Saudi Arabia rejects US Senate’s ‘interference’ in kingdom

[Cabbage]

Embassies are for having a safe space for your internal affairs, without having to answer to the host nation.

What a cute little euphemism for murder. Goebbels would be proud.

 

[casebro]

But the world does. If you cut off Saudi oil production, you crater the global economy, and the US doesn't get out of that unscathed. And Africa, which is least able to afford increased energy prices, is well and truly ****** in that scenario, as in likely massive continent-wide famines and war. I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

I didn't say anthing about cutting off Saudi oil production, in fact I said we wouldn't. Point is we have less political leverage for them to use against us. We don't care if they cut off our oil any more.

It's all politics, they meddle, we meddle, they sponsor terrorism, we shock and awe the politicians. In this case the Saudi Royals. And their castles and Rolls Royces.

 

[tyr_13]

Embassies are for having a safe space for your internal affairs, without having to answer to the host nation.

No, that's an oversimplification. It's a fine standard explanation, but in reality it isn't actually how it works.

You still have to answer to your host nation, but the options for them to employ to hold you accountable are drastically changed. In practice you can conduct your affairs free of most interference, by that doesn't mean that the host nation couldn't do anything about it.

Like now, Turkey would be well within it's rights to eject the ambassador. They could in fact charge non-ambassador staff with accessory to murder if they wanted to and had evidence to satisfy their legal system and any specific deals they had with SA. Most staff only gets limited immunity directly related to their legitimate duties, and I can't think of any interpretations that would include helping cover up the bonesaw dismemberment while still alive of a person in 'legitimate duties'. The only thing Turkey would have to fear is political fallout making their own staff less welcome in other nations.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Most staff only gets limited immunity directly related to their legitimate duties, and I can't think of any interpretations that would include helping cover up the bonesaw dismemberment while still alive of a person in 'legitimate duties'.

FWIW, Khashoggi was choked to death, and then dismembered. He wasn't dismembered while he was alive.

 

[tyr_13]

FWIW, Khashoggi was choked to death, and then dismembered. He wasn't dismembered while he was alive.

Thanks. I have not kept up on the details of that sort because they frankly sadden and anger me too much.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say anthing about cutting off Saudi oil production, in fact I said we wouldn't.

I doubt we could keep production going in such a scenario.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The Saudi government assassinated a Saudi national inside a Saudi embassy.

"Saudi internal affair" seems like the most rational description of the problem.

Turkey has no standing to complain, since that's basically the whole point of having embassies in the first place.

And the US standing is spurious at best. If this were a case of the Saudis doing wetwork on American soil, that would be different.

As a resident with status with the US, he is under the US aegis.

I thought one of the advantages of America first would be lack of tolerance for interference. Killing an American resident with citizen children and writing for an American paper seems exactly like something under America first.

 

[fuelair]

I thought it was the Duke of Edinburgh who organised the wet work for the Royal Family?

Enemas for a Royal flush!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Personally, I think to hell with their puppet states, we should "Shock and Awe" Saudi Arabia. With fracking and shale, we don't need their oil. And like in Kuwait, we didn't destroy the wells anyhow. The world oil market won't suffer, only the Saud politics would.

What is our own Orange Haired Shah doing? "Speak stoopid but carry a big stick".

Carries the stick up his wrinkled ******* he does!!!!!!

 

[Nova Land]

If you cut off Saudi oil production, you crater the global economy, and the US doesn't get out of that unscathed.

The Saudi government assassinated a Saudi national inside a Saudi embassy.

"Saudi internal affair" seems like the most rational description of the problem.

Turkey has no standing to complain, since that's basically the whole point of having embassies in the first place.

And the US standing is spurious at best. If this were a case of the Saudis doing wetwork on American soil, that would be different.

There are two general approaches people can take in life. One is to speak out clearly and take action against things we see which are seriously wrong, even if speaking out or acting will cost us. The other is to refrain from speaking out and acting in opposition to wrongful actions if we realize the people we are speaking out against may cut off some benefit we like getting from them.

I much prefer to see people (including people in government) aspire to live in accordance with the first way, both in regard to things in our personal lives and in regard to things we see in the wider world around us.

Even the best people may sometimes fail to speak out or take action against serious wrong-doing when the cost feels too high, such as if we feel we (or our friends and families) might be tortured or killed if we speak out. That could easily be the case for people living in a brutal dictatorship. It is not the case for the US senators who voted on the recent resolution or for those of us posting on this forum.

 

[Belz...]

No, that's an oversimplification. It's a fine standard explanation, but in reality it isn't actually how it works.

You still have to answer to your host nation, but the options for them to employ to hold you accountable are drastically changed. In practice you can conduct your affairs free of most interference, by that doesn't mean that the host nation couldn't do anything about it.

Like now, Turkey would be well within it's rights to eject the ambassador. They could in fact charge non-ambassador staff with accessory to murder if they wanted to and had evidence to satisfy their legal system and any specific deals they had with SA. Most staff only gets limited immunity directly related to their legitimate duties, and I can't think of any interpretations that would include helping cover up the bonesaw dismemberment while still alive of a person in 'legitimate duties'.

Reminds me of Lethal Weapon 2.

It's just been revoked!

 

[varwoche]

<snip outstanding post for brevity>

<TrumpMode> Believe me </TrumpMode> when I tell you that Nova Land walks what he talks like no person I've ever met in my life.

 

[carlitos]

There are two general approaches people can take in life. One is to speak out clearly and take action against things we see which are seriously wrong, even if speaking out or acting will cost us. The other is to refrain from speaking out and acting in opposition to wrongful actions if we realize the people we are speaking out against may cut off some benefit we like getting from them.

I much prefer to see people (including people in government) aspire to live in accordance with the first way, both in regard to things in our personal lives and in regard to things we see in the wider world around us.

Even the best people may sometimes fail to speak out or take action against serious wrong-doing when the cost feels too high, such as if we feel we (or our friends and families) might be tortured or killed if we speak out. That could easily be the case for people living in a brutal dictatorship. It is not the case for the US senators who voted on the recent resolution or for those of us posting on this forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are two general approaches people can take in life. One is to speak out clearly and take action against things we see which are seriously wrong, even if speaking out or acting will cost us.

I'm not talking about "speaking out", nor am I suggesting we should do nothing. But invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't just cost us. It would cost the world. It would probably lead directly to the deaths of millions of people, quite possibly tens of millions. That is seriously wrong, far more wrong than the assassination of one person.

 

[plague311]

I'm not talking about "speaking out", nor am I suggesting we should do nothing. But invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't just cost us. It would cost the world. It would probably lead directly to the deaths of millions of people, quite possibly tens of millions. That is seriously wrong, far more wrong than the assassination of one person.

No, it's not.

ETA: Also, it's ******* adorable you claim this is "the assassination of just one person." Best case it's one American. It would be stupid to think this is the only case.

 

[carlitos]

I'm not talking about "speaking out", nor am I suggesting we should do nothing. But invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't just cost us. It would cost the world. It would probably lead directly to the deaths of millions of people, quite possibly tens of millions. That is seriously wrong, far more wrong than the assassination of one person.

You'll have to ask casebro what they meant by "shock and awe their politicians" but I don't think anyone here is saying that we should invade Saudi Arabia.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You'll have to ask casebro what they meant by "shock and awe their politicians" but I don't think anyone here is saying that we should invade Saudi Arabia.

I wonder if The House of Saud owns assets outside of the Kingdom.

Do you think they own more real estate on Manhattan Island than the entire Trump family? Heck, they probably own more real estate in buildings labeled "Trump" than the entire Trump family.

Invading the Kingdom seems like the least effective way to punish the elite in Saudi Arabia.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There are two general approaches people can take in life. One is to speak out clearly and take action against things we see which are seriously wrong, even if speaking out or acting will cost us. The other is to refrain from speaking out and acting in opposition to wrongful actions if we realize the people we are speaking out against may cut off some benefit we like getting from them.

I much prefer to see people (including people in government) aspire to live in accordance with the first way, both in regard to things in our personal lives and in regard to things we see in the wider world around us.

Even the best people may sometimes fail to speak out or take action against serious wrong-doing when the cost feels too high, such as if we feel we (or our friends and families) might be tortured or killed if we speak out. That could easily be the case for people living in a brutal dictatorship. It is not the case for the US senators who voted on the recent resolution or for those of us posting on this forum.

Well said. My preferences align with yours.

But I also favor giving those who choose the second way an opportunity to assert and to explain that choice, and I am grateful to this forum for giving them that opportunity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I know the popular image (and very well perhaps the largely accurate one) is of the mighty US groveling and toadying before the Saudis for the right to be sold their oil but... I've never fully, 100% gotten on board with that, or at least not in the popular way.

It's not like Saudis have... all the oil. Canada has a crap ton and is like *points up* right there. Hell we've still got a lot. We buy more oil from Canada then we do from Saudi Arabia but they can't make us bark for their amusement by threatening to cut it off.

How are the Saudis holding all the cards here when they only have one card? Surely if we wanted to prove a point we could... just not buy their oil for a month or 90 days, have Canada or Venezuela sell us or dip into our own reserves for what we need for that time short time, just to show the Saudis that we can get by without their oil a lot easier than they can get by without our money.

 

[Ziggurat]

You'll have to ask casebro what they meant by "shock and awe their politicians" but I don't think anyone here is saying that we should invade Saudi Arabia.

I think that's exactly what he meant. That is, after all, where the term's popular usage comes from.