Do you think people who drive V8 engines or bigger are supporting terrorism?
Being that Iran, Iraq, Saudi arabia, and others are making all their money off of us and our huge oil consumption. Do you think those people with the huge trucks and SUV's and the american flags all over their vehicles got it all wrong. Your Thoughts! I can totally understand if you need the truck for work but other than that it seems unnecessary & funds terrorists pockets. by the way svs22422 i am not a liberal. I just think the only reason those countries even have money is from countries who buy a bunch of oil from them. America buy's the most oil. I guess some of yall just don't see it, Owell OK Karl, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia don't have terrorists. pfffft who is Osama Bin Laden where was he from??????? Yeah of course everyone uses oil but do we need to use as much as we do? Also my computer is not using oil it is electricity, yes does APS or SRP use oil yes but also a lot of other technology not just oil. Does a 20 year old single woman need to drive a huge truck?? I don't think so. And the ones who disagree with me probably complain about gas prices when its 4 bucks a gallon LOL.
Other - Politics & Government - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No, neither are drug users. Only those who send them donations and support them openly are supporting terrorism. A lot of our oil is bought from Russia and Canada as well as the middle east.
2 :
No ! But do you think that your new failing leader can negotiate with terrorist ?
3 :
Since most of everything we use is imported or made domestically and requires use of oil to manufacture, even you and I who walk to work are supporting terrorism if what you say about the indirect support has any merit.
4 :
I suppose that, in your opinion, Congress had nothing to do with our oil import bill? And that despite that various [mostly Democratic] administrations and Congress refuse to permit significant oil drilling in America. *** Did you know that America is the only industrialized nation that does not permit oil exploration in significant chunks of its offshore waters? *** Thanks to those Washington boneheads, America's energy policy is to import it -- and has been since about 1979. Of course, importing energy has the effect of exporting jobs. You might want to look at the pay rates of jobs in the oil patch, in gas drilling, in coal mining, in railroads, and in nuclear power. Dad gum if they aren't HIGHER than America's national average. The policy has been to export high paying jobs to foreign nations so that we can all work in lower paying jobs and be poorer. How's that for "stupid is as stupid does"??
5 :
Nope People who Drive H1,2, and3 Hummers do.
6 :
liberals like you will never understand FACTS AND LOGIC!!!
7 :
Yes I think they are. Only people who drive 4 cylinder cars are in the Coalition of the Willing. Good Christian folk.
8 :
Are you insane?? first of all do you actually think that everyone in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia are terrorist? if so then Bush and Cheneys scare tactics have work way too well on you my friend. second your comparison is just way off base for instance did you know it takes fuel to generate the electrical power your using to power your computer to write this message? how dare you support terrorism like that!!! Do you watch television? how dare you!! you say you have a total electric house?!? you should be waterboarded by dick cheney for that! you like to watch late night tv?! gitmo is surely in your future.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
is there any american company recruiter who needs a telecom engineer to work in Middle East/cina?
is there any american company recruiter who needs a telecom engineer to work in Middle East/cina?
I am a telecom engineer, I'd love to work in saudi arabia, emirates, china, japan and so on because I want to make money. I have experience.
Corporations - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
you are really, really looking in the wrong place!!! You're saying that you are experienced, use your own contacts, network!! Try to contact HR agencies, head hunters specialized for regions or profession. Speaking of China, I can guarantee you won't find job searching on internet fast or ever!! And I expect you don't speak Mandarin at all. Anyway good luck tho.
I am a telecom engineer, I'd love to work in saudi arabia, emirates, china, japan and so on because I want to make money. I have experience.
Corporations - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
you are really, really looking in the wrong place!!! You're saying that you are experienced, use your own contacts, network!! Try to contact HR agencies, head hunters specialized for regions or profession. Speaking of China, I can guarantee you won't find job searching on internet fast or ever!! And I expect you don't speak Mandarin at all. Anyway good luck tho.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
How can the US/UK Justify their Relationship with Saudi Arabia?
How can the US/UK Justify their Relationship with Saudi Arabia?
Ostensibly, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people living under a regime of fear (if you believe the Bush people). I think there was something in there about ending terrorism too. So how can we condone warm relations with an "ally" country that allows this to happen to a rape victim? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7106234.stm Is that promoting freedom and human rights? Some cite our supposed alliance with the Saudis against terrorism. But Saudi Arabia is the spiritual center of Wahabism. And where is the AQ in Afghanistan getting its money? I doubt the local goat farmers are passing the hat around. Why not just admit it's all realpolitik, and our governments will do whatever's expedient to make sure we can get our oil? Especially after Gordon Brown's cozy meeting with the Saudi king last week. For the record, I am not anti-Islam, anti-American, or anti-anything but sickening hypocrisy.
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship, has OIL. That's your justification.
2 :
They can't, of course. Nor can the relationship with Pakistan be justified, or a whole number of questionable regimes from around the world. But the public hears what the powers that be want them to hear. Aside from a small minority of people who have taken it upon themselves to seek information about the way the world truly works, the rest are subjected to the mass media machine that bombards them with propaganda on a daily basis. Thus is America's worldview distorted. If the public were truly informed, I don't think they would stand for what either of the main political machine stands for. I remain optimistic in that I believe that deep down, the mass of the population is still fundamentally moral and that they would object to profiteering.
3 :
Do you like to drive your vehicle? Heat your home? Live in a consumer society and buy things? Of course the Saudi dont promote human rights but they have oil.....welcome to the real world. In WW2 the US/UK allied with the Soviet Union to defeat Germany. By then Stalin had killed as many people as Hitler's Germany (starvation in the 1930s) Cassacks, Polish officers and yet they were on "our side"..
4 :
They really can`t........ but for oil they`re prepared to do anything.
5 :
oil
6 :
Oil, the international lubricant.
7 :
I agree, and I applaud you for not believing everything youre told. In fact, Saudi Arabia is not the only ally that has civil rights violations. Turkey oppresses the Kurds as Iraq did. We just dont hear about it on the news. Youre right, its all about (bad) diplomacy. Its about securing our national interests under the auspises of maintaning order. Those who actually research the issue find that it the governments justification doesnt hold up to scrutiny. How did we get to Iraq from the twin towers anyway? There was NO connection. None of the hijacksers were from Iraq... They were from Saudi Arabia - a place that uses stoning and has absurd laws reguarding women. The atrocities in this article are not unusual for this country. Theres a long, documented history of twisted laws and even more twisted punishments in Saudi Arabia. No wonder why the middle east thinks were hippocrites. If we want to prove how much better we are, we need to stand up against our governments bad decisions. We have a constitutional RIGHT to make our government uphold OUR values. Not the values of warped foreign monarchs, corrupt CEOs, or religious fanatics (sorry, I just had to include everyone. No disrespect to reasonable religious adherents).
8 :
Saudi Arabia not only has oil ,but along with China they are lending money to Bush daily . Our National debt is raised by $1.48 billion dollars a day for over the last 15 months now.
9 :
Anybody who has read William Engdahl’s excellent book ‘A Century of War – Anglo-American oil politics and the New World Order’ (reviewed here), will not be surprised to learn that the convoluted machinations of those who rule empires, whether past or present, are intrinsic to the workings of the ruling class. History reveals that a mere handful relatively speaking of individuals are able to determine the fate of millions through the economic and political power they wield. The role of the political class that represents the interests of the owners of economic power is to maintain the rule of the owners of capital by making damn sure that opposition is neutralised and/or made to look ridiculous or ultimately ‘removed’. Hence the ‘loony left’, ‘fellow travellers’, ‘dinosaurs’ et al are but a few of the pejoratives the corporate/state-run media use to marginalise the views of those who oppose such power. But in times of crisis and failing propaganda and persuasion, more extreme measures need to be taken and such people and movements need to be re-labelled as ‘extremists’ or a ‘danger to the state’. Laws are passed making such opposition illegal, such as those now being enacted, even thinking ‘seditious’ thoughts become the subject of the state’s wrath. A quick scan of the media reveals the tactics used; President Chavez is described as a ‘leftist with authoritarian ambitions’, Castro as a ‘Marxist dictator’, and anybody who opposes the rule of capital is invariably labelled as an ‘opponent of the free market’ or ‘anti-privatisation’; a ‘demagogue’ and so on and so forth. Attempts are made to link ‘leftists’ to ‘extremists’ and even to ‘terrorists’. Such terms, in use for so long, trigger conditioned reflexes in the reader, the associations are buried deep in the public’s mind as ‘received opinion’; all thinking ceases; we metaphorically salivate when we hear or read the terms and dismiss such people and ideas as beyond the pale or even dangerous to our health. Critics of those of us who analyse the workings of our rulers are quick to dismiss us as ‘conspiracists’, nutty people who apparently have nothing else to do with our time but weave complex plots, spun out of what are, at least according to the pundits, accidents of time and place, mere serendipity. This is of course a tactic to relegate our opinions to ‘Area 51’, and obviously there are those who do spin complex webs, making connections where none exist. But connections do exist between events, else there would be no cause and effect, no one with interests and objectives they’d rather not reveal to the world for what they are, vested interests and real criminal conspiracies. That it’s governments or business doing the conspiring doesn’t make them any the less conspiracies, indeed it makes them all the more dangerous because of the immense power they wield. Without connections the world would be one of chaos and happenstance, a world where as Margaret Thatcher said, “there is no such thing as societyâ€, an obviously loony idea but one that has a subversive appeal, as it implies that circumstances are ultimately beyond our control hence why bother as there is nothing we can do about it. The implication is that we are at the mercy of ‘natural’ forces, hence capitalism for example, is a ‘force of nature’. The intended result of course is that we adopt a position of fatalism, very convenient for our rulers, they can get on with the business of ruling undisturbed by ‘winters of discontent’. The problem of course is that any investigation of events does reveal vested interests, possessing economic and political power is not an accident and rarely is its possession the result of good intentions or a social conscience. As Engdahl’s book reveals, the past 100 years and more have been shaped by a small group of individuals who possess vast wealth intimately connected to an equally small group of people who possess enormous political power. The centres of their economic power are predictably energy, banking, weapons and communications and maintaining control of such enormous power inevitably connects directly into the comparable key areas of government; trade, investment, ‘defence’ and foreign policy. Those who sit on the boards of big corporations are also found in key government positions and they regularly make the trip back and forth between the two in a revolving door relationship. The examples are numerous, the most obvious being for example in the UK, the relationship between the Blair government and British Petroleum or in the US, between the Bush regime and Halliburton and the big oil companies. Is identifying such connections an invention, a conspiracy or a reflection of the common interests of those who hold economic power and the political class that seeks to maintain an environment that preserves that power? Most importantly, to what lengths will they go in order to maintain their power? Considering what’s at stake it is no surprise that there is virtually nothing they won’t do in order to maintain the status quo including murdering their own citizens, attacking sovereign states, concocting ‘threats’ and fabricating entire ‘histories’ to justify their piratical ways. The apologists for such activities would have us believe that such actions belong to the past, the past being conveniently, well before the current crop of rulers inherited power. St. Paul, on the road to Damascus is said to have gone through a major conversion, he proverbially ‘saw the light’ and in all likelihood there are many of us who experienced a comparable flash of illumination when the forces of Darkness invaded Iraq and came to rational and well-founded conclusions about the relationship between war and economics – the two go hand-in-hand, to pretend otherwise is either sheer ignorance or deliberate deception. The mainstream media was (and still is) all to quick to condemn all those who cried ‘it’s all about oil’ as ‘conspiracists’ and in their haste to condemn us they revealed much about their own ideological leanings, leanings that would have us believe that the invaders were actually operating out of concern for the Iraqi people. Indeed, the mainstream media was awash with apologists for the invaders. Most are now noticeable by their absence given the results of the invasion and occupation. Most noticeable is the absence of any alternative explanation for the invasion except the laughable “failure of intelligenceâ€, which only a cretin would actually believe. By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? .… While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies – Dick Cheney in 1999, then CEO of oil services company Halliburton So, is it all about oil? For over 100 years oil has been lifeblood of capitalism, two world wars have been waged over possession of it, but not merely its possession but because without it, the larger economic objectives of capitalism would be unrealisable, hence to say it’s all about oil is only part of the answer. Oil fuels the armies, powers the factories and control of its production and distribution enables the West to exert control over the natural resources needed to make the entire shambolic enterprise lurch from crisis to crisis and of course, make profits for the shareholders. It is, when all’s said and done, astounding simple, one might say juvenile were it all not so murderous of millions. British officials believed that the area [the Middle East] was a “vital prize for any power interested in world or domination[2], while their US counterparts saw the oil resources of Saudi Arabia as a “stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world historyâ€. A report, ‘Crude Designs – The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth’, available here, is a comprehensive analysis of the centrality of oil to the invasion of Iraq and for anyone who is really interested in the real motivations behind the invasion and occupation, it is required reading. I’ll do my best to produce an overview of its findings as understanding what is really going on is central to countering all the nonsense surrounding the policies and actions of our governments and those who would condemn us as ‘conspiracists’ or defend the motivations of our rulers as ‘humanitarian’. Much has been made in the corporate/state-run media of Blair being some kind of ‘restraining influence’ on Bush and the ‘neo-cons’ but as the report makes abundantly clear, US-UK foreign and energy and military policies are ‘joined at the hip’ and have been so for the past century and in spite of the rivalries. As Jack Straw made clear in January 2003, “…one of the Foreign Office’s seven priorities was “to bolster the security of British and global energy supplies.†The geography of such a strategy had been spelled out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review White Paper: Outside Europe our interests are most likely to be affected by events in the Gulf and Mediterranean. Instability in these areas also carries wider risks. We have particularly important national interests and close friendships in the Gulf. Oil supplies from the Gulf are crucial to the world economy.†And lest anyone think that the UK government’s relationship with the major oil companies is not central, a later paper states that a key objective is to “improve investment regimes and energy sector management in these regions [the Middle East, parts of Africa and the former Soviet Union], focusing on key links in the supply chain to the UK [emph. in the original]†And, as the report demonstrates the US-UK relationship is no ‘one-night- stand’, but an on-going relationship a century-old. Moreover the label ‘neo-con’ is a total misnomer, for whilst it may well be true that Bush is some kind of weird Christian fundamentalist and his close associates are heavily involved with Israel’s imperialist strategy, it is a big mistake to confuse the ideology of Bush or that of Israel with the fundamental strategic/economic interests of the US (and UK). This is made abundantly clear by the ‘parting of the ways’ of the ‘traditionalists’ within the US ruling elite currently taking place as the Middle East strategy of the Bush regime goes pear-shaped, revealing the fact that as long as objectives can be realised, Bush’s ‘peculiar’ ideas are neither here nor there in the larger scheme of things. Importantly, the policies of America and Britain are coordinated. The US-UK Energy Dialogue – a bilateral initiative established during the April 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in Crawford, Texas,[3] and designed to “enhance coordination and cooperation on energy issues†– demonstrates the close convergence of Anglo-American views and interests on Middle Eastern oil. The relationship between economics and politics is revealed by the following quote taken from the Executive Summary The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the [Iraqi] Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political; technically they keep legal ownership in state hands, while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.[1] The report describes the background as well as the context leading up to the invasion and occupation; the key players and their interests and connections as well as supplying a detailed analysis of the effects of the Iraqi ‘government’ signing away not only its one and only natural resource, oil, but in doing so, also renouncing its sovereignty and democratic control over it. As the report states, “PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decadesâ€. The potential losses to the Iraqi people are staggering, the most conservative estimates puts it at $94 billion over the usual (25 year length of a PSA contract) assuming oil at $40 per barrel and $250 billion if the cost is $50 per barrel! The degree of influence of both the US and UK governments over future Iraqi oil policy is revealed by the following “We discuss with the Iraqi Ministries their priorities on a regular basis.â€[4] Freedom of information requests on the nature of the discussions have been turned down because advice was “voluminousâ€.[5] So too with the US. When the Coalition Provisional Authority ‘handed over power’ to the Iraqi Interim Government, a senior US official said “We’re still here. We’ll be paying a lot of attention and we’ll have a lot of influence. We’re going to have the world’s largest diplomatic mission with a significant amount of political weight.â€[6] An important aspect of the debate around Iraq’s oil has hinged on the issue of ‘privatisation’ which has, according to the report obscured the nature of the PSA, for as the report states, it’s “who gets the revenue and who controls the way in which oil is developed†that counts. PSAs first appeared in Indonesia in the late 1960s (not surprisingly following the US-inspired and backed overthrow of Sukarno). PSAs are an “ingenious arrangement†as “PSAs shift the ownership of oil from companies to the state, and invert the flow of payments between state and company.†Traditionally, the relationship between the foreign oil companies and the state was based on royalty payments (and still is in the major oil- producing countries of the world such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), with the oil company taking the investment risk. PSAs reverse this process. PSAs are an ingenious arrangement for although “… the oil is still legally in the hands of the state, foreign companies are compensated for their investment in oil production infrastructure and for the risks they take.†PSAs are “A convenient marriage between the politically useful symbolism of the production-sharing contract (appearance of a service contract to the state company acting as master) and the material equivalence of this contract model with concession/licence regimes in all significant aspects…The government can be seen to be running the show – and the company can run it behind the camouflage of legal title symbolising the assertion of national sovereignty.â€[7] The report states the following facts about PSAs A right to oil reserves. Companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. An opportunity to make large profits. Generally, oil companies make their profits from investing and risking their capital. In some cases, they lose their capital, for example when they drill a ‘dry well’. But in some cases they will find large and hugely profitable fields. Oil companies are therefore very different from service companies like Halliburton, which make money from fixed fees on predictable contracts. Oil companies aim for deals which may be more speculative, but which give them a chance of making super-profits. Production sharing agreements are designed to allow companies to achieve very large profits if successful. Predictability of tax and regulation. While companies can accept exploration risk (that they won’t find oil) or price risk (that the oil price falls), both being beyond their control, they try to manage ‘political risk’ (that tax or regulatory demands will increase) by locking in governments. They thus seek to bind governments into long-term contracts that fix the terms of their investment. Production sharing agreements generally last for 25 to 40 years with terms protected from potential change by incoming governments. PSAs are also incredibly complex legal documents that require an army of sophisticated legal eagles not only to draft but to understand. PSAs generally consist of several hundred pages of legal and financial language (often treated as commercially confidential). It is their complexity, not their simplicity, which is advantageous to oil companies … [O]il companies dislike royalties and prefer systems based in an assessment of profits, such as PSAs. The reason is that they want what they call ‘upside’ (i.e. opportunities for greater profits) – ways they can reduce their payments, rather than being subject to a fixed level of payment for oil extracted … The more complicated the system, the more opportunities there are for a company to maximise their share of the revenue by sophisticated use of accountancy techniques. What we call ‘creative accounting’ of the kind Enron was so adept at. And the potential profits are “staggeringâ€, as much 178 per cent compared to an average 12 per cent return on investment, assuming oil at $40 a barrel, not very likely in the near term. With current price at around $60 per barrel, the oil execs are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on the biggest oil reserves on the planet (from 100-200 billion barrels). “Production-sharing deals allow oil companies a favourable profit margin and, unlike royalty schemes, insulate them from losses incurred when the oil price drops. For years, big oil companies have been fighting for such agreements in countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.â€[8] The corporate lobby group ITIC (the International Tax & Investment Centre) with most of its 110 listed sponsors large corporations a quarter of which are oil companies is perhaps the best example of the role of big capital in ripping off Iraq and it advocates the use of PSAs. Yet the report’s assessment is that it is … difficult to overstate how radical a departure PSAs would be from normal practice, both in Iraq and in other comparable countries of the region … Iraq’s neighbours Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia, foreign control of oil is ruled out by constitution or by national law. But the interim constitution forced on the Iraqi people made quite sure that the terms over which Iraq’s oil would extracted would not be subject to oversight or control by the Iraqi people, “Pre-empting both the Iraqi elections and the drafting of a new constitution, Allawi’s guidelines specified that while Iraq’s currently producing fields should be developed by the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), all other fields should be developed by private companies, through the contractual mechanism of production sharing agreements (PSAs).â€[9] The meshing of state and business objectives is made clear by the report and the key role of PSAs play in the policies of both the US and the UK. If the US-UK oil companies and their political/military capos get their way Iraq “along with much of its future income, could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.†That’s assuming it ever gets a democratic government. Notes [1] The terminology of PSAs labels the private companies as “contractorsâ€. This report illustrates that this label is misleading because PSAs give companies control over oil development and access to extensive profits. [2] Introductory paper on the Middle East by the UK, undated [1947], FRUS, 1947, Vol. V, p. 569, cited in Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power (Zed Books, London, 1995), p. 21 [3] US Department of Commerce, Memorandum for the President, Transmittal of the Report on the US-UK Energy Dialogue, 30 July 2003 [4] Dr Kim Howells MP, answer to Parliamentary Question by Harry Cohen MP, 12 July 2005, Hansard column 878W [5] James McLaughlin (Iraq Policy Unit, Foreign & Commonwealth Office), letter to Lorne Stockman (PLATFORM), response to request under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, 9 December 2004 [6] Jim Krane, “US will retain sovereign power in Iraq,†Associated Press, 21 March, 2004 [7] Professor Thomas W Wälde, an expert in oil law at the University of Dundee, ‘The current status of international petroleum investment: regulating, licensing, taxing and contracting’, in CEPMLP Journal, Vol 1, no.5, July 1995 (pub. University of Dundee) [8] Carola Hoyos, ‘Exiles Call for Iraq to Let in Oil Companies’, Financial Times, 7 April 2003 [9] Energy Compass, ‘Iraq: Puzzling over the future’, 1 October 2004 Crude Designs – The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth. Lead Publisher PLATFORM is an interdisciplinary organisation working on issues of environmental and social justice. http://www.carbonweb.org US co-publishers Global Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations, promotes accountability of global decisions, educates and mobilizes for global citizen participation, and advocates on vital issues of international peace and justice. http://www.globalpolicy.org The Institute for Policy Studies. strengthens social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials.http://www.ips-dc.org Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political barriers to that transition. http://www.priceofoil.org UK co-publishers The New Economics Foundation (NEF) works to construct a new economy centred on people and the environment. http://www.neweconomics.org War on Want is a UK-based campaigning charity. Founded in 1951 it has links to the labour movement and supports progressive, people-centred development projects around the world. http://www.waronwant.org
Ostensibly, the purpose of the Iraq invasion was to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people living under a regime of fear (if you believe the Bush people). I think there was something in there about ending terrorism too. So how can we condone warm relations with an "ally" country that allows this to happen to a rape victim? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7106234.stm Is that promoting freedom and human rights? Some cite our supposed alliance with the Saudis against terrorism. But Saudi Arabia is the spiritual center of Wahabism. And where is the AQ in Afghanistan getting its money? I doubt the local goat farmers are passing the hat around. Why not just admit it's all realpolitik, and our governments will do whatever's expedient to make sure we can get our oil? Especially after Gordon Brown's cozy meeting with the Saudi king last week. For the record, I am not anti-Islam, anti-American, or anti-anything but sickening hypocrisy.
Politics - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship, has OIL. That's your justification.
2 :
They can't, of course. Nor can the relationship with Pakistan be justified, or a whole number of questionable regimes from around the world. But the public hears what the powers that be want them to hear. Aside from a small minority of people who have taken it upon themselves to seek information about the way the world truly works, the rest are subjected to the mass media machine that bombards them with propaganda on a daily basis. Thus is America's worldview distorted. If the public were truly informed, I don't think they would stand for what either of the main political machine stands for. I remain optimistic in that I believe that deep down, the mass of the population is still fundamentally moral and that they would object to profiteering.
3 :
Do you like to drive your vehicle? Heat your home? Live in a consumer society and buy things? Of course the Saudi dont promote human rights but they have oil.....welcome to the real world. In WW2 the US/UK allied with the Soviet Union to defeat Germany. By then Stalin had killed as many people as Hitler's Germany (starvation in the 1930s) Cassacks, Polish officers and yet they were on "our side"..
4 :
They really can`t........ but for oil they`re prepared to do anything.
5 :
oil
6 :
Oil, the international lubricant.
7 :
I agree, and I applaud you for not believing everything youre told. In fact, Saudi Arabia is not the only ally that has civil rights violations. Turkey oppresses the Kurds as Iraq did. We just dont hear about it on the news. Youre right, its all about (bad) diplomacy. Its about securing our national interests under the auspises of maintaning order. Those who actually research the issue find that it the governments justification doesnt hold up to scrutiny. How did we get to Iraq from the twin towers anyway? There was NO connection. None of the hijacksers were from Iraq... They were from Saudi Arabia - a place that uses stoning and has absurd laws reguarding women. The atrocities in this article are not unusual for this country. Theres a long, documented history of twisted laws and even more twisted punishments in Saudi Arabia. No wonder why the middle east thinks were hippocrites. If we want to prove how much better we are, we need to stand up against our governments bad decisions. We have a constitutional RIGHT to make our government uphold OUR values. Not the values of warped foreign monarchs, corrupt CEOs, or religious fanatics (sorry, I just had to include everyone. No disrespect to reasonable religious adherents).
8 :
Saudi Arabia not only has oil ,but along with China they are lending money to Bush daily . Our National debt is raised by $1.48 billion dollars a day for over the last 15 months now.
9 :
Anybody who has read William Engdahl’s excellent book ‘A Century of War – Anglo-American oil politics and the New World Order’ (reviewed here), will not be surprised to learn that the convoluted machinations of those who rule empires, whether past or present, are intrinsic to the workings of the ruling class. History reveals that a mere handful relatively speaking of individuals are able to determine the fate of millions through the economic and political power they wield. The role of the political class that represents the interests of the owners of economic power is to maintain the rule of the owners of capital by making damn sure that opposition is neutralised and/or made to look ridiculous or ultimately ‘removed’. Hence the ‘loony left’, ‘fellow travellers’, ‘dinosaurs’ et al are but a few of the pejoratives the corporate/state-run media use to marginalise the views of those who oppose such power. But in times of crisis and failing propaganda and persuasion, more extreme measures need to be taken and such people and movements need to be re-labelled as ‘extremists’ or a ‘danger to the state’. Laws are passed making such opposition illegal, such as those now being enacted, even thinking ‘seditious’ thoughts become the subject of the state’s wrath. A quick scan of the media reveals the tactics used; President Chavez is described as a ‘leftist with authoritarian ambitions’, Castro as a ‘Marxist dictator’, and anybody who opposes the rule of capital is invariably labelled as an ‘opponent of the free market’ or ‘anti-privatisation’; a ‘demagogue’ and so on and so forth. Attempts are made to link ‘leftists’ to ‘extremists’ and even to ‘terrorists’. Such terms, in use for so long, trigger conditioned reflexes in the reader, the associations are buried deep in the public’s mind as ‘received opinion’; all thinking ceases; we metaphorically salivate when we hear or read the terms and dismiss such people and ideas as beyond the pale or even dangerous to our health. Critics of those of us who analyse the workings of our rulers are quick to dismiss us as ‘conspiracists’, nutty people who apparently have nothing else to do with our time but weave complex plots, spun out of what are, at least according to the pundits, accidents of time and place, mere serendipity. This is of course a tactic to relegate our opinions to ‘Area 51’, and obviously there are those who do spin complex webs, making connections where none exist. But connections do exist between events, else there would be no cause and effect, no one with interests and objectives they’d rather not reveal to the world for what they are, vested interests and real criminal conspiracies. That it’s governments or business doing the conspiring doesn’t make them any the less conspiracies, indeed it makes them all the more dangerous because of the immense power they wield. Without connections the world would be one of chaos and happenstance, a world where as Margaret Thatcher said, “there is no such thing as societyâ€, an obviously loony idea but one that has a subversive appeal, as it implies that circumstances are ultimately beyond our control hence why bother as there is nothing we can do about it. The implication is that we are at the mercy of ‘natural’ forces, hence capitalism for example, is a ‘force of nature’. The intended result of course is that we adopt a position of fatalism, very convenient for our rulers, they can get on with the business of ruling undisturbed by ‘winters of discontent’. The problem of course is that any investigation of events does reveal vested interests, possessing economic and political power is not an accident and rarely is its possession the result of good intentions or a social conscience. As Engdahl’s book reveals, the past 100 years and more have been shaped by a small group of individuals who possess vast wealth intimately connected to an equally small group of people who possess enormous political power. The centres of their economic power are predictably energy, banking, weapons and communications and maintaining control of such enormous power inevitably connects directly into the comparable key areas of government; trade, investment, ‘defence’ and foreign policy. Those who sit on the boards of big corporations are also found in key government positions and they regularly make the trip back and forth between the two in a revolving door relationship. The examples are numerous, the most obvious being for example in the UK, the relationship between the Blair government and British Petroleum or in the US, between the Bush regime and Halliburton and the big oil companies. Is identifying such connections an invention, a conspiracy or a reflection of the common interests of those who hold economic power and the political class that seeks to maintain an environment that preserves that power? Most importantly, to what lengths will they go in order to maintain their power? Considering what’s at stake it is no surprise that there is virtually nothing they won’t do in order to maintain the status quo including murdering their own citizens, attacking sovereign states, concocting ‘threats’ and fabricating entire ‘histories’ to justify their piratical ways. The apologists for such activities would have us believe that such actions belong to the past, the past being conveniently, well before the current crop of rulers inherited power. St. Paul, on the road to Damascus is said to have gone through a major conversion, he proverbially ‘saw the light’ and in all likelihood there are many of us who experienced a comparable flash of illumination when the forces of Darkness invaded Iraq and came to rational and well-founded conclusions about the relationship between war and economics – the two go hand-in-hand, to pretend otherwise is either sheer ignorance or deliberate deception. The mainstream media was (and still is) all to quick to condemn all those who cried ‘it’s all about oil’ as ‘conspiracists’ and in their haste to condemn us they revealed much about their own ideological leanings, leanings that would have us believe that the invaders were actually operating out of concern for the Iraqi people. Indeed, the mainstream media was awash with apologists for the invaders. Most are now noticeable by their absence given the results of the invasion and occupation. Most noticeable is the absence of any alternative explanation for the invasion except the laughable “failure of intelligenceâ€, which only a cretin would actually believe. By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? .… While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies – Dick Cheney in 1999, then CEO of oil services company Halliburton So, is it all about oil? For over 100 years oil has been lifeblood of capitalism, two world wars have been waged over possession of it, but not merely its possession but because without it, the larger economic objectives of capitalism would be unrealisable, hence to say it’s all about oil is only part of the answer. Oil fuels the armies, powers the factories and control of its production and distribution enables the West to exert control over the natural resources needed to make the entire shambolic enterprise lurch from crisis to crisis and of course, make profits for the shareholders. It is, when all’s said and done, astounding simple, one might say juvenile were it all not so murderous of millions. British officials believed that the area [the Middle East] was a “vital prize for any power interested in world or domination[2], while their US counterparts saw the oil resources of Saudi Arabia as a “stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world historyâ€. A report, ‘Crude Designs – The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth’, available here, is a comprehensive analysis of the centrality of oil to the invasion of Iraq and for anyone who is really interested in the real motivations behind the invasion and occupation, it is required reading. I’ll do my best to produce an overview of its findings as understanding what is really going on is central to countering all the nonsense surrounding the policies and actions of our governments and those who would condemn us as ‘conspiracists’ or defend the motivations of our rulers as ‘humanitarian’. Much has been made in the corporate/state-run media of Blair being some kind of ‘restraining influence’ on Bush and the ‘neo-cons’ but as the report makes abundantly clear, US-UK foreign and energy and military policies are ‘joined at the hip’ and have been so for the past century and in spite of the rivalries. As Jack Straw made clear in January 2003, “…one of the Foreign Office’s seven priorities was “to bolster the security of British and global energy supplies.†The geography of such a strategy had been spelled out in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review White Paper: Outside Europe our interests are most likely to be affected by events in the Gulf and Mediterranean. Instability in these areas also carries wider risks. We have particularly important national interests and close friendships in the Gulf. Oil supplies from the Gulf are crucial to the world economy.†And lest anyone think that the UK government’s relationship with the major oil companies is not central, a later paper states that a key objective is to “improve investment regimes and energy sector management in these regions [the Middle East, parts of Africa and the former Soviet Union], focusing on key links in the supply chain to the UK [emph. in the original]†And, as the report demonstrates the US-UK relationship is no ‘one-night- stand’, but an on-going relationship a century-old. Moreover the label ‘neo-con’ is a total misnomer, for whilst it may well be true that Bush is some kind of weird Christian fundamentalist and his close associates are heavily involved with Israel’s imperialist strategy, it is a big mistake to confuse the ideology of Bush or that of Israel with the fundamental strategic/economic interests of the US (and UK). This is made abundantly clear by the ‘parting of the ways’ of the ‘traditionalists’ within the US ruling elite currently taking place as the Middle East strategy of the Bush regime goes pear-shaped, revealing the fact that as long as objectives can be realised, Bush’s ‘peculiar’ ideas are neither here nor there in the larger scheme of things. Importantly, the policies of America and Britain are coordinated. The US-UK Energy Dialogue – a bilateral initiative established during the April 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in Crawford, Texas,[3] and designed to “enhance coordination and cooperation on energy issues†– demonstrates the close convergence of Anglo-American views and interests on Middle Eastern oil. The relationship between economics and politics is revealed by the following quote taken from the Executive Summary The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the [Iraqi] Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political; technically they keep legal ownership in state hands, while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.[1] The report describes the background as well as the context leading up to the invasion and occupation; the key players and their interests and connections as well as supplying a detailed analysis of the effects of the Iraqi ‘government’ signing away not only its one and only natural resource, oil, but in doing so, also renouncing its sovereignty and democratic control over it. As the report states, “PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decadesâ€. The potential losses to the Iraqi people are staggering, the most conservative estimates puts it at $94 billion over the usual (25 year length of a PSA contract) assuming oil at $40 per barrel and $250 billion if the cost is $50 per barrel! The degree of influence of both the US and UK governments over future Iraqi oil policy is revealed by the following “We discuss with the Iraqi Ministries their priorities on a regular basis.â€[4] Freedom of information requests on the nature of the discussions have been turned down because advice was “voluminousâ€.[5] So too with the US. When the Coalition Provisional Authority ‘handed over power’ to the Iraqi Interim Government, a senior US official said “We’re still here. We’ll be paying a lot of attention and we’ll have a lot of influence. We’re going to have the world’s largest diplomatic mission with a significant amount of political weight.â€[6] An important aspect of the debate around Iraq’s oil has hinged on the issue of ‘privatisation’ which has, according to the report obscured the nature of the PSA, for as the report states, it’s “who gets the revenue and who controls the way in which oil is developed†that counts. PSAs first appeared in Indonesia in the late 1960s (not surprisingly following the US-inspired and backed overthrow of Sukarno). PSAs are an “ingenious arrangement†as “PSAs shift the ownership of oil from companies to the state, and invert the flow of payments between state and company.†Traditionally, the relationship between the foreign oil companies and the state was based on royalty payments (and still is in the major oil- producing countries of the world such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), with the oil company taking the investment risk. PSAs reverse this process. PSAs are an ingenious arrangement for although “… the oil is still legally in the hands of the state, foreign companies are compensated for their investment in oil production infrastructure and for the risks they take.†PSAs are “A convenient marriage between the politically useful symbolism of the production-sharing contract (appearance of a service contract to the state company acting as master) and the material equivalence of this contract model with concession/licence regimes in all significant aspects…The government can be seen to be running the show – and the company can run it behind the camouflage of legal title symbolising the assertion of national sovereignty.â€[7] The report states the following facts about PSAs A right to oil reserves. Companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. An opportunity to make large profits. Generally, oil companies make their profits from investing and risking their capital. In some cases, they lose their capital, for example when they drill a ‘dry well’. But in some cases they will find large and hugely profitable fields. Oil companies are therefore very different from service companies like Halliburton, which make money from fixed fees on predictable contracts. Oil companies aim for deals which may be more speculative, but which give them a chance of making super-profits. Production sharing agreements are designed to allow companies to achieve very large profits if successful. Predictability of tax and regulation. While companies can accept exploration risk (that they won’t find oil) or price risk (that the oil price falls), both being beyond their control, they try to manage ‘political risk’ (that tax or regulatory demands will increase) by locking in governments. They thus seek to bind governments into long-term contracts that fix the terms of their investment. Production sharing agreements generally last for 25 to 40 years with terms protected from potential change by incoming governments. PSAs are also incredibly complex legal documents that require an army of sophisticated legal eagles not only to draft but to understand. PSAs generally consist of several hundred pages of legal and financial language (often treated as commercially confidential). It is their complexity, not their simplicity, which is advantageous to oil companies … [O]il companies dislike royalties and prefer systems based in an assessment of profits, such as PSAs. The reason is that they want what they call ‘upside’ (i.e. opportunities for greater profits) – ways they can reduce their payments, rather than being subject to a fixed level of payment for oil extracted … The more complicated the system, the more opportunities there are for a company to maximise their share of the revenue by sophisticated use of accountancy techniques. What we call ‘creative accounting’ of the kind Enron was so adept at. And the potential profits are “staggeringâ€, as much 178 per cent compared to an average 12 per cent return on investment, assuming oil at $40 a barrel, not very likely in the near term. With current price at around $60 per barrel, the oil execs are salivating at the thought of getting their hands on the biggest oil reserves on the planet (from 100-200 billion barrels). “Production-sharing deals allow oil companies a favourable profit margin and, unlike royalty schemes, insulate them from losses incurred when the oil price drops. For years, big oil companies have been fighting for such agreements in countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.â€[8] The corporate lobby group ITIC (the International Tax & Investment Centre) with most of its 110 listed sponsors large corporations a quarter of which are oil companies is perhaps the best example of the role of big capital in ripping off Iraq and it advocates the use of PSAs. Yet the report’s assessment is that it is … difficult to overstate how radical a departure PSAs would be from normal practice, both in Iraq and in other comparable countries of the region … Iraq’s neighbours Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia, foreign control of oil is ruled out by constitution or by national law. But the interim constitution forced on the Iraqi people made quite sure that the terms over which Iraq’s oil would extracted would not be subject to oversight or control by the Iraqi people, “Pre-empting both the Iraqi elections and the drafting of a new constitution, Allawi’s guidelines specified that while Iraq’s currently producing fields should be developed by the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), all other fields should be developed by private companies, through the contractual mechanism of production sharing agreements (PSAs).â€[9] The meshing of state and business objectives is made clear by the report and the key role of PSAs play in the policies of both the US and the UK. If the US-UK oil companies and their political/military capos get their way Iraq “along with much of its future income, could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.†That’s assuming it ever gets a democratic government. Notes [1] The terminology of PSAs labels the private companies as “contractorsâ€. This report illustrates that this label is misleading because PSAs give companies control over oil development and access to extensive profits. [2] Introductory paper on the Middle East by the UK, undated [1947], FRUS, 1947, Vol. V, p. 569, cited in Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power (Zed Books, London, 1995), p. 21 [3] US Department of Commerce, Memorandum for the President, Transmittal of the Report on the US-UK Energy Dialogue, 30 July 2003 [4] Dr Kim Howells MP, answer to Parliamentary Question by Harry Cohen MP, 12 July 2005, Hansard column 878W [5] James McLaughlin (Iraq Policy Unit, Foreign & Commonwealth Office), letter to Lorne Stockman (PLATFORM), response to request under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, 9 December 2004 [6] Jim Krane, “US will retain sovereign power in Iraq,†Associated Press, 21 March, 2004 [7] Professor Thomas W Wälde, an expert in oil law at the University of Dundee, ‘The current status of international petroleum investment: regulating, licensing, taxing and contracting’, in CEPMLP Journal, Vol 1, no.5, July 1995 (pub. University of Dundee) [8] Carola Hoyos, ‘Exiles Call for Iraq to Let in Oil Companies’, Financial Times, 7 April 2003 [9] Energy Compass, ‘Iraq: Puzzling over the future’, 1 October 2004 Crude Designs – The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth. Lead Publisher PLATFORM is an interdisciplinary organisation working on issues of environmental and social justice. http://www.carbonweb.org US co-publishers Global Policy Forum monitors policy making at the United Nations, promotes accountability of global decisions, educates and mobilizes for global citizen participation, and advocates on vital issues of international peace and justice. http://www.globalpolicy.org The Institute for Policy Studies. strengthens social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials.http://www.ips-dc.org Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of oil and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming political barriers to that transition. http://www.priceofoil.org UK co-publishers The New Economics Foundation (NEF) works to construct a new economy centred on people and the environment. http://www.neweconomics.org War on Want is a UK-based campaigning charity. Founded in 1951 it has links to the labour movement and supports progressive, people-centred development projects around the world. http://www.waronwant.org
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What are some "taboo" questions in Saudi?
What are some "taboo" questions in Saudi?
For example, in US, you never ask anyone about how much money they make... it is considered rude and intrusive, but you could ask someone how is their husband or wife no problem (which I think may be taboo in Saudi Arabia). arachdog, I kind of meant more like what Saudis don't ask each other. By the way, there is nothing wrong with steak. Just pork.
Saudi Arabia - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the Saudi culture is diverse. I asked a friend of mine who is Saudi and a physician about this- if a non relative asks one for dinner it is taboo to ask if the mrs is joining him. It is very intrusive to ask about relationship- how they met etc .however she said it all depends on the level of "tribal pride" and their traditional upbringing. She comes from a more modernized family that some females don't even wear veilsexcept in the required public area.
2 :
Religion, Sex & Politics.
3 :
You as a women wont ask the hostess or another saudi lady about her husband... You can ask "how is the family" in general terms.. but never call him by his name.. NEVER say something like "How is Ahmed today"... just not done... And also if the husband just happens to walk through the room.. you can just quickly say Salaam alaykum and always refer to him as Abu______.. never say his given name.. Erm.. I also learned quick never to compliment someones jewelry, wardrobe, or knickknacks around their house.. you end up leaving with a little gift.. Something about you giving them the eye or something.. they feel they have to gift you that item.. so its really rude to do this... You can just generally again compliment things on a whole.. like"OH.. nice room or nice decorations.. or Nice outfit... but never be specific.. unless she asks you first... .. Oh and this is a little off subject.. but since (Im assuming you are coming from USA).. you will get tons of nosy women asking YOU the personall questions.. They want to secretly trap you into finding out if you had sex before marriage to a muslim,, or if you converted just cause you wanted him, or just cause you wanted to come to saudi... Just politely avoid these questions.. Or if they get too nosy.. I ask them the exact same thing back..and that surely shuts them up quick.... But the polite hostess would never ask you.. she's just be happy you are there... but these women get bored and they are gossip queens.. they will ask some of the most outrageous questions.. you'd be surprised... looooooooool.. but anyways.. you'll enjoy it. just keep an open mind and a light heart and laugh through it all... Welcome!....
4 :
If you're with a group of people, dont bring up tribal topics or topics of roots origins, because they'd like to aviod such topics given their different backgrounds. Unless if you are really close friends then its ok. More in Riyadh than Jeddah but still good to know. Generally speaking though, Saudis are laid back and can laugh at anything really. Some women might be... Mintee explained it well I think and didnt leave much to say. Oh and personal stuff sometimes can be said but not in front of others. For example if you meet a girl that you know and want to ask her details about her marriage or wedding, specific questions. Or about how her parents liked the husband in the beginning etc.... some might find no problem talking about it, but not in front of others. So no personal questions in front of others, unless if she brings up the topic then its considered to be fine. Sometimes vague answers are meant to be so to aviod answering your question, at other times, its simply because the person isnt that precise. Its one of those things that you can just feel when you get used to it. Nothing is REALLY taboo I think, let alone the fact that knowing you're American people would be much more understanding if you say something thats kinda rude, they'd know you didnt mean it :)
For example, in US, you never ask anyone about how much money they make... it is considered rude and intrusive, but you could ask someone how is their husband or wife no problem (which I think may be taboo in Saudi Arabia). arachdog, I kind of meant more like what Saudis don't ask each other. By the way, there is nothing wrong with steak. Just pork.
Saudi Arabia - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the Saudi culture is diverse. I asked a friend of mine who is Saudi and a physician about this- if a non relative asks one for dinner it is taboo to ask if the mrs is joining him. It is very intrusive to ask about relationship- how they met etc .however she said it all depends on the level of "tribal pride" and their traditional upbringing. She comes from a more modernized family that some females don't even wear veilsexcept in the required public area.
2 :
Religion, Sex & Politics.
3 :
You as a women wont ask the hostess or another saudi lady about her husband... You can ask "how is the family" in general terms.. but never call him by his name.. NEVER say something like "How is Ahmed today"... just not done... And also if the husband just happens to walk through the room.. you can just quickly say Salaam alaykum and always refer to him as Abu______.. never say his given name.. Erm.. I also learned quick never to compliment someones jewelry, wardrobe, or knickknacks around their house.. you end up leaving with a little gift.. Something about you giving them the eye or something.. they feel they have to gift you that item.. so its really rude to do this... You can just generally again compliment things on a whole.. like"OH.. nice room or nice decorations.. or Nice outfit... but never be specific.. unless she asks you first... .. Oh and this is a little off subject.. but since (Im assuming you are coming from USA).. you will get tons of nosy women asking YOU the personall questions.. They want to secretly trap you into finding out if you had sex before marriage to a muslim,, or if you converted just cause you wanted him, or just cause you wanted to come to saudi... Just politely avoid these questions.. Or if they get too nosy.. I ask them the exact same thing back..and that surely shuts them up quick.... But the polite hostess would never ask you.. she's just be happy you are there... but these women get bored and they are gossip queens.. they will ask some of the most outrageous questions.. you'd be surprised... looooooooool.. but anyways.. you'll enjoy it. just keep an open mind and a light heart and laugh through it all... Welcome!....
4 :
If you're with a group of people, dont bring up tribal topics or topics of roots origins, because they'd like to aviod such topics given their different backgrounds. Unless if you are really close friends then its ok. More in Riyadh than Jeddah but still good to know. Generally speaking though, Saudis are laid back and can laugh at anything really. Some women might be... Mintee explained it well I think and didnt leave much to say. Oh and personal stuff sometimes can be said but not in front of others. For example if you meet a girl that you know and want to ask her details about her marriage or wedding, specific questions. Or about how her parents liked the husband in the beginning etc.... some might find no problem talking about it, but not in front of others. So no personal questions in front of others, unless if she brings up the topic then its considered to be fine. Sometimes vague answers are meant to be so to aviod answering your question, at other times, its simply because the person isnt that precise. Its one of those things that you can just feel when you get used to it. Nothing is REALLY taboo I think, let alone the fact that knowing you're American people would be much more understanding if you say something thats kinda rude, they'd know you didnt mean it :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)