Home | About | Donate

Hitting Saudi Arabia Where It Hurts


#1

Hitting Saudi Arabia Where It Hurts

Robert Parry

As the Islamic State and Al Qaeda enter a grim competition to see who can kill more civilians around the world, the fate of Western Civilization as we’ve known it arguably hangs in the balance. It will not take much more terror for the European Union to begin cracking up and for the United States to transform itself into a full-scale surveillance state.


#2

I always appreciate Robert Parry's analysis and certainly putting the financial screws to the Gulf States would be among the best ways to stop the funding of the jihadis from the source. Parry fails to address what counter measures the Gulf States might take if such a financial penalty were taken. One might well be closing off the oil spigot which would do wonders for the climate but cause utmost consternation within the oil companies and those who are in their thrall.

I agree that Sanders could use this opportunity to make some sensible and specific calls such as Parry suggests. I'm not sure he is willing to do that, and that's a pity.


#3

I have to admit that Parry makes sense here, although I supported Sanders call to bring the Saudis to the table.

As you say, though, 4thefuture, we don't do withhold money b/c we rely on Saudi Arabia for oil and, imo, for doing the very thing we supposedly want to stop--letting loose young warriors where "needed."

I'll have to think more about this one--i originally thought that by bringing the Saudis to the table, they would have to own up to their deeds to be part of the negotiations. Now I'm not sure. Hope that Sanders also thinks long and hard about all of this.


#4

The arms industry in the US would not allow us to put the financial screws to these thiefdoms/dictatorships i.e. all rich Kings and Princes. We the taxpayers subsidy these thiefdoms military might and at some point down the road it will be used against us. History does keep repeating itself as our stupidity is unlimited and our elected officials are puppets of MIC.


#5

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

oh yeah, i forgot. we used to use Saudi oil. So do we toady up to them b/c they are useful in our meddling in the ME, as a base for "freedom fighters/jihadis," depending on which war it is? Do they hinder some pipeline to some other country, or have a pipeline to a country we "like"?


#11

The point of oil is not where the USA gets it but who controls it, who refines it and whose currency is used to buy it. These are of very close interest to the USA as well as not perhaps wanting to see the price of petroleum go through the roof if the Gulf States were to shut off the spigot.


#12

In the last debate, Sanders did say he thought this obsession with "regime change" was a bad idea. I think O'Malley seconded that. They both were addressing Hillary's backing of regime change in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. This is a shift toward a more sensible foreign policy that Mr. Parry either seems to have missed, or otherwise discounted ...


#13

A great, comprehensive piece/analysis by Robert Parry!

The US under its current corrupt MICC leadership and its sycophants will not counter or rein-in Saudi (or Turkish) collusions with Daesh or Saudi war crimes in Yemen or Israeli in the Occupied Territories, or Turkish against the Kurds, they are important proxies in the Israeli-Saudi-Turkish axis of ME evil and atrocities that maintain arms industry profits and endless conflict, and good cover/diversion for the consolidation of Israeli occupation/illegal colonization/annexation of (whats left) of Palestine.
Deposing and assassinating the "strongmen" of Iraq and Libya were essential to building Deash and creating the endless war that profits so many - and displaces/kills millions. US policy/profiteers using its"Axis of Evil" as instruments has held the marionette strings for endless wars and, they think, endless profits.......

"similar to how the Reagan administration supported right-wing paramilitary forces in Central America during the 1980s, including “death squads” in El Salvador and Guatemala and the drug-tainted “Contras” in Nicaragua. These extremists were willing to do the “dirty work” that Reagan’s CIA considered necessary to reverse the tide of leftist revolution in the region, but with “deniability” built in so Official Washington couldn’t be directly blamed for the slaughters."


#14

" If compromise and cooperation suddenly replaced “regime change” as the U.S. goal, the neocons and liberal hawks would flip out."

Mr. Parry, how can one be a "liberal hawk" or "liberal interventionist"?

Do you notice a contradiction here yet?

If you are calling neoliberal Democrat pols "liberals", you might realize that they stopped being liberals when they started getting rich from Wall Street bribes to vote for conservative agendas.

Rich liberals are as rare as unicorns.


#15

Parry is completely off base. Next he'll be saying Saudis were responsible for 9/11.

:wink:


#16

There is no contradiction. Parry's terminology is correct. You cling to a singular, time-bound, US-centric, popular mis-understanding of what "liberalism" is.

Fundamentally, liberalism is, and always has been, the preferred ideology of capital. You might study that concept for a while, and do some reading on the subject, before you repeat (for the hundredth time) your self-identification with an imaginary "liberalism" that only describes one narrow understanding of "liberalism" from the USA, as a legacy of FDR's New Deal infused with the identity politics of the 1960s and 1970s.

"Liberal Hawks" is the correct term. There is absolutely nothing about liberalism, in the sweep of its historical development, that is inherently opposed to war. In fact, liberalism as a historical development is wrapped intimately with colonialism and imperialism, and as such is necessarily hawkish.

This US confusion about the meanings of liberalism serves the cons well, as they reinforce, demonize, and further confuse our understanding of the roots and branches of liberal ideologies.


#17

Are you kidding? I hope it is now clearer to you that the neocon Zionists are hell bent on destabilizing both China and Russia and are supporting ISIS in Syria? In addition to the Zionist full spectrum dominance plus, chaos = bonanza for US arms industry.


#19

Agreed. The Saudi's are such a major source of woe all around the world, going hand-in-hand with the U.S. and their imperialistic ways.


#20

I think you are referring to Classical Liberalism or Laissez Faire liberalism that monopoly capitalist conservatives favor, which is oxymoronic and deceitful.

I defend liberalism frequently, doing my part to counter its organized demonizing by conservatives.

Here is the definition of liberal from Oxford Dictionary

1Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:
they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:
liberal citizenship laws
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.2(In a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform:
a liberal democratic state


#22

Well, you are free to insist that your preferences define liberalism. History argues otherwise. Here's a brief pertinent statement:

"Liberal philosophy symbolises an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularised some of the most important and controversial principles of the modern world. Its immense scholarly and academic output has been characterised as containing "richness and diversity," but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition. Though all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought". The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures, and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term liberalism, including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare-state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few."

You have a strong preference for certain aspects of the broad historical sweep of liberalism. That's cool. But Parry is correct in his usage, and is far from the only thinker and writer to make reference to the liberal hawks in the US political system. As you will note, if you run a web search for "liberal hawks" in quotation marks.


#23

Parry doesn't go far enough. I say get rid of NATO and impose sanctions on Saudi, Qatar, Turkey, ISIS (scorched earth) and Israel. And the USA. Funny how Americans think corruption is something done in 'other' countries when the House and the Senate are among the most corrupt institutions. (they have a lot of competition). When 70% of Americans can't be heard by their representatives, something is wrong. Those folks in the capital don't underrstand, 'No more war'. Seems to me all those 'states' mentioned above could use democracy.

The antics of man are brutal and petty. When faced with the destruction of the basics for human life (and a lot of other life forms), still man soldiers on with not a thought for the next thousand years or next million years. We are in a fight with the earth itself and we are a puny pugilist. The earth will get over us even if it takes a billion years.


#24

I think the right wing in America work hand in hand with the right wing in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Sort of like you do us a favor we'll do you a favor. What you want us to blow up the twin towers, no problem. You take care of Iraq in return. Deal. Money, money, money. Laughing all the way to the bank. Who says you can't fool all the people all the time.


#25

We are both liberal and conservative to varying extents. When acting as the latter why should we be labeled as the former? A "liberal hawk" is is an oxymoron.

Demonizing liberals is an old oligarchy strategy. Its success is proven by the fact that almost all liberals now call themselves "progressives". When a great journalist like Parry does it, it plays into the oligarchy's hands.


#26

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.