Egoy3k: kvinesknows: Smelly Pirate Hooker: This would be kinda funny if Saudi males didn't have car accidents all the time. Apparently, they drive like shiat over there. From another article:

The World Health Organization found Saudi Arabia to have the world's highest number of deaths from road accidents, which now make up the country's principal cause of death in adult males aged 16 to 36. First reported by the Saudi daily Arab News, the study found that 6,485 people had died and more than 36,000 were injured in over 485,000 traffic accidents during 2008 and 2009.

An average of 17 Saudi Arabian residents die on the country's roads each day, a report by the Kingdom's General Directorate of Traffic has revealed.

meanwhile in America... 52 die every day.

Saudi Arabi population:27 million
United States of America population:313 million

number of drivers in Saudi Arabi compared to number of drivers in the US would be a far better comparison.

Fano: I wish they would look more like Mainichi Wai Wai, which was hands down, the best source for Fark links as far as I'm concerned.

WaiWai brought the lulz. I miss that.

horsepocket: kvinesknows: Smelly Pirate Hooker: This would be kinda funny if Saudi males didn't have car accidents all the time. Apparently, they drive like shiat over there. From another article:

The World Health Organization found Saudi Arabia to have the world's highest number of deaths from road accidents, which now make up the country's principal cause of death in adult males aged 16 to 36. First reported by the Saudi daily Arab News, the study found that 6,485 people had died and more than 36,000 were injured in over 485,000 traffic accidents during 2008 and 2009.

An average of 17 Saudi Arabian residents die on the country's roads each day, a report by the Kingdom's General Directorate of Traffic has revealed.

meanwhile in America... 52 die every day.

Meanwhile, in America, we have 12 times the population. I know you were told there would be no math in this thread, but 52 divided by 17 is only 3. That means we have 12 times the population but only 3 times the deaths by car accident.

I really hope those numbers aren't too confusing for you, because there are probably more numbers that might get in the way... like the fact that 50% of the population of Saudi Arabia is not allowed to drive (women), so it is really more like 24 times the driving population and only 3 times the deaths. There is also the fact that the US has a longer life expectancy, so we probably have more of our population above the legal driving age.

But yeah, what was your point again?

see my other post.. you are using incorrect data for your comparison.

I guess the Saudi people knew of the consequences... :P

Smelly Pirate Hooker: The World Health Organization found Saudi Arabia to have the world's highest number of deaths from road accidents, which now make up the country's principal cause of death in adult males aged 16 to 36.

That's not too much of a surprise. Car crashes are the leading cause of death of people 4-26 in the US, with a variation of 1 or 2 years on each end that varies from year to year. In any year, the leading cause of death of kindergartners to persons 6 years out of high school is car crashes.

That Saudi Arabia has an additional 10 years where car crashes are the leading cause of death is really surprising, it would suggest that they really are horrible drivers relative to most other countries. An alternative, which seems highly unlikely, would be that they've managed to keep diseases/viruses under control to a better degree then most other countries in the world.

A third possibility is a person who developed/was born with a medical problem that might see them live to their 30s in North America/Europe wouldn't live into their 30s in Saudi Arabia and/or they have attitudes/policies towards medicine that enable something similar. This would see 'natural causes' take a few steps down in ranking when looking at the leading cause of death in people in their 30s.

If the Saudis (intentionally or not) practiced a form of selection where unhealthy babies were less likely to live then they would if they were born somewhere else and if you assume that it's likely that a person born with health problems would be more likely to die in their 20s/30, then this could also explain why car crashes kill most people in their 30s in Saudi Arabia.

We have an issue sort of like this in the US based on how we define a live birth vs other countries. On paper we have a higher infant mortality rate then most countries because we define a live birth based on an infant being alive hours/days after birth, whereas various other countries only define live births when the infant has survived weeks or even months after birth. A baby who dies in another country at 4 weeks would not be counted as live birth to begin with, whereas that baby would be a live birth and an infant death in the US.

kvinesknows: number of drivers in Saudi Arabi compared to number of drivers in the US would be a far better comparison.

Honestly I don't think we need to try for accuracy here. The population difference is so large it's unnecessary to go into any further detail.

horsepocket: Meanwhile, in America, we have 12 times the population. I know you were told there would be no math in this thread, but 52 divided by 17 is only 3. That means we have 12 times the population but only 3 times the deaths by car accident.

I really hope those numbers aren't too confusing for you, because there are probably more numbers that might get in the way... like the fact that 50% of the population of Saudi Arabia is not allowed to drive (women), so it is really more like 24 times the driving population and only 3 times the deaths. There is also the fact that the US has a longer life expectancy, so we probably have more of our population above the legal driving age.

But yeah, what was your point again?

WHAAAR ON CARS! DRIVING = MURDER WHAAAAR

pedrop357: That's not too much of a surprise. Car crashes are the leading cause of death of people 4-26 in the US, with a variation of 1 or 2 years on each end that varies from year to year. In any year, the leading cause of death of kindergartners to persons 6 years out of high school is car crashes....country at 4 weeks would not be counted as live birth to begin with, whereas that baby would be a live birth and an infant death in the US.

Or maybe it's because most of the Middle Eastern countries do not have mandatory driver education.

Interesting theories though.

And technically, the leading causes of all vehicle-related fatalities in the US are intoxication (32% in 2007), speed, fatigue, and distraction (usually lumped together); improper maintenance is usually in the top three.

/Personal responsibility...how does it work?

but was she circumcised?

7of7: That's pretty suspicious.

Not really. Remember, nobody taught her how to drive. All she had to go on was observing others driving and that won't teach you what not to do.

fenrael23: Having lived in Saudi Arabia for a while, I can say with certainty that drivers over there are damn near suicidal...male or female.

You don't say...

This isn't related to anything except that it's an amusing factoid about Saudi.

A coworker occasionally heads over there and flies back with Saudis leaving the country for vacations. As soon as the plane leaves Saudi airspace, all the Saudi women form a line at the bathroom, change out of their hajib, burkha, whatever, and come back out dressed, as he so eloquently described, "like hookers."

Is the obvious tag on vacation?

At least she was ugly.

From a different article:

In a "scientific" report written with Professor Kamal Subhi, formerly of King Fahd University, scholars of the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, say allowing Saudi women to drive would lead to a scarcity of virgins.

The report which was presented to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia's legislative body, soon after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 lashes after being caught driving in Jeddah, warned of the dire consequences to Saudi Arabia of allowing women behind the wheel. The scholars, according to Daily Mail, warned the Shura Council that repealing the ban on women driving would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

And these are our allies! What a bunch of farking morans.

Mock26: From a different article:

In a "scientific" report written with Professor Kamal Subhi, formerly of King Fahd University, scholars of the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, say allowing Saudi women to drive would lead to a scarcity of virgins.

The report which was presented to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia's legislative body, soon after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 lashes after being caught driving in Jeddah, warned of the dire consequences to Saudi Arabia of allowing women behind the wheel. The scholars, according to Daily Mail, warned the Shura Council that repealing the ban on women driving would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

And these are our allies! What a bunch of farking morans.

The Saudi family are our allies. They have no control over that council. It's a shared kingdom with the Al-Sheikh family, and THEY control that council. They don't get involved in foreign diplomacy.

laws are made for a reason...

muck4doo: Mock26: From a different article:

In a "scientific" report written with Professor Kamal Subhi, formerly of King Fahd University, scholars of the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, say allowing Saudi women to drive would lead to a scarcity of virgins.

The report which was presented to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia's legislative body, soon after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 lashes after being caught driving in Jeddah, warned of the dire consequences to Saudi Arabia of allowing women behind the wheel. The scholars, according to Daily Mail, warned the Shura Council that repealing the ban on women driving would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

And these are our allies! What a bunch of farking morans.

The Saudi family are our allies. They have no control over that council. It's a shared kingdom with the Al-Sheikh family, and THEY control that council. They don't get involved in foreign diplomacy.

The Saud family is the ruling royal family and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It does not matter if they do not set sharia law or possibly share the kingdom with another family, they are still the absolute monarchy of the country as such are representative of the country. If our treaty is with just the Saudi family it is also with the country as a whole through the Saudi family.

Also, there is a lot of intermarriage between the two families.

SpaceBison: fenrael23: Having lived in Saudi Arabia for a while, I can say with certainty that drivers over there are damn near suicidal...male or female.

You don't say...
[www.spacebison.com image 530x675]

At least the swimming pool survived the blast! Though it does look like it needs to be cleaned out a bit.

:-D

Mock26: muck4doo: Mock26: From a different article:

In a "scientific" report written with Professor Kamal Subhi, formerly of King Fahd University, scholars of the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, say allowing Saudi women to drive would lead to a scarcity of virgins.

The report which was presented to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia's legislative body, soon after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 lashes after being caught driving in Jeddah, warned of the dire consequences to Saudi Arabia of allowing women behind the wheel. The scholars, according to Daily Mail, warned the Shura Council that repealing the ban on women driving would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

And these are our allies! What a bunch of farking morans.

The Saudi family are our allies. They have no control over that council. It's a shared kingdom with the Al-Sheikh family, and THEY control that council. They don't get involved in foreign diplomacy.

The Saud family is the ruling royal family and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It does not matter if they do not set sharia law or possibly share the kingdom with another family, they are still the absolute monarchy of the country as such are representative of the country. If our treaty is with just the Saudi family it is also with the country as a whole through the Saudi family.

Also, there is a lot of intermarriage between the two families.

It's not as simple as that. Try reading a few books on the subject instead of relying on Wikipedia, blogs, and American politically motivated hit pieces. It is not an ABSOLUTE monarchy in the sense as those in the west think about those terms, and you know it. Did you get most of your information from "House of Saud, House of Bush" like the other retards on the subject did?

muck4doo: Mock26: muck4doo: Mock26: From a different article:

In a "scientific" report written with Professor Kamal Subhi, formerly of King Fahd University, scholars of the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, say allowing Saudi women to drive would lead to a scarcity of virgins.

The report which was presented to the Shura Council, Saudi Arabia's legislative body, soon after Shaima Jastaniya, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to 10 lashes after being caught driving in Jeddah, warned of the dire consequences to Saudi Arabia of allowing women behind the wheel. The scholars, according to Daily Mail, warned the Shura Council that repealing the ban on women driving would "provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

And these are our allies! What a bunch of farking morans.

The Saudi family are our allies. They have no control over that council. It's a shared kingdom with the Al-Sheikh family, and THEY control that council. They don't get involved in foreign diplomacy.

The Saud family is the ruling royal family and Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. It does not matter if they do not set sharia law or possibly share the kingdom with another family, they are still the absolute monarchy of the country as such are representative of the country. If our treaty is with just the Saudi family it is also with the country as a whole through the Saudi family.

Also, there is a lot of intermarriage between the two families.

It's not as simple as that. Try reading a few books on the subject instead of relying on Wikipedia, blogs, and American politically motivated hit pieces. It is not an ABSOLUTE monarchy in the sense as those in the west think about those terms, and you know it. Did you get most of your information from "House of Saud, House of Bush" like the other retards on the subject did?

Nope. Going off of what I learned in school and picked up here and there over the years, mostly through friends who had worked over there.

And it really is as simple as that. Our treaties are with the country through the royal family. They are not with just the royal family.

Mock26: Nope. Going off of what I learned in school and picked up here and there over the years, mostly through friends who had worked over there.

And it really is as simple as that. Our treaties are with the country through the royal family. They are not with just the royal family.

Glad you didn't get your information solely through that book. Otherwise you would look like the regular retards here that say Reagan was supporting the Taliban. Make believe history pisses me off. It's done solely for American politics, and has nothing to do with truth. Idiots will believe whatever they are told though, as long as it will help their party

Second, it's not as simple as that. Sorry if that is what you were brainwashed into believing. It has been a shared power and movement for over 200 years. The Saud family controls one part of government, the Al-Sheikhs control most domestic parts. It is NOT an absolute monarchy like you and other misinformed people keep trying to promote(I see wikipedia also helps in promoting the myth).

The Al-Shaikhs control education, the courts, police, morality police, and the pilgrimages. They also have heavy influence in certain parts of the military. The Sauds are mostly in control of foreign affairs, trade, military, and distribution of assets. That's aside from being representatives of the country. Within the Saud family there are also divisions, which control different parts of the military. They are always fighting within each other for more power.

King Abdullah has been trying hard to reform the country, and should be supported. It's not an easy task though, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets assassinated. This is a country that is always on the brink of civil war. The "Absolute Monarchy" myth that keeps being spread is a big lie, and doesn't help anything in understanding the politics of that nation. When you see the courts whipping women for driving over there, and Amnesty International pleads to the King to stop it, they are absolutely barking up the wrong tree. It's like asking Obama to over rule a SCOTUS decision.

The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

muck4doo: Mock26: Nope. Going off of what I learned in school and picked up here and there over the years, mostly through friends who had worked over there.

And it really is as simple as that. Our treaties are with the country through the royal family. They are not with just the royal family.

Glad you didn't get your information solely through that book. Otherwise you would look like the regular retards here that say Reagan was supporting the Taliban. Make believe history pisses me off. It's done solely for American politics, and has nothing to do with truth. Idiots will believe whatever they are told though, as long as it will help their party

Second, it's not as simple as that. Sorry if that is what you were brainwashed into believing. It has been a shared power and movement for over 200 years. The Saud family controls one part of government, the Al-Sheikhs control most domestic parts. It is NOT an absolute monarchy like you and other misinformed people keep trying to promote(I see wikipedia also helps in promoting the myth).

The Al-Shaikhs control education, the courts, police, morality police, and the pilgrimages. They also have heavy influence in certain parts of the military. The Sauds are mostly in control of foreign affairs, trade, military, and distribution of assets. That's aside from being representatives of the country. Within the Saud family there are also divisions, which control different parts of the military. They are always fighting within each other for more power.

King Abdullah has been trying hard to reform the country, and should be supported. It's not an easy task though, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets assassinated. This is a country that is always on the brink of civil war. The "Absolute Monarchy" myth that keeps being spread is a big lie, and doesn't help anything in understanding the politics of that nation. When you see the courts whipping women for driving over there, and Amnesty International pleads to the King to stop it, they are ab ...

I have actually never read that book that you mentioned. In fact, I had never heard of it until you mentioned it.

Also, no need to be insulting with your replies.

But, since you have claimed that our treaties are with just the Saudi family then back that up with proof. Prove for all of us that the treaty is limited only to the Saudi royal family and is not representative of the entire country as a whole through the royal family.

Mock26: But, since you have claimed that our treaties are with just the Saudi family then back that up with proof. Prove for all of us that the treaty is limited only to the Saudi royal family and is not representative of the entire country as a whole through the royal family.

The treaties we have are with the Saudi family. That does not mean we get to have a say in what goes on in their courts, and neither does King Abdullah. That's where YOUR misunderstanding lies. You believe it is an absolute monarchy, while that is a myth perpetuated in the west for political reasons. I gave you the example earlier of Amnesty International asking Obama to overturn SCOTUS decisions, but you didn't grok it. He doesn't have that power. The first step to understanding Saudi Arabia is to get over the lie that it is an absolute Monarchy.You've been fed a load of bullshiat.

muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

muck4doo: Mock26: But, since you have claimed that our treaties are with just the Saudi family then back that up with proof. Prove for all of us that the treaty is limited only to the Saudi royal family and is not representative of the entire country as a whole through the royal family.

The treaties we have are with the Saudi family. That does not mean we get to have a say in what goes on in their courts, and neither does King Abdullah. That's where YOUR misunderstanding lies. You believe it is an absolute monarchy, while that is a myth perpetuated in the west for political reasons. I gave you the example earlier of Amnesty International asking Obama to overturn SCOTUS decisions, but you didn't grok it. He doesn't have that power. The first step to understanding Saudi Arabia is to get over the lie that it is an absolute Monarchy.You've been fed a load of bullshiat.

I never said that we should have a say in what goes on in their courts. As for King Abdullah, he does not have a say either, but that is irrelevant. He represents the country as a whole.

As for your Amnesty International example, I grokked it, but I ignored it as being irrelevant and not pertinent to the discussion because I never suggested nor hinted at that we should ask King Abdullah to change the sharia laws of the country. The point I was trying to make is that we should not be allied with a country like Saudi Arabia for passing such laws. But, because of their oil and money we willingly overlook human rights violations that we would readily condemn in another country.

muck4doo: The treaties we have are with the Saudi family. .

That is like saying that if the president signs a treaty that it is only with the president and not the rest of the government. The Saudi family is for all intents and purposes the government. They represent the country as a whole. A treaty with them is a treaty with the country.

Mock26: muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

You still don't get it, do you? Try hard now to think about this. The King has no say in Ulema(their Supreme Court) decisions. That doesn't mean we still can't trade with them. The Ulema there also don't have a say in what the Saudi Family does when it comes to trade. The Sauds can say and negotiate with us on trade, that doesn't mean they have a say or should influence what goes on with our SCOTUS. I gave you an example earlier that it is the equal to asking Obama to over-ride SCOTUS decisions. You know why? That is what you exactly expect them to do. Think about how that would go down in this counbtry, then think about how it would go down over there where there is a constant power struggle. If you want to learn more about the country and give real feedback on it, go for it. Right now i think you've followed the American tripe on the situation, and are happy wallowing in the bullshiat.

muck4doo: Mock26: muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

You still don't get it, do you? Try hard now to think about this. The King has no say in Ulema(their Supreme Court) decisions. That doesn't mean we still can't trade with them. The Ulema there also don't have a say in what the Saudi Family does when it comes to trade. The Sauds can say and negotiate with us on trade, that doesn't mean they have a say or should influence what goes on with our SCOTUS. I gave you an example earlier that it is the equal to asking Obama to over-ride SCOTUS decisions. You know why? That is what you exactly expect them to do. Think about how that would go down in this counbtry, then think about how it would go down over there where there is a constant power struggle. If you want to learn more about the country and give real feedback on it, go for it. Right now i think you've followed the American tripe on the situation, and are happy wallowing in the bullshiat.

Yet again, nowhere have I said that if we sign a treaty with them that we should be trying to dictate to them how they treat their woman (and that is why your SCOTUS analogy is a bad analogy). I am saying that we should not sign any treaty with such a country at all. It does not matter if the reason has nothing to do with the actual royal family, because they still support those laws even if they do not make them.

Mock26: As for your Amnesty International example, I grokked it, but I ignored it as being irrelevant and not pertinent to the discussion because I never suggested nor hinted at that we should ask King Abdullah to change the sharia laws of the country. The point I was trying to make is that we should not be allied with a country like Saudi Arabia for passing such laws. But, because of their oil and money we willingly overlook human rights violations that we would readily condemn in another country.

You contradict yourself mightily. I'll give you that.

Mock26: I never said that we should have a say in what goes on in their courts. As for King Abdullah, he does not have a say either, but that is irrelevant.

That was supposed to be bolded as well.

muck4doo: Mock26: muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

You still don't get it, do you? Try hard now to think about this. The King has no say in Ulema(their Supreme Court) decisions. That doesn't mean we still can't trade with them. The Ulema there also don't have a say in what the Saudi Family does when it comes to trade. The Sauds can say and negotiate with us on trade, that doesn't mean they have a say or should influence what goes on with our SCOTUS. I gave you an example earlier that it is the equal to asking Obama to over-ride SCOTUS decisions. You know why? That is what you exactly expect them to do. Think about how that would go down in this counbtry, then think about how it would go down over there where there is a constant power struggle. If you want to learn more about the country and give real feedback on it, go for it. Right now i think you've followed the American tripe on the situation, and are happy wallowing in the bullshiat.

Out of curiosity, are you trying to say that no matter what Saudi Arabia does to its people we should just ignore it if the Saudi royal family has nothing to with it? For example, if the Al-Sheikh family passed a law ordering that all non-muslims be rounded up and sold into slavery and their owners were allowed to beat them indiscriminately and beat them or even murder them as they see fit that we just ignore it because the royal family did not pass such a law?

Mock26: muck4doo: Mock26: muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

You still don't get it, do you? Try hard now to think about this. The King has no say in Ulema(their Supreme Court) decisions. That doesn't mean we still can't trade with them. The Ulema there also don't have a say in what the Saudi Family does when it comes to trade. The Sauds can say and negotiate with us on trade, that doesn't mean they have a say or should influence what goes on with our SCOTUS. I gave you an example earlier that it is the equal to asking Obama to over-ride SCOTUS decisions. You know why? That is what you exactly expect them to do. Think about how that would go down in this counbtry, then think about how it would go down over there where there is a constant power struggle. If you want to learn more about the country and give real feedback on it, go for it. Right now i think you've followed the American tripe on the situation, and are happy wallowing in the bullshiat.

Yet again, nowhere have I said that if we sign a treaty with them that we should be trying to dictate to ...

That isn't how we do trade, and you might as well get used to it. That isn't how the world does trade either. That's not the way life works. Sorry to burst your bubble. The King and the people we do business with aren't doing the bullshiat. In fact, he is trying to correct those problems. We can stop, but China would just probably pick up that business. WTF do you expect us or him to do, besides what he is already doing without throwing the country into a full civil war? By the way, sorry for the insults earlier. I just see too many TPM type idiots here who spew without a clue, and let my prejudices take over. I need to stop doing that. You obviously aren't one of those.

muck4doo: Mock26: As for your Amnesty International example, I grokked it, but I ignored it as being irrelevant and not pertinent to the discussion because I never suggested nor hinted at that we should ask King Abdullah to change the sharia laws of the country. The point I was trying to make is that we should not be allied with a country like Saudi Arabia for passing such laws. But, because of their oil and money we willingly overlook human rights violations that we would readily condemn in another country.

You contradict yourself mightily. I'll give you that.

Not signing a treaty with a country because we do not agree with how they treat their women is NOT the same as telling to a country how they should treat their women. There is a subtle but very distinct difference between the two. Sorry if you cannot see it.

Mock26: muck4doo: Mock26: muck4doo: The problem is no country gets to deal with or negotiate with the Al-Sheikhs.

So what? The Royal Family represents the country as a whole for foreign treaties and as such our treaty is with the entire country. Saying that our treaty is only with the Saudi royal family is like saying a treaty with America is only with the federal government and not the states. While technically true it is also a misleading truth. A treaty is between two governments and since those governments represent the people they are also between the two countries.

All of this does not matter though. Saudi Arabia is guilty of some serious human rights violations and regardless of who in that country is responsible for those laws that allow such violations they are still a black mark on the country as the whole, and we should not be dealing with a country that stones women to death for being out in public with men they are not related to or that prohibits women from driving.

You still don't get it, do you? Try hard now to think about this. The King has no say in Ulema(their Supreme Court) decisions. That doesn't mean we still can't trade with them. The Ulema there also don't have a say in what the Saudi Family does when it comes to trade. The Sauds can say and negotiate with us on trade, that doesn't mean they have a say or should influence what goes on with our SCOTUS. I gave you an example earlier that it is the equal to asking Obama to over-ride SCOTUS decisions. You know why? That is what you exactly expect them to do. Think about how that would go down in this counbtry, then think about how it would go down over there where there is a constant power struggle. If you want to learn more about the country and give real feedback on it, go for it. Right now i think you've followed the American tripe on the situation, and are happy wallowing in the bullshiat.

Out of curiosity, are you trying to say that no matter what Saudi Arabia does to its people we should ju ...

You trade with who you are bargaining with. That's the King as far that country goes. You go into trade to try to help your economy, and not to change how they run their country. Do you get it now?

Mock26: muck4doo: Mock26: As for your Amnesty International example, I grokked it, but I ignored it as being irrelevant and not pertinent to the discussion because I never suggested nor hinted at that we should ask King Abdullah to change the sharia laws of the country. The point I was trying to make is that we should not be allied with a country like Saudi Arabia for passing such laws. But, because of their oil and money we willingly overlook human rights violations that we would readily condemn in another country.

You contradict yourself mightily. I'll give you that.

Not signing a treaty with a country because we do not agree with how they treat their women is NOT the same as telling to a country how they should treat their women. There is a subtle but very distinct difference between the two. Sorry if you cannot see it.

Sure you could go that route, but as it has already been said, there will be another country to pick up the slack that is left. In all honesty though, if you were to boycott everything that is related to shady practices when it comes to human rights, you would be living in a home that is 3 times the price that is paid for now, you wouldn't have that fancy LCD tv, iPhone, and most of your clothing would be potato sacks.

Hate to burst your bubble, but at one point or another, someone somewhere is getting screwed over so you can live a life of luxury.

Done yet?

Saudi women drivers protest in... Portland, Oregon?

/does graffiti count as a protest?