A Speech In Cairo

Well, if this is truly a result of Obama's policies, then this is the first good thing that has happened under Obama's disastrous administration.

If it takes incompetence to "lose" the Saudis, I'd take that over Bush sucking up to the Saudis any time.

And yes, I know Iran is bad, but the US is hardly friendly with them, and has any nation been so effective at exporting malignant Islam to the rest of the world as Saudi Arabia?

Another example of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Put on your man pants, Saudis, and do for yourself the dirty work you want the US to do.

If you feel it's important to take action in Syria, quit hiding behind the US skirts, you wussies.

Saudi Arabia?

You mean the main financier of most of the radical muslim terrorist organizations on Earth?
The country that attempts to project itself as a moderate civilized country while enforcing some of the most draconian Islamic laws and tyranny anywhere?

Lovely! There goes the centre of US Middle Eastern policy since the death of the Shah of Iran!
Note the use of the word "perfidious" by Prince Turki. The US government has developed
a liking for betraying its allies over the years, and none implements that with greater
relish than Barack Obama. He loves to betray.

Personal inclinations of leaders matter. Undoubtedly the Saudis are offended by the pooftah
Obama on a very personal level. And they are well aware of his personal softness for the Iranian
government and for the Moslem Brotherhood. The loathsome personality of Prancing Obama
has no doubt contributed substantially to the breach with Russia as well as with Saudi.

I don't think the Daily Mail understands the meaning of "sever". To really sever diplomatic ties, you recall your ambassador, and give the other country's ambassador the boot. This hasn't happened. All Saudi is doing is ratcheting up pressure on the Won.

The good-riddance-to-a-vile-ally argument loses much of its luster and all of its value when you consider what 'bama wants to displace Riyadh simply to gain favour with Tehran.

"Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria"

Did anyone here other than gordinkneehill actually read the story? According to the content of that story, the headline supporting it is a simple lie. Funny how a blog that professes to distrust the media will use one of their "stories" in a heartbeat if it furthers the agenda.

BTW, the useless f*cking UN are the ones with the international authority and ultimately the moral responsibility to step in. At this time in history, the US can't even handle it's own domestic affairs properly.

Anyways, as some here have already stated, the Saudis are only an ally of convenience. I would say good riddance, the Americans could use the truckloads of cash they send the unappreciative b*stards for themselves.

If the Saudis are so upset that no 'peacekeepers' have gone to Syria, why don't they just order their own Saudi citizens to do so? Or do they not shed their own blood?

More likely , both Israel and Saudi concluded Obama is prepared to use them both as nuclear cannon fodder , with Obama going soft on Iran and allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb.

Obama's masters are angry.

How will the first Affirmative Action American president deal with master?

Stay tuned to next week’s episode of "The Decline and Fall of a once great Empire".

on another note, the norks are preparing for another nuke test, Iranian maybe???

Water is renewable. It falls as it wills. Unlike oil which will run out in 400 years. I say sell it.
What we really need for industry is an integrated resource policy in NA.
Not by some big government department. But with interstate-Provincial treaties.
Alberta & Montana have done very well with our fire treaty. We exchange both equipment with personnel to fight out breaks in our forests.
We even share costs in tourism.
Keep Federal governments out of any agreements.
Eventually we will have to have a water policy any way. Its just the way its going. We can use the friendly approach for other concessions in a civilized way.
JMO

Funny, hours later, CNN hasn't mentions a break in relations. Nor has Al Jazeera, which would be all over it. Nor the BBC. Nor DW, nor Tass, nor any of the other major networks. Not even the tame Saudi English-language media have said that. Strained relations, yes, but no mention of a break.

As some - a very few - people have noted, the headline has precious little to do with the story. It's inflated, sensationalistic and general BS - much like the Mail in general.

Sad that people are shooting from the hip. If somebody wants to criticize Obama, why resort to such horsepucky when are enough real issues?

Considering that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are one big family I do not believe for one minute that Prince Turki went on at length about the Saudi displeasure without the King's advance approval, especially so considering he is the Intelligence Chief.

The Daily Mail's writers need to brush up on their knowledge of the meaning of words.

Suppose OPEC discontinues selling oil in USD? And starts diversifying out of USD cash reserves?

I regret Saddam didn't have a few months to do the Saudis ten thousand princes with seventy two plastic shredders.

Yeah well, the comments about water are very relevant.

Check out the ME.....it's all about water. Without the Nile, Eygpt would be as barren as most of Arabia,which has no major rivers. Same with Iran/Iraq.

Nothing happens in a desert....people don't move there.

Saudi Arabia's problem is that without the oil resources it would have nothing and lacks a historic population base because oil production there is recent in the march of history.

The Saudi's can by many, many sophisticated weapon sytems but lacks the man power to deploy them and then there is the rub....boots on the ground is the ultimate decider. Saudi just simply lacks the feet to put into boots.

Logically lacking definitive military power, the Saudi's must deploy the leverage of their oil wealth to deploy those who have the military power.....that's all that's happening.