Our Great allies the despotic Saudis kill a Washington Post Journalist.

Actually, there was a declared war by Al-Qaeda on the U.S. Bin Laden declared war on the United States August 23, 1996.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/twenty-years-war/496736/
Bush declared war on terror on September 15, 2001.

 

Al-Qaeda is not a nation, they cannot declare war on anyone.

The "War on Terror" isn't an official war any more than the "War on Drugs" is a war and more importantly war cannot be declared by a president.

 

They did declare war and committed many acts of war. I'm not surprised you're still refusing to recognize facts.

 

Only countries can officially declare war, so what you are saying aren't actually facts, they are inaccuracies that you are using as "facts". Either way, it's besides the point, there is hostility between the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia, while the citizen can't be proven to have been a current member, he was a former member and he was a sympathizer. Also, do you think this is the only Saudi citizen who was a "journalist" that has been killed for speaking out against his country? What makes this guy special to you?

 

Wrong. Declaring war against a nation is different. But war was declared and acts of war were committed.

The guy isn't special to me. I don't think I even read any of his journalistic pieces prior to his murder. A person doesn't have to be special to me for me to think their murder by Saudi Arabia is wrong and should have consequences.

 

So you think that the US should harm their own interests seeking revenge for this one random guy....I mean that seems like you think he's pretty special, they sure as hell haven't done that for anyone else.

 

For the record and as I've said before, certainly the Saudis were wrong to have killed their own citizen, and the US was wrong for doing the same to one of their own citizens in the manner in which it was done IMO. That said, I'm not for the US harming their own interests seeking revenge over that wrong especially given that they've never done so before and this is something the Saudis have been doing for decades.

 

I don't think the US should seek revenge at all. I think they should work towards just consequences. We need to use sticks and carrots to help anyone who partners with the United States to engage in a more enlightened policy.

In this thread and the Russian thread you keep suggesting that the U.S. conduct foreign policy based on fear. You think the U.S. should fear what the bad actors will do if we hold them accountable.

That's no way to govern, and no way to lead. The U.S. should take action based on the actions by both Russia and Saudi Arabia.

You are making up fear-based reactions by both of those nations when you have no way of knowing that is how they will react.

We have more of what those nations need from us. They need it more than we need what they have. Acting scared of their reactions is no way at all to govern or lead.

 

No, it's not fear, but every action has a reaction. Any leader should know the likely reaction before they take action....in fact you should be taking action in order to cause reaction and it should always end in a net positive for you be it the short term or long term. In fact, one of the fears about Trump as president is that he'd merely react to incidents without thinking through the consequences and now you are suggesting sort of a knee jerk reaction based on emotion without considering the consequences for doing so.

Not wanting to go down a path that will end in a net negative without a good enough reason to do so isn't fear, it's just being smart.

 

The reactions you are claiming are likely haven't been shown to be the likely reactions. In fact, in the case of Russia, there were no such reactions from Russia against France when they stood up to him and called him out. Reagan was able to call out the Soviets and other autocrats and it didn't end in war.

You can say it isn't fear based on your end, but it's pretty evident. You are like someone who's scared to say the right thing because the target of the response will get mad.

 

So if you go after the Saudi royal family you don't think they'll retaliate by cutting oil production and putting pressure on all OPEC members to do the same? Sorry, I just don't buy that.

I'm not sure when you turned into such a war hawk looking to go to war with the world with any small provocation, but it's an interesting development.

 

I'm not looking to go to war, nor do I think calling out the prince or Putin will lead to war. In fact, Putin has been called out by other leaders and it did not lead to war.

The Saudis may cut oil production. They will do what they will do. But that shouldn't stop the United States from doing the right thing in calling out members of the royal family for what happened.

We let them know that we don't approve of it. We don't allow the sale of the military weapons, but let them know that they will be allowed to purchase them again if they show improvement in their actions. We also let them know that will make further restrictions if they try and start escalating actions against us. We invite them to summits, discussions, and act cordial. The purpose of these summits would be to improve the relationship between our nations. We let them know where we stand on murdering critical journalists and how they can work towards meeting us at a place with better relations. That won't lead to war.

Here you go again with your fear that any little action will cause a war. I'm just not as scared as you when it comes to doing the right thing.

 

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. When you casually dismiss an oil embargo that would wreak havok on the economy as no big deal or worth it to hypocritically virtue signal, it's a position I simply can't agree with.

 

Wow... you think that the republican/trump led congress will do something?

 

Nothing meaningful, people (well the media, i don't think the people genuinely care) seem to be desperately yearning for some **** and bull story about human rights before changing nothing, and instead Trump simply jumping straight into business as usual, and basically having Saudi Arabia make a murder plea deal with oil prices (call me shocked Saudi Arabia announced they wouldn't lower oil production, shocked i tell ya!), is an offense to their sensibilities.

 

Bobby...this doesn't have to harm their own interests. Rather, it could further them. From what I gather, many were concerned about the Crown Prince being the annointed heir to the throne in Saudi Arabia. This strikes me as the perfect opportunity to work with the current leaders there to let them know that we welcome their business...but this guy is a real problem, and one they should do something about.

Also, given that he has no compunction about ordering acts like these....if we don't do something about it/him now...when can we it ?

I'm certainly not in the know on deep relations we have with the Saudi's (where most of our real diplomacy takes place behind the scenes), but from the outside, it seems to me we are misplaying this. I also don't think Trump is spinning it very successfully. 'He said he didn't do it' is pretty weak. Was he going to say he did?

 

I get what you are saying and it makes a lot of sense, I would just suggest that it's a delicate situation given that you are talking about family.....then again he does have other sons that the job could go to instead of MbS and we'd probably prefer that so I think what you are calling for should absolutely be attempted. It absolutely should not be public though. If any part of it becomes public, then the Saudis wouldn't be able to go along with it given the optics.

When it comes to what was actually done, I don't fault them for doing it, from what it seems, he was an enemy of the state according to their laws. He was raising money and communicating with rebel groups that were looking to challenge the throne and potentially overthrow the government. Now we can argue that a democratic revolution would be a good thing, but given that the groups looking to overthrow the crown are religious extremists, democracy could actually be a really bad thing for that country.

We'll see how it plays out.

 

The U.S. isn't even using it to its advantage. When nations get busted doing something like this it is ammo to use to get things done. Trump isn't using this to say in order to make up for this you need to make changes x, y, and z. He isn't it to say that certain changes regarding terrorism funding, an end to certain repressive practices etc. should be carried out.

That's not how I would prefer things to go, but it is an established norm that when nations get busted for doing bad things it can be held against them to institute changes. That would at least be acting in America's interest. Trump isn't even doing that. He's running around scared they won't spend some money. It isn't the time to cede control to the Royal Prince.

 

With all due respect, you don't know that. Given the sensitive nature of things, this isn't something that could happen in public, it would have to happen behind the scenes. Saudi Arabia couldn't be seen to be bowing to US pressure when it comes to picking their next king, it would have to appear to be their idea. There's a TON of diplomacy that happens behind closed doors that we don't hear about so that's why I say we have to wait and see how it plays out.