NationStates

Saudi Arabia is a highly authoritarian political entity that treats its own female subjects including even princesses like shit. Even nominally nicer ones such as Dubai are actually as nasty as Riyadh as what the misfortune of Princess Latifa has revealed.

If human rights actually exist then they must also apply to subjects of Gulf monarchies. Their abolition is a necessity just like the universal abolition of slavery. Even the current regime of Iran is nowhere as horrible as these entities in terms of women’s rights.

What do you guys think, NSG?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11 ... escape/amp

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/google-sau ... ng-app.php

That’s no one else’s business other than the citizens of those nations.

Everyone is all for spreading democracy and human rights until it eventually turns into a shit show and nothing was improved.

Neocon logic aside, I believe that Saudi-Arabia should be abolished and the terretories be given back to the rightful claimant with is the current King of Jordan whose ancestors were driven out from the holy sites by the Al-Saud usurpators.

Adamede wrote:That’s no one else’s business other than the citizens of those nations.

Everyone is all for spreading democracy and human rights until it eventually turns into a shit show and nothing was improved.

> Implying that citizens actually exist in these political entities

The correct word is of course “subject”.

Nakena wrote:Neocon logic aside, I believe that Saudi-Arabia should be abolished and the terretories be given back to the rightful claimant with is the current King of Jordan whose ancestors were driven out from the holy sites by the Al-Saud usurpators.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post.

Yes, but Saudi Arabia is a tough country to restart.

Sundiata wrote:Yes, but Saudi Arabia is a tough country to restart.

If the US was able to destabilised Iraq and allow it to fall into chaos, I don't see why it cannot do the same for Saudi Arabia.

Whom does OP propose should rule what he describes as the "Gulf Monarchies?" No answer until I get that answer

Tinhampton wrote:Whom does OP propose should rule what he describes as the "Gulf Monarchies?" No answer until I get that answer

Lichtenstein.

Tinhampton wrote:Whom does OP propose should rule what he describes as the "Gulf Monarchies?" No answer until I get that answer

A social liberal state of course.

Replaced by?

If the answer is "far more radical Islamist despot states", or "Libya 2.0", or both, the answer is "no". But there are good geopolitical reasons on why a restructured Middle East might be better for stability in the long run, outside of pesky arguments such as "human rights". The borders are completely arbitrary and the future of Gulf stability, populated by dictatorial states funded by oil exports, is precarious if we consider the possible collapse of the fossil fuel market in the next 10-20 years. UAE's Dubai might be the exception as it's trying to become an international hub of business and finance, but outside of that, it's pretty precarious.

Saudi Arabia in particular, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, needs to be keep in check. I mean, it's not like the Saudi royal family sympathizes with ISIS or similar movements. They fund them (at least at the start) because it aligns with their geopolitical interest of keeping Iran and pro-Iran states at bay. Iraq and Yemen in particular, due to their high Shia population, is a grave concern. Also for this reason, the US's agenda of simultaneously 1) defeating terrorism and 2) containing Iran is pretty much doomed to fail as they contradict eachother, the US can only pick one.

To be honest though, I don't see how "abolish the monarchies" can end peacefully. My best hope is currently for a transition akin to Jordan.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Whom does OP propose should rule what he describes as the "Gulf Monarchies?" No answer until I get that answer

A social liberal state of course.

Because that went so well with Iraq /s.

Celritannia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
A social liberal state of course.

Because that went so well with Iraq /s.

That hasn’t actually happened. US did not literally patrol all of Iraq and stamped out cultural authoritarianism.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Because that went so well with Iraq /s.

That hasn’t actually happened. US did not literally patrol all of Iraq and stamped out cultural authoritarianism.

And you think it has a chance with Saudi Arabia, with a far larger territory, and oil it sells to the US?

Celritannia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:
That hasn’t actually happened. US did not literally patrol all of Iraq and stamped out cultural authoritarianism.

And you think it has a chance with Saudi Arabia, with a far larger territory, and oil it sells to the US?

The US is growing more and more self-reliant on energy due to fracking, and energy trade from the middle east now makes up a small percentage in the oil/gas supply.

But yeah, no. Declaring war on 6 heavily armed gulf states –with a history of close military cooperation with the US– during an economic crisis, crush Islamist influence throughout the population by force (how would that happen exactly is beyond me), and then construct a full-blown economically prosperous liberal democracy free of Iraq-like insurgents in its place, while ignoring the explosion of Iranian influence, all of this done for no reason in a geopolitical point of view is pretty much doomed to fail. At least Saddam Hussein gassed his own citizens and was accused of having nukes. Not to mention the economic collapse the rest of the world will experience due to such a sudden shock in the oil supply.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes, but Saudi Arabia is a tough country to restart.

If the US was able to destabilised Iraq and allow it to fall into chaos, I don't see why it cannot do the same for Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was in chaos when the United States arrived. The issue with Iraq is that the United States isn't prepared to finish what it started. We established a democracy but because democracy is so delicate, a stronger American presence is necessary in the region.

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
If the US was able to destabilised Iraq and allow it to fall into chaos, I don't see why it cannot do the same for Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was in chaos when the United States arrived. The issue with Iraq is that the United States isn't prepared to finish what it started. Ok, we established a democracy but because democracy is so delicate, a stronger American presence is necessary in the region.

No, Iraq was not in chaos before the US entered.

The US created a power vacuum and caused more problems.
We have been over this.

The more coastal monarchies will live longer than Saudi Arabia, in my opinion. The Sauds will probably be replaced by another Monarchical clan from within Arabia within 100 years time. Nothing will truly change because most people are fine with a good chunk of the status quo through either generational indoctrination or actual respect for the status quo. That's my uninformed opinion on the matter. Back to you.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Iraq was in chaos when the United States arrived. The issue with Iraq is that the United States isn't prepared to finish what it started. Ok, we established a democracy but because democracy is so delicate, a stronger American presence is necessary in the region.

No, Iraq was not in chaos before the US entered.

The US created a power vacuum and caused more problems.
We have been over this.

I disagree, Saddam Hussein was hardly the paragon of order and neither is ISIS.

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
No, Iraq was not in chaos before the US entered.

The US created a power vacuum and caused more problems.
We have been over this.

I disagree, Saddam Hussein was hardly the Paragon of order and neither is ISIS.

I am not saying he was, but at least he kept terrorists at bay.

Perhaps you should read this:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas- ... q-and-gulf

Sundiata wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
If the US was able to destabilised Iraq and allow it to fall into chaos, I don't see why it cannot do the same for Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was in chaos when the United States arrived. The issue with Iraq is that the United States isn't prepared to finish what it started. We established a democracy but because democracy is so delicate, a stronger American presence is necessary in the region.

Iraq was perfectly fine until the United States - with the support of both corporate duopoly parties, I must add- invaded them under the false pretense of WMDs, therefore ruining life of millions of innocent Iraqis for generations.

Cinnibar wrote:The more coastal monarchies will live longer than Saudi Arabia, in my opinion. The Sauds will probably be replaced by another Monarchical clan from within Arabia within 100 years time. Nothing will truly change because most people are fine with a good chunk of the status quo through either generational indoctrination or actual respect for the status quo. That's my uninformed opinion on the matter. Back to you.

I mean AI singularity, climate change, and the extinction of the fossil fuel economy will already cause so much change to the global situation that predicting what Saudi Arabia will look like by then might be irrelevant.

They shouldn’t be abolished, they should just change their ways.
And if they don’t want to, they should by forced to.

Celritannia wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I disagree, Saddam Hussein was hardly the Paragon of order and neither is ISIS.

I am not saying he was, but at least he kept terrorists at bay.

Perhaps you should read this:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas- ... q-and-gulf

It's a quagmire and the American public is not prepared for six more decades of potential occupation. Like I said before, it was a dumb war.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:They shouldn’t be abolished, they should just change their ways.
And if they don’t want to, they should by forced to.

How's the procedure, though? Military invasion?