The king is dead; long live the king?
King Fahd of Saudia Arabia, right, and the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, left, are seen in this 1981 photo taken in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. King Fahd, who moved his country closer to the United States but ruled in name only since suffering a stroke in 1995, died early Monday, Aug. 1, 2005, the Saudi royal court said. He was 84. Crown Prince Abdullah, the king's half brother and Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, was appointed the country's new monarch.
(AP Photo/Saleh Rifai, File)
Abdullah Al-Shihri, for AP - RIYADH, Saudi Arabia:
During his rule, the portly, goateed Fahd, who rose to the throne in 1982, inadvertently helped fuel the rise of Islamic extremism by making multiple concessions to hard-liners, hoping to boost his Islamic credentials. But then he also brought the kingdom closer to the United States and agreed to a step that enraged many conservatives: the basing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Abdullah oversaw the crackdown on Islamic militants after followers of Saudi-born Osama bin Laden launched a wave of attacks, beginning with the May 2003 bombings of Western residential compounds in Riyadh. Abdullah also pushed a campaign against extremist teaching and preaching and introduced the kingdom's first elections ever - municipal polls held in early 2005.
And Abdullah - who before coming to power had not been happy with Saudi Arabia's close alliance with and military dependence on the United States and Washington's perceived bias toward Israel - rebuilt the kingdom's ties with the U.S. He visited President Bush twice at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, most recently in April 2005.
Well. We know that a lot of Islamic fanatics hail from Saudi Arabia...like those charming fellows who flew a few planes into some buildings hereabouts. Then there's the lovely and talented Osama bin Laden, of course.
The Saudi royalty has paid a lot of lip service to being vehemently opposed to terrorism; now they officially have a new king, although in reality Abdullah has been running the show for 10 years years now, ever since King Fahd had a stroke in '95. Perhaps now that Abdullah is king in fact, things might change...but it seems doubtful.
Crude oil prices will very likely stay high, largely due to the appetite of the Dragon in the East...China.
(Economics 101 - Law of Supply and Demand: the Saudis have the supply, while China has the demand. Of course when you adjust for inflation, gas prices in the U.S. have been higher in the past. But I digress...)
My primary concern is regarding terrorism.
Instead of just paying lip service to being opposed to it, it would speak volumes if King Abdullah denounced it entirely. He has cracked down on it within his country's borders to a certain degree, but many of the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are being bankrolled by Saudi sympathizers. If King Abdullah were to crack down on them, it would truly make a difference.
Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words...
posted by camojack | 06:44
35 Comments:
From what I understand, SA is about to come apart at the seams. The royals are sucking up all the money, and the huge rest of society are getting poorer and poorer. Perhaps shades of South Africa? The women there are SO oppressed and brainwashed! God help them!
I for one am GLAD our troops are out of there!
Oh, and FIRST!!!! ;oP
Also, I read recently that their numbers on their oil reserves may be fudged on a regular basis. What would happen if their pump went dry? It boggles the mind.
MargeinMI:
You can read an excellent article on the whys and wherefores of the deteriorating Saudi standard of living HERE.
Kajun,
You got that right. Hillary Clinton and her dim lib friends have been pushing to increase the size of the military by 30,000 men. Why would they be interested if they weren't planning on using them in Iraq?
Howie,
I thought Kim G. Shrub was Korean.
Marge,
What would happen if their pump went dry?
Unfortunately, some day everyone's oil pump is going to go dry. It's a limited resource, non-renewable. When it's gone, it's gone. Some have even suggested that with the growth of economies like China, it may be gone within 50 years....
Which means that when I'm 103 years old I'll be toolin' around in some cool new electro-hydrogen-hybrid thingy. Can't wait!
howie:
You appeasers simply lack any grasp of reality.
Kajun:
I was surprised to note that you added a link to howie's blog on your own; I used to have one myself, but cannot allow my blog to be associated with some of the vulgar stuff he allows there.
Hawkeye®:
I'm all for alternative energy resources...as you rightly pointed out, fossil fuels are non-renewable.
I plan to invest heavily in solar and wind generators when I move to my retirement acreage, along with a water catchment system...
camo,
er ughhhh!
Thanks for the reality check
deleted
shoot and I thought I could trust my mom's emails.
just wait till I see her again !
haha
thanks again,sir !
Libby Gone™:
No problemo, señor.
Always check things first, irrespective of source...
Plus cha change,
Plus ce le meim chose?
phonetically of course.
mig:
That's true.
Libby Gone™:
C'est vrai...
SGT USMC 1ea:
Since we have our own (strategic) oil reserves, lots of other countries will feel the "pinch" 'afore we do.
As you prob'ly know, the "master plan" is to use up the other guys' oil first...
Good link Jack. Seems like the unemployment problem there is a combo of population growth, and the the 'outsourcing' the actual work of running the oil business. Is it because Little Jamal is too busy learning how to be Big Jamal Jihadist, (by the state) than Big Jamal the chemical engineer?
They've got a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go!
MargeinMI:
Essentially, they live in a glorified welfare state, bringing in foreign help to do all the work...but it's not gonna last.
Kajun:
I like the Italian tablecloth version of their headwear better...
Hawkeye
Unfortunately, some day everyone's oil pump is going to go dry. It's a limited resource, non-renewable.
Actually we can produce oil from garbage in a few hours. Solves two problems at once. Nobody will pursue it in quantities until the "other" oil is in really short supply.
kajun
It still looks like they wear diapers with fanbelts on their heads.
Actually, they are little sheets. Some people call the wearers "little sheet heads".
Pat'sRick© said:
Actually we can produce oil from garbage in a few hours. Solves two problems at once.
Ah, yes; what is also referred to as "Biomass".
I'm all for alternative energy sources, but prefer the cleaner kind. You still have to burn biomass-type products...so you still get pollutants.
Currently giving their number one export(oil) a run for the money, is the Saudi exportation of terrorism. Oh how I wish we could tell them to "take their oil and drink it", so that we would not be unwittingly funding these terrorists' activities. Many of the Iraqi "insurgents" (stupid euphemistic term) are Saudi nationals whose goal is to kill as many Americans as possible. "Fill 'er up." :-(
'da Bunny:
All too true, unfortunately.
Just another excellent reason to develop alternative energy technologies.
howie:
You surprise me; nothing spelt incorrectly.
But to answer your question:
To preserve our way of life and take the battle to the terrorists, rather than fighting it in our own cities and towns...
But...that's not how howie wants it.
Josh:
Maybe I'll go see what howie copied & pasted in his ineffable literary (but not literate) fashion...
CamoJack,
Good Questions… Saudi is the birthplace of the “suicide” versions of Islam... Saudi is maybe one third of our daily oil intake??? It is tough to know how much pressure to use to accomplish our long term goals...
At sixty dollars a barrel, it should be cheaper to convert to corn as our National fuel source...
One problem solved...
JR
JR:
We can use corn for everything; fuel, oil, alcoholic beverages...I've also heard it can be used for food. :-)
(You maybe can't tell from my picture, but trust me, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek...)
Speaking of pictures, Jack; nice link on SF the other day. You looked, like, totally, dude, in va-ca mode, like, totally. Nice tattoos.
MargeinMI:
You mean this picture?
I definitely was in "vacation mode", indeed...
howie:
Uncommonly Sensitive?!
Fine. Have it your way; even though it's incorrect, at least you spelt it right...
truth_is_freedom:
Apparently we're in agreement yet again...is it becoming a bad habit? Just kidding. But you're kind of teasing me with "(page 2)", although it'd be easy enough to find with a web search, I s'pose.
Anyway, as I closed the post that started this thread:
"Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words..."
My point being, until they "walk the walk", the talk fails to impress.
Howie,
FYI, you have a starring role in the latest posting on my blog View From Above.
Hawkeye®:
Funny. But why tell him here? I think he just makes "drive by" postings here and elsewhere, without checking back for any response...
howie:
If only you'd spell check.
(Hint..."responses")
truth_is_freedom:
I realize that there's a definite conflict of interest, within Saudi Arabia, and also in its relationship with the U.S.
They want money, Americans want their oil. It's called politics, an ugly business to be sure, but it keeps the "wheels greased"...so to speak.
Regarding your question about why it's acceptable for Israel to have nukes and not Iran, the former has typically been in a defensive posture, whereas the latter has been aggressive historically. Even the vaunted U.N. is opposed to Iran having nukes, although outside of issuing "resolutions" (not worth the paper they're printed on), there's precious little they'll actually do about it.
Personally, I'm hoping that the Iranian people take matters into their own hands, and overthrow the theocracy they are currently living under...
truth_is_freedom:
There you go making erroneous assumptions...I never said I didn't care.
As for the Israel/Palestine matter, Israel was attacked in the late 60's; if they took more land in retaliation, that's tough! You can spare me the laundry lists of U.N. resolutions. That particular failed experiment in global socialism (The U.N.) has become a mockery of its original high-minded ideals, and has no credibility here.
(Here being this blog; I presume to speak for no-one but myself)
Ponder this: I know you said you're agnostic, but who would you rather have running things...a group that lives by the "death to infidels" credo, or one that is run by the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" crowd?
Arrogant, or simply pragmatic?!
I'll quote some folks who make a LOT of sense, from my perspective...
"While it's true that hundreds of millions of Muslims live in miserable circumstances, who's actually responsible for that oppression? Fifty nations boast Muslim majorities and not one of them boasts economic prosperity and a functioning democracy. ... The true oppressor of Muslims is Islam itself, with teachings that destroy any chance of progress, peace or freedom."
-Michael Medved
"Looking back after 60 years, who cannot be grateful that it was Truman who had the bomb, and not Hitler or Tojo or Stalin? And looking forward, who can seriously doubt the need for might always to remain in the hands of right? That is the enduring lesson of Hiroshima, and it is one we ignore at our peril."
-The Wall Street Journal
truth_is_freedom said:
"You've got to keep your people fed while they drive their SUVs and supersize themselves to death."
If you haven't looked at my picture, please do. I ride a (relatively) fuel efficient motorcycle, and am nowhere near "supersized".
Who's being self-righteous here?
You presume much, and erroneously...
Also, you didn't answer my question, to wit:
Who would you rather have running things...a group that lives by the "death to infidels" credo, or one that is run by the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" crowd?
(FYI, if you're not one of 'em, you're an infidel too, by their definition)
You infidel, you...
truth_is_freedom:
I wasn't trying to bother you with the remark, but it's true; anyone who isn't one of their own qualifies as an infidel...and since you say you're agnostic, that includes you, especially.
Perhaps "Death to infidels" is not the credo of "mainstream" Islam, but it is the credo of the ones who are being allowed to dictate policy by default.
Maybe you should read up on it...
truth_is_freedom:
They dictate policy in the Middle East, with the tacit consent of "mainstream" Islam. As 'tis said, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...
<< Home