Fundamentally, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are willing to play ball with the US and have a certain reliability. That really matters a lot, from the standpoint of US policy. If the US foreign policy is not completely insane, reliability in not attacking us should count for a lot.
It isn't the same topic as how quickly we can force them to internalize our values to satisfy aimless cultural imperialism. Saudi society is not a modern democratic society and forcible external intervention is not going to help it get better. It will have to get better on its own timetable. If you think that it was bad to remove Saddam and Gadaffi, you should renounce this nasty implication that we should attack the House of Saud, you can't imagine the consequence of that, it's totally irresponsible to suggest.
If you are going to talk about Iran, talk about Iran, don't change the subject to the Saudis.
“There’s no question that there has been a virus that has spread throughout the Muslim world, a virus of ultra-orthodox puritanism.”
“But there’s also no question what the source of this virus is — whether we’re talking about Boko Haram, or ISIS, or al-Qaida, or the Taliban. All of them have as their source Wahhabism, or the state religion of Saudi Arabia.”
“And as we all know, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion in the past 20 or 30 years spreading this ideology throughout the world.”
Not saying we should bomb the Saudis but we might encourage them to stop spending billions on promoting extremist Islam.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1746607/reza-aslan-links-saudi-arab...
What does that have to do with Iran? I even attempted to put a stop to such replies at the bottom of my post.
Because Saudi does X, that does not relieve Iran from what they do, or the religious based oppression they enslave their people under.
Saudis beatings and beheadings news are easy to find and they are the very clear examples of religious oppression they enslave their people under. Can you quote the same acts of Iranians to their people?
You're failing on logical separation of discussion.
Because I say X, does not mean I agree with or deny or support Z.
I've even tried to specifically note this, so that I wouldn't get endless replies about how Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran.
It's the actions that should be criticised, no matter who does them. They shouldn't be a trigger to target only those who aren't "ours."
It's also not necessary to discuss human rights violations in Myanmar, in order to discuss Saudi Arabia or Iran. I would be very surprised if a lot of people here are lacking in understanding about Saudi Arabia.
The sole reason I entered the discussion on Iran, is because the parent I replied to claimed Iran was in some form moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, even if Saudi Arabia is worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_a...
"The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia."
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21640325-interna...
"THE Middle East is a black spot for free speech. Its countries come near the bottom in rankings of press freedom, and most criminalise blasphemy and apostasy (renouncing Islam). But even by such dismal standards, Saudi Arabia stands out. Penalties for transgressing its religious and political strictures, even in word, include hefty fines and jail sentences, beatings and beheadings. Human Rights Watch, a monitoring group, notes a surge in executions since August. By some counts at least ten people have been put to death so far this year."