King of Saudi Arabia dies, media shrugs

[FearBoysWithBugs]

I heard about this on a web site discussing the death on the stock market.  Went to Yahoo and found it buried about half way down the news feed.  News at other sites was not prominent either.

Is it really that unimportant of an event, or are they waiting for relatives to be notified?

[Eddie Coyle]

I heard about this on a web site discussing the death on the stock market.  Went to Yahoo and found it buried about half way down the news feed.  News at other sites was not prominent either.

Is it really that unimportant of an event, or are they waiting for relatives to be notified?

    I'm working on a touching Etch A Sketch of a smiling Muhammed putting his hand down to the King and welcoming him to wherever non-believers go when they die. Will post soon!

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

It's the featured news story at the New York Times, CBC, and BBC.  Those are my main news sources so I haven't looked elsewhere.

[VtaGeezer]

His successor is 80, in failing health too, and uber-conservative.  This happens as SA may be prepping to invade Yemen to save it from the Iranian-backed Shiites.

[PB the Deplorable]

I heard about this on a web site discussing the death on the stock market.  Went to Yahoo and found it buried about half way down the news feed.  News at other sites was not prominent either.

Is it really that unimportant of an event, or are they waiting for relatives to be notified?

It didn't happen in the US, and there was no fear porn or phony celebrities involved, so Big Media doesn't give a hoot. 


Odd fact (at least to me):  since the founding of Saudi Arabia by Ibn Saud in 1932, every king since his death has been one of his sons - the new one is the 6th brother or half brother.

What will be interesting is the succession struggle by the next generation

[FearBoysWithBugs]

His successor is 80, in failing health too, and uber-conservative.

SA has been pumping a ton into oversupply and falling demand, just as they did in the 80's and for the same reason: to undermine the USSR (now Russia) and Iran.   They're regional pests, but also adversaries of the USA.  That's why we in the USA don't say boo when 19 of the 21 September 11 terrorists were Saudi citizens.

If the new king isn't an idiot, he'll understand who the bitch is in this relationship.  But who knows.

[PB the Deplorable]

SA has been pumping a ton into oversupply and falling demand, just as they did in the 80's and for the same reason: to undermine the USSR (now Russia) and Iran...

Yes, as the lowest cost producer they wish to drive the other producers out, or at least get them to turn off production at their higher cost fields.

And that includes US oil production

[albrecht]

Yes, as the lowest cost producer they wish to drive the other producers out, or at least get them to turn off production at their higher cost fields.

And that includes US oil production

Lest we forget....the lower prices also benefit the larger, how-shall-we-say, BIG GUYS who think very long term and have LOTS of cash needed to be spent. This, might, at least for share-holders, be a good thing. And allow them to buy up small guys who are margined out. (Another thing, to throw the "greens" a bone with this is that it consolidates those frackers who operate willy-nilly trying to make ends meet because the "big boys" won't want to let some small fracking outfit they get cause them a huge lawsuit by mismanagement.) Granted the "big guys" sometimes have their problems (to wit BP) but...

[NowhereInTime]

I heard about this on a web site discussing the death on the stock market.  Went to Yahoo and found it buried about half way down the news feed.  News at other sites was not prominent either.

Is it really that unimportant of an event, or are they waiting for relatives to be notified?

It really is that unimportant.  Saudi Arabia is a family business. 


Oh, the sanctimonials will jump in and bemoan how "strategically important" S.A. is to our "interests" but its' a matter of doing business with the same family of double dealers.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Yes, as the lowest cost producer they wish to drive the other producers out, or at least get them to turn off production at their higher cost fields.

I believe their motivation is political rather than strictly economic.  They want to blunt the power and influence of Russia and Iran, and driving down the price of oil does just that.  How muc of that impulse originates with them and how much with their BFF the USA is debatable, but it clearly works in the interests of the USA.

SA has to be careful, because 90% of the government's revenue comes from oil.  However, they are the big player in the region and can weather a price war.  The marginal producing states, not so much.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Oh, the sanctimonials will jump in and bemoan how "strategically important" S.A. is to our "interests" but its' a matter of doing business with the same family of double dealers.

All nations form alliances based on their national interests and not because they "like" each other.  It's just business, as the famous movie line says.  We've been aware of that here in the USA since at least Washington's Farewell Address.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Apparently the government of Yemen has collapsed in addition to the king of SA croaking, but the lead story on all three major networks was the story about deflated footballs in the AFC title game.

[NowhereInTime]

All nations form alliances based on their national interests and not because they "like" each other.  It's just business, as the famous movie line says.  We've been aware of that here in the USA since at least Washington's Farewell Address.

Ok, so tell me what these interests are?  Oil?  Not if we're outproducing them.  Military bases?  We have 900 bases in 153 countries.  Exactly why do we need to keep a monarchy in power?  Is it that conservatives have schadenfraude watching the Saudis lash dissidents?


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Saudi-Arabia-King-Abdullah-public-flogging-Patrick-Leahy/2015/01/20/id/619616/

[NowhereInTime]

Apparently the government of Yemen has collapsed in addition to the king of SA croaking, but the lead story on all three major networks was the story about deflated footballs in the AFC title game.

More money will be transacted wagering the outcome of the "Big Game" than any "interest" we really have in that poisonous pill known as "Yemen".


What matters to Americans more?  The NFL or more repressive regimes barely allied to us?

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Ok, so tell me what these interests are?

For us in the USA?  Friends with benefits arrangement with a powerful Arab country in the region. 

[FearBoysWithBugs]

What matters to Americans more?  The NFL or more repressive regimes barely allied to us?

If popular opinion was the best way to run a government, then we would at least attempt to be a direct democracy.

[NowhereInTime]

For us in the USA?  Friends with benefits arrangement with a powerful Arab country in the region.

Doesn't answer the question.  What true purpose is served propping up this repressive regime?

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Doesn't answer the question.  What true purpose is served propping up this repressive regime?

Since you already seem to have the answer you prefer  ("nothing") even to the point of changing the question, and aren't interested in discussing my response, I think we are done.

[NowhereInTime]

Since you already seem to have the answer you prefer  ("nothing") even to the point of changing the question, and aren't interested in discussing my response, I think we are done.

Sorry, ma'am.  Didn't mean to offend.  Your answer was ambiguous, at best.  You demonstrate nothing more than a conservative's sheer arrogance in their sense of American "power" and I was hoping that I was wrong about that.

[NowhereInTime]

If popular opinion was the best way to run a government, then we would at least attempt to be a direct democracy.

Yeah, I live in Connecticut.  We actually do that here.  Town meeting form of government.  Educated me to be suspicious of people offering to represent my "interests".


Popular opinion matters.  If people don't want to go to war, then why should we?  If people do not want to condone Saudi Arabia's horrid human rights abuses, why should we support them? 

[VtaGeezer]

Doesn't answer the question.  What true purpose is served propping up this repressive regime?

Because there are no Jeffersonians in Riyadh, but there are plenty of Islamist radicals ready to rip open any weakness.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Sorry, ma'am.

Yes, I can see how hard you are trying not to offend.

I gave you a specific answer.  We are pushing sanctions against Iran and Russia to get them to stop trying to be more powerful.  SA is helping us stand on their airhose by pumping oil and driving the price down, thus depriving Russia and Iran of revenue they could use to resist the sanctions.

We could argue about the significance of that as a national interest, but you won't even acknowledge that it is an interest at all.  "No, really, name one interest we have there," you say.  So I took another shot, pointing out that having a powerful friend in the Middle East is a strategic national interest, but you brushed that aside too.  You can't see any benefit to that?  Can't imagine how it could help us?  Seriously?

During WWII we teamed up with Stalin.  The West considered him an enemy before the war and everyone, not the least of whom was Stalin himself, knew that things would go back that way after the war was won.  Nevertheless, we "propped up" his country for the sake of our own interests.  It didn't mean that we accepted him or how he did things by doing so.  The West simply didn't have the means to fight everyone at the same time. 

A similar line of thinking could be applied to SA, but you aren't interested in discussing that.  You clearly will accept nothing less than an acknowledgment that YOUR opinion is right.  That being the case, there's little for me to do besides go on to another topic.  Understand?

I hope this post isn't too ambiguous for you.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, I can see how hard you are trying not to offend.

I gave you a specific answer.  We are pushing sanctions against Iran and Russia to get them to stop trying to be more powerful.  SA is helping us stand on their airhose by pumping oil and driving the price down, thus depriving Russia and Iran of revenue they could use to resist the sanctions.

We could argue about the significance of that as a national interest, but you won't even acknowledge that it is an interest at all.  "No, really, name one interest we have there," you say.  So I took another shot, pointing out that having a powerful friend in the Middle East is a strategic national interest, but you brushed that aside too.  You can't see any benefit to that?  Can't imagine how it could help us?  Seriously?

During WWII we teamed up with Stalin.  The West considered him an enemy before the war and everyone, not the least of whom was Stalin himself, knew that things would go back that way after the war was won.  Nevertheless, we "propped up" his country for the sake of our own interests.  It didn't mean that we accepted him or how he did things by doing so.  The West simply didn't have the means to fight everyone at the same time. 

A similar line of thinking could be applied to SA, but you aren't interested in discussing that.  You clearly will accept nothing less than an acknowledgment that YOUR opinion is right.  That being the case, there's little for me to do besides go on to another topic.  Understand?

I hope this post isn't too ambiguous for you.

Purely research purposes; do you wear 5 inch stilettos and pencil skirts? 

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Purely research purposes; do you wear 5 inch stilettos and pencil skirts? 

I would never wear less than 6 inch stilettos, you philistine.

[Yorkshire pud]

I would never wear less than 6 inch stilettos, you philistine.

Tsk.. philistine? I listen to Beethoven I'll have you know.

[FearBoysWithBugs]

Tsk.. philistine? I listen to Beethoven I'll have you know.

I listen to Beethoven in stilettos and a pencil skirt.  Beat that.  Whoops, I see that you already are.

[Yorkshire pud]

I listen to Beethoven in stilettos and a pencil skirt.  Beat that.  Whoops, I see that you already are.

I have no need to; it's what subbies are for, 

[PB the Deplorable]

Doesn't answer the question.  What true purpose is served propping up this repressive regime?

I'll give you several reasons why it's better for the US and the West to be on decent terms with the Saudi's

1)  Look at some of the Arab and other regimes in the region where the government collapsed:  most recently Egypt, Libya, Syria.  A few years earlier places like Somalia and Lebanon.  Going back a few decades what Afghanistan has gone thru after the 1978 Saur 'revolution', what came after the Shah in Iran.  Just to name a few.

Bad as those government were, what came next was worse.  Much worse in every single case.  We don't need more of that.  What do you think would happen if the government in Saudi Arabia fell - that it would be replaced by something better?  I don't know if you know it or not, but there is not a better feasible alternative in that country right now, any replacement would be much worse - and likely ISIS connected

The world doesn't need less stability in that part of the world.  US foreign policy is to build on whatever stability there is, and try to nudge these dictatorships towards democracy - at least that was our policy pre-Obama.  It's a slow, difficult, process, but it beats the bloodshed and uncertainties of 'revolution'.

(By the way, the Left's foreign policy is to allow US friends, allies, and trading partners to collapse or be pushed away from us and our influence, and towards our enemies - before it was the Soviets, now it's Russia, China, and the Islamists.  Don't believe me?  Look at the way you framed the question in your post above:  'propping up', 'repressive regime', 'what purpose does it serve').

2)  These countries buy their weapons and weapon systems from us.  That gives the US influence over what they have, it allows contact between our military and theirs during training - giving us contacts and influence with their military.  It's much better for the United States that we have this relationship, otherwise they would go to the Russians and/or Chinese for weapons and influence.

3)  The bases are important.  It doesn't matter that the US has other forward bases in other regions.  We need forward bases in this region to - store equipment we may need at a moments notice, as places to refuel when needed, as staging areas if there is a rescue effort to be made at a moments notice, or for any number of other scenarios.  This is for our own security.

4)  Oil is a commodity in the Western markets.  The price is determined by overall supply and demand from all producers and consumers in those markets as a whole.  The US only gets about 15-20% of our imported oil from the Saudis, but they produce an enormous amount.  As the #2 oil producer (Russia is #1, the US is #3), the level of Saudi oil production keeps the prices down for American consumers regardless of where it's sold in the West.  If the Saudi's were to turn to China for weapons and political alliances, their oil would follow.  It would be a catastrophe.

5)  People to people contact, and eventual change as more educated people are exposed to the West and grow into leadership positions - ongoing, and in the future.  Do you want the best and the brightest going to schools in the US and Europe, or in Moscow and Beijing? 

6)  Look at a map.  Do you seriously think they are not important to us strategically?

[NowhereInTime]

Yes, I can see how hard you are trying not to offend.

Well, after your haughty "I think we are done" I wanted to make sure you were still paying attention.  Glad to see you were.

I gave you a specific answer.

No, you didn't.  However...

We are pushing sanctions against Iran and Russia to get them to stop trying to be more powerful.  SA is helping us stand on their airhose by pumping oil and driving the price down, thus depriving Russia and Iran of revenue they could use to resist the sanctions.

...here you did!

Now, this is specific, but wrong.  Iran sanctions were already taking full effect well before this oil run up; Iran's true nemesis is as a potential nuclear threat.  However, they have been negotiating, by all accounts in good faith (though not wavering from their interests) toward eliminating all weapon grade program and materials.  Why do we need to provoke them with a back channel (though blatant) attempt at driving down their revenue? 

Russia is in collapse for a variety of reasons; the oil run up has been but the latest blemish against Shirtless Vlad but his arrogance and expressions of "power" have cost him interaction with the civilized world.  Russia is in economic collapse because Putin is an ass, not because the Saudis won't stop pumping.

I give more credit to alternative energy, shale oil fracking, and the expansion of drilling on existing leases then Saudi Arabia. 

Leaving all that aside, the Saudis are marginally, at best, our allies.  They act in our interest only when it serves their interest and they have cost us blood and treasure well, well beyond their worth.

We could argue about the significance of that as a national interest, but you won't even acknowledge that it is an interest at all.  "No, really, name one interest we have there," you say.

I question the value of the US/Saudi relationship when it causes to look away from even more violations of human rights than Cuba. Why is re-establishing relations Cuba such a contradiction of our principles but ignoring floggings, stonings, and "disappearances" in the Kingdom not?

So I took another shot, pointing out that having a powerful friend in the Middle East is a strategic national interest, but you brushed that aside too.

For two reasons: we have a powerful ally in Israel and 2) what is it about the S.A. that fulfills "strategic national interest?  Furthermore, what "interest"?  Finally, what commitment have they really demonstrated?  Allowing US bases while funneling financial support to terror groups and Madrassas where they teach Caliphate chauvinism and hatred of the West?

You can't see any benefit to that?  Can't imagine how it could help us?  Seriously?

Seriously.  If this is just about having a place from which to attack Iraq, again, then no.  If this is about "controlling Al Qaeda", then this is a failed state.  If this is about controlling world oil supply, then isn't that contradictory to conservatives' view of the "invisible hand"?

Our foreign policy of late has been to end our dependence on foreign oil and we are at our lowest teet sucking in 30 years, and heading south.  Seems like the best course of action; then we could rid ourselves of this aberrant alliance.

During WWII we teamed up with Stalin.

Please, don't remind me.  Stalin was every bit the butchering pig Hitler was.

The West considered him an enemy before the war and everyone, not the least of whom was Stalin himself, knew that things would go back that way after the war was won. Nevertheless, we "propped up" his country for the sake of our own interests.  It didn't mean that we accepted him or how he did things by doing so.  The West simply didn't have the means to fight everyone at the same time.

You are correct. It was more expedient to expend Stalin/USSR resources against the Nazis. 

A similar line of thinking could be applied to SA...

No, it just cannot.  WWII was an epic battle against fascism and the assertive aggression of neighbors into each others' territory. This is about oil. And, at what point, by the way, do we "go back that way" regarding our tolerance of tyrannicals like the Sauds?

... but you aren't interested in discussing that.

Actually, I'm happy to be discussing this right now. I appreciate you taking time to flesh out your earlier assertions.

You clearly will accept nothing less than an acknowledgment that YOUR opinion is right.

That, or having someone who expresses an opinion as a statement of fact at least bother to substantiate it. I'm finicky like that.

That being the case, there's little for me to do besides go on to another topic.  Understand?

You could, maybe, not go on to another topic...

I hope this post isn't too ambiguous for you.

No, Sardondi, it's not.  I'm sorry it took four attempts (and a snarky insult) to get you to bother explaining your presumptions.

By the way, the whole country, not just the media shrugged, when this villain passed away. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Why Saudi Arabia matters - Explained in 90 seconds

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30957871