Saudi Arabia and the "trillion dollar gambit"

[Malthus]

Why does he bite legs anyway? Is he a midget? 

Steak is hard to come by in Iceland. Legs have to do. 

[PJL]

I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.

You don't think any Saudi regime can be worse than the current one.  I disagree.  In fact, I think that all of the likely alternatives are worse.

I also disagree that ISIS represents a stabilizing/moderating influence in either the short term or the long. 

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Well name those alternatives, if you think they will be worse than the current regime. And a caliphate would be a better in the long run (20-30 years).

[DGuller]

When it comes to which regimes are preferable, it's not a simple thing.  On the one hand, you can look at dictators like Hussein, Assad, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, and conclude that things were better with them firmly in power.  Things went to shit when they were removed or seriously challenged.  On the other hand, it's not a sustainable situation.  Their misrule is what was constantly adding fuel to the eventual Arab Spring conflagration.

[The Brain]

So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?

Overreacting much? It's just grumbler being grumbler.

[grumbler]

Well name those alternatives, if you think they will be worse than the current regime.

Homie don't play those games.  If you want to name alternatives that you think will be better, we can discuss those and I will name the ones I think will be worse.  But we're not going to spend the next ten exchanges with me defending my choices and you merely attacking them.

And a caliphate would be a better in the long run (20-30 years).

There is no way a Sunni Caliphate will even have finished their war to conquer the Shia  and convert or kill them in the next 20-30 years, let along conquer all the remaining Muslim and non-Muslim countries.  The Caliphate will may get nuked in the next 20-30 years and achieve "moderation" in that sense (they'll be dead and so not radical), but that's the only moderation in their future that I can see.  ISIS is not a moderating influence and cannot, by their very ideology, become one.

[PJL]

I never said ISIS would be moderating, just that they would be slightly more moderate than Saudi Arabia. But even Iran hegemony would be preferable to either.

The least worst outcome at the moment is reinstating military juntas all over the place. At least they seem the most secular form of government that will realistically get in the region any time soon.

[Jacob]

Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS.

I bet there are some foreign aid workers, Coptic migrants, Yazidi child brides, and at least one Jordanian pilot who might disagree.

It's not like the Saudi regime doesn't execute people for fucked up reasons, or countenance sexual slavery.

Not to make light of ISIS' abuses at all, but the Saudis are pretty nasty.

[DGuller]

At least in Saudi Arabia people have their day in kangaroo court before they're executed.

[The Brain]

[grumbler]

I never said ISIS would be moderating, just that they would be slightly more moderate than Saudi Arabia. But even Iran hegemony would be preferable to either.

I disagree, and think that you really don't follow the news if you think ISIS is more moderate than the current Saudi Arabian regime.  The Saudis are pretty despicable, but they are in favor of peace and stability.  ISIS is in favor of war, terrorism, and insurrection.  ISIS also does the whole genocide and slavery thing, which is worse than anything the Saudis do.  Ask the Yezidis which regime is more moderate.

[grumbler]

It's not like the Saudi regime doesn't execute people for fucked up reasons, or countenance sexual slavery.

Not to make light of ISIS' abuses at all, but the Saudis are pretty nasty.

Who was the last person burned alive by orders of the Saudi regime?  When was the last legal slave auction in Saudi Arabia?

I know moral relativism is all the rage, but the Saudi leaders, nasty as they are, are far closer to our values than to ISIS's.  There's no question that the world and the locals would be better off if the Saudi regime controlled SA, Iraq, and Syria than if ISIS controlled those three places.

[Berkut]

WTF?

Saudia Arabia is no kingdom of light and freedom, but they are nowhere even in the ballpark of ISIS.

They don't line people up by the dozens and machine gun them out of hand, for example.

It kind of sickens me to even have to elucidate the difference. Saudi Arabia is fucked up, but they are in fact a nation of laws and order. Fucked up laws, granted, but there is no comparison between them and ISIS, which is a "nation" only in name, and one that operates completely on the basis of terror and fear.

[PJL]

WTF?

Saudia Arabia is no kingdom of light and freedom, but they are nowhere even in the ballpark of ISIS.

They don't line people up by the dozens and machine gun them out of hand, for example.

It kind of sickens me to even have to elucidate the difference. Saudi Arabia is fucked up, but they are in fact a nation of laws and order. Fucked up laws, granted, but there is no comparison between them and ISIS, which is a "nation" only in name, and one that operates completely on the basis of terror and fear.

I would disagree. They're about the same. See this list:


Not to mention Saudi Arabia has a history of demolishing historic sites (and not just Jewish ones either, we're talking demolishing the site of the Prophet Mohammeds home in Mecca). Also quite a few countries in recent history have done kangaroo courts, and operated on the basis of terror and fear. You could argue that Stalinist Russia was the worst example in modern history (certainly comparable to Saudi Arabia & ISIS). And people in Europe 20 years ago (former Yugoslavia) were massacring people like ISIS are doing now.

I'm not a moral relativist, but the horrors of ISIS compared to others in the region have been overplayed. The Syrians, Saudia Arabia, Iran have all been pretty horrible to their own people over the recent past. See for example the 'terrorist' executions in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago.

[Josquius]

That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.

Seriously. The Saudis are bad. No doubt. But ISIS are a whole other level. It's like comparing Mussolini to Hitler.

[Barrister]

Saudi Arabia punishes gays with flogging.  It's pretty bad.

Daesh punishes gays by pushing them off of a ten story building.  It's unbelievably horrific.