TL;DR Yes, oppression of people in KSA needs to stop (A). However, drastic (read: US government) actions will hurt US interests (read: recovery and growth) (B). If individuals and corporations (read: we the people) take a more voluntary approach, we work towards A while hopefully avoiding B.

===

To be clear, I am not picking sides on this issue (my typos certainly didn't help). I am not at all supporting the status quo, but I do feel as though I need to clarify my argument.

The argument in favour of a Saudi regime is that oil guaranteed at certain supply and at a certain price. Despite the existing speculation of markets and all price volatility, there is this speculation that democracy in the place of the current regime would change the equation in manner that would be detrimental to US interests. In the transition years from the status quo to whatever could follow, this would be true. It may seem like a cop out to just say the problem with everything is oil, but given the recent economic problems we've seen in the news, any disruption in oil supply would pretty much derail anything that's left to be derailed.

I'm on your side with respect to the ethical argument, but you and I aren't the ones being voted in as POTUS or into Congress. They won't do anything that results in political suicide, and restricting technology companies from providing goods and services in KSA would be seen as just that. In short, the US government won't risk American quality of life for the sake of liberty around the world.

Aside: This last point is what really gets people around the world mad: America, a superpower and champion of human rights (according to US government rhetoric anyway), picks and chooses who gets democracy and who doesn't.

If all the US forces left tomorrow, the common people and fundamentalists would not forget the past. For some kind of withdrawal to even start to work, you would need a heartfelt apology of some kind. Otherwise, fundamentalists would just say something like, "they took what they wanted, humiliated us, then they left when we had nothing else to for them to take" irrespective of how true or false said statement is. The beauty of propaganda is that it works irrespective of facts; instead, it just needs some of Stephen Colbert's truthiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness).

This concept of truthiness also comes back to the "western-backed" fighters narrative. I'm not saying that there are "western-backed" fighters there at the moment. What I am saying is: should the current regime ever disappear, there would be a real likelihood of there being a civil war between people who want freedom and religious fundamentalists who would aspire to something like "Taliban Afghanistan", but even more extreme. In such a civil war, the people fighting for some kind of democracy or republic would be painted as being "western-backed" simply because things like democracy are found in the West. You and I would debunk this right away, but there are few people there who would pick the devil the sort of know than devil they know. Moreso, when said known devil dresses as you do and comes from where you grew up (urban vs. rural all over again). Anyone can be a spin doctor -- anyone.

I will admit that this last paragraph is pure speculation. But someone with sufficient motivation and with stakes in such a conflict would take the time to construct convincing-enough argument that would snowball and absorb bits and pieces of fact and fiction Katamari Damacy style (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari_Damacy).

For your last point, I somewhat agree. When the US government has the resources in check, the policy is expansionist. However, the current economic climate that started prior to President Obama taking office in his first term has made it difficult to continue the pace. Right now, it seems more to be in a "let's finish what we started and regroup" state of affairs. Maybe I am preemptive in calling the current pause "stonewalling", but the pause is definitely letting certain people in government have a second look at where the country is and where they want it to be. Whether they decide continue on the current path or do something else remains to be seen. What I do know, is that the longer the current climate of uncertain economic recovery continues, the more attractive a different kind of "grand strategy" for US foreign policy becomes.