Saudis Snub Obama On Riyadh Arrival Amid Growing Tensions

[Hawkeye10]

Alan Watts is a figure who commands a LOT of respect from almost every other practitioner of Zen I've ever met. What a strange comment.

Craving to be 'wanted' is a manifestation of samsara. We can get over it.

I'm not sure how to respond to that since Buddhism teaches us that there's no such thing as 'soul'. It's an illusion, unless we're talking Aretha Franklin and Gladys Knight.

Nothing wrong with such sentiments, although how they relate to the conversation, I'm not sure.

If you want to talk Zen start a thread on the subject in the appropriate forum.

I am on a mission to be part of making DP better.

 

[Andalublue]

If you want to talk Zen start a thread on the subject in the appropriate forum.

You raised it, encouraged comment on it, now you don't want to discuss it.

I am on a mission to be part of making DP better.

Then you could begin by not indulging in thread-jacking and hit-and-run posting yourself.

 

[imyoda]

UPDATE

Obama Stands by Tough Words for Saudis in Meeting With King - Bloomberg Politics
Obama Stands by Tough Words for Saudis During Meeting with King


*No apology for remarks about `free riders,' U.S. official says
*Obama is on a two-day trip to Riyadh to meet with Arab leaders

President Barack Obama reassured Saudi Arabia’s King Salman that the U.S. is his country’s ally during a private meeting in Riyadh on Wednesday, but made no apology for recent criticism of Saudi policies and insisted that its government must learn to co-exist with rival Iran, a U.S. official said.

Obama’s two-day stop in Riyadh, perhaps his last visit to the Middle East as president, is intended to reassure regional allies that the U.S. is committed to the fight against the Islamic State terrorist group and is not improving its relationship with Iran at their expense.

In an interview published by The Atlantic magazine this month, the president complained about U.S. allies he called "free riders" who he believes don’t contribute enough to international military and humanitarian missions. Many people in Saudi Arabia, including members of the royal family, interpreted the remark as a reference to their country.

Obama also said the Saudis must "share" their region with Iran, and was reported describing the U.S. relationship with the kingdom as "complicated."

Obama met with King Salman at the beginning of a week-long trip to Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Germany. He will attend a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a union of Arab Persian Gulf states, on Thursday.

“The American people send their greetings, and we are very grateful for your hospitality -- not just for this meeting but for hosting the GCC-U.S. summit that’s taking place tomorrow,” Obama told King Salman before the two leaders met in private.

Their discussion covered several regional conflicts, the U.S. official said, including in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the West Bank.

But I doubt it solved much of anything between the Saudi's and the US............but just postponed a "reckoning"

 

[Hawkeye10]

You raised it, encouraged comment on it, now you don't want to discuss it.

Then you could begin by not indulging in thread-jacking and hit-and-run posting yourself.

This is what I said

I am a Zen Socialist, dont assume with me, because if you do you will be wrong a high percentage of the time, because it is unlikely that you have ever crossed paths with a Zen Socialist before.

I never made the claim that Zen has anything to do with this thread, I never invited a conversation on Zen, I said " dont assume with me because....". And then the attempts to pick a fight started, not by me.

I did nothing wrong.

 

[cpwill]

I for one am so glad for some of the prominent liberals on this site to come out of the word work cheering and being happy about "snubs" by state sponsors of terrors. It's a pity they didn't have such similar joy and fervor in terms of Iran, as much if not more of a state sponsor of terror as Saudi Arabia is, who we just helped come into significant amounts of money that our own SOS suggests will in part be funneled into terrorism.

The snub is unfortunate and a clearly harsh and clear diplomatic move by the Saudi's. Both sides needs to tread carefully here as there's significant factors for both sides in terms of our relationship with the saudi's. It will be interesting to see if Obama's interpersonal and diplomatic skills over the coming days may be able to thaw the icy reception and at least leave on slightly better terms. But it is a ridiculous and insulting snub to send such a low ranking official after the King himself meeting other individuals earlier.

:lamo

Thanks

That started off my Friday morning perfectly :mrgreen:

Obama's oh-so-famous ability to act humbly and diplomatically when dealing with people he thinks has snubbed him...

:lamo

 

[cpwill]

I don't question the importance of Saudi Arabia. What I question is its malign influence on regional geo-politics. If any of the description I gave was inaccurate, please feel free to prove me wrong.

It was a strawman. Whether or not the Saudi's are nice is irrelevant to whether or not they are important, and whether or not it's a problem that they feel they can treat the POTUS like that.

You are incorrect. :shrug:

:shrug: I am not. Furthermore, I know that I am not.

 

[Anthony60]

It's so wonderful that we are respected again in the world. :roll:

Oh, yes. He sure is such a great world leader, isn't he? Oh, the delicate genius was going to come right in and fix all the mistakes of previous Presidents with our foreign relations. Because he is him, the ones we've been waiting for.

Well, we knew he was a pompous fool back then, and all he's done is proven us right these past 7+ years. Of course, the drones never saw it, still don't, and never will.

 

[matchlight]

I suspect the right policy to take toward Saudi Arabia has been a difficult issue for many years. Who controls its oil reserves is such an important question that it has probably caused one U.S. administration after another to make some very distasteful accommodations. And it's hard to imagine fighting the 1991 war without the use of all those large, modern airbases. The government there is disgusting in most ways, but it is a Sunni bulwark against the Islamist regime in Iran that is trying to get nuclear weapons. It is also at least stable--in a country that is the home of Wahhabism. If that government really went after the many jihadists in its midst, it might not survive the fight. So it placates them--and maybe worse than that.

What has leaked out about the unpublished material on 9/11 made my blood boil to read it. I think it's very likely some elements in that government were actively involved with the 9/11 conspirators. If so, there had better be some compelling reasons why both the Bush administration and this one have apparently not done anything to retaliate. Accommodations can only go so far, no matter how important it is to have a stable government in Saudi Arabia. If that government was involved in murdering Americans, we can't tolerate it, no matter how much strategic significance the country has.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I suspect the right policy to take toward Saudi Arabia has been a difficult issue for many years. Who controls its oil reserves is such an important question that it has probably caused one U.S. administration after another to make some very distasteful accommodations. And it's hard to imagine fighting the 1991 war without the use of all those large, modern airbases. The government there is disgusting in most ways, but it is a Sunni bulwark against the Islamist regime in Iran that is trying to get nuclear weapons. It is also at least stable--in a country that is the home of Wahhabism. If that government really went after the many jihadists in its midst, it might not survive the fight. So it placates them--and maybe worse than that.

What has leaked out about the unpublished material on 9/11 made my blood boil to read it. I think it's very likely some elements in that government were actively involved with the 9/11 conspirators. If so, there had better be some compelling reasons why both the Bush administration and this one have apparently not done anything to retaliate. Accommodations can only go so far, no matter how important it is to have a stable government in Saudi Arabia. If that government was involved in murdering Americans, we can't tolerate it, no matter how much strategic significance the country has.

+1


I struggle to be as tolerant as you are, and I want to be.

 

[matchlight]

+1


I struggle to be as tolerant as you are, and I want to be.

Thanks. I'm not sure how tolerant I am, but I've read Churchill's memoirs, and I realize just how hard some foreign policy decisions must be. You have to set aside your instincts, and do what's best, when viewed from every angle. I am sure more than a few of the people in Saudi Arabia's strange government are America-hating sons of bitches who richly deserve to be hanged. Still, we have to plot the course that is best for the United States. But having backward, disgusting domestic policies is one thing, and conspiring to murder American civilians is something else again. We can never tolerate that.

I imagine Franklin Roosevelt, traveling on that warship with the Saudi king, with a pen on deck for the goats that were on his menu. Oil was vital to winning World War Two, and FDR soft-soaped the Arabs who controlled it as much as he felt was necessary. And presidents after him have done much the same. But if a U.S. President should ever have proof that Saudi officials conspired to murder Americans on 9/11, he should put the fear of God into that nation--and to hell with the possible consequences. It's no good letting the other guy know we need his cooperation so badly that we will always be friendly to him, no matter what outrages he may commit. That is for cowards. There are some limits we have to enforce, whatever the cost may be.

The Saudi regime might be told informally through a back channel that if it did not promptly hand over any and all conspirators to be tried before military tribunals for war crimes, the U.S. would consider Saudi Arabia a hostile power to be attacked with overwhelming force and without warning. To underscore that message, all our diplomatic personnel might be withdrawn, and three or four carrier groups might be moved into forward positions, along with several hundred land-based attack aircraft and a division or two of troops. If that were done, I am sure the connivers in power there would suddenly become very cooperative--as soon as they had changed their underwear. The U.S. has enough military power to intimidate any other nation in the world, if need be, and we should never forget that. We have to stop fretting about what hostile or insincerely friendly regimes might do to us, and make THEM worry, every night, about what WE will do to THEM, if they are foolish enough to cross us.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Thanks. I'm not sure how tolerant I am, but I've read Churchill's memoirs, and I realize just how hard some foreign policy decisions must be. You have to set aside your instincts, and do what's best, when viewed from every angle. I am sure more than a few of the people in Saudi Arabia's strange government are America-hating sons of bitches who richly deserve to be hanged. Still, we have to plot the course that is best for the United States. But having backward, disgusting domestic policies is one thing, and conspiring to murder American civilians is something else again. We can never tolerate that.

I imagine Franklin Roosevelt, traveling on that warship with the Saudi king, with a pen on deck for the goats that were on his menu. Oil was vital to winning World War Two, and FDR soft-soaped the Arabs who controlled it as much as he felt was necessary. And presidents after him have done much the same. But if a U.S. President should ever have proof that Saudi officials conspired to murder Americans on 9/11, he should put the fear of God into that nation--and to hell with the possible consequences. It's no good letting the other guy know we need his cooperation so badly that we always be friendly to him, no matter what outrage he may commit. That is for slaves and cowards. There are some limits we have to enforce, whatever the cost may be.

The Saudi regime might be told informally through a back channel that if it did not promptly hand over any and all conspirators to be tried before military tribunals for war crimes, the U.S. would consider Saudi Arabia a hostile power to be attacked with overwhelming force and without warning. To underscore that message, all our diplomatic personnel might be withdrawn, and three or four carrier groups might be moved into forward positions, along with several hundred land-based attack aircraft and a division or two of troops. If that were done, I am sure the connivers in power there would suddenly become very cooperative--as soon as they had changed their underwear. The U.S. has enough military power to intimidate any other nation in the world, if need be, and we should never forget that. We have to stop fretting about what hostile regimes might do to us, and make THEM worry, every night, about what WE will do to THEM, if they are foolish enough to cross us.

Ya know years ago it was understood that the oil embargo coupled with Carters Sunday School teacher response is what brought us Reagan.

 

[Fishking]

If you're concerned about the respect of a bunch of fundamentalist, terrorist-supporting, human rights abusing petro-crats then your values system is way up the woo-waa. Obama will have earned more respect from the world for starting to wind-up the dysfunctional US-Saudi axis than from virtually anything else he's done FP-wise in his presidency. You talk about respect in the world, but are clearly clueless to the fact that Obama is probably way more popular around the world than the US is itself. "Nice president, shame about the country" might not be an inaccurate description of how things stand.

*ahem* You're trying to give Obama credit for this? Really?! That's bonkers. Obama is trying his hardest to keep licking the boots of the Saudis. The reason for this is a bill that is in the Congress (you know, the thing controlled by Republicans) that wants to hold their government responsible for any role they may have played in terrorism.

Acting like this is something that Obama is doing is perhaps the height of revisionist history and it hasn't even happened long enough ago to really even be considered history. I'm quite shocked at the audacity displayed here.

 

[Andalublue]

*ahem* You're trying to give Obama credit for this? Really?! That's bonkers. Obama is trying his hardest to keep licking the boots of the Saudis. The reason for this is a bill that is in the Congress (you know, the thing controlled by Republicans) that wants to hold their government responsible for any role they may have played in terrorism.

Acting like this is something that Obama is doing is perhaps the height of revisionist history and it hasn't even happened long enough ago to really even be considered history. I'm quite shocked at the audacity displayed here.

The cooling of relations between the US and SA has been happening since Obama was elected. The principal cause of the current frosty state of affairs has nothing to do with one little grandstanding bill in Congress that probably won't even get applied. The deal with Iran and subsequent lifting of sanctions is the real killer for the Saudis, and that's all Obama.

 

[Fishking]

The cooling of relations between the US and SA has been happening since Obama was elected. The principal cause of the current frosty state of affairs has nothing to do with one little grandstanding bill in Congress that probably won't even get applied. The deal with Iran and subsequent lifting of sanctions is the real killer for the Saudis, and that's all Obama.

I'll give you the point regarding Iran, but that's not the main reason for the current situation or even the reason Obama went over there. The reason was 100% due to the bill.

Saudi Arabia threatens to sell US assets over 9/11 bill - Business Insider

Saudi Arabia threatened to sell up to $750 billion worth of US assets held by the Kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be sued over 9/11, reports The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti.

Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, personally passed on the message last month during a trip to Washington, according to The Times.

The foreign minister was referring to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, (JASTA) which would let victims of 9/11 and other terrorist acts sue foreign sponsors of terrorism.

As Vice News noted when it was reintroduced in September, the Senate bill would pave the way for a lawsuit to proceed over Saudi Arabia's alleged role in the 9/11 terror attacks.

Saudi Arabia has been arguing that it's immune from liability over 9/11 under a 1976 law that makes it difficult to sue foreign countries in US courts. However, the JASTA legislation would allow victims of terrorism on US soil to sue foreign sponsors of terrorism.

The Obama administration has been lobbying Congress to block the bill's passage, administration officials and congressional aides from both parties told The Times. The administration argues that the legislation would put Americans at legal risk overseas.

 

[RetiredUSN]

He's made foreign policy mistakes. They ALL HAVE. Bush 2 was the biggest foreign policy failure over the past 100 years.

Anyway... Black man? What the hell does that have to do with this?

Never mind.. I know.

You cons always scream at people when they play the 'race card'. The fact is you cons never will get over the fact a Black guy is sitting in the white house. TWICE he beat the best the GOP had. And he would again if he could run.

The race card is a daily issue with you cons. You obsess over it.

I believe that you are too smart to actually believe that black man rhetoric. The right wingers I know, fully support a black person as president......as they should!

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I believe that you are too smart to actually believe that black man rhetoric. The right wingers I know, fully support a black person as president......as they should!

I know people on the right too, not all, but some had a problem with Obama from Day 1 only because of his race.

When death threats against Obama rose 400% even before the man was sworn in that should tell you all you need. In all due respect you're being naive if you really believe race has nothing to do with the rabid, hysterical hatred directed at this guy by some on the right.

 

[Andalublue]

I'll give you the point regarding Iran, but that's not the main reason for the current situation or even the reason Obama went over there. The reason was 100% due to the bill.

Saudi Arabia threatens to sell US assets over 9/11 bill - Business Insider

That's all just the latest sticking point. US-Saudi relations have been in decline since 9-11 and especially since Obama took office. The fact that the Saudi state, establishment figures and state-sponsored 'charities' have all been implicated in the lead up to 9-11 tells you that, from the Saudi point of view at least, the relationship was far from friendly.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I know people on the right too, not all, but some had a problem with Obama from Day 1 only because of his race.

When death threats against Obama rose 400% even before the man was sworn in that should tell you all you need. In all due respect you're being naive if you really believe race has nothing to do with the rabid, hysterical hatred directed at this guy by some on the right.

You do realize that many of the deranged people who make these type of threats are not just neo-cons, right? Obama was threatened many times by deranged people within of his own party for not paying attention to what ever pet peeve they were championing. I'm not saying that there are not many violent neo-con types out there, but they are not considered mainstream conservatives. Both parties need to recognize the extreme splinter groups for who they are, and shun them. There are plenty of liberal threats to share from the past and present as well.

 

[Andalublue]

You do realize that many of the deranged people who make these type of threats are not just neo-cons, right?

I think everyone realises that. There are a few deranged people, but there have also been paleocons, KKK types, Tea-partiers, Aryan Nation, and mainstream GOPers. If you think all of those are deranged, then so be it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I think everyone realises that. There are a few deranged people, but there have also been paleocons, KKK types, Tea-partiers, Aryan Nation, and mainstream GOPers. If you think all of those are deranged, then so be it.

So....tea Partiers are violent people who make death threats against a sitting president?

 

[Andalublue]

So....tea Partiers are violent people who make death threats against a sitting president?

Not all, obviously. You may wish to generalise about 'leftists', but I said "there have been some..." Like this guy:

Tea Party threats against Obama Archives - IREHR

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

You do realize that many of the deranged people who make these type of threats are not just neo-cons, right? Obama was threatened many times by deranged people within of his own party for not paying attention to what ever pet peeve they were championing. I'm not saying that there are not many violent neo-con types out there, but they are not considered mainstream conservatives. Both parties need to recognize the extreme splinter groups for who they are, and shun them. There are plenty of liberal threats to share from the past and present as well.

I didn't say they were all neo-cons, I said SOME on the right. I said threats against him ROSE 400% over past POTUS's, as he was taking office. Before he made any decisions or policies. Was all the rise because of his race? No, but a 400% rise is staggering.

All I'm doing is adding 2+2. I'm not generalizing against anyone. I'm just pointing out if you think that much of a rise in death threats against him had nothing to do with his race, you're being naive.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Not all, obviously. You may wish to generalise about 'leftists', but I said "there have been some..." Like this guy:

Tea Party threats against Obama Archives - IREHR

OMG...you really believe that the Tea Party folks accept a group like that? That is a perfect example of naive.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I didn't say they were all neo-cons, I said SOME on the right. I said threats against him ROSE 400% over past POTUS's, as he was taking office. Before he made any decisions or policies. Was all the rise because of his race? No, but a 400% rise is staggering.

All I'm doing is adding 2+2. I'm not generalizing against anyone. I'm just pointing out if you think that much of a rise in death threats against him had nothing to do with his race, you're being naive.

You didn't say some in your original comment.

You said....

You cons always scream at people when they play the 'race card'. The fact is you cons never will get over the fact a Black guy is sitting in the white house. TWICE he beat the best the GOP had. And he would again if he could run.

 

[fmw]

"Saudis Snub Obama On Riyadh Arrival Amid Growing Tensions"

Obama still hasn't figured it out. He needs to spend more time playing golf.