(06-20-2019, 12:22 PM)B2hibry Wrote:

(06-20-2019, 09:08 AM)mikesez Wrote: One shouldn't presume that a person with different conclusions has been apprised of fewer facts.

The House of Saud came to power near Riyadh by allying itself with iconoclastic, ascetic Imams who followed bin Wahab in the late 18th century.

However, the territory they controlled had neither oil, nor access to the sea, nor holy sites.

All of these things were controlled by the Ottomans.  There was another similarly situated, neighboring desert tribe called the Rashidun at that time.  As Ottoman control collapsed during WWI, the Saudis outmaneuvered all the other Arab players to get most of the territory they control today.  


Now, the Shia are not necessarily good guys, historically.  But neither are the Saudis.  

What history am I missing?

I have assumed nothing. It is what you put to paper so to speak.

Good job Mr. Google. Going to need you to quote from multiple scholarly sources. LOL Now go search for relevant information more closely related to this century and the topic. Not surprising, you still can't clarify your position on the topic. Running out of stamina for those backflips?

I don't see you quoting from multiple scholarly sources.

I'm not trying to clarify my position.
I'm not the President, and even if I was I would play it a bit closer to the chest then giving out a red line in advance.
But I am saying that the US needs to think more deeply than simply doing whatever the Saudis and Emiratis want us to do.
And I am saying that Iran is a bit more rational and less evil than the propaganda artists in the right-wing of this country would have us believe.
We probably shouldn't have torn up that nuclear agreement, because they were not violating it. Even if they put limpet mines on a few oil tankers and shot down one of our drones, we should consider if that is understandable in light of how we shredded up their agreement with us (and with Europe) for no good reason.

---