So, what are the odds that after this attempt at reform they'll let us send an ambassador who speaks their language?
(In case you're wondering, they don't let us do that now.)
Saudi Arabia isn't quite as repugnant an "ally" as the plutocrat slavers in Kuwait, but they're up there.
This is, incidentally, the first plausible argument I've yet heard for why we're so hellbent on getting rid of Saddam. I'm not sure it'll work, but given our penchant for political meddling down there (e.g.: Saddam), it makes sense.
I just hope that someone realizes that merely giving people the ability to vote does not create a functional democracy.
<strong>The only thing that's going to cause Saudi Arabia to "fall on their face" is if the US decides that driving the most fuel-inefficient cars on the planet is a dumb thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's certainly one valid argument, but I was thinking about a fundamentalist uprising and its inevitable fall. I'm fairly certain if we left Saudi Arabia to their own devices, they wouldn't be able to prevent this no matter what "reform" crumbs they toss their people. Actually, I think this would be better in the long run. In any case, I won't miss the current Saudi government too much.
[quote]The only thing that's going to cause Saudi Arabia to "fall on their face" is if the US decides that driving the most fuel-inefficient cars on the planet is a dumb thing <hr></blockquote>
I don't think there is much chance of that happening.
Conservative Debate:
We can post dictionary defintions and argue about the word's meaning all day. It doesn't matter, because it's all just semantics. To the vast majority of people in THIS country, people who often read the NY Times, conservative is associated with American Politics and Republican party. There is no disputing that. It's a dig. Period.
Right now the people (who are VERY wealthy and HIGHLY educated) are a different breed than the fundamentalist from a poor nation. Their fundamenalism is a luxury, not a necessity for survival.
So when these people get control of their own destiny they will soon realize that they have a lot of power and that their fundamentalist beliefs will not translate well for a government with that much power. They will have to moderate themselves or they will have very large problems very quickly. Their economy is dependent on foreign relations.
I'm sure they like being rich, and I'm sure they recognize why they are so rich.
I don't think there is much chance of that happening.
Conservative Debate:
We can post dictionary defintions and argue about the word's meaning all day. It doesn't matter, because it's all just semantics. To the vast majority of people in THIS country, people who often read the NY Times, conservative is associated with American Politics and Republican party. There is no disputing that. It's a dig. Period.
</strong><hr></blockquote>You're bordering on psychotic here my man.... it is clearly the way the public discourse has used that term for ever!!!!!
you are fanatically reading signs into everything
next you'll see "the Liberal media" taking over the wording on your toothpaste packaging.
There is no two ways about it: you are misreading the usage of that word, and its influences, and the intentions of the writers . . . there is NO covert motivation to sway opinion through the usage of that term . . . and there is NO swaying happening because of it . . . its a generally accepted terminology used in any reasonable public discourse . . . perhaps not by you though . . . but that says more about your rabid and fanatical adherence to the image of a word rather than its general usage
I just pray to whatever that you don't "teach" these kinds of "insights" to your students <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
A political radical is one who proposes radical changes and diversion from standard social order. This does not apply to the ruling part in SA or the clergy. They are both conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well at least you're not trying to to defend that made-up term "radical conservative".
Wahabism isn't just about the political order in SA. SA has been exporting Wahabism for decades and radicalizing Islamic populations that weren't radical. There's nothing conservative about that agenda. Moreover, the reason the ruling elite has been happy to export Wahabism was to keep the Wahabist clergy from making trouble at home. Obviously, SA's rulers don't believe that the clergy are as committed to the current political order in Saudi Arabia as you imagine them to be.
[quote]Obviously, SA's rulers don't believe that the clergy are as committed to the current political order in Saudi Arabia as you imagine them to be.<hr></blockquote>The clergy are a huge influence in the formation of the current political order. The conservative religious dictates are remarkable in their synergy with the lack of democratic discourse and freedom. A repressive order of any kind will stifle democratic reforms--its even better if you can "blame " it on someone else if you're the ruling party.
And groverat is pretty cloase to how things work in SA. There are also two sets of rules, one the the lower and middling classes, who cannot drink, consort with women, etc. Those who have money can do whatever they want, and pretty much do it with impunity.
Comments
(In case you're wondering, they don't let us do that now.)
Saudi Arabia isn't quite as repugnant an "ally" as the plutocrat slavers in Kuwait, but they're up there.
This is, incidentally, the first plausible argument I've yet heard for why we're so hellbent on getting rid of Saddam. I'm not sure it'll work, but given our penchant for political meddling down there (e.g.: Saddam), it makes sense.
I just hope that someone realizes that merely giving people the ability to vote does not create a functional democracy.
<strong>The only thing that's going to cause Saudi Arabia to "fall on their face" is if the US decides that driving the most fuel-inefficient cars on the planet is a dumb thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's certainly one valid argument, but I was thinking about a fundamentalist uprising and its inevitable fall. I'm fairly certain if we left Saudi Arabia to their own devices, they wouldn't be able to prevent this no matter what "reform" crumbs they toss their people. Actually, I think this would be better in the long run. In any case, I won't miss the current Saudi government too much.
[quote]The only thing that's going to cause Saudi Arabia to "fall on their face" is if the US decides that driving the most fuel-inefficient cars on the planet is a dumb thing <hr></blockquote>
I don't think there is much chance of that happening.
Conservative Debate:
We can post dictionary defintions and argue about the word's meaning all day. It doesn't matter, because it's all just semantics. To the vast majority of people in THIS country, people who often read the NY Times, conservative is associated with American Politics and Republican party. There is no disputing that. It's a dig. Period.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
-
My half-assed stab at Saudi Arabian politics.
Right now the people (who are VERY wealthy and HIGHLY educated) are a different breed than the fundamentalist from a poor nation. Their fundamenalism is a luxury, not a necessity for survival.
So when these people get control of their own destiny they will soon realize that they have a lot of power and that their fundamentalist beliefs will not translate well for a government with that much power. They will have to moderate themselves or they will have very large problems very quickly. Their economy is dependent on foreign relations.
I'm sure they like being rich, and I'm sure they recognize why they are so rich.
<strong>cowerd:
I don't think there is much chance of that happening.
Conservative Debate:
We can post dictionary defintions and argue about the word's meaning all day. It doesn't matter, because it's all just semantics. To the vast majority of people in THIS country, people who often read the NY Times, conservative is associated with American Politics and Republican party. There is no disputing that. It's a dig. Period.
</strong><hr></blockquote>You're bordering on psychotic here my man.... it is clearly the way the public discourse has used that term for ever!!!!!
you are fanatically reading signs into everything
next you'll see "the Liberal media" taking over the wording on your toothpaste packaging.
There is no two ways about it: you are misreading the usage of that word, and its influences, and the intentions of the writers . . . there is NO covert motivation to sway opinion through the usage of that term . . . and there is NO swaying happening because of it . . . its a generally accepted terminology used in any reasonable public discourse . . . perhaps not by you though . . . but that says more about your rabid and fanatical adherence to the image of a word rather than its general usage
I just pray to whatever that you don't "teach" these kinds of "insights" to your students <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
<strong>
A political radical is one who proposes radical changes and diversion from standard social order. This does not apply to the ruling part in SA or the clergy. They are both conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well at least you're not trying to to defend that made-up term "radical conservative".
Wahabism isn't just about the political order in SA. SA has been exporting Wahabism for decades and radicalizing Islamic populations that weren't radical. There's nothing conservative about that agenda. Moreover, the reason the ruling elite has been happy to export Wahabism was to keep the Wahabist clergy from making trouble at home. Obviously, SA's rulers don't believe that the clergy are as committed to the current political order in Saudi Arabia as you imagine them to be.
And groverat is pretty cloase to how things work in SA. There are also two sets of rules, one the the lower and middling classes, who cannot drink, consort with women, etc. Those who have money can do whatever they want, and pretty much do it with impunity.