Thanks for the info in any case. We should certainly follow what's going on, but I have serious doubts that any of this really matters.
I know it's a lost cause, but here I stand. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But the question is will the money be used to support fundi Wahabis or not. If the conservatives consolidate power and crack down on a restive population, all hell could break loose.
Saudi has a problem with not enough work and too many rules for a growing number of highly educated younger people who've been exposed to Western lifestyles. The royals can fly to London or where ever when they want to drink and misbehave. The new middle class is stuck under the thumb of the religious police. Someday that place is going to boil over and if the new regime puts Pat-Robertson-in-a-robe in charge, it will be hastened.
The only thing we need to say is that any State-sponsored terrorism (financing, encouraging, hosting or tolerating terrorists) will be treated as an act of war. Full stop. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I'd rather turn our backs and spend the economic pain on energy alternatives rather than bullets. We need to go there eventually anyway.
I don't want us to interfere, but rooting for moderates to progressives from the sidelines isn't going to hurt anything.
However the sponsoring of extremism, not just in Afghanistan and Pakistan but even in the United States (wrote an entire article about it which you can find here).
That extremism leads to terrorism, directly or indirectly, and this is obviously a major issue that affects us all. A Saudi prince funds a madrassah which inspires a terrorist to blow up London and then Australia implements ID cards or a "Patriot Act" type law. It's a vicious circle.
However, I'm in full agreement with all your energy diaries, which can be boiled down to this "find another energy source and quick!".
Pax Night and day you can find me Flogging the Simian
And yes, they will continue to finance fundamentalism, which is the breeding ground for terrorism. They will do so not because they are ideologically committed to fundamental islamism (some of them are), but because, doing so, on one hand they maintain their legitimacy and their pivotal role as guardians of the holy places and on the other hand they buy the support (or at least the neutrality) of a great number of fundamentalists who would otherwise turn against them. "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
We only need to make clear that we will not tolerate failed States. Any other kind of government we can tolerate and deal with rationally - and no compromission. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I don't know what would come out of a Saudi civil war, but your assumption that it'll have little or no effect on the outside world seems over optimistic.
Someone who understands that rational is relative and not =reasonable!
As for your comment, I agree completely. Economic interests aren't on top of everyone's priority list. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
My question is - can you have the combination of (i) some fundamentalist having access to the nuclear bomb and (ii) not being in power at the same time.
Because using the nuclear bomb, even within its own country, is a guaranteed trigger for retaliation, whether nuclear or more targetted, against that leader/ship controlling the nukes.
If they are rational enough to have the organisation to actually control a nuke, they will be rational enough to try to keep in power. The "fundamentalist"leaders don't go kill themselves, they send others to do it for their political goals. fundamentalism is really a way to control society and to keep power. The fundamentalist and actual believers don't get close to power, because then they are not pious anymore. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
