IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

The Queen is both head of state and head of the clergy (Supreme Governor of the Church of England).

Also the British Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and over a dozen other countries. The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations which has over 2 billion people and a combined GDP about ten times that of Saudi Arabia. With some of the most developed and free citizens within those member nations.

As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

[Greyblades]

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

[Fragony]

Frags, what did we say about you projecting your monarchy's unpopularity onto others?

The same thing my mommy said about various things

[Papewaio]

As if they needed a queen for that, she is just a ceremonial muppet

Applicable to all monarchs and heads of religion.

However mileage does vary compare and contrast the current Pope with predecessors.

[AE Bravo]

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

[Papewaio]

Saying that she has more power than Al Saud is a bit of a stretch, take a look at the net worth and who has an active participation in international relations.

As much as I like the Queen I'm a Republican. A republic where I vote for the head of state not where the parliament elects it which is the one choice in the last referendum in Australia. I'm also a Greenie who believes in nuclear power and genetic engineering.

So do take my care factor in who is more powerful with a grain of salt as I care more about Kings and Queens on a chess board.

Now having said that. The King of Saud is a very powerful man whose power is linked with his money which is based on his oil reserves. Saudi Arabia is not (yet) recognized as a leading light for human rights, arts, sciences, cuisine or military power. UK ranks higher in probably all of those including cuisine, I'll let the better travelled Europeans have a last say on that vote.

So Saudi Arabia wealth is oil reserves x oil price per barrel. Oil price goes down so does the reach of Saudi Arabia. Run out of oil or alternatives become cheaply available and things get really desperate. Not terrible if the right infrastructure (including human investment) is done in Saudi Arabia. After all they could provide all their energy needs with wind and solar.

Anyhow with the increase of solar, wind, micro grids and electric cars the demand for petrol will diminish over time. Oil has other uses, some of which the end products are far more valuable then just burning petrol. But the demand for these are paltry compared with petrol. I do assume the other products will increase in availability as the relative supply will increase. Who knows maybe home 3D printing will take up some of the demand.

So just based on current global trends oil nations will need to find alternative methods of propping up their economies. Much like Australia where when the commodities merry go round stops the share market plummets.

So for my 2 cents minus taxes, tariffs and exchange rate costs... The King Of Saudi Arabia power peaked with peak oil and is only going to slide down as the world progresses to other options.

[Montmorency]

The Saudi family is more powerful than the Queen of England - in the Arabian peninsula, and few other places.

Yet they united against Gaddafi.

No, they didn't.

The rebel front in Syria never collapsed. If it had collapsed in Libya, and then IS managed to enter the scene and open a front, then yes, I think they could recruit efficiently from many Libyan rebel groups (and they presumably do recruit from other rebel groups in Syria thanks to their impressive performance there).

Double I can't even begin to imagine a logical process for that notion.

At any rate, the vast majority of IS fighters come from two categories: 1. Foreigners from Central Asia and North Africa and 2. Long-standing Islamist militias from Iraq.

Not by normal definitions of the word operation. The NATO operation ended shortly after Gaddafi was killed, and its primary aim was to remove Gaddafi from power, which took just a few months. After that, NATO largely had a passive role.

That what happened next may not have been what NATO leaders hoped for is another matter.

Also a strange comment. One of the biggest arguments from military POVs against the Libyan semi-intervention was that it was such a poorly-planned and organized operation specifically with respect to its scope and goals.