Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
The usual, acceptable government response when dealing with abhorrent but necessary allies is well established in practice:
1. Announce publicly that your government is deeply, deeply concerned with reports of X having occurred. "We are shocked and dismayed to learn..."
2. Indicate that X goes against important internationally established law and human values, and certainly should never be permitted to occur again.
3. Publicly announce one or a few sanctions against the guilty ally. Preferably sanctions that sound really tough but have no very painful or long lasting bite (it helps if you do this with the secret cooperation and understanding of the guilty party. "Hey, would it be okay if... We don't really want to hurt or upset you. You understand we have to do something for our own public relations.").
4. Later, quietly remove even these sanctions when the fuss has died down.
This is exactly what many other governments dependent on Saudi oil and political power have done. The fact that Trump is unwilling to go even this far even this adds OBSEQUIOUS and COWARDLY to the words you employed as descriptors. Trump: a bully to the 98% of people he perceives as less powerful than himself, but an unbelievable quaking, rear-end kisser of the remaining 2%, who he fears.
Excellent summary and contains perhaps the best argument for a support of Trump’s position, but for the bumbling way he has done it and his conflicts of interests with the Saudis. A leader letting them off the hook in an openly pragmatic and rational approach would be more acceptable but still wrong. I personally prefer the fallible America that sometimes only paid lip service to the noble values it once represented. No, what we have here is a weak and cowardly dishonest approach to the situation that diminishes America and makes the world a more dangerous place with emboldened tyrannical leaders.
Last edited: