Saudi Arabia - An ally we cannot afford to lose

#1
Some wise words from Sir Andrew Green in the Telegraph...who is obviously on...never mind. :twisted: Some selected 'highlights' and my comments in italics

Ministers have blocked an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the al Yamamah arms deal, claiming that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is of over-riding importance. Do they protest too much?
I think not.
Yes, because supporting a reactionary regime that has helped much of the Islamic world to retrograde is sooo important

It is time for some realism in our Middle East policy. Our fundamental mistake has been to judge Middle Eastern countries by Western standards. This is what lay behind our ghastly mistake in invading Iraq. We must not repeat this basic error in our dealings with the other key countries in the region.

Given that we had WMD as our main excuse and that Iraq was a threat does that mean that if a hypothetical country called Saudiwhatsit Arabia posed a threat to our security - we should not intervene Or does he mean that we invaded Iraq to spread ME dependency on American oil companies (case in point Saudi Arabia?)


Saudi Arabia is such a key country. Strategically, it not only straddles Africa and the Middle East but it is also an important neighbour of two of the major problem countries in the region - Iraq and Iran.
Actually given the technological changes that occurred in the 20th century (air flight) lets try Northern Tier countries such as Iraq and Pakistan which are of prime strategic importance, other gulf countries such UAE and Qatar could provide alternative bases. Oh and who screwed up Iraq and Iran?

No less important, Saudi Arabia is at the very heart of Islam - a responsibility of which the Saudis are deeply conscious. If one billion people turned in prayer towards Canterbury every day we might feel the same.
The Saudi conscious of their Islamic responsibility? Hahahaha so why are they destroying the Islamic heritage of Mecca and Medina. If it isn't shiny and new the Sauds are not interested.

Those who think Saudi Arabia should be more democratic and that we should push them in that direction are - to use a fashionable term - delusional. Saudi society is far too complex and too fissured for that to be a viable option any time soon.
Given that we helped the Wahabis suppress the liberal secular alternative - my heart bleeds.

The experience of Iraq should teach us that pasting democracy on to a divided nation only entrenches division. Saudis recognise that democracy would be unworkable in the foreseeable future. What they would like to see is more consultation and more participation in government. That indeed is what is happening, at the snail's pace typical of the Saudi style.
No try that we exacerbated divisions by using divide and rule tactics.
Wafd is what is expressed in Islamic jurisprudence so the Saudis from dot one should have been consulting the people. That is why there is so much internal unhappiness.


The Saudis are often blamed for being behind the growth of Islamic extremism. Certainly, they have never been short of fundamentalist -preachers. But the regime is itself now the first target of al-Qaeda. They are locked into a struggle with Islamic terrorists, as are we.
Chickens come home to roost, again my heart bleeds try the fact thanks to Saudi money cities like Quetta are hell holes.

An election in Saudi Arabia, in the unlikely event that a genuine one could be organised, would be most likely to lead to a Taliban-style regime in Riyadh and a political earthquake on the scale of Khomeini's take-over of Iran in 1979. A change of that kind would quickly spread to the small Gulf states, leaving perhaps half the world's oil supplies in potentially hostile hands. Brilliant.

The Shiites form the main populace of the oil regions (self government any one?) and given that the Wahabi scum are pretty hard core themselves, I would say we would not see that much change apart from the ending of institutional corruption.


Sir Andrew Green was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1996-2000
 
#2
I'm no fan of the Saudis but they basicallly own Congress thanks to their exuberent defence spending and sweet oil deals. Makes the Israel lobby in the US look truly marginal. Given that sort of clout we'll defend the oily little bastards against the Pasdaran til the last man.

Bit surprised about all the fuss over Bandar wetting his beak. Percentage wise it's a fairly modest bribe. Its not likely the House of Saud will ever use the weapons systems. They'll scurry off to Mayfair at the first whiff of a Basiji. The main point of their procurement policy is the discretely trousered bungs on their side and the defence industry pork on ours. The whole relationship is sordid, corrupting and deeply gratifying.

Meet the management:
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
Hey, if taking back handers is how they do business and this country profits from it, who the f*ck are we to criticise?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#4
St. John/Abdullah, what WERE you thinking of???????

(edited to add, I blame it ALL on the India Office!!!!)
 
#5
Biscuits_AB said:
Hey, if taking back handers is how they do business and this country profits from it, who the f*ck are we to criticise?
Thank fcuk - I thought I was alone in this. Who gives a t0ss - as long as we benefit I don't give a flying fcuk! If we don't flog them stuff the Septics and Frogs will be in there like sh1t off a shovel.

Must a Jock thing B-AB :D
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#6
It's not like any other nation isn't doing it either. If it keeps jobs here in the UK and the Arabs are fighting in British made gear....back handers it is. Can't understand why people are getting upset about it. It's business.
 
#7
alib said:
I'm no fan of the Saudis but they basicallly own Congress thanks to their exuberent defence spending and sweet oil deals. Makes the Israel lobby in the US look truly marginal. Given that sort of clout we'll defend the oily little bastards against the Pasdaran til the last man.

Bit surprised about all the fuss over Bandar wetting his beak. Percentage wise it's a fairly modest bribe. Its not likely the House of Saud will ever use the weapons systems. They'll scurry off to Mayfair at the first whiff of a Basiji. The main point of their procurement policy is the discretely trousered bungs on their side and the defence industry pork on ours. The whole relationship is sordid, corrupting and deeply gratifying.

Meet the management:
Very well and amusingly put alib. And to add to your gratification you might be pleased to know that the 30 mill bung a quarter was deposited into an account at the Riggs bank in Washington DC. And an executive of that bank is none other than Chimpy's uncle one Jonathan Bush.
Honestly, if it was on telly you wouldn't believe it.
 
#8
Biscuits_AB said:
It's not like any other nation isn't doing it either. If it keeps jobs here in the UK and the Arabs are fighting in British made gear....back handers it is. Can't understand why people are getting upset about it. It's business.
The corruption or introducer fee does not don't bother me, its just when people call Saudi Arabia an ally, a b*itch maybe but an ally, hell no. Seriously who are the Sauds to threaten anyone, if they step out of line they should be slapped back into place.
 
#9
let me get this right... we slip a bung to saudis to buy our kit, they fund the people causing us grief, we go fight them to defend the saudis? wouldn't it be quicker and cheaper just to go top a few of our own now and again and cut out all the middle men?
 
#10
oscar1whisky said:
let me get this right... we slip a bung to saudis to buy our kit, they fund the people causing us grief, we go fight them to defend the saudis? wouldn't it be quicker and cheaper just to go top a few of our own now and again and cut out all the middle men?
Wouldn't be allowed son. Interfering with trade, sounds suspiciously like communism.
 

Latest Threads

Top