Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She knew the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right! That means the US is ok to embrace any country as an ally that makes the rules clear no matter how oppressive they are. I get it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you believe our government is not oppressive to its own citizens, i.e. Patriot Act etc., and therefore you embrace the United States Government right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing the Saudi laws that oppress women to the Patriot Act? Ok very convincing argument.



[ QUOTE ]
Are you part of the 11% of Americans who embrass their Congress right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with embracing a foreign country as an ally?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She knew the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right! That means the US is ok to embrace any country as an ally that makes the rules clear no matter how oppressive they are. I get it now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think drug laws are oppressive. But I don't break the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? What does that have to do with embracing the Saudis as allys?

[Orlando Salazar]

Look we have stupid laws, they have stupid laws. We are both wrong. But why not benefit from a relationship? There laws will be the same with or without us.

[adios]

So you're comparing drug laws in the U.S. and the inherent legal rights that US citizens have to the Saudi laws tha oppress and the inherent rights they have in their legal system? Again a very convincing argument.

As far as benefitting from a relationship with an oppressive government, how so? Give me ways that the U.S. benefits from it's relationship to the Saudi's? And tell me that there's not an iota of "blowback" for supporting regimes like the Saudis. We supported the Shah of Iran and basically propped him up for a long time too. Did that really benefit the U.S. in the long run?

Edit: You know when Ron Paul took all of the flack he did for what he said about 9/11 I was on the side of people like Giuliani. But when I look at the ramifications of these alliances in terms of "blowback" I now understand Paul's points and I think they're right on.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: You know when Ron Paul took all of the flack he did for what he said about 9/11 I was on the side of people like Giuliani. But when I look at the ramifications of these alliances in terms of "blowback" I now understand Paul's points and I think they're right on.


[/ QUOTE ]

well what he said he later backed up in another interview by saying that the CIA and the actual 911 commitee (the investigation whitewash thing) said the exact same thing as he said, so how can his view not be the mainstream norm?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
She knew the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right! That means the US is ok to embrace any country as an ally that makes the rules clear no matter how oppressive they are. I get it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you believe our government is not oppressive to its own citizens, i.e. Patriot Act etc., and therefore you embrace the United States Government right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing the Saudi laws that oppress women to the Patriot Act? Ok very convincing argument.



[ QUOTE ]
Are you part of the 11% of Americans who embrass their Congress right now?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with embracing a foreign country as an ally?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the U.S. were to grade every countries human rights record before entering into any type of alliance, i.e., a formal agreement or treaty, for the purpose of cooperating towards a specific purpose, we would be not have ever opened up trade with China.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2005, found it unconstitutional to execute or hand down a punishment of death to a minor, the United States of America was one of only 5 countries in the world who did so. We were the only industrialized nation in the world who would hand down the death penalty to a minor.

I believe that the other 4 who execute their children are:
Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.

The United States is the country in the world, besides Iran and Pakistan, that has executed more than 1 minor in the last decade.

Therefore, based upon your "human rights before alliance" theory, none of the industrialized nations in the world should have had anything to do with the United States, until after the Supreme Court found the practice unconstitutional.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. were to grade every countries human rights record before entering into any type of alliance, i.e., a formal agreement or treaty, for the purpose of cooperating towards a specific purpose, we would be not have ever opened up trade with China.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need formal agreements or treaties in order for your citizens to freely trade with whomever they please. By accepting the paradigm that you suggest above, it merely reinforces the legitimacy of "bad" regimes and makes our own country dirtier in the process (not to mention that we cede more liberty of our own). Trade is never "opened up" between governments. US trade policy merely means that self-imposed restrictions on the behavior its own citizens are lifted.

I am free to buy something from Craigslist from a "bad dude" who may have stolen the property if the transaction is in my interest. But if the government negotiates a reciprocal trade agreement with this "bad dude" allowing me to trade for his stolen property (and at the same time forbidding trade with other actors it deemed as worse), then there is a tacit acceptance (some may even say endorsement) of his behavior.

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]


True. Good points. I wonder how slavery ended. Did it end by the slaves breaking the law and running away? Or did it end with a political movement, and an amendment to the constitution. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slaves were wrong to run away from their masters??

Was it wrong for slaves to try to learn to read, since it was against the law?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the Saudis are where the U.S. was during slavery. Let's give them time to catch up. They are exercising U.S. practices, just those practiced 150 yrs ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are thousands of people incarcerated in this country for the crime of growing a plant the government has outlawed. There are laws recently on the books (and in Texas even enforced) forbidding consensual relations between adults in their own bedrooms. You really don't need to go back 150 years for comparison.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. were to grade every countries human rights record before entering into any type of alliance, i.e., a formal agreement or treaty, for the purpose of cooperating towards a specific purpose, we would be not have ever opened up trade with China.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need formal agreements or treaties in order for your citizens to freely trade with whomever they please. By accepting the paradigm that you suggest above, it merely reinforces the legitimacy of "bad" regimes and makes our own country dirtier in the process (not to mention that we cede more liberty of our own). Trade is never "opened up" between governments. US trade policy merely means that self-imposed restrictions on the behavior its own citizens are lifted.

I am free to buy something from Craigslist from a "bad dude" who may have stolen the property if the transaction is in my interest. But if the government negotiates a reciprocal trade agreement with this "bad dude" allowing me to trade for his stolen property (and at the same time forbidding trade with other actors it deemed as worse), then there is a tacit acceptance (some may even say endorsement) of his behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that oil is $90+ a barrel and considering that Saudi's are accused of funding radical terrorist activities; spending U.S. taxpayer money and blood to defend the Saudi power structure isn't much of a bargain methinks. One argument seems to be that the Saudi's are our allies and thus we should be tolerating their inhumanity. If the Saudis are an example of why the U.S. should turn a blind eye to the ally oppressing it's own people, then I'd hate to see how U.S. enemys treat the U.S.

The idea of comparing the U.S. legal system and citizen'rights to the Saudis and saying they're more or less the same is either stupid or an admission that a credible argument for supporting such system can't be made. Make no mistake, when we embrace the Saudi's as an ally we're endorsing what they do more or less.

I keep having this nagging question, why is Iran our enemy and the Saudi's are our allies? Doesn't make an iota of sense to me. Maybe some of the folks defending having the Saudi's as our allies could explain this to me.