

sorry, Az

Don't feel sorry for me. 9/11 happened in NY,NY,US, not here.

[snoopy369]

Putting out education and funding to schools and mosques is perfectly reasonable. You're not forcing anyone to change, just offering them incentive and education about such change. No worse than Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door - you can always close the door.

Considering domestic policies is different than condemning a lifestyle (in this case a country's lifestyle - ie form of government). Until it damages others around it, or damages the people in some tangible way, condemning it is egotistical and selfish. I still hold that until and unless the Saudi people desire a change, we should not condemn their form of government.

I do want to be clear that I don't intend to imply you would overthrow the Saudi government by force. Simply that the attitude that their goverment is 'wrong' bothers me.

We ought no more condemn their actions than their beliefs, anyway. Sure, if their goverment is slaughtering minority groups, or if they are attacking other countries ... but funding mosques and rooting out terrorism in their country, albeit not as fast or thoroughly as we would like? What exactly are they *doing* wrong ...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
"Putting out education and funding to schools and mosques is perfectly reasonable. You're not forcing anyone to change, just offering them incentive and education about such change. No worse than Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door - you can always close the door."


Ok, so can we fund churches and synagues in Saudi Arabia? Hell, i dont even need that. Can we fund mosques and islamic schools in Saudi Arabia that teach a different kind of Islam? No we cant. You do know that KSA not only oppresses christianity and judaism, but oppresses forms of Islam other than Wahabism?


"Considering domestic policies is different than condemning a lifestyle (in this case a country's lifestyle - ie form of government). "

A form of govt isnt a "lifestyle".

" Until it damages others around it, or damages the people in some tangible way, condemning it is egotistical and selfish."

Its certainly harmed the Saudi political dissidents sitting in prison, the Shiites who are discriminated against, etc.

" I still hold that until and unless the Saudi people desire a change, we should not condemn their form of government."

how the hell does anyone know what they would desire if they dont live in an open society.

"I do want to be clear that I don't intend to imply you would overthrow the Saudi government by force. Simply that the attitude that their goverment is 'wrong' bothers me. "


Why? Some things are wrong. I have a brain, I can judge. If someone wants to argue why their form is better, let them.

"We ought no more condemn their actions than their beliefs, anyway. Sure, if their goverment is slaughtering minority groups, or if they are attacking other countries ... but funding mosques and rooting out terrorism in their country, albeit not as fast or thoroughly as we would like? What exactly are they *doing* wrong ..."

Theyre funding a form of Islam that holds back muslim modernization and reform. Theyre failing to crack down as fast or thoroughly as necessary on a force that murdered thousands of americans, that is murdering thousands of muslims, and that is very dangerous to us all. I think thats what they are doing wrong.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Az

sorry, Az

Don't feel sorry for me. 9/11 happened in NY,NY,US, not here.

I said that cause i was referring to influence on KSA, which the govts of some posters here have, and which yours does not.