what does it mean to have a special relationship? does it mean a security gurantee? political gurantee/diplomatic veto usage? an economic gurantee (purchase of oil)??? or is that all of these thing plus more
I think generally a "special relationship" is an indication of common goals that are inherent and long term. The US and UK have a "special relationship" as well, and that seems to be the only commonality between the two relationships that I can see. For the US & UK it's democratization and capitalism. For the US & Saudis it's oil stability and suppressing Iran.
"Courting trouble: Ms Nelson claims in a lawsuit that she had a four-year-affair with Delphi Financial Group CEO Robert Rosenkranz, but that he tried to silence her with a money-for-sex gagging order."
I often like John Donvan's power-tripping because most other moderators are terrible and him pushing the audience around removes their sense of entitlement to make diatribes instead of pointed questions. But his interventions in this debate were unreasonable. So many questions were valid and could've been shepherded by the panelists themselves without his input.
USA has followed the policy of Regime change in IRAQ, Libya, IRAN, and Syria so why not follow the same policy in Saudi? Or is it this Regime change policy is being done on bidding of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has lasted for so long because of its special relationship with USA. If Saudi Arabia blows up it will bring democracy to Saudi Arabia and it will be in USA interest.
"on the other hand..." is the KSA having a negative impact on the policies of the USA? Is KSA driving the agenda? If the USA were to divest from oil, develop alternative/renewable fuels as many other developed nations have done, might not many of these domestic issues revert to their own sources? USA was bombing Yemen until KSA took over, as I recall; if the USA economy weren't so much based on arms sales, wouldn't WE as a people with human rights have more degrees of freedom to determine our international interactions?
As long as I live I'll never see where people got the idea that what happened in Libya was the doing of the United States. At the time Obama INFAMOUSLY said he was "leading from behind" and Republicans relentlessly attacked him for not getting more involved in what was largely a UN/NATO/European intervention.
@@pardeeptandon6730 Then you should know that bombing started on March 19th, a full month after two separate UN resolutions that first unanimously voted to sanction Gaddafi for killing protestors, and a second resolution to create that no-fly zone. The resolution that started the bombing was proposed by *France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom,* NOT the United States. It passed the Security Council with zero opposition. France initially led the diplomatic effort. US forces held military command for about a week before passing responsibility to NATO at large. Italy only joined the nineteen state coalition on conditions that France not be allowed to run the military operation. France and Italy both have centuries of deep colonial roots in North Africa. And 80% of Libya's GDP was the export of oil to France and Italy. But ignorant people like you still try to demonize America. Because it always has to be Big Bad Boogeyman America in your warped mind.
@@twelvecatsinatrenchcoat: it was NATO which bombed Libya and killed more innocent Libyans than Gadhafi killed in his 42 year rule. Even today 90 % of Libiayns will love to have him back. America as the leader of NATO can not pass the responsibility of gross human right violation on Europe’
@@pardeeptandon6730 America isn't the leader of NATO. Trump even tried to pull out of NATO a few years back. Go ahead and ask French and Italian people if America is in charge of them.
The easiest country to conquer and were afraid to do it.
Greed is in the best interest of America.
what does it mean to have a special relationship? does it mean a security gurantee? political gurantee/diplomatic veto usage? an economic gurantee (purchase of oil)??? or is that all of these thing plus more
I think generally a "special relationship" is an indication of common goals that are inherent and long term. The US and UK have a "special relationship" as well, and that seems to be the only commonality between the two relationships that I can see.
For the US & UK it's democratization and capitalism. For the US & Saudis it's oil stability and suppressing Iran.
"Courting trouble: Ms Nelson claims in a lawsuit that she had a four-year-affair with Delphi Financial Group CEO Robert Rosenkranz, but that he tried to silence her with a money-for-sex gagging order."
I often like John Donvan's power-tripping because most other moderators are terrible and him pushing the audience around removes their sense of entitlement to make diatribes instead of pointed questions. But his interventions in this debate were unreasonable. So many questions were valid and could've been shepherded by the panelists themselves without his input.
USA has followed the policy of Regime change in IRAQ, Libya, IRAN, and Syria so why not follow the same policy in Saudi? Or is it this Regime change policy is being done on bidding of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has lasted for so long because of its special relationship with USA. If Saudi Arabia blows up it will bring democracy to Saudi Arabia and it will be in USA interest.
That's not what happened when Egypt blew up.
"on the other hand..." is the KSA having a negative impact on the policies of the USA? Is KSA driving the agenda? If the USA were to divest from oil, develop alternative/renewable fuels as many other developed nations have done, might not many of these domestic issues revert to their own sources? USA was bombing Yemen until KSA took over, as I recall; if the USA economy weren't so much based on arms sales, wouldn't WE as a people with human rights have more degrees of freedom to determine our international interactions?
At least now they admit its about Oil.. ! But, only because now its not about Oil animore..., Agree wity you,,, its about armssale...!
morally?
I hate this format of such a sterile, robotic debate where the "moderator" simply prevents any real, fruitful, heated debate from happening.
What is the advantage of heat to a debate?
Defeat of Saddam and Gadhafi was the worst thing that happened to Iraq and Libya. Curtsy the Mercenary army of USA.
As long as I live I'll never see where people got the idea that what happened in Libya was the doing of the United States.
At the time Obama INFAMOUSLY said he was "leading from behind" and Republicans relentlessly attacked him for not getting more involved in what was largely a UN/NATO/European intervention.
@@twelvecatsinatrenchcoatI was living in libya when USA violated international law and human rights by bombing libya.
@@pardeeptandon6730 Then you should know that bombing started on March 19th, a full month after two separate UN resolutions that first unanimously voted to sanction Gaddafi for killing protestors, and a second resolution to create that no-fly zone. The resolution that started the bombing was proposed by *France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom,* NOT the United States. It passed the Security Council with zero opposition.
France initially led the diplomatic effort. US forces held military command for about a week before passing responsibility to NATO at large. Italy only joined the nineteen state coalition on conditions that France not be allowed to run the military operation. France and Italy both have centuries of deep colonial roots in North Africa. And 80% of Libya's GDP was the export of oil to France and Italy.
But ignorant people like you still try to demonize America. Because it always has to be Big Bad Boogeyman America in your warped mind.
@@twelvecatsinatrenchcoat: it was NATO which bombed Libya and killed more innocent Libyans than Gadhafi killed in his 42 year rule. Even today 90 % of Libiayns will love to have him back. America as the leader of NATO can not pass the responsibility of gross human right violation on Europe’
@@pardeeptandon6730 America isn't the leader of NATO. Trump even tried to pull out of NATO a few years back.
Go ahead and ask French and Italian people if America is in charge of them.
9:45 Guy already sleeping
Saudi Arabia itself has outlived it's usefulness globally and I say this as a Muslim
gameking50P I was going to say the same thing about Isreal
Could the moderator be any less impartial?
Congratulations,such a nice debate, I'm an Iranian and this show teaches me a lot, so professional host and atmosphere.