Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the idle-threat dept.

The New York Times reports (and Yahoo! News repeats without any paywall) that the government of Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other unidentified assets if Congress passes the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The bill would allow foreign governments to be sued by 9/11 victims and their families. The threat was issued by Saudi Arabian foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir to unnamed US lawmakers while he was visiting Washington sometime last month, on the grounds that these assets could be in danger of being frozen by US courts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by bitstream on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:30AM

    by bitstream (6144) on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:30AM (#333063) Journal

    The choice seems to boil down to sponsorship of various bloody organizations or access to oil and investment money.

    If the west gets rid of the dependence on hydrocarbons then one can also drop the engagements in the middle east.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @02:49AM (#333075)

    If the west gets rid of the dependence on hydrocarbons then one can also drop the engagements in the middle east.

    I seriously doubt this. While the west is the majority of the world economy, it is not the entire world economy. Even if we were to completely drop all dependence on hydrocarbons in the west, we would still have to deal with the ramifications--economic and otherwise--of instability in the middle east. Methinks you haven't thought this through very carefully.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:12AM (#333120)

      we would still have to deal with the ramifications--economic and otherwise--of instability in the middle east.

      Which we caused? Damn, that's rich. Syria wasn't destabilize until Israel and the Elite Central Bankers decided they needed to call their US lapdogs in to destabilize the nation. Jews want a "greater Israel" and the bankers hate countries that aren't using debt based currency that they own printing rights to.

      You want to end the destabilization? Get rid of the private central bakers who are the cause of every major war. [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:56AM

      by bitstream (6144) on Sunday April 17 2016, @04:56AM (#333136) Journal

      It means it will be possible to take a stand on viewpoints that they don't like. The current situation is a lot of cowtowing because we just got to have that oil. Leaving them to become a new North Korea is of course a bad idea.

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday April 18 2016, @12:41AM

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday April 18 2016, @12:41AM (#333491) Journal

    If the west gets rid of the dependence on hydrocarbons then one can also drop the engagements in the middle east.

    No, they cannot. They don't want to let the Russians or Chinese to grow fat and dangerous. In order to starve them, they have to scorch the earth.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..