This can be difficult because the money is often funneled through other entities (as LPs to VC and growth funds, etc.)
I've had more than one VC tell me they couldn't guarantee that there was no Saudi money in their fund, even though they didn't have any direct KSA LPs.
I would hope we (Seam) are one of them. K, granted it's extremely hard to trace all the LPs of a fund; but at the very least we don't take calls with questionable funds/individuals. Once we've shipped our first product, I'll try to write down why, and propose a framework by which founders can better assess the money they're taking. NOT all money is green.
I remember when SA and UAE wanted to build fabs in the middle east in their never ending effort to diversify away from oil. They soon realized they don’t have the workforce without importing skilled labor. SA has one of the [hardest-to-motivate workforces] in the world.
Norway's scale of UBI is a lot less than the oil rich Arabic states' though. Those states may not have much civil liberties but material quality of life is undeniably not bad for most locals.
I don't think most proponents of UBI are suggesting we give people enough money to push them into the "rich asshole" level of wealth.
But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.
> But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.
I support UBI and see no problem with people "slacking" all day. Like you say, society is not made up of highly motivated self-starters. Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?
Well the often cited (and easy to believe) weed and video games wouldn't be causing any harm. In fact you could argue that being a "fan" would help support creators, even if just in spirit.
> Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?
Perhaps it will. It hasn't made it completely unnecessary yet, though. Somebody who can't work? I'm all for helping them. Someone who won't? Let them mooch off of someone that is not the taxpayer.
I see giving people their freedom as being worth more than forcing them to work. Take automation as a given. It's been a trend for decades.
No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders. Consider that an artifact of bootstrapping humanity through the industrial revolution.
> Take automation as a given. It's been a trend for decades.
I do not take automation as a given, because it is not yet able to produce all that we want. You're living in a dream world. That dream may one day be a reality; that day is not yet here.
> No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders.
I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
Automation and globalization have already decimated our workforce. It’s a reality we live in today.
> I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
If you support UBI you will also have the option to not work (and therefore pay no taxes). Really though unless you’re a billionaire I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
People without a purpose in life are highly susceptible to depression and self destructive behaviors. I don't like forcing people into bullshit jobs, but at least it gets them out of the house and interacting with other people.
Having to work to survive is far more depressing than knowing I'm free to do as I please. Death by ennui is a straw man and anyone living near subsistence levels will tell you as much.
It may be selection bias but when I did community service in coal country WV there seemed to be only two kinds of people in those forsaken towns. Depressed or self destructive. No opportunity and no escape is a hell of a combo. They weren’t starving, but they didn’t have money for much of anything else so their house was decaying around them (our job was fixing up the houses) along with the rest of their lives. This was back in the 90’s. I suspect those towns have been lost to opioids and meth now.
Those people would have benefited from UBI for sure. They are an example of people who’s jobs we’re lost to modernization.
There’s nothing more “destructive” then spending your life working to survive. It’s literally wasting the most valuable thing you have. Putting those guys back in a coal mine so we don’t have to see them is not a solution.
This assumes it's a proble and not a symptom of a problem. If someone takes the little money they get for food and necessaties and spends them on drugs, they are clearly on need of help and we as a society should help them combat that destructive behaviour, not shun them.
If someone is happy enough with basic food and shelter, no luxuries, is it a problem if they just sit around? isn't this better than fostering a dangerous criminal with disdain for society, thus endangering everyone in the local community?
if someone wants more (e.g. a Gaming PC) then they will have to work for it. Food and shelters should be considered human rights by virtue of existence. We will flourish more as a species if we move away from that hyper-individualist view from which we see the world, to a kinder, community-oriented view.
Let's not be assholes. If I get 100k a year, losing 1000k for another person is no problem, assuming I'm not a greedy bastard with a hardon for cash.
Even worse, SV is located in a country that is not better than Saudi Arabia when we talk about extra-judicial killings (just think about Obama-era drone killings)
And still has a military-run black site for illegal detainment and torture. And not only that, they refuse international law and to subject their war criminals to prosecution. Strike that, they have a law allowing themselves to invade anyone investigating their war criminals, have sanctioned such investigators, and actively pardon war criminals.
Trump continued (and even increased) the drone killings, but removed the reporting requirements. Calling it the "Obama-era drone killings" ignores the unprecedented amount of killings under the previous administration.
I call it Obama-era because the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize while doing that. I have a even lower opinion of Trump, but at least he was widely despised by the international community, unlike the former
The drone killings are not good, but in no way equivalent to the ills of SA. The murder of a journalist isn't the same as the murder of a wanted violent criminal.
Yeah, because those drones only kill 'violent criminals', not also civilians. Also, these 'violent criminals' have a right for a fair process, otherwise it's just murder - which it is.
Isn't that a good sign? I prefer people investing in new tech than killing people just to stay in the old tech.
The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.
oh, I think it just creates a morally hazardous situation where it's harder to push back on stuff like the Khashoggi killing because we like their money.
I see, it's true. But the consequences of not accepting outside investment for US for moral reasons would be a disaster, as the money would just go to more corrupt countries.
As Jordan Peterson expressed it quite well, the problem with United Nations is that they have too many issues to solve instead of figuring out what action has the highest ROI and focusing efforts there.
Another issue is that already people in less corrupt countries prefer not to have babies, which means that the workforce in corrupt countries is growing much faster. US has to be very smart if it wants to stay relevant.
I think he means what is also sad is that the powerful in SV dont care. Words matter but I doubt he meant that is sadder then the tragedy that happened in the embassy.
"US President Joe Biden is expected to take a firmer line than his predecessor Donald Trump on human rights and the rule of law in Saudi Arabia, a key American ally in the Middle East."
What does this even mean? I highly doubt the arms deal will get canceled. That was arranged under Obama and Biden.
Well it means actually acknowledging what happened vs the Trump admin staying quiet on it. As for the arms deal, the most recent arms deal was brokered by the Trump admin [0].
For me? Yes it absolutely matters. While I would prefer action being taken, saying the truth out loud is important and something sorely missing in politics in general.
Well, regimes do bad things but the US should not be supporting and strategizing for these regimes when they do bad things right? So posturing is the least we can do and getting back to that point is still a good thing.
Do something about the ruinous sanctions that Venezuela and its democratically-elected somewhat-socialist government have suffered for decades? Yeah, I'm sure five-decades-in-public-office Joe will get right on that.
If Maduro is democratically elected then I guess so is Putin and Raul and mr Kim and mr Xi, etc.
I’m sure we’ll just ignore the hundreds of government executed political prisoners in Venezuela and other places. Why not, it’s not even ever mentioned by the media.
Biden will lift the ruinous Venezuelan sanctions right after he lifts the ones on Russia I’m certain. Give him time.
I guess it's nice that easily observable things are now actually being confirmed by the government again. This was strongly suspected at the time but never by any official sources, and it's nice to actually have it come out. This is probably generally a result of a shift in policy against viewing Saudi Arabia as a stabilizing government in the region which seems like a correct evaluation.
This is a mere eyewash to keep your votes in your pocket. If you really think Biden admin is going to have a concrete change in the middle East policy (regarding arms sale, etc.) I have a bridge to sell to you.
Middle East nations have at least since the Obama era largely been left to their own devices (more than in the past), and operate happily that way. They're not looking to the US or anyone for approval.
Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.
Killing people in other countries because their government isn't doing enough to fight extremism doesn't sound like they've been "left to their own devices".
and less than a hundred days into his Presidency Biden is bombing the Middle East; a guy who claimed he would use military power responsibly and his supporters mocked Trump supporters that claimed otherwise.
The simple fact is we have very little justification to criticize the actions of other nations when we cannot even go an Administration without attacking another nation.
Any influence /= as much influence as before / countries looking to the US when they take their own actions.
As alliances shift in the middle east it's not surprising that Israel would be involved. Relations / tensions are pretty wild in the Middle East. I think 'unlikely' alliances are almost inevitable, and maybe not as unlikely as we think. There area lot of strangely conflicting incentives out there.
Surely, some of it was also political theatre to give the US administration a win in the region (Mission Accomplished, all over again) in exchange for the sale of advanced weapons systems. Just my two cents.
Maybe but despite the fact that they might celebrate it... I really doubt the value of "hey someone opened up diplomatic relations with Israel" is all that valuable to a given US politician... same goes with the state that chose to do so.
I think whatever horse trading happened behind the scenes was likely more valuable than PR.
I don't disagree on the reality, I am just saying that in my personal reading of various subreddits, forums, etc. I have seen countless posts and pundits saying what a great Job Trump and Kushner did on these agreements. It was clearly being used to show off their accomplishments in the region, real or not.
Two countries is a series? Can't really count Morocco or Sudan as 'Arabic states' unless you're really stretching that definition and it seems you are.
There's a lot of indications of many of what seem like one off actions taken by Israel that might have had cooperation from other Arab states that have an interest in a group or etc.
Israel's usually pretty opaque military and other actions allow for a lot of unexpected partnerships.
> The Biden administration has paused arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as it conducts a wider review of agreements worth billions of dollars made by the Trump administration, sources familiar with the matter told CNN Wednesday.
Um, merely declassifying this report already is a major change in US policy. Furthermore, Biden is reportedly refusing to even speak with MBS, as reported in the NY Times article about this:
"Ahead of the report’s release, Mr. Biden spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Although the official White House description of the call did not say that the two men discussed the report, other officials said the purpose of the discussion was for Mr. Biden to explain why he was releasing the findings and outline the administration’s next steps. The administration has made clear that Mr. Biden will speak only to King Salman, his counterpart as head of state, and will not speak directly to the crown prince.
Whether the new administration’s attempt to bypass the 35-year-old crown prince and deal only with his 84-year-old and often ailing father will succeed remains to be seen."
So complain to Biden, no one is saying we shouldn’t stop bombing people in other countries. It’s also not a shock to anyone in the US that Biden is effectively a conservative to every other western nation. I didn’t put my hopes on him fixing things. I wanted the clown in chief to stop breaking things for four years. If Biden keeps breaking things I’ll vote him out too. I just won’t do it to the benefit of more far right demagogues.
Exactly. I'm a libertarian who had never voted for a major party federal candidate and yet I found myself voting for the conservative option of Biden this time around. I want to go back to hating the government a normal amount. The military-industrial-surveillance complex is evil, but at least it has a vested interest to not wantonly kill half a million Americans.
I personally think Trump is dumb, indecent, and a liar - but it's not fair to suggest he's responsible for killing half a million Americans. The US seems to have had a somewhat typical response and outcome to the virus with fewer per capita deaths than Germany, France, UK, Spain, and others[1]. Surely all these countries weren't also run by regimes trying to kill their population.
Trump's opponents didn't seem to be suggesting noticeably better strategies to deal with the virus and Democrat led states don't seem to be handling the virus much better than Republican led states [2].
I agree with saying that Trump can't be blamed for the existence of the corona virus and a lot of deaths related to it - but there were expert suggestions to shut down travel much earlier and more aggressively than what Trump did and, honestly, the US per-capita deaths are quite high - we're somewhere in the top ten globally - so I don't know if it's fair to say that Corona virus' extreme impact is entirely disconnected from Trump either.
I prefer to focus on more concrete and demonstrable failures but I think in a few years when we can really parse this data we'll find that Trump's actions directly led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths... but, I'm not certain.
The biggest failure I think we pretty clearly made in handling the virus was not quickly building up some nationalized vaccine production facilities. If ever there was a time for some good old state capitalism it was this pandemic and a few hundred million invested in setting up facilities we know we'll eventually need would have paid off handsomely.
Germany has 80 million people, 70.000 died through covid. US has 320 million (so roundabout 4 times as much), 500k died of covid (so roundabout 7 times as much). Thus, more people per capita died in the US than in Germany.
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h...
Germany, and Europe as a whole, have lower rates, but over 160 million people live in European countries with higher per capita death rates than the US, specifically:
Gibraltar
San Marino
Belgium
Czechia
Slovenia
UK
Italy
Portugal
Montenegro
And, do you really think that Belgium has all of whatever bad characteristics you like to apply to the US government? Or is it maybe more a consequence of being a small and densely populated area that people travel a lot to and from, like NYC? It's not as simple as good policy response meaning lower deaths.
Responsibility is shared jointly. If you merely drive the getaway car for a bank robbery in which a bank guard is killed, you yourself are fully on the hook for murder. If Trump had taken Covid seriously and advocated common sense mitigations like wearing masks, socially distancing, and refraining from unnecessary activities, our position would be significantly better. As a public figure, downplaying the problem while advocating irresponsibility is at the very least gross negligence. This puts him on the hook for the entire outcome. I agree many other politicians are responsible for their part as well, but that's besides the point.
While you cannot attribute every single death to the Trump administration, it remains true that in the most critical time period of the virus emerging, they were actively hostile to taking the necessary actions. They continued to be actively hostile to scientific consensus about the virus until removed from power.
The administration was overtly spreading misinformation and speaking against straight up correct medical advice. They made overt statements in national media that assistance vs the virus would be treated as a quid pro quo for political loyalty. They threatened governors that criticized the administration with denial of federal resources in a (&()^) epidemic. You cannot whitewash the blood on their hands.
It was craven politics born of an early idea that the virus would be worst in left leaning coastal cities, and hence would help Trump for re-election. Obviously a virus doesn't give a crap about political parties, so it didn't go that way.
It's entirely reasonable to believe that the number of covid deaths in the US would have been an order of magnitude less with more sober decision making.
You probably mistaken my comment as anti Biden instead of anti involvement. I predict the Biden administration as the Obama administration did, will in fact escalate every conflict we are currently engaged in. Lets wait a little and see what happens, I hope I'm wrong.
Simply not lying to us is a very large step in the right direction, though. You don't have to be in the tank for the Biden administration to recognize that it was VERY BAD that the previous administration engaged in (or at least acceded to) a coverup of a state-sanctioned murder.
Sadly I think you're right, there is no sign of a return to the Iran deal even, let alone an actual change of policy there. This is housekeeping at most.
As an Iranian (living in US) who follows this very very closely, you are wrong.
There are many signs of Biden administration going back to the deal. They are both dancing around it but there's definitely been a policy change regarding Iran.
It's a good deal for the whole world except for Saudi Arabia's regime, Israeli's hardliners, American Hawks and Iranian hardliners.
For stability of the region, commerce, peace and moderate forces in all parties, it was a good deal.
It wouldn't have resolved all the issues the world has with Iran, but the idea of having a "deal" in place that resolves all issues is childish.
Eg can the US have a "deal" with Saudi in place to resolve all the regional and human rights issues with them? Of course not. But those who argue against the JCPOA claim the US could've had a "deal" with Iran that resolved all issues.
It would've been used to rebuild some trust between both nations and help resolving other issues in long term.
I just wanted to extend word that no matter how comments go on this website, there is a sizable fraction of the US that understand the deal was about creating an imperfect detente to limit the hardliners on various sides, to create space for progress. We'll see how things shake out, but I just wanted to say that there are plenty of people over here to see this in that way.
Although right now the deal is hanging by a thread, I still think its possible that in long term it will be considered a major victory for all parties involved.
The fact that the hardliners couldn't kill it off despite years of effort (while being in power) may be later judged as a strength of it.
I hope you're right. Last I heard Biden wasn't willing to lift all sanctions and wanted to return to negotiations. Then there were statements about losing patience...
That's better than nothing I guess. But it's not the "we're back, let's make this work" announcement I'd hoped for.
I'm very supportive of engagement with Iran. In a generation they'll be the main power in the ME. Its time to get on board or be left behind I think. The Saudis are yesterday's news.
Again, there's a dance involved. Biden administration gave a lot of positive signs and a lot of carrots. But is also willing to show some sticks. That's understandable in all negotiations.
Both sides are dancing but there have been very positive signs. I expect the parties to return to deal in 2-5 months.
Everything that was stated about Drumph being a slave to Putin's interests in Syria are now 100% confirmed. I for one am looking forward to the open apology from the nu right to loyalist US citizens.
Saudi Arabia should be the first nation "wiped off the map" They are fucking horrendeous - and the only reason they are around is due to our douchebag family the bush-clinton cabal - fuck them all to hell
Can you elaborate? Saudi Arabia is just one member of OPEC. If they are upset with a US sanction as a consequence of this, and refuse to sell oil to the US, wouldn’t that just mean other OPEC nations (or Canada!) would sell oil to the US and Saudi would fill the gap left by these countries supplying non-US countries?
I think the “stabilizing force in the region” argument elsewhere n these comments is more on the mark but have a limited understanding of everything at play.
I am concerned that Saudi has gotten away with this now and will be emboldened to do whatever they want now.
It's not so much that the US needs Saudi Arabian oil as it is that the United States needs oil to be sold using US Dollars. Saudi Arabia exclusively accepts US Dollars, so every nation wishing to buy oil needs to exchange their own currency for our dollar bills in order to do so. This gives the US a tremendous advantage in the world stage and is such a large part of why the US Dollar is worth so much overseas.
If Saudi Arabia wanted to, they could start accepting Chinese Yuan, Russian Rubles, or even Japanese Yen and that would deal a serious blow to the US Monetary system. There would be nothing particularly special about the US Dollar and that would severely impact the US Economy. Actually decoupling from the US Dollar like this is highly unlikely, but it is a risk nonetheless. I suspect no US President wants to be the one in power when Saudi Arabia chooses to do so.
Arabians are a wonderful people, it's the Saudi royal family that is the problem. They are going to become more of a problem as the world is forced to transition away from oil. There are few things more dangerous than dictators that find themselves losing power and support.
Agreed - whe I worked at Lockheed, there were a few Arabs who literally quit after 9/11 as they refused to work at a company that was selling weapons to the DOD to kill other arabs.
I stand by my statement: The Royal Saudi Family (the CIA, and the Clinton Bush Cabal) can collectively go fuck their evil selves. Fuck them.
Saudi royal family is the problem? Without the royal family, Saudi will be controlled by radical Islamists. The royal family is the major force to keep the country away from the religious fanatics.
You fundamentally misunderstand SA. The wahhabists and the house of Saud have a symbiotic relationship. The royals turn a blind eye to the excesses of the radicals, provided it's targeted externally, and in return the radicals legitimize the rule of Saud as a theocracy. This is why the royals suppress violent actions within their borders, but not the structure that ultimately causes those occasional acts of domestic terror, while doing nothing to hinder how those same networks do terror internationally, including 9/11.
What you said does not contradict what I said. Do you think the royals is the problem? Would it be better to get rid of the royals and let the wahhabists rule the country?
If the royals are gone the wahhabists would not take rule. That's not how it works. They are a key to power in SA but incapable of holding it themselves, which is why they legitimize Saud symbiotically. I loath the both of them but it's important to understand the actual structure going on.
Besides the house of Saud there are multiple other clans that historically have held power there, and continue to be powerful and influential today. The other key to power in SA is control of the oil money.
> Without the royal family, Saudi will be controlled by radical Islamists
But that's true only because the royal family has (1) fostered the strength of radical Islam directly by allying with radical Islamists to justify their power, and (2) made such a hash of things that any opposition (which, as a direct consequence of their promotion of radical Islam, comes largely from slightly divergent radical Islamists) seems preferable to a large portion of the population.
As a result, SA is at least two revolutions away from having a decent government, and the royal family benefits from the fear the West has of the likely course of the first of those.
One revolution by radical Islamists a la Iran, one revolution (not necessarily final) of a more "normal" alignment, and any number of revolutions of anything in between.
I find it deeply disturbing that this was known by the US intelligence community the entire time yet they were suppressed from sharing publicly because of certain people being compromised. Ugh.
I don't know. It's not like the US government kept this as a closely-held secret or tried to convince anyone it wasn't true; they just didn't want to officially acknowledge it for diplomatic reasons. International politics works that way sometimes, and I'm not sure it's fair to characterize that as being "compromised".
Why is this in particular deeply disturbing? Your tax dollars are responsible for thousands of murders and hundreds of thousands of negligent homicides every year. Why is it that one guy getting killed for doing something that was illegal for him to do in his country is the thing that is getting to you?
Also, I read recently the CIA and other covert ops led to assassinations on members of the Black Panthers and even Malcom X and maybe Martin Luther King.
Have the stupid wars we're fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Niger, Syria, Yemen, etc. somehow escaped your notice? How can a human with access to internet be so ill-informed?
Remember the 9/11 redacted pages about the Saudis leaving? Oil and $$$.
The US and the world must decarbonize to remove the power from these feudal, vicious "drug dealers." The US wouldn't need to protect SA if most of NATO countries' energy could be had elsewhere. It would be essential to remove nukes and military arms from SA and Iran to ensure peace in the region.
The US is already a net oil exporter, and the EU mostly gets their fossil fuels from Russia. That's why anti-interventionist voices are so frustrated these days; it's increasingly rare to see any concrete justification for why regional conflicts in the Middle East are actually relevant to the US.
I think there are other interests beyond oil also:
- MIC: weapon sales and US military budget justification
- Focal-point for US proxy conflict with global adversaries
- Monetize Iran - Saudi Arabia tensions; simultaneously stoking it and tempering it
Getting away from oil, normalizing relations with Iran, and bringing SA and Iran closer together would work against the above interests but would deescalate tensions and obviate a major pretext for regional imperial occupation.
Much of this story was published in Proof of Conspiracy in 2019, curated from major media reporting. The media just didn't cover the release at the time.
This makes sense to me. The idea that "the truth sets you free" is not just false, but in some cases even "privileged". If the political situation in the ME gets worse, it isn't necessarily Americans, or at least the current generation, who will be most harmed.
I'd argue it is up to US intelligence and the current Administration to make these decisions, or at least that's how the system is designed - and I would agree that any systems needs to be selective in what information is public - radical political honesty works about as well as radical social honesty, just with even more terrible consequences.
That's not to say 'there aren't problems with this, the most pressing being how to trust the authorities involved, especially when they are essentially given the means to bury their crimes, and control the very information by which their actions may be (democratically) measured - but I guess these are the paradox of the modern, democratic mega-nation.
This was known to the world. When a foreign critic is invited to an embassy, dismembered, and his body disposed of, you can be sure that all the key people in leadership knew about it, and those in a position to stop it must have approved it. The only possible reason why someone in the Saudi government would not know about it would be if they were an outsider that was generally excluded from the flow of sensitive information. Say the minister of agriculture or something.
Is it uncommon for countries to leave their traitors alive? Saudi Arabia has had public beheadings, it's not unusual for a place like that to murder a guy who was sitting in the USA and publishing the talking points he was getting from Qatar.
The idea that he was 100% a noble crusading journalist is pure propaganda.
This whole story is artificially amplified. Has everyone woken up and suddenly learned what punishments in Saudi Arabia are like?
Take for instance Chelsea Manning - someone who made the US government look bad by leaking diplomatic cables. Torture, solitary confinement, all sorts of inhumane conditions. Is it that much of a stretch to see a monarchy like Saudi Arabia chopping up their guy for making them look bad? Not really. It's what you would expect in a place like that.
It's always been that way, and everyone has known about it. To pretend as if it's unexpected is quite insincere and reeks of some alternative agenda. The way Khashoggi is presented to the public as some kind of hero is really telling.
Is this the only instance in recent history where a traitor has been tortured and/or killed? It's the only one everyone is talking about. The reason for that is for the common folk to develop a bias. A well deserved bias, but a manufactured one nonetheless.
Not even Saudi Arabia is arguing that this was a normal or reasonable punishment within their justice system. They prosecuted everyone involved in Khashoggi's murder (or, well, everyone who they say was involved) and convicted eight of them.
If the story didn't blow up they would never have done it.
My point remains. There are conspiracies about Russia feeding talking points to members of the US government and that those who are doing the bidding of Russia should be tried for treason.
This is not some fringe point of view you read on some imageboard on the internet, this is that has been airing on American news tv regularly over the past 4 years. You don't get banned on twitter for saying this, you don't get banned on Facebook for saying this. This is a very popular thing to say and believe in America.
The Saudis simply followed through with the same principle, and it's being presented as some kind of heinous outrage when it's essentially what's being proposed in the USA.
At best one could argue the method of killing, and if we're there my point is pretty much made. They followed their criminal justice system. They're doing a song and dance now because it got blown up.
Just because Saudi Arabia acts barbarically within its own borders ( and they're not alone in that) doesn't mean that chopping up a dissidents in an embassy in a foreign country is somehow OK or acceptable.
Trump was pursuing a real-politik strategy - US energy / oil independence. Without it, US just can’t afford to put SA in the corner. Biden instead is pursuing nice PR, cancelling pipelines and alienating SA (as it seems so far... we’ll see if there’s a grand strategy behind it).
b/c it's a positive spin on the Trump administration; That there may be truth to a dependence on Saudi oil and/or political influence in the greater scope isn't accounted for.
Talking about international relations as if they were people isn't a valid model. Imagine a wild-west world without a common justice system, where the justice you receive is based on the justice you can afford to obtain; that is the resources you have. That is the international world.
So, what do we do about SA? refuse to buy oil from them, weakening the US global position and hope that causes less harm than the actions of SA itself?
Go to war with SA, payed for in dead American soldiers, and hope that the reputation of the US doesn't suffer as a result, esp as Americas enemies spin the even as another example of American Imperialism / justify their own invasions?
In addition to the other commenter's suggestion, some people may simply find it reprehensible to defend the sweeping under the rug of a state-sponsored violent chainsaw murder of a WaPo journalist for the sake of realpolitik.
Lots of grey comments all over in this thread. Not a very balanced discussion...Or maybe balanced in how much everyone is downvoting one another?
I mean they still aren’t really doing anything about it other than US intelligence formally acknowledging it happened. Nothing will fundamentally be different from before today without actual consequences, it was already globally known and well established.
Unfortunately, I don't think we're quite past the point where any comment related to US politics is presumed to be partisan activism for or against the previous administration. Hopefully in a few months it'll have simmered down.
It doesn't seem to be relevant. The US may have been trying to go energy independent, but their actions towards SA were not indicating that in the least. If anything the administration seemed to be trying to improve relations with oil dictators like MBS and Putin.
MbS shares interests with his friends in Israel, but those interests are opposed to those of Putin. That's the main reason we fought (and got our asses kicked) in Syria.
Fortunately we're fracking now so as soon as we wrest control of the reins of power over our government from Middle Eastern lobbyists we can forget about all those stupid wars we're fighting. So, probably in about a century...
If we don't want to bake the planet to death we need to transition away from burning oil as an energy source well before the next century. There will still be uses in making plastics and lubricants, but cars and to a lesser extent ships and airplanes need to be getting off of the stuff. Short haul trips can go pure electric, long haul stuff probably needs to switch to biofuels.
It seems that pacifists like me and climate people like yourself should be natural allies. Can we agree that USA should not fight wars in the Middle East, since that seems to increase the burning of fossil fuels?
Or we just take over Saudi Arabia and eliminate the House of Saud. Probably cheaper in the long run and eliminates the morons who funded Wahabism into a major threat.
You really don’t. What are they going to do? Raise prices? The only reason we’re not swimming in US oil right now is that a huge chunk of the permian basin is profitable at 80 but not at 65.
It seems you're trying to imply some causality whereby Trump can take credit for Biden's current policy, even though it's only been a few years. If you want to make that argument, do so explicitly.
In the short term, obtaining energy independence is helped by no longer appeasing SA. When oil prices are higher, domestic production becomes profitable. That's if the current prices aren't just a result of the SA strategy of periodically flooding the market to bankrupt high-overhead producers.
As for your "we’ll see if there’s a grand strategy behind it", that strategy is obviously domestic production and renewables. Looking forwards instead of looking backwards.
Can it be that Biden and his administration are doing this not just for the PR, but because they may yet have principles they live by? I can't say, I don't know their heart.
Nevertheless, I want our country to alienate other countries whose heads of state order journalists strangled or murdered by any other means. I want to live in a society like that. I want that even if I know my American government is hardly free from guilt.
Yeah, I also want Biden to throw Johnson, Trump and Biden in jail because they’re keeping Assange imprisoned & tortured... but that’s just never gonna happen, he’s a small fish in the grand scheme of things.
With all due respect I do not believe that is real-politik. “In 2019, the United States produced2 about 19.25 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum, and it consumed3 about 20.46 MMb/d.” (1)
We have energy independence, and cutting off the pipeline and going green improves that. You know who isn’t energy independent? China. Why is China staking out the area around the Spratleys? Oil is a huge part of that.
I think real politik entails telling the Saudis no más and becoming pals with the Iranians instead. The Persians aren’t our enemies and they aren’t selling peoples organs out of death camps. If they become our homies we have a line from Iraq to India of people who will work with us and force the Chinese to secure a very long and mountainous border. Then if the Saudis don’t like it? Let them sell their oil to China and be on their squad - now China secures their own Oil source and that takes a shit ton of pressure off the Vietnamese and everyone else in the area, with the Iranians still having the Strait of Hormuz as insurance. Peace can be had.
Our biggest rival has triple our population and is rapidly catching up in capability - and any armchair historian knows that the Soviets overwhelmed the Nazis despite their sophistication.
Cutting off the pipeline goes against the green strategy. Putting thousands of trucks on the road adds many jobs and raises the demand (those trucks run in gas).
Saying that you have enough production (with a negative million plus barrels a day) and then saying that peace needs to be made with Iran to protect supply from going to China seems like an extremely risky strategy with very little potential of cutting off China.
The Germans made a series of unsophisticated decisions in the east that cost them when Hilter started to assert direct control over the army. Not really comparible. The number of tanks do.
I have a friend who relocated from Saudi Arabia to America. He said MbS most likely watched the dismemberment via video link as entertainment. Nothing in the Kingdom like that happens without MbS' approval. It's unlikely that anyone went rogue because it's a very hierarchal society with strict rules.
Were there any revelations on how the Turkish intelligence managed to uncover the murder?
There were claims that they listened through his Apple Watch but this claim lacks any substance, they must have bugged the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul where the murder took place.
May I ask an honest question? I cannot understand why Jamal Khashoggi is mainly referred as a "journalist". Reading his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi), apparently he is a Saudi dissident, a critic of the Saudi government. Yes he did write lots articles for newspaper, mostly criticize the Saudi government. But does this make him a journalist?
According to the Wikipedia page, I don't think he was an independent journalist. He had connections with the Saudi government and other organizations.
Quote: "After his second resignation, Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi Arabian elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015, he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia, which does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with U.S. financial news channel Bloomberg Television, it was also rumored to have received financial support from the King of Bahrain, Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa.[69] "
Quote: "In December 2018, The Washington Post revealed that Khashoggi's columns "at times" were "shaped" by an organization funded by Saudi Arabia's regional nemesis, Qatar, including by proposing his topics, giving him drafts, goading him, and giving him research."
I am not saying it is wrong to be a political dissident, but those should disqualifying you from being called as a "journalist", right?
What? I don't think people write lots articles for newspaper are called journalist. "columnist" is the right term for people write lots of opinion pieces.
I upvoted you because I have wondered similar things myself. He is portrayed as a random journalist, but from what I have been able to research, is very much connected to politically powerful families in the region.
Not that it makes killing him any better, of course, but it does add another layer of depth to the story.
Watch The Dissident, they talk much about this. In short yes, but he did it out of national pride, and he was very vocal of his dismissal of the ruling class later on, leading to his murder.
Khashoggi wasn't obviously different from Anderson Cooper (scion of the Vanderbilts and CIA agent to boot) or Jenna Bush (whose father started several disastrously profitable wars). In order to call these people "journalists", the definition had to be loosened somewhat, but that happened some time ago.
He was also a terrorist: a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is classified as a terror organization by many states (including SA). So how is this different than other states killing terrorists?
>Treasury will unveil sanctions today on General Ahmed al-Asiri, former deputy head of the Saudi intelligence services, and the Saudi Rapid Intervention Force for their involvement in the Khashoggi assassination. Crown Prince MBS will NOT be sanctioned, per officials.
>A new State Department policy named the Khashoggi Ban will also be unveiled today, which will allow State to restrict and revoke visas to any individual believed to be involved in targeting/harassing/surveilling dissidents and journalists extraterritorially.
>Then White House chose not to penalize the crown prince directly despite intel report concluding he approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's murder. One senior administration official said that to do so would put the U.S. in an extremely “hostile” position wrt KSA.
>"The aim is recalibration, not a rupture, because of the important interests that we do share" with Saudi Arabia, the senior admin official said. U.S. officials and departments will continue to deal with MBS at the appropriate levels.
>More from SAO on why MBS was not sanctioned: "The United States as a matter of practice has not generally applied sanctions on the highest leadership of countries with whom the US has diplomatic relations. Nor even generally speaking on the leaders of countries with which 1/
>the US has no relations. And having looked at this extremely closely over the last 5 weeks, there was unanimous conclusion that there were other more effective means to dealing with these issues going forward."
They should add SA to the banned countries list for ISP's, banks, hosting, etc seize all known funds in USA banks, end all sales, all business, etc... Saudia Arabia will be begging for water in ten years, with climate change impacts.
Make them the "new" Iran in terms of business dealings with America. All shares that Saudi Prince owns in America companies becomes owned by the Government and is auctioned off.
This is similar to how Modi was banned from entering the US for overseeing the Gujrat massacres but was suddendly a champion of human rights when he became PM. Might is always right sadly.
Oligarchs revving the war machine back up to make more blood-soaked sand. Gonna piss off the regional allies and have the CIA re-occupy old stomping grounds like Syria. Regular drone strikes up next!
Video about half-way down... Trump said, paraphrased, "I talked with MBS and he told me very strongly that he didn't do it, so he's good. Move along, nothing to see here people."
I don't agree with Biden on everything, but sure is nice to have a POTUS who isn't trying to sweep the killing of journalists under the rug. Like... I sleep a bit better at night now.
226 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 205 ms ] threadhttps://vicki.substack.com/p/silicon-valley-runs-on-saudi
I've had more than one VC tell me they couldn't guarantee that there was no Saudi money in their fund, even though they didn't have any direct KSA LPs.
But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.
I support UBI and see no problem with people "slacking" all day. Like you say, society is not made up of highly motivated self-starters. Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?
Perhaps it will. It hasn't made it completely unnecessary yet, though. Somebody who can't work? I'm all for helping them. Someone who won't? Let them mooch off of someone that is not the taxpayer.
No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders. Consider that an artifact of bootstrapping humanity through the industrial revolution.
I do not take automation as a given, because it is not yet able to produce all that we want. You're living in a dream world. That dream may one day be a reality; that day is not yet here.
> No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders.
I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
> I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
If you support UBI you will also have the option to not work (and therefore pay no taxes). Really though unless you’re a billionaire I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
There’s nothing more “destructive” then spending your life working to survive. It’s literally wasting the most valuable thing you have. Putting those guys back in a coal mine so we don’t have to see them is not a solution.
If someone is happy enough with basic food and shelter, no luxuries, is it a problem if they just sit around? isn't this better than fostering a dangerous criminal with disdain for society, thus endangering everyone in the local community?
if someone wants more (e.g. a Gaming PC) then they will have to work for it. Food and shelters should be considered human rights by virtue of existence. We will flourish more as a species if we move away from that hyper-individualist view from which we see the world, to a kinder, community-oriented view.
Let's not be assholes. If I get 100k a year, losing 1000k for another person is no problem, assuming I'm not a greedy bastard with a hardon for cash.
Why do you believe this?
Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-kill...
> Obama-era drone killings
The drone killings are not good, but in no way equivalent to the ills of SA. The murder of a journalist isn't the same as the murder of a wanted violent criminal.
In any case: when has the US targeted civilians? And where does the "right to X" come from?
The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.
As Jordan Peterson expressed it quite well, the problem with United Nations is that they have too many issues to solve instead of figuring out what action has the highest ROI and focusing efforts there.
Another issue is that already people in less corrupt countries prefer not to have babies, which means that the workforce in corrupt countries is growing much faster. US has to be very smart if it wants to stay relevant.
What does this even mean? I highly doubt the arms deal will get canceled. That was arranged under Obama and Biden.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-admin...
If nothing material happens after acknowledging something bad happened, does it matter in any way? The net result is the same.
Regimes do bad things. They just don’t usually do it in the open like this case or North Korea (foreign airport).
Unless it’s a small banana republic that bends at the will of international pressure, not much will happen.
Right after they do something material about this I’m certain they will do something about the things China does.
Maybe they’ll do something about Venezuela too, right?
I’m sure we’ll just ignore the hundreds of government executed political prisoners in Venezuela and other places. Why not, it’s not even ever mentioned by the media.
Biden will lift the ruinous Venezuelan sanctions right after he lifts the ones on Russia I’m certain. Give him time.
Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.
Obama making decisions on his own doesn't have anything to do with middle east nation's interest in US approval for their own actions.
I'm addressing what those middle east nations choose to do and who they consult with, get 'approval' from / etc.
What? That's exactly what it means.
The simple fact is we have very little justification to criticize the actions of other nations when we cannot even go an Administration without attacking another nation.
2) Why is the US not allowed to "attack[] another nation"? esp given it was a response to attacks on American/coalition personnel?
As alliances shift in the middle east it's not surprising that Israel would be involved. Relations / tensions are pretty wild in the Middle East. I think 'unlikely' alliances are almost inevitable, and maybe not as unlikely as we think. There area lot of strangely conflicting incentives out there.
I think whatever horse trading happened behind the scenes was likely more valuable than PR.
Israel's usually pretty opaque military and other actions allow for a lot of unexpected partnerships.
The Abraham accords are the legacy of the Trump admin and I think it’s a very good one.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/us-pauses-saudi-uae-...
"Ahead of the report’s release, Mr. Biden spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Although the official White House description of the call did not say that the two men discussed the report, other officials said the purpose of the discussion was for Mr. Biden to explain why he was releasing the findings and outline the administration’s next steps. The administration has made clear that Mr. Biden will speak only to King Salman, his counterpart as head of state, and will not speak directly to the crown prince.
Whether the new administration’s attempt to bypass the 35-year-old crown prince and deal only with his 84-year-old and often ailing father will succeed remains to be seen."
Where is the outrage? All the social media platforms are silent.
Trump's opponents didn't seem to be suggesting noticeably better strategies to deal with the virus and Democrat led states don't seem to be handling the virus much better than Republican led states [2].
1 - https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
2 - https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
I prefer to focus on more concrete and demonstrable failures but I think in a few years when we can really parse this data we'll find that Trump's actions directly led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths... but, I'm not certain.
The biggest failure I think we pretty clearly made in handling the virus was not quickly building up some nationalized vaccine production facilities. If ever there was a time for some good old state capitalism it was this pandemic and a few hundred million invested in setting up facilities we know we'll eventually need would have paid off handsomely.
And, do you really think that Belgium has all of whatever bad characteristics you like to apply to the US government? Or is it maybe more a consequence of being a small and densely populated area that people travel a lot to and from, like NYC? It's not as simple as good policy response meaning lower deaths.
The administration was overtly spreading misinformation and speaking against straight up correct medical advice. They made overt statements in national media that assistance vs the virus would be treated as a quid pro quo for political loyalty. They threatened governors that criticized the administration with denial of federal resources in a (&()^) epidemic. You cannot whitewash the blood on their hands.
It was craven politics born of an early idea that the virus would be worst in left leaning coastal cities, and hence would help Trump for re-election. Obviously a virus doesn't give a crap about political parties, so it didn't go that way.
It's entirely reasonable to believe that the number of covid deaths in the US would have been an order of magnitude less with more sober decision making.
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/501365/
There are many signs of Biden administration going back to the deal. They are both dancing around it but there's definitely been a policy change regarding Iran.
For stability of the region, commerce, peace and moderate forces in all parties, it was a good deal.
It wouldn't have resolved all the issues the world has with Iran, but the idea of having a "deal" in place that resolves all issues is childish.
Eg can the US have a "deal" with Saudi in place to resolve all the regional and human rights issues with them? Of course not. But those who argue against the JCPOA claim the US could've had a "deal" with Iran that resolved all issues.
It would've been used to rebuild some trust between both nations and help resolving other issues in long term.
Although right now the deal is hanging by a thread, I still think its possible that in long term it will be considered a major victory for all parties involved.
The fact that the hardliners couldn't kill it off despite years of effort (while being in power) may be later judged as a strength of it.
That's better than nothing I guess. But it's not the "we're back, let's make this work" announcement I'd hoped for.
I'm very supportive of engagement with Iran. In a generation they'll be the main power in the ME. Its time to get on board or be left behind I think. The Saudis are yesterday's news.
Both sides are dancing but there have been very positive signs. I expect the parties to return to deal in 2-5 months.
"When you spend your whole life looking for bad, thats all you can see"
I think the “stabilizing force in the region” argument elsewhere n these comments is more on the mark but have a limited understanding of everything at play.
I am concerned that Saudi has gotten away with this now and will be emboldened to do whatever they want now.
If Saudi Arabia wanted to, they could start accepting Chinese Yuan, Russian Rubles, or even Japanese Yen and that would deal a serious blow to the US Monetary system. There would be nothing particularly special about the US Dollar and that would severely impact the US Economy. Actually decoupling from the US Dollar like this is highly unlikely, but it is a risk nonetheless. I suspect no US President wants to be the one in power when Saudi Arabia chooses to do so.
I stand by my statement: The Royal Saudi Family (the CIA, and the Clinton Bush Cabal) can collectively go fuck their evil selves. Fuck them.
MSB in particular.
But that's true only because the royal family has (1) fostered the strength of radical Islam directly by allying with radical Islamists to justify their power, and (2) made such a hash of things that any opposition (which, as a direct consequence of their promotion of radical Islam, comes largely from slightly divergent radical Islamists) seems preferable to a large portion of the population.
As a result, SA is at least two revolutions away from having a decent government, and the royal family benefits from the fear the West has of the likely course of the first of those.
I guess the Turkish state reports were official enough.
Could you elaborate in what ways money influenced Turkey to speak out about it, where others didn't? I'm intensely curious about this.
-US($8bn of arms sale) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-puts-saudi-arms-sal...
- FR (€1.4 billion) https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/10/france-should-halt-arms-...
Jamal Khashoggi: EU divided over arms sales to Saudi Arabia six months after murder: https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/02/jamal-khashoggi-eu-divid...
https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1364626495315062788
It just feels as if something is missing from the discussion.
* US military action anywhere
* CIA kidnapping and torture of US and non-US nationals
* US sponsored regimes and regime changes around the world
That's a decent start.
The US and the world must decarbonize to remove the power from these feudal, vicious "drug dealers." The US wouldn't need to protect SA if most of NATO countries' energy could be had elsewhere. It would be essential to remove nukes and military arms from SA and Iran to ensure peace in the region.
I think there are other interests beyond oil also:
- MIC: weapon sales and US military budget justification
- Focal-point for US proxy conflict with global adversaries
- Monetize Iran - Saudi Arabia tensions; simultaneously stoking it and tempering it
Getting away from oil, normalizing relations with Iran, and bringing SA and Iran closer together would work against the above interests but would deescalate tensions and obviate a major pretext for regional imperial occupation.
I'd argue it is up to US intelligence and the current Administration to make these decisions, or at least that's how the system is designed - and I would agree that any systems needs to be selective in what information is public - radical political honesty works about as well as radical social honesty, just with even more terrible consequences.
That's not to say 'there aren't problems with this, the most pressing being how to trust the authorities involved, especially when they are essentially given the means to bury their crimes, and control the very information by which their actions may be (democratically) measured - but I guess these are the paradox of the modern, democratic mega-nation.
I seriously don't know why it makes the news now.
It was portrayed as "this is bad because they killed a journalist."
In reality it was "this is bad because this guy had lots of connections"
Journalists are killed by bad people every year, usually to very little fanfare.
The idea that he was 100% a noble crusading journalist is pure propaganda.
This whole story is artificially amplified. Has everyone woken up and suddenly learned what punishments in Saudi Arabia are like?
Take for instance Chelsea Manning - someone who made the US government look bad by leaking diplomatic cables. Torture, solitary confinement, all sorts of inhumane conditions. Is it that much of a stretch to see a monarchy like Saudi Arabia chopping up their guy for making them look bad? Not really. It's what you would expect in a place like that.
It's always been that way, and everyone has known about it. To pretend as if it's unexpected is quite insincere and reeks of some alternative agenda. The way Khashoggi is presented to the public as some kind of hero is really telling.
He could've been the worst journalist in the world. That's no excuse to butcher him.
My point remains. There are conspiracies about Russia feeding talking points to members of the US government and that those who are doing the bidding of Russia should be tried for treason.
This is not some fringe point of view you read on some imageboard on the internet, this is that has been airing on American news tv regularly over the past 4 years. You don't get banned on twitter for saying this, you don't get banned on Facebook for saying this. This is a very popular thing to say and believe in America.
The Saudis simply followed through with the same principle, and it's being presented as some kind of heinous outrage when it's essentially what's being proposed in the USA.
At best one could argue the method of killing, and if we're there my point is pretty much made. They followed their criminal justice system. They're doing a song and dance now because it got blown up.
It's just that it was kept covered up by Trump.
So, what do we do about SA? refuse to buy oil from them, weakening the US global position and hope that causes less harm than the actions of SA itself?
Go to war with SA, payed for in dead American soldiers, and hope that the reputation of the US doesn't suffer as a result, esp as Americas enemies spin the even as another example of American Imperialism / justify their own invasions?
Lots of grey comments all over in this thread. Not a very balanced discussion...Or maybe balanced in how much everyone is downvoting one another?
The Turks had a wiretap in the murder room!
Not much to get upset about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/biden-mbs-kha...
Fortunately we're fracking now so as soon as we wrest control of the reins of power over our government from Middle Eastern lobbyists we can forget about all those stupid wars we're fighting. So, probably in about a century...
In the short term, obtaining energy independence is helped by no longer appeasing SA. When oil prices are higher, domestic production becomes profitable. That's if the current prices aren't just a result of the SA strategy of periodically flooding the market to bankrupt high-overhead producers.
As for your "we’ll see if there’s a grand strategy behind it", that strategy is obviously domestic production and renewables. Looking forwards instead of looking backwards.
Nevertheless, I want our country to alienate other countries whose heads of state order journalists strangled or murdered by any other means. I want to live in a society like that. I want that even if I know my American government is hardly free from guilt.
We have energy independence, and cutting off the pipeline and going green improves that. You know who isn’t energy independent? China. Why is China staking out the area around the Spratleys? Oil is a huge part of that.
I think real politik entails telling the Saudis no más and becoming pals with the Iranians instead. The Persians aren’t our enemies and they aren’t selling peoples organs out of death camps. If they become our homies we have a line from Iraq to India of people who will work with us and force the Chinese to secure a very long and mountainous border. Then if the Saudis don’t like it? Let them sell their oil to China and be on their squad - now China secures their own Oil source and that takes a shit ton of pressure off the Vietnamese and everyone else in the area, with the Iranians still having the Strait of Hormuz as insurance. Peace can be had.
Our biggest rival has triple our population and is rapidly catching up in capability - and any armchair historian knows that the Soviets overwhelmed the Nazis despite their sophistication.
(1) https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Saying that you have enough production (with a negative million plus barrels a day) and then saying that peace needs to be made with Iran to protect supply from going to China seems like an extremely risky strategy with very little potential of cutting off China.
The Germans made a series of unsophisticated decisions in the east that cost them when Hilter started to assert direct control over the army. Not really comparible. The number of tanks do.
"Nice PR" is always going to be a side effect of any policy, depending on your viewpoint of course.
It seems Biden has a number of pages about his strategy, which seems heavily focused on renewables: https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/
This is an alternative path to energy independence which also helps with other goals such as reducing climate change impacts
There were claims that they listened through his Apple Watch but this claim lacks any substance, they must have bugged the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul where the murder took place.
According to the Wikipedia page, I don't think he was an independent journalist. He had connections with the Saudi government and other organizations.
Quote: "After his second resignation, Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi Arabian elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015, he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia, which does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with U.S. financial news channel Bloomberg Television, it was also rumored to have received financial support from the King of Bahrain, Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa.[69] "
Quote: "In December 2018, The Washington Post revealed that Khashoggi's columns "at times" were "shaped" by an organization funded by Saudi Arabia's regional nemesis, Qatar, including by proposing his topics, giving him drafts, goading him, and giving him research."
I am not saying it is wrong to be a political dissident, but those should disqualifying you from being called as a "journalist", right?
I'd be surprised if a journalist DID'T have connections to government officials. For many (depending on what you cover) that's a big part of the job.
I feel like it might be a wide net cast to include him, but seems valid.
Still, worthwhile asking the question IMO.
> But does this make him a journalist?
I think you answered that yourself. As to the perceived quality, that's a different matter and is subjective.
Not that it makes killing him any better, of course, but it does add another layer of depth to the story.
>A new State Department policy named the Khashoggi Ban will also be unveiled today, which will allow State to restrict and revoke visas to any individual believed to be involved in targeting/harassing/surveilling dissidents and journalists extraterritorially.
>Then White House chose not to penalize the crown prince directly despite intel report concluding he approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's murder. One senior administration official said that to do so would put the U.S. in an extremely “hostile” position wrt KSA.
>"The aim is recalibration, not a rupture, because of the important interests that we do share" with Saudi Arabia, the senior admin official said. U.S. officials and departments will continue to deal with MBS at the appropriate levels.
>More from SAO on why MBS was not sanctioned: "The United States as a matter of practice has not generally applied sanctions on the highest leadership of countries with whom the US has diplomatic relations. Nor even generally speaking on the leaders of countries with which 1/
>the US has no relations. And having looked at this extremely closely over the last 5 weeks, there was unanimous conclusion that there were other more effective means to dealing with these issues going forward."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/13653707662047477...
UPD
https://www.state.gov/accountability-for-the-murder-of-jamal...
Make them the "new" Iran in terms of business dealings with America. All shares that Saudi Prince owns in America companies becomes owned by the Government and is auctioned off.
Take your buyer's remorse if you haven't already.
P.S. Kids in cages! You'll say nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_Septembe...
This is almost more shameful than when we pretended that MBS wasn't involved.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/biden-mbs-kha...
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/411502-trump-has-e...
Video about half-way down... Trump said, paraphrased, "I talked with MBS and he told me very strongly that he didn't do it, so he's good. Move along, nothing to see here people."
I don't agree with Biden on everything, but sure is nice to have a POTUS who isn't trying to sweep the killing of journalists under the rug. Like... I sleep a bit better at night now.