[quote]A Saudi: “Ok let’s put the investment aside from now but what about the 100,000,000 in cash and the free oil for the victims of Hurricane Katrina? What’s your opinion concerning that? I know there were obviously ulterior motives but it was a fine gesture nonetheless.”[/quote]

It is astounding.

[quote]A Saudi: “Aramco was under pressure to provide schools for Arab children, and as usual, was reluctant to take responsibilities unrelated to the oil businessâ€? it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the ever willing and “cheerfulâ€? philanthropist. The Ford foundation-a charitable one- by the way did a magnificent job in putting our finances in order and providing us with a working bureaucracy. As to teaching the Saudis how to use the technology we bought for the US, well isn’t that the job of any good vendor? Imagine handing a customer a shiny new gizmo without the instruction manual, they’ll quickly get frustrated by it and simply avoid your next product. It just good business sense making sure that the customer can successfully operate the product and hence happy with it. Anyway I’m pretty sure we paid for that service a lot of the times.”[/quote]

I’ll agree that Aramco was not in the business of philanthropy but maintain my position that they were enlightened in their dealings with the Saudis. Naturally, the Saudis continued requesting extraneous favors. If Aramco did not draw the line somewhere, they would be doing nothing but servicing Saudi wish lists. After all, there is infinite demand for free stuff.

As for good vendors, well, there are plenty of vendors in the IT business who are purposely fuzzy about explaining their products in order to milk the maintenance contracts. Some vendors take pride in not documenting anything they do. That makes it difficult to take over their work. It’s a common practice for vendors to keep their customers in the dark to keep them dependent.

When the Americans configured the relationship with Saudi Arabia so as to serve the Saudis best interests, it was more than just a sum of business deals.

[quote]A Saudi: “Now we come to the less savoury aspect of this transfer of knowledge. OPM-SANG or the Program Manager-Saudi Arabian National Guard, I quote Lippman again, page 286 “The National Guard is an internal paramilitary security force, created in 1956 and commanded since 1962 by Prince Abdullah (…) There has been surprisingly little debate in Washington ,considering the National Guard’s role as a domestic enforcer of a regime often described as autocratic and corrupt.â€? Why is that Steve? Why? The US Material Army Command built the guard ground up practically from scratch and this is the same National Guard that crushed one Shiite uprising after the other. Lest you accuse me of being biased I was raised up a Sunni but that’s immaterial. I don’t think there’s anything concerning the US foreign policy towards my country that saddens me more than this. How can a freedom loving people export such a repressive tool to a regime that it knows will be used to stifle the freedom of others.”[/quote]

My speculation, with only superficial knowledge of the National Guard, is that the US leaders did a cold analysis of the situation and judged it the least of evils. It’s a given that Saudi Arabia is not going to feature democratic institutions and that we won’t impose our own way on them. If we don’t train their NG, somebody else will with worse results. If we train them, we will maintain contacts with their leadership and have some marginal influence on them. If somebody else trains the National Guard, like the Soviets, they have a lever in a future coup.

That’s more pragmatic than principled, but there are limits to American influence and sometimes the menu contains only lousy choices. In the end, the Saudis are responsible for their government, not the US.

Steve

0  0

Agreeing with you Tariq!! Sorry if it sounded a bit confusing. I am not a professional writer like yourself!

0  0

“So I don’t find that arguement logical myself.”

Excuse me, were you trying to argue the point with me or were you agreeing with me? Because that is exactly what I said.

Tariq

0  0

Tariq

I know more than one person who is a citizen of say country X who does not speak or speaks very little of his native language and at the same time speaks PERFECT English. Despite being born and lived there for a good many years. I also know more than one Bahraini who speaks English so well that is you didn’t know they where Bahraini you would swear they had grown up and liven in the US or the UK. One of these Bahraini’s is fluent in Arabic and the other isn’t at all. This despite being born and raised in Bahrain. So I don’t find that arguement logical myself.

0  0

Hi,
I never looked at Religious Policeman until this post, which kind of supports Joker’s argument that the criticisms will actually help the blog. I found the site to be very interesting and well-written, but I just want to say this in support of the critics of the site:
Yes, of course, it’s wrong to blast the messenger instead of the message because that is an ad hominem argument and therefore inherintly illogical. BUT, if the person claims to be something that he/she is not and there is sufficient evidence to prove this, then it is not illogical to try to discredit him. I’m not making any judgements about Religious Policeman (and in fact, some arguments against him are very illogical, such as his perfect English; I am also like a native-speaker, as are many other people I know) but if it is somehow proven that he was lying about his identity, then that calls into question his credibility.

Tariq Khonji
http://www.tariqkhonji.com

0  0

[quote]America’s introduction to the Saudis was far more benign, presented in the form of medical power[/quote]

To clarify this introduction was done by private Americans with no Government support.

0  0

at least declare Saudi Arabia a constitutional monarchy, consolidating the sprawling royal family to his immediate one in the process and then withdrawing to a purely ceremonial role. I personally think this is the only choice he has if he wants to ensure the ultimate continuity of the Saudi monarchy.

Well said, again, and this is very true also of all monarchist regimes in the whole region and the Arab world. We have a start with Morocco, and stuttering start in Jordan. Bahrain would like to consider itself so, but we have a long way to go before we can be regarded as such.

0  0

Hahaha god I haven’t laughed so hard in a while, Tie-dyed dishdasha !? (We call them thoub) Brilliant! There was actually a very popular Ramadhan sketch show that introduced the concept a while back. I’m sure the “gulfers� reading this would recognize “tash ma tash�. In fairness now he was there in the 50’s so I’m not sure how liberal leaning it was back then.

I had to google that term- “No Doz” it sounds lethal! I assume you meant so I avoid veering off a ledge? Well I’ll tell you what I was in the Grand Tetons and Lake Tahoe last summer and there were some hairy moments up there. One particular gap even lacked side railings, the logic behind that was there wasn’t enough purchase for them to be staked in the ground so why create a false sense of security… scary or what?

[quote] Both Saudi Arabia and Japan voluntarily chose isolation from the world, particularly the West, as part of a supremacist philosophy until it became unavoidable to deal with Westerners. [/quote]

I would disagree even with that point. Japan has been distinctly independent for well over 1200 years, while the Arabian Peninsula was ruled from Damascus, Baghdad, and Istanbul for about as long. The choice of being isolationist or having any kind of independent philosophy was moot.

[quote] While it seems like picking nits, the Saudis did rub up against the Ottoman Empire, often violently with the help of T.E. Lawrence et al. [/quote]

Well actually I believe those were the Hashamites who later settled in Iraq and Jordan, but yes the Sauds did wrest the Al-Ah’asa region from there grip. Unlike the situation with Japan and Russia it wasn’t a match between equals that could cause an arm race and as a by-product rapid modernization. No, it was more like a war of attrition where the objective was to simply show the Ottomans that the Arabian Peninsula was more hassle than it was worth, the same could be said with Khedivi-Egypt’s attempt to re-conquer Arabia for the Turks.

[quote] Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud’s word seemed to be enough to provide safe passage of oil exploring infidels to pass safely through the most hostile parts of Arabia, which implies centralized power. [/quote]

I still think that it doesn’t compare with the Japanese situation, I mean for the love of God with them it went to the extent where the main religion centred on the belief that the Emperor was a deity. While in the other hand Ibn Saud had to contend with provinces that had only recently been amalgamated or annexed. Its also noteworthy to point out that even till now in many places tribal loyalty comes above anything even the country, you can just imagine what the situation was like 70 years ago.

[quote] Japan’s aggression was Japan’s mistake, not America’s. (…..)I don’t see where bringing isolated countries into the modern world is a blunder. What is the alternative?[/quote]

Of course it was Japan’s mistake but you used that country as model of successful modernization and so invited criticism. And as to your second point it seems to me that whenever an isolated society is force fed modernity- be it Native Americans, Aborigines or the Kalahari Bushmen; the results are deplorable. Its just human nature, it takes time to adapt and incorporate the old with the new. I’m not arguing against bringing those societies into the modern world but rather the method.

[quote] What a pity that you are in such a minority among your people. What a shame that such enlightenment was not reciprocated.[/quote]

Thank you for the backhanded compliment (forgive me if I’m cynical) but I can assure you although we might be a minority It’s a growing and sizable one that is exerting more and more influence every day.

[quote] The Saudis invest so much in America because it is the best and safest investment…. [/quote]

Ok let’s put the investment aside from now but what about the 100,000,000 in cash and the free oil for the victims of Hurricane Katrina? What’s your opinion concerning that? I know there were obviously ulterior motives but it was a fine gesture nonetheless.

[quote] America was a benefactor to Saudi Arabia by transferring knowledge to it. For example, by teaching them how to run all that technology we sold them (…) They cheerfully did so [/quote]

Ah so that’s what you meant, well yes then I completely agree with you. Very early on Aramco set up schools, housing, hospitals in the Eastern province and started training Saudis and sending them abroad but as you referred to Game Theory earlier there were ulterior motives besides the philanthropic; it was a great way to keep nationalization at bay and a healthy well educated workforce is a productive one I refer to “Inside the Mirageâ€? by Lippman page 139 “It [The Ford Foundation] first considered working in Saudi Arabia in response to a proposal from Aramco in the early 1950’s. Aramco was under pressure to provide schools for Arab children, and as usual, was reluctant to take responsibilities unrelated to the oil businessâ€? it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the ever willing and “cheerfulâ€? philanthropist. The Ford foundation-a charitable one- by the way did a magnificent job in putting our finances in order and providing us with a working bureaucracy. As to teaching the Saudis how to use the technology we bought for the US, well isn’t that the job of any good vendor? Imagine handing a customer a shiny new gizmo without the instruction manual, they’ll quickly get frustrated by it and simply avoid your next product. It just good business sense making sure that the customer can successfully operate the product and hence happy with it. Anyway I’m pretty sure we paid for that service a lot of the times.

Now we come to the less savoury aspect of this transfer of knowledge. OPM-SANG or the Program Manager-Saudi Arabian National Guard, I quote Lippman again, page 286 “The National Guard is an internal paramilitary security force, created in 1956 and commanded since 1962 by Prince Abdullah (…) There has been surprisingly little debate in Washington ,considering the National Guard’s role as a domestic enforcer of a regime often described as autocratic and corrupt.� Why is that Steve? Why? The US Material Army Command built the guard ground up practically from scratch and this is the same National Guard that crushed one Shiite uprising after the other. Lest you accuse me of being biased I was raised up a Sunni but that’s immaterial. I don’t think there’s anything concerning the US foreign policy towards my country that saddens me more than this. How can a freedom loving people export such a repressive tool to a regime that it knows will be used to stifle the freedom of others.

[quote] You’re more of an optimist than me. It looks like Abdullah trying to ingratiate himself with the people as he formally assumes the throne. [/quote]

Believe me I’m not at all razzled-dazzled by our new beloved king… If Abdullah wanted to impress me he’d abdicate tomorrow and call general election, or at least declare Saudi Arabia a constitutional monarchy, consolidating the sprawling royal family to his immediate one in the process and then withdrawing to a purely ceremonial role. I personally think this is the only choice he has if he wants to ensure the ultimate continuity of the Saudi monarchy.

A Saudi

0  0

[quote]A Saudi: “Hahaha god I haven’t laughed so hard in a while, Tie-dyed dishdasha !? (We call them thoub) Brilliant! There was actually a very popular Ramadhan sketch show that introduced the concept a while back. I’m sure the “gulfersâ€? reading this would recognize “tash ma tashâ€?. In fairness now he was there in the 50’s so I’m not sure how liberal leaning it was back then.”[/quote]

Well, if he was there in the 50s he may have avoided the major contamination of the 60s, though he may bear watching. I’d check his desk drawers for love beads just to make sure.

I’ve seen snippets of “tash ma tash” on a Tom Friedman documentary.

[quote]A Saudi: “I had to google that term- “No Doz” it sounds lethal! I assume you meant so I avoid veering off a ledge? Well I’ll tell you what I was in the Grand Tetons and Lake Tahoe last summer and there were some hairy moments up there. One particular gap even lacked side railings, the logic behind that was there wasn’t enough purchase for them to be staked in the ground so why create a false sense of security… scary or what?”[/quote]

No Doz is an over the counter medication you take to stay awake, caffeine pills. Very popular with students and truck drivers. You’ll need it in Canada because it’s such a boring country unless you want to trap fur, hang out with lumberjacks, or touch a moose. I believe that “Canada” in the original Indian language means “the land that snores.”

If you want to do something scary, try driving down the river ravine road to Sacramento late at night after playing blackjack at Lake Tahoe. It gets pretty sporty when you hit the fog of the valley.

Steve

0  0

[quote]-PO-ed Gismanjyah chick: “(oh yes and the little encounter you had with Steve is just one of the many hate-ridden assertions you’d expect to find on the said Religious police…. um… man(?) blog’s comment section. e.g.: comments to thread titled “getting to know you”)”[/quote]

My dear, when Saudis kill three thousand innocent people in America for their contemptible religion and their government endorses a continuation of this religious war against America to the entire Muslim world, that inspires bad feelings. Saudi Arabia and Saudis would make a better impression on Americans if they did not call for our deaths and the destruction of our country. That seems a fairly reasonable request, wouldn’t you agree?

Steve

0  0