bascule Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Now if only America had that... but unfortunately Iraq for us means bigger budget deficits... Maybe they should pay us to be there! Oh right, they want us out.
ecoli Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 It's all from oil revenue. Shows you the power of being energy independent... especially because I'm sure a large chunk of that change was going right into the hands of terrorist organizations, and still does in other countries.
NeonBlack Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Maybe they should pay us to be there! Oh right, they want us out. They pay us to leave? Seems to me to be the obvious solution.
Pangloss Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 This is good news, even if it doesn't play in Peoria. They're going to need that money.
CaptainPanic Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 They have a massive income from oil, but no functioning services yet, so little expenses. It's not actually a surplus the way we know it. It's a lack of expenses... and it's quite serious.
CDarwin Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Eh, may very well not be good news. Lots of natural resource money can ruin a state, since all it needs to spend it on to increase revenues is more oil infrastructure. States with lots of oil money don't need to tax, states that don't tax don't feel any obligations to their citizens. Thus, you get countries like Saudi Arabia, where taxes are piteous but so are reforms. The original plan was to put all Iraq's oil money into a special account, and only let a small percentage of it contribute to general revenue. I'm not sure if that's still in effect of not. I somewhat doubt it.
Pangloss Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Well I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia a ruined state. They have problems, but you need examples more along the lines of Venezuela or Iran. It's certainly a valid point, but other countries have done just fine with oil wealth, and Iraq has the same opportunity. It's better than the alternative. One good bit of news from this is that we won't have to keep spending billions over there after we leave.
bascule Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia? Last I checked all those 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. But the real war on terror is in Iraq and Iran, right? I mean, Saudi Arabia isn't part of the Axis of Evil...
CDarwin Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Well I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia a ruined state. They have problems, but you need examples more along the lines of Venezuela or Iran. It's certainly a valid point, but other countries have done just fine with oil wealth, and Iraq has the same opportunity. It's better than the alternative. One good bit of news from this is that we won't have to keep spending billions over there after we leave. I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia a ruined state either, but it's one that would be tomorrow if the oil ran out. It's government hasn't had any incentive to reform or sustainable economic development. It doesn't have a middle class, a civil society, or developing traditions of constitutionalism and civil liberties. And its economy relies on unskilled labor, often from countries with higher literacy rates that Saudi Arabia because education there is so poor. Name a country with a liberal, effective government whose primary source of income is natural resource wealth. The UAE is the only state I can think of that comes close.
ParanoiA Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia? Last I checked all those 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. But the real war on terror is in Iraq and Iran, right? I mean, Saudi Arabia isn't part of the Axis of Evil... And Timothy McVeigh was from New York. Obviously New York is a terror state, lining GWB's pockets to avoid being included in the Axis of Evil. Nice logic there, Bascule. Really put on your thinkin' cap there didn't you buddy? Funny...I'm visualizing Bush at the podium declaring war on Saudi Arabia because the terrorists were of that nationality while this forum erupts in histarics about how utterly stupid and ignorant he is with Bascule leading the charge for his removal from office due to self evident insanity. Yes, dude, Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. No, I didn't say Saudi Arabia was a successful state. I said that Iran sucks worse.
Pangloss Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia? Last I checked all those 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. But the real war on terror is in Iraq and Iran, right? I mean, Saudi Arabia isn't part of the Axis of Evil... An obvious (and very popular) straw man. 19 Saudis committed a great atrocity, therefore Saudi Arabia is a failed state that must be condemned. Yes, Iran, governed by religious zealots with extreme hatred for a neighboring enemy and little regard for civil liberties, is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. That's why it has sanctions in place against it, and Saudi Arabia does not. (Quick, someone throw out another straw man about the US's own problems with civil liberties and religious zealotry. Al Franken might stop by and see it!) It doesn't have a middle class' date=' a civil society, or developing traditions of constitutionalism and civil liberties. And its economy relies on unskilled labor, often from countries with higher literacy rates that Saudi Arabia because education there is so poor. Name a country with a liberal, effective government whose primary source of income is natural resource wealth. The UAE is the only state I can think of that comes close.[/quote'] This is really neither here nor there. They aren't a failed state. They're one that could potentially fail, as you point out, but moving the goalposts just changes the subject. You still haven't given me a reason to think that Iraq must fail because it has a budget surplus due to oil.
bascule Posted August 7, 2008 Author Posted August 7, 2008 An obvious (and very popular) straw man. 19 Saudis committed a great atrocity, therefore Saudi Arabia is a failed state that must be condemned. That'd be a composition fallacy, but thanks for playing. That doesn't change the fact that Saudi Arabia is recognized by many, including Bush's undersecretary of the Treasury as the foremost terror state, or at the very least one in which its leadership is more than willing to turn a blind eye to Al Qaeda and terrorism. Yes, Iran, governed by religious zealots with extreme hatred for a neighboring enemy and little regard for civil liberties Like the Saudis? is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. Not following your argument, sorry. Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists. Saudi Arabia harbors Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is home to the radical Wahhibist movement which is the mainstay of militant Islamicists. That's why it has sanctions in place against it, and Saudi Arabia does not. Or... the Saudi royal family has their fingers in everyone's pies. But you'll just claim that's a myth Michael Moore invented.
Pangloss Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) I never said Saudi Arabia wasn't having problems, I said it wasn't as bad as Iran. Again, how many international sanctions are in place against Saudi Arabia? And Saudi Arabia is NOT governed by religious extremism, it's ruled by monarchy. Religious is extremism IS A PROBLEM in Saudi Arabia, but not to the extent that it is in Iran. This is internationally recognized and exhibited by the lack of sanctions and acceptance of Saudi diplomats in foreign governments. People think Saudi Arabia can be fixed short of sanctions. Not so with Iran. QED. I said that Iran was more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. That does NOT mean I think Saudi Arabia is problem-free. So my comments in answer to this question were absolutely valid: Iran is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia? Asked and answered. Yeesh. Edited August 7, 2008 by Pangloss
CDarwin Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 (edited) This is really neither here nor there. They aren't a failed state. They're one that could potentially fail, as you point out, but moving the goalposts just changes the subject. You still haven't given me a reason to think that Iraq must fail because it has a budget surplus due to oil. Well I didn't set the goalposts there in the first place. My point was just that Iraq stands a better chance of developing successfully if it's oil wealth isn't used to pump up general revenues, and statistics bear me out. I never said Saudi Arabia wasn't having problems, I said it wasn't as bad as Iran. Again, how many international sanctions are in place against Saudi Arabia? And Saudi Arabia is NOT governed by religious extremism, it's ruled by monarchy. Religious is extremism IS A PROBLEM in Saudi Arabia, but not to the extent that it is in Iran. This is internationally recognized and exhibited by the lack of sanctions and acceptance of Saudi diplomats in foreign governments. People think Saudi Arabia can be fixed short of sanctions. Not so with Iran. QED. Well how much of that is which side of the world political order Iran is as opposed to Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is governed a religiously autocratic monarchy, in many ways more conservative than Iran has been for years. Women dress more liberally in Iran and can drive, for example. Finally, there's an actual constitutional separation between secular and religious government in Iran. The secular executive (the president) is relatively powerless and the religious authorities have two levels of input as to his selection, and in this case the current administration happens to be nutty and jingoistic, but the fact that the position exists genuinely shows promise. And Iran has elements of a non-oil economy. I'd say Iran has brighter prospects for a future involving internal reform and not revolution than Saudi Arabia. But that's way off topic. Edited August 7, 2008 by CDarwin multiple post merged
Pangloss Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 I know the history of the region and I just don't buy the premise of your argument that they're likely to fail (or be "ruined") because of it. Nor do I see what civil liberties even have to do with the discussion. Budgets are matters of economics. They have a surplus. It's better than not having one. End of story.
bascule Posted August 7, 2008 Author Posted August 7, 2008 I said it wasn't as bad as Iran. Let's see... number of terrorist attacks successfully orchestrated against the United States by Iranians? What was that? Oh, zero? Again, how many international sanctions are in place against Saudi Arabia? They can't... again, the whole fingers in everyone's pie thing. Wow, I love how you give Saudi Arabia a blank check for their past because they're more corrupt than Iran. And Saudi Arabia is NOT governed by religious extremism, it's ruled by monarchy. Yes, a corrupt monarchy with their fingers in everyone's pie. Do you get the point yet? Religious is extremism IS A PROBLEM in Saudi Arabia, but not to the extent that it is in Iran. Uhh? Wahhabists? Militant Islam? Terrorists who carried out a little suicide attack called 9/11 in the name of their religion? Are you even paying attention at all? Oh yeah... OSAMA BIN F******* LADEN? This is internationally recognized and exhibited by the lack of sanctions and acceptance of Saudi diplomats in foreign governments. Hello, corruption? You think a government which is able to work out deals with other nations simply due to pulling strings both economic and political means it's better somehow? People think Saudi Arabia can be fixed short of sanctions. Not so with Iran. QED. SOME PEOPLE SAY... yeah, nice Fox News defense of your points. Hearsay isn't exactly evidence. QED. I said that Iran was more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. That does NOT mean I think Saudi Arabia is problem-free. You've certainly done a rather lousy job of defending your position. Perhaps you'd care to do some more research about the country before opining, hmmm? Asked and answered. Yeesh. Certainly not to my satisfaction... try citing some sources and doing some research.
ParanoiA Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 SOME PEOPLE SAY... yeah, nice Fox News defense of your points. Hearsay isn't exactly evidence. QED. You've got a lot of nerve referring to faux news points when you're spitting out petulent Moveon.org tripe about Saudi Arabian terrorists = Saudi Arabia terror state. Give me a break. If you're that easy to manipulate, then you're just another sheep. Like I said, I guess New York can be added to the list of terror states since that's where Timothy McVeigh came from. Baaaa...Baaaa
bascule Posted August 7, 2008 Author Posted August 7, 2008 You've got a lot of nerve referring to faux news points when you're spitting out petulent Moveon.org tripe Did I quote Moveon.org? Wait, no, I quoted a senior Bush Administration official on the matter. What is this, you're trying to discredit my view because you think it has an association with some group that doesn't enter into the discussion? Maybe you should stop taking your talking points from Michael Savage, ParanoiA. I mean, that makes about as much sense as you lumping me in with Moveon.org.
ParanoiA Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 Did I quote Moveon.org? Wait, no, I quoted a senior Bush Administration official on the matter. What is this, you're trying to discredit my view because you think it has an association with some group that doesn't enter into the discussion? Maybe you should stop taking your talking points from Michael Savage, ParanoiA. I mean, that makes about as much sense as you lumping me in with Moveon.org. Your rhetoric matches theirs and fits perfectly with the partisan climate today - no one can say anything real to each other without these petulant rebuttals of political exageration. And it's beneath you. I've seen you formulate actual opinons and ideas sifting through several layers of thought and analysis, so you're more than capable. So, for you to even imply 9/11 Terroists = Saudi Arabians = Saudi Arabia is a terror state, as some kind of rebuttal is single level thought processing that I'd expect from my teenager, not a self proclaimed literary junkie. And your view is discredited by its own lack of sense; it doesn't actually need me to point it out or change it in any way. You know exactly what your'e doing here, and if any conservative-ish member here was using that kind of logical fallacy on your precious Obama you'd be arguing from the same view as I. The difference is, I'll argue it for Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, your mother, anybody - not just my candidate.
Pangloss Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 Religious is extremism IS A PROBLEM in Saudi Arabia' date=' but not to the extent that it is in Iran.[/quote'] Uhh? Wahhabists? Militant Islam? Terrorists who carried out a little suicide attack called 9/11 in the name of their religion? Are you even paying attention at all? Oh yeah... OSAMA BIN F******* LADEN? Bascule I answered your question and you responded with such obvious strawmen (like the one above) that it boggles the mind. As ParanoiA says you have some nerve accusing me of being like Fox News or of not doing my research. You have a perfectly valid opinion and so do I, and I will not sit here and let you distort other people's opinions or move the goalposts on them just because they aren't following your agenda.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 I think the real problem here is mainly that bascule (and later the rest of the participants) chose a very caustic style, rather than that there are moving goalposts or "agendas" going around. Another reason why things would be a lot better if we kept civil.
Recommended Posts