If the Syrian Dictator Must Go… Why Not the
Dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain?
If We’re “Fighting for
Democracy”, than Why Are We Arming and Financially Supporting
Dictatorships throughout the Middle East?


By WashingtonsBlog
June
01, 2013 "Information
Clearing House" - Western Israeli leaders
call Syrian leader Assad a dictator.
Fair
enough. He and his father have ruled Syria since

1971.
But what
about Saudi Arabia? The Saudi royal monarchy has been ruling
that region for
hundreds of years.
Wikipedia

notes:
Due to
its authoritarian and theocratic rule, the
House of Saud has attracted much criticism during its rule
of Saudi Arabia. Its opponents generally refer to the Saudi
monarchy as totalitarians or dictators.
There
have been numerous incidents of demonstrations and other
forms of resistance against the House of Saud.
***

All surviving males (including Utaybi himself) were beheaded
publicly in four cities of Saudi Arabia. 
While the
Saudi royal family pushes the most strict and fundamentalist
form Islam, the Saudi royal family’s

debauchery and

corruption is

legendary. The monarchs – while pushing strict Wahabism as
the official state religion – don’t practice it.
Similarly,
Qatar has been ruled by one family monarchy for over
150 years:
Qatar
has been ruled as an absolute and hereditary emirate by the
Al Thani family since the mid-19th century.
CBS News
includes Qatar on its list of “The world’s enduring
dictators“,

noting:
Like
many of its neighbors,

the controversial host of the 2022 World Cup in soccer
is

accused of many human rights abuses when it comes to its
foreign workers, like setting them up in squalid labor camps
separate from society, confiscating their passports upon
arrival, and giving them a general lack of rights. That
said,

Amnesty International reports only sporadic instances of
torture and abuse by state security forces. As for Sheikh
Hamad’s dictatorial bona fides,

The New York Times writes: “While Qatar calls for
democracy outside its borders, democracy here is provisional
at best. While there are municipal elections, and women can
vote in them, the country has a Parliament building but no
Parliament — or any other political institution, for that
matter — that can challenge the royal family’s grip on
power.”
Similarly,
Bahrain has been ruled almost continuously by the Al Khalifa
royal monarchy since
1820.
Bahrain
also makes CBS News’ list of “world’s enduring dictators”. CBS

noted in 2011:

Uprisings in the late 1990s as well as right now have been
fueled as much by resentment from the repressed, poor Shiite
majority against their privileged Sunni rulers as anything
else. In both uprisings, accusations against the government
of

gross human rights violations and protester murders have
been plentiful. At least 11 demonstrators have been killed
so far this year. Most recently, Bahraini security forces
stand accused of

indiscriminate abduction and torture of dissidents.
Things
have gotten worse since then.  Three-time Emmy award winning CNN
reporter Amber Lyon reported on her first-hand experience of the

systematic torture and murder of peaceful protesters by the
government of Bahrain.  But she was fired by CNN for doing
so … while CNN

accepted payment from the Bahraini monarchs to run a fluff
propaganda piece about them.
Indeed,
the U.S. government has supplied

substantial military support to the Saudi, Qatari and
Bahraini dictators.
The U.S.
Federal Reserve also

bailed out the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain.
Why is the
U.S. backing the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain?
Because
the U.S.

backs the Sunni Muslims against the
Shias.  The leaders in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain are
Sunni Muslims … while the leaders in Syria, Iran and
Lebanon are Shia Muslims.
Yup … the
U.S. is

involved in a religious war – between the two factions of
Islam (and is actually backing the most violent elements) – as
part of a

geopolitical strategy to exert control over the natural gas
market.
Indeed,
the U.S. is

liberally backing Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood (both Sunni)
terrorists in their fight against Shia Muslims …
… And in
their fight against

Christians and atheists.

This article was originally published at

WashingtonsBlog -

big deal it would change nothing. they r dictating small parts. if u or ur relations r having an issue its one thing but it doesn't matter. saddm mattered. who matterd r killed. now only economy is the dictator. its situation tjaty brings dictators . the mind set of the people there r such that they enable dictatorship. change the people. heal the people. u throw one dick next one erects :p sorry for vulgarity

You spent very little time if any reading that article.

Interesting. The world would be a better place without dictators. However, if somehow dictators were removed from power, there would probably be many more civil wars as groups battle it out over who's going to run things next.

who could be trusted to declare who the 'dicatators' were?

and who would keep order, ?

and who amongst those charged to keep order would be the next one accused of being a dictator?.....

The Muslim brotherhood?

So, the whole article is based on a false premise intended to prey upon the fear and incite the anger of those who are uninformed. Well, congratulations on the blog's lack of understanding regarding foreign policy.

If the Syrian Dictator Must Go…

Why Not the Dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain?

Eradicating all dictators.
It would lead to World War 3 and after that, if there was anything left, there would still be corruption and dictators.

Are you saying we should get rid of some but not all or are you saying we shouldn't get rid of any?

OR..................is he saying your OP article is "based on a false premise intended to prey upon the fear and incite the anger of those who are uninformed"?.......

Hello HotRod!

I'm saying that no matter how many dictators you eradicate, another will take his place as long as there is weak and decayed government.
I believe that it's up to the people being dictated to decide weather or not to remove their leaders and government to build a fresh, stronger one.
It is not something that other countries should choose to get involved in for their own interests unless they are asked for help by those being dictated. Then it should be taken into consideration.

Trying to eradicate all dictators rather than one however would only seek to expand your resources and manpower further weakening your own country and affecting other countries interests as well as your own. Seeing this weakness other countries would then get involved and then it becomes a World War 3 situation.

No good would come from going after every dictator.
Unless the people are willing and able to set up a new and stronger government to take it's place.
Even then you'd still have problems with corruption.

For every uniformed / suited dictator, there are ten or more pulling his strings. They are only figureheads fronting for the rest.

For MoonDragonLionWolf. Your well thought out answer deserves a reply. At the moment The US and Nato are trying to get rid of Assad in Syria while doing business with Saudi Arabia for instance. Saudi Arabia have a shocking Human Rights record so why not get rid of that regime?.

I'm sure that Saudi Arabia does have a bad human rights record,
however it's not as simple as going in and taking out a regime and then going home.
If you take out a regime or government you have to set up a new one in it's place. That takes money, and time to build.
After that is the issue of when we call back our soldiers and let the new government take the reigns. You don't want it to fall apart and go back into chaos.
The most important issue here is that radical religion seems to be running a lot of the countries in the middle east.
At the same time you have to respect those peoples' religion.

The U.S. is concerned about Syria because of chemical weapons.
That could possibly fall into the hands of extremists.

It's not as simple as just taking out leaders and governments.
It's a whole mess of problems.

The U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt and can hardly afford to be involved in another war.
Even with Cooperation with the U.N.

Also as you said, the U.S. is doing business with Saudi Arabia so it wouldn't be a wise move from a business standpoint to overthrow them.

There is no easy answer here.
You can only do so much before you become overwhelmed and swamped down.
There are hidden consequences for every action you take involving these countries as seen in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Unless you have stable ground to build upon everything will fall over.
The middle east is unstable sand right now.

That's as best I can answer your question.
It's not quite as simple as it appears to be.

How about the Castro-Twins,or that Northkorean Doughboy,what about that "elected" one,Vlad P.?

For MDLWolf. I like your pragmatic approach to Saudi Arabia, the US does business withSA so it wouldnt make sense to take their regime out ignoring their dreadful human rights record. You say that the US is worried about the chemical weapons getting into the wron hands in Syria. As it turns out the chemical weapons are in the hands of Al Qaeda and Jabhat Al Nursa the two main fighting groups opposed to Assad who are being financed by US UK Nato and Saudi Arabia. A very complicated situation indeed. So the question has to asked and answered, why is the US wanting to Take out Syria. Who will benefit by such actions. P.S. The christian population in Syria are on Assads side.

That is an excellent idea. They could all be replaced with Al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. That should work.

Your Government is on the side of A Qaeda it seems.