21–30 of 162 posts
By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. You can't lecture other countries about freedom while supporting this regime.
Or generally doing any number of the malicious and horrendous things we do here in the U.S.
Historical reasons about the Iranian revolution, cia supporting coups, etc.
I remember back in the 90's, when Intel was going to introduce a unique identifier in their processors that could be used for authentication purposes, it caused a huge uproar and Intel backed down. [0] Having a hardware embedded unique ID that can be (is) used for tracking a known persons location at all times is probably the most intrusive privacy violation we've ever had. That we willingly carry these things around…
Intel ME already can spit out the UUID of the chip and has been able to do it for over a decade.
I remember back in the 90's, when Intel was going to introduce a unique identifier in their processors that could be used for authentication purposes, it caused a huge uproar and Intel backed down. [0] Having a hardware embedded unique ID that can be (is) used for tracking a known persons location at all times is probably the most intrusive privacy violation we've ever had. That we willingly carry these things around…
Intel ME already can spit out the UUID of the chip and has been able to do it for over a decade.
Now that they know, they can try to swap out for a burner phone along the way.
Result: Many people's location is erroneous data. No single person's use of the service is suspicious and merely reflecting a societal sentiment for privacy. Maybe some of the charging is done with renewable energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also different than selling them like 10Bil in arms. Europe, for example, has not invaded SA, but is not buddy buddy with MBS. Also, it's clear that sanctions are a much more powerful weapon than invasion. Western sanctions (or embargo) on SA oil would certainly put them in a tight(er) spot. No excuses!!!
Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also different than selling them like 10Bil in arms. Europe, for example, has not invaded SA, but is not buddy buddy with MBS. Also, it's clear that sanctions are a much more powerful weapon than invasion. Western sanctions (or embargo) on SA oil would certainly put them in a tight(er) spot. No excuses!!!
Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
You just need to estimate to level of sanctions so that the monarchy will still be able to stay in power, without risking an Islamic revolution.
Or Are you not aware that the monarchy is already Islamic, of the kind least tolerant towards personal freedoms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
You just need to estimate to level of sanctions so that the monarchy will still be able to stay in power, without risking an Islamic revolution.
By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. You can't lecture other countries about freedom while supporting this regime.
There is a delicate game being played. If you are friendly with SA you can put pressure on them to improve. If you declare them an evil enemy would the outcome be better? There is a path to walk and it is not easy to find the right one when you have to deal with reality not just idealism. The natural resources in the middle east are important to the world and it is not so simple as an 'us vs. them' because there are…
> There is a path to walk and it is not easy to find the right one when you have to deal with reality not just idealism. The natural resources in the middle east are important to the world and it is not so simple as an 'us vs. them' because there are many entirely separate interests in the region and we play them off each other.
> Maybe it would be better to do a Star Trek style prime directive of completely cutting off countries until they have a certain level of social development, but you would have to come to terms with knowing bad things were happening and actively deciding to do nothing.
If the US was friendly to all countries in order to exert pressure on them this might make sense, but in light of actual US foreign policy with respect to North Korea, Iran, etc. it's completely absurd to pretend that the US is being friendly to SA as a means to effect change.