That would be fine if we didn’t selectively pick which countries we apply those rules to. China is an ethical nightmare but we have and continue to do business with them, why change that when it comes to the Middle East.

What makes you think people who disapprove of getting in bed with the Middle East approve of getting in bed with China? Did you ask them? Or did you want so badly to accuse them of hypocrisy that you simply assumed it to be the case?

There aren’t any people left in business in the US who don’t approve of “getting in bed with china”

- this message was made in china, like your shirt, your shorts, your socks, and so on snd so on.

There's no people who deny travel reimbursements that use Saudi gas.. Does that mean we all need to fly to Saudi Arabia to plan future businesses and garrison death squads in our houses?

I think there's a difference between doing the minimum that is not a disadvantage and making a relationship with an ethical discount country your competitive advantage.

The U.S. has done far more business for far longer with countries in the Middle East than it has with China.

I don’t think your example supports the point you think you’re making.

It is HNs business to speak about middle eastern countries except for speaking about Israel, it's suddenly very political and no longer HN worthy.

Except we have regular posts related to Israel with hundreds of comments in each.

> And how the Saudis choose to run their society is none of America’s business.

By "the Saudis" you mean the ruling family? Those are the only people who are deciding anything in SA.

And if a societal model causes catastrophe and collapse it contains that failure? If it wastes human potential and is a free loader compared to free societies? What then?