Ruth Davidson

You'd never have said that about Iraq, you supported attacks on them, yet you can defend selling arms to Saudi on the grounds any alternative regime would be worse.

Don't worry, I know it's not just you who has adopted these positions but the hypocrisy of it is clear.
 
Wrong on loads of counts

saudi didnt invade another country did it? In fact it was next in saddams radar

There was far more reason to believe that Iraq would transform to a democracy than there ever would be in Saudi, it's a totally different society. And it was an attack on saddam not the country. There were thousands within Iraq being attacked by saddam himself FFsFFs

weapons sold to Saudi are not used to attack sovereign states or it's own population . Simple as that .
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Yes. The point is that the human rights abuses and the exporting of extremism would continue whoever is in charge there. As unpalatable as it is, the likely alternative to the monarchy is worse. The Saudis are never likely to accept a liberal democracy. It's probably the least likely society in the world to ever do so.
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest, did you also support propping up aparthied South Africa on the same rationale?

I expect you probably did as you do seem to have your favourites who you obidently follow and the biggest advocate of this logic was she who can not be named, so I wouldn't have expected you to develop an independent moral stance on this

Oh it might be a bad neo nazi state that systematically murders its own citizens, but the alternative is worse you know, and they do buy lots of arms off my son

In any event, I thought you were the leading advocate of the idea that democracy should be pursued regardless as the best solution. Why do you grant Saudi Arabia a pass out on this one, but are quite happy to extend to the likes of Libya, Egypt, and Iraq. You might claim to be appalled by Saudi Clive, but you clearly aren't are you. You're actually a hopeless apologist for them that even George Bush might blanche in embarrasment over
 
Don't be so fcking stupid and don't make assumptions about views that I have never expressed. I am not going to give that the time and any respect

I have made the point about Saudi and democracy very clearly. If it's difficult to understand then try reading again

The difference with Libya and Egypt would be clear to a five year old.
 
Sorry Clive, your logic and double standards here are baffling, even by your standards

You're happy to grant Saudi Arabia a free pass-out (as Bush did) on the tenuous grounds that "The Saudis are never likely to accept a liberal democracy. It's probably the least likely society in the world to ever do so."

It's unbelievable

What you;re saying is that Saudi Arabia are so remote from our values that they're such a hopeless case there's no point us trying, so instead we'll be friends with them. Now countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are much closer to our values so we'll see if they're prepared to "accept" a liberal democracy by trying to impose one on them with our own hand picked leaders.

If Saudi Arabia are such an affront to us then, so bad that even you regard them as a lost cause, why weren't they on the axis of evil instead of Cuba
 
Last edited:
If you don't know the difference between Saudi society and Egypt then I think you should stop there shouldn't you?
 
clivex said:
Don't be so fcking stupid and don't make assumptions about views that I have never expressed. I am not going to give that the time and any respect
Click to expand...

I asked the question, you had the option of lying. I wouldn't know any better, but the assumption wasn't without foundation

The position I described was wheeled out time and time again by Margaret Thatcher and the conservatives as the principal reason why they wouldn't agree to ANC pleas to enforce a trade embargo. You're a conservative supporter for whom Thatch couldn't do much wrong. It seems perfectly logically therefore (unless you're going to assure us otherwise) that on the balance of probabilities you'd have followed the same line. I'll take it as a yes, and chalk up as another foreign policy error of judgement
 
clivex said:
If you don't know the difference between Saudi society and Egypt then I think you should stop there shouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Ah right, so uber conservative societies are given a pass-out and a blind eye turned in Clive's world. You say they're the least likely country in the world to accept a liberal democracy (as if its yours to impose incidentally). Do you really believe that? I think of a few unlikely candidates too. Strangely enough though, these types of countries don't enjoy 'most favoured nation status' and tend to be the subject of condemnation.
 
It is COMPLETELY without foundation. Desperate

does it really need explaining that Egypt and Libya had huge groundswells for democracy whereas saudi never has in the slightest ?

does it really need explaining that Afghanistan Iraq and Libya administrations sponsored attacks on the west whereas, despite what you wish to believe ,there is no evidence at all that the saudi administration has ?

the Saudi administration which you seem to believe sponsored an organisation that...wanted to overthrow it. Of course they did., fcking hell
 
Actually I can

Please read this Clive, and then I'll invite you to comment on it. Bear in mind that a mere 500 protestors trying to get hold of weapons from the local army barracks in Benghazi after having been whipped up by an incendiary iman after Friday prayers was considered a mass pro democracy movement in Libya. Also remember that plenty of Libyans backed Gadaffi and were in the process of throwing the fledgling islamists back into the sea before hopeless Hague and desparate Sarkozy intervened

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arab...y-sheikh-nimr-al-nimr-sentenced-death-1470148
 
icebreaker said:
Forget oil for a moment; and consider the arms export business.
Saudi is the world's largest market for British arms exports, worth a couple of Billion annually. It is a significant contributor to the balance of trade, and is the underlay of the apparent obsequious attitude of British governent.
Britain is in the enviable position of being the supplier of Saudi military inventory; best to keep them on-side even if their detestable human rights record and their export of Wahhabi extremism sticks in the craw.
(But I do think that half-masting the country is a step too far).
Click to expand...

bingo (surprised Clive didnt know this) but find your non-condemning tone strange..
 
Hamm said:
It is not oil they sell Britain, you are referring to the wrong commodity in the wrong direction..
Click to expand...
It was others who were referencing oil, not Clive !
Clive pointed out that Saudi sells very little oil to Britain.
 
Hamm said:
bingo (surprised Clive didnt know this) but find your non-condemning tone strange..
Click to expand...
Why? I believe it to be a position consistent with my overall view of these issues, which is:-
I don't approve of Western intervention to achieve regime change in Arab countries irrespective of whether that might be in Egypt, Syria, Libya .............. or Saudi Arabia.
 
icebreaker said:
Why? I believe it to be a position consistent with my overall view of these issues, which is:-
I don't approve of Western intervention to achieve regime change in Arab countries irrespective of whether that might be in Egypt, Syria, Libya .............. or Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
Yes - i think in fairness to Clive (and you know I don't like writing that) Clive didn't suggest it was an oil trade off.

I'm mildly curious about one thing concerning Britain's oil imports though. I believe I'm right in saying Norway is our biggest supplier which is why I slightly queried the origins of the figure? I was always given to understand that North Sea oil is a particularly high grade used in machines etc and not for burning in power stations or cars. That being so, we export ours. I'd assume that Norway's oil must be of similar quality? Are we brinign Norweigian crude ashore and refining it, and is this showing up on the stats, or are we paying a premium for high grade oil that we don't need to, in return for security of supply?
 
Warbler said:
Yes - i think in fairness to Clive (and you know I don't like writing that) Clive didn't suggest it was an oil trade off.

I'm mildly curious about one thing concerning Britain's oil imports though. I believe I'm right in saying Norway is our biggest supplier which is why I slightly queried the origins of the figure? I was always given to understand that North Sea oil is a particularly high grade used in machines etc and not for burning in power stations or cars. That being so, we export ours. I'd assume that Norway's oil must be of similar quality? Are we brinign Norweigian crude ashore and refining it, and is this showing up on the stats, or are we paying a premium for high grade oil that we don't need to, in return for security of supply?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone make the figure up? And wouldn't be rather easy to find out if it was. Just accept it.
 
Just to be clear. And it's very wearing this at times.

i strongly dislike the Saudi regime but under no circumstances are they a threat to the west (despite what many like to believe) . They are certainly not a regional threat either. If we were only to trade with countries with impeccable human rights our exports would be hit very hard. I believe we should not trade with regimes that sponsor terrorism or have human rights that are out of control (Congo iran North Korea) but you have to draw the line somewhere. Saudi is close to that line .

china does nit disclose how many it executes annually and on what basis. It's reckoned by amnesty to be at least 5000. So???

saudi have fought aq very hard and very successfully

There are Saudis that want democracy and I would wish they would find it but frankly it's probably the most theological society in the world and there is clearly very little desire for change. In the Arab spring there wasnt even a murmur.

The regime there would only be replaced by a hard line religous regime. And you know what that would produce. For all abdulahs faults it is well known that he battled the religous elements within that society for at least some limited change
 
clivex said:
Why would anyone make the figure up? And wouldn't be rather easy to find out if it was. Just accept it.
Click to expand...

Not understanding my question again (so obviously no chance you could answer it - but perhaps someone else might know?)

There are things called creative accountancy. This isn't the same as making something up. What I'm questioning is whether we really import 40% of our oil from Norway, or is this some kind of statistical chicanery (its only by-the-way curiousity). For the reasons I explained (I'll do it again) as I said, it's my understanding that north sea crude is high quality and not the sort of stuff you'd waste burning in power stations or internal combustion engines. It tends to be used in machinary parts etc. For this reason the UK doesn't have the demand for it's own oil to meet the supply, so we export it. The same I'm assuming as Norway given that we draw from the same fields. Are we really importing Norweigian crude on this scale then and burning it? Or do we refine for the Norweigians but the very process of it coming ashore accounts for it being an import?
 
clivex said:
Just to be clear. And it's very wearing this at times.

i strongly dislike the Saudi regime but under no circumstances are they a threat to the west (despite what many like to believe) . They are certainly not a regional threat either. If we were only to trade with countries with impeccable human rights our exports would be hit very hard. I believe we should not trade with regimes that sponsor terrorism or have human rights that are out of control (Congo iran North Korea) but you have to draw the line somewhere. Saudi is close to that line .

china does nit disclose how many it executes annually and on what basis. It's reckoned by amnesty to be at least 5000. So???

saudi have fought aq very hard and very successfully

There are Saudis that want democracy and I would wish they would find it but frankly it's probably the most theological society in the world and there is clearly very little desire for change. In the Arab spring there wasnt even a murmur.

The regime there would only be replaced by a hard line religous regime. And you know what that would produce. For all abdulahs faults it is well known that he battled the religous elements within that society for at least some limited change
Click to expand...

I might get round to responding fully if I can be bothered Clive. Clearly you didn't read the article I linked for you about the 20 pro-democracy executed, nor the bit that told you which parts of the country joined the Arab spring before the Saudi authorities put them down (along with Bahrain) if you seriously dismiss it as "there wasn't even a murmur" well what can we say?. How can I put this? Yes there was. And it was more than a murmur.

I can also assume that you're prepared to overlook and turn another blind eye to the Wikileaks cables which showed the Saudi authorities to be a far from benign force in the region as regards it's security.They were actively lobbying America to use WMD on Iran, a country whose human rights record is arguably better than Saudi's as it happens (they let women go to university there). They become a threat in the long term as they have the wealth to buy in their own WMD expertise

The execution records need to be seen in the context of comparing like with like. If we use the Amnesty figure then that equates to something like 0.0003% of the Chinese population covering the whole gamut of criminal activity. The Saudi's get through 0.00006% of their population for pro-democracy alone, and that's before you lob serious things like adultery or questioning the legitimacy of islam to the charge sheet

I don't accept that they've fought AQ successfully either, neither do I accept that they've benign of good intentions. Any society so deeply soaked in islam is a fertile breeding ground for radicalism. As i said earlier, the Saudi authorities turn a blind eye to the plutocrats in their society who fund these activities due to their family influence. They do a deal which means they don't come in for targeting. Sure they might go after Johnny backstreet now and then, but they do nothing about the wealthy donors who are known to them, so long as that money is understood to supporting sunni islam in conflict with shia. It's similar in principle to why many regard the UK as harnouring and sponsoring terrorists from the region. We offered a whole generation of terrorists wanted in the the middle east asylum in return for a tacit understanding that we wouldn't be the focus of their attacks and that we would be able to observe and understand them. The Saudis do similar

FWIW though, I do agree with you that democracy isn't the answer for these countries, in fact it's just about the worse form of government they could adopt. The principle of the argument might be the same as the ANC and South Africa (they'll degenerate into triobal civil war etc), but the ANC was an old established political party soaked in political philosophy. They had a lot more chance. I think it's much easier to deal with political dogma which is by nature much more open to deal making compromise. Theological dogma has very little grounds for such flexibility due to it being pretty rigid.
 
Back
Top