RoR: Forum

With allies like this, who needs enemies?

Post 1

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 2:52pm

Yep. I even hear that they still perform public killings in that country -- sometimes even on youngsters or on innocent women!

Ed

Post 2

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 5:16pm

I would imagine that America's double standard on Saudi Arabia is a major hindrance to persuading any of the more moderate, fence-sitters in the Muslim world that America's intent is to defend 'democracy' in the Middle East.

Post 3

Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 10:31pm

Yes I agree it is a double-standard, and every effort ought to be made to sever our ties with the Saudi Kingdom by embracing nuclear energy and tapping into oil reserves in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico so we don't have to have this ridiculous relationship with them to meet our oil demands.

But Pete could you clarify your post? How does America's seemingly hypocritical foreign policy effect moderate Muslims in the Middle East? After having gone to war for four different muslim countries to protect them from slaughter I'm wondering who else in this world has anymore a right to say they are for democracy in the middle east?

Hypocrisy sure, but who is better? Russia? China? The EU? What have they done for Democracy in the Middle East? And why should moderate Muslims base their decisions on whether to embrace democracy because of this hypocrisy rather than on the merit of democracy itself?

Post 4

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 9:53am

"I even hear that they still perform public killings in that country -- sometimes even on youngsters or on innocent women!"

One woman, Fawza Falih Muhammad Ali, is "on death row" right now, having been convicted of witchcraft, including the use of genies (jinn). Human rights groups are trying to get the king to pardon her.

The mass-arrest for flirting is nothing in comparison to this modern day witch trial.

Post 5

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 12:04pm

And that woman has a catchy surname -- Muhammad Ali (like the boxer). Let's hope that this catchiness helps get her story remembered.

Ed

Post 6

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 1:06pm

"Yes I agree it is a double-standard, and every effort ought to be made to sever our ties with the Saudi Kingdom by embracing nuclear energy and tapping into oil reserves in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico so we don't have to have this ridiculous relationship with them to meet our oil demands."

Oil is a fungible commodity. For most practical purposes, it is as if all the world's oil was in one big pool, and everyone is siphoning out whatever they are willing to pay the market price for. And it's not like all the other oil producers are bastions of human rights. Canada and Norway, sure, at least as far as far-left liberal democracies go, but Venezuela? Russia?

And the reason these other alternative technologies are not more widespread is that economics dictates what technologies are deployed, and without massive government intervention oil byproducts and coal are generally still the cheapest ways of generating power, and gasoline is the cheapest way of powering cars.

And if you increase the supply of available power by adding nuclear plants and whatnot, the laws of supply and demand will kick in and total power use will go up to reflect the new supply curve.

And do you really think it's a good idea to use government coercion to prevent individual companies from trading with Saudi Arabia?

Yes, we ought to have our government get out of meddling in Mideastern politics -- that's the real root of the problem -- but we should encourage more free trade with Saudi Arabia, including buying their oil, not less.

Post 7

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 2:41pm

Jim

Oil is a fungible commodity. For most practical purposes, it is as if all the world's oil was in one big pool, and everyone is siphoning out whatever they are willing to pay the market price for. And it's not like all the other oil producers are bastions of human rights. Canada and Norway, sure, at least as far as far-left liberal democracies go, but Venezuela? Russia?

I don't like those countries either. We don't need those countries for nuclear power and current nuclear technology is even available to make artificial fuel for automobiles.

And the reason these other alternative technologies are not more widespread is that economics dictates what technologies are deployed, and without massive government intervention oil byproducts and coal are generally still the cheapest ways of generating power

Not true. Nuclear power is far cheaper per kwh. The only thing holding it back is the virtual ban on new construction of nuclear power plants.

And do you really think it's a good idea to use government coercion to prevent individual companies from trading with Saudi Arabia?

You mean so otherwise these individual companies can fund terrorists that kill Americans? Absolutely the government can coercively stop companies doing business with criminals. Otherwise would you say in a similar situation, that it is ok to buy stolen merchandise? You don't have a right to do business with people that either through force looted the merchandise they are selling to you to which they turn around and fund terrorists who kill your fellow citizens.

Yes, we ought to have our government get out of meddling in Mideastern politics -- that's the real root of the problem -- but we should encourage more free trade with Saudi Arabia, including buying their oil, not less.

Post 8

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 3:59pm

Yes, we ought to have our government get out of meddling in Mideastern politics -- that's the real root of the problem -- but we should encourage more free trade with Saudi Arabia, including buying their oil, not less.

So how is that not blowback? I thought you supported Ron Paul? It's better to do business with the Saudi Royal family that funds Wahabi cultists and cracks down on any efforts for liberty in that country? And that somehow is not intervention that could result in blowback? You can certainly make your case for free trade with the Saudi dictators but at least try to be consistent, because as of now there is no consistency to your view on interventionism and blowback.

I do support Ron Paul, and this is his position -- get the U.S. government out of the Middle East, and remove all trade barriers. Are you saying it's blowback if an American oil company and the Saudi government voluntarily agree to exchange our dollars for their oil? Do you not believe in free trade? Is this an Objectivist position? How do you propose stopping voluntary transactions while upholding Objectivist principals? Are you in favor of having an embargo on voluntary business transactions with Saudi Arabia, so that other countries step in and buy that oil instead, resulting in higher oil prices for American consumers, no loss of oil revenue for Saudi Arabia, and a terrible precedent set for allowing the federal government to invoke unconstitutional powers to shut down any trade -- in effect giving them veto power over the economy, and encouraging massive rent-seeking and the need for political connections to do business? It seems like that is precisely what Ayn Rand railed against in Atlas Shrugged.

Post 9

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 7:18pm

Jim:

I do support Ron Paul, and this is his position -- get the U.S. government out of the Middle East, and remove all trade barriers. Are you saying it's blowback if an American oil company and the Saudi government voluntarily agree to exchange our dollars for their oil?

Are you naive enough to think there is any remote difference if the infidels on muslim soil are from the state department or from Exxon? Do you think there is one bit of difference in the mind of an Islamic extremist what kind of American is on what he considers holy land doing business with the government they view as corrupt?

Do you not believe in free trade? Is this an Objectivist position?

What is free about it if it entails doing business with known criminals? Do you think free trade means you get to buy stolen merchandise? I do believe in free trade, but I don't believe others can initiate force against another.

How do you propose stopping voluntary transactions while upholding Objectivist principals?

When did you stop beating your wife?

a terrible precedent set for allowing the federal government to invoke unconstitutional powers to shut down any trade

What the hell are you talking about Jim? Who said anything about shutting down any trade? But are you telling me there is absolutely no situation where the government can shut down trade with say a country we are at war with? Could American companies like Chrysler sell tanks to the Japanese during WW2? No obviously not, there are some contexts where a company cannot trade with a government who's intent is to kill Americans. You are once again like with almost every post dropping context.

It seems like that is precisely what Ayn Rand railed against in Atlas Shrugged.

Jim you are just confused. If you think it's ok to do business with someone who seeks your destruction, you are either not understanding that's what business with the Saudi government means or Atlas Shrugged went completely over your head.

Post 10

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 7:59pm

John -- You seem to be working off a false premise. There is no way, at all, to prevent Saudi Arabia from pumping and selling oil. If Americans don't buy it, someone else, in particular the Chinese, will step in and scoop it up.

We are not at war with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is an official ally. The House of Saud does not seek our destruction. They seek to sell us oil. The virulent strain of Islam that, for political reasons, they have allowed to fester within their borders seeks to force everyone who is an infidel to adopt their creed -- with a very broad definition of infidel, defined as "anyone who is not a Wahabbist". But, comparing buying oil from Saudi Arabia to selling tanks to Japan after the U.S. entry into WWII is a completely false analogy. If we were to cut off trade with any country with a fairly hostile government, there'd be hardly anyone left to trade with. Are you suggesting that we quit trading with China, Russia, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of South and Central America, most of the Middle East, etc.?

The policy you appear to be proposing -- letting the federal government ban U.S. companies from buying crude from Saudi Arabia -- will not accomplish the purpose you apparently think it will. Multinational oil companies can't be stopped from having a foreign subsidiary pump the oil, and then have it wind up on world markets where anyone can buy it.

Giving federal politicians the power to void these voluntary exchanges will not stop all the exchanges from occurring. What it will do is result in massive rent-seeking behavior, currying of favor from politicians in a position to carve out exceptions to such a ban to politically favored companies that have paid sufficient bribes -- oops, campaign contributions -- to get favorable treatment -- the sort of malign influence-peddling outlined in Atlas Shrugged in the chapter "The Aristocracy of Pull" (and elsewhere in the novel.)

I've worked in our state legislature for seven years, and I am acutely aware of the difference between good intentions and what actually happens. You seem to think what you're proposing would be immune from the Law of Unintended (Yet Readily Forseeable) Consequences.

Post 11

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 11:04am

Jim

John -- You seem to be working off a false premise. There is no way, at all, to prevent Saudi Arabia from pumping and selling oil. If Americans don't buy it, someone else, in particular the Chinese, will step in and scoop it up.

You seem to imply a premise I absolutely never made, that anyone could prevent Saudi Arabia from selling oil. I made the assertion that if Saudi Arabia was funding terrorists who killed Americans by selling oil to America, then it is not immoral to place an embargo on a nation that is clearly an enemy and a threat to national security. Just as one wouldn't suggest America let American companies do business with Japan by selling them arms right in the middle of WW2. Sure you can argue it wouldn't be effective to the Saudi royal family's pockets because they could turn around and sell it to China, (just as WW2 Japan received arms from Germany, I see no difference) but you seem to think there is no moral distinction here between China buying oil from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. buying oil from Saudi Arabia?

We are not at war with Saudi Arabia.

Obviously.

The Saudi government is an official ally.

Unfortunately.

The House of Saud does not seek our destruction.

By funding Wahabi cultists who teach hatred for westerners especially hatred for Americans who are routinely referred to as the devil and the infidel? If they don't seek our destruction they have a funny way of showing it.

If we were to cut off trade with any country with a fairly hostile government, there'd be hardly anyone left to trade with.

What does this mean "fairly hostile" government? Obviously there is a degree to how hostile a nation is, I wouldn't propose an embargo on every nation if they show even the slightest hint of hostility. But the philosophical premise I propose is not wrong, it is not immoral to prevent others from trading with an enemy that is seeking your destruction. These would hardly constitute "voluntary exchanges", I see someone funding a known enemy by trading with them nothing more than a co-conspirator to my destruction. You can disagree with me on the particulars but the fact remains the Saudi government is corrupt, it funds would-be terrorists who seek our destruction, the same kind of extremists who killed 3,000 Americans, you can argue until you are blue in the face this country is a friend to America but your empirical analysis they should continue to be an ally and that they do not seek our destruction is not there.

Are you suggesting that we quit trading with China, Russia, Venezuela, most of Africa, much of South and Central America, most of the Middle East, etc.?

Each of those countries would have to be taken into consideration and the benefits and costs would have to be weighed first before taking such an action.

The policy you appear to be proposing -- letting the federal government ban U.S. companies from buying crude from Saudi Arabia -- will not accomplish the purpose you apparently think it will. Multinational oil companies can't be stopped from having a foreign subsidiary pump the oil, and then have it wind up on world markets where anyone can buy it.

You are not listening to me Jim. I am proposing efforts be made to move our energy consumption away from oil, so that less oil is consumed, thereby hurting shitty dictatorial regimes that control oil like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. If less oil is consumed (hello, we are the largest oil consumers on this planet) then these dictators get less money to fund terrorists.

Would this be the only thing needed to get rid of these states who sponsor terrorism? No but it can mitigate their ability to hurt us.

Giving federal politicians the power to void these voluntary exchanges will not stop all the exchanges from occurring.

When did you stop beating your wife?

You've said this several times now Jim, is this worth my time since you continually put in premises I never made?

Post 12

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 12:38pm