|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey what are the chances of the entire SA regime going down in flames>? Isn't there some royal troubles going on in SA right now? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/saudi-royal-calls-regime-change-letters-leadership-king-salman I mean, the guy making the claims doesn't sound any better. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Sep 29, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:If the US did that would the Saudi's listen? For about a second, before they remember China and Russia have free money and no moral hangups about oppressing civilians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
SedanChair posted:Invade. Can you imagine the looks on their faces? Instant 180 from "Nuke Mecca" to "Why do Democrats hate all our allies?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'd do it just for the reactions on Freep. That requires Americans to realise Saudis and Mecca are actually located in the same lovely desert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Seriously think of all that oil. Oceans of it. Female atheist lieutenants snapchat from Mecca.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:okay, amend my post to 'liberal democracies not based on apartheid and ethnic cleansing'  This is why I try to avoid sweeping, hyperbolic statements.Smudgie Buggler posted:West bad, brutal traditionalism good, got it. The brutal traditionalists were typically the only ones who could kill enough people to avoid being overthrown after they revoked or nationalized Western monopolies on the country's oil and then suddenly a bunch of pro-Western disloyal generals and revolutionary groups mysteriously appeared out of nowhere with big piles of money, large stocks of "black market" American weaponry, and suspiciously good intelligence about the country's military and movements. In fact, a slightly older version of such schemes was a major factor in the formation of Saudi Arabia, as well as their relative stability to this day and their reliable support by the West. The House of Saud's ambitions were supported by British military and diplomatic aid as a way to destabilize the Ottoman Empire, and the newly-formed state (whose independence was first declared by a British treaty) fought a civil war over Ibn Saud's insistence that raiding and military expansion was not to be done in any British or British-affiliated territory. In addition, unlike their neighbors, they willingly granted large stakes in their oil reserves to Western companies, getting themselves a better deal than their neighbors who were made to grant similar oil concessions by force, and they never threatened American or British property interests in the area. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia isn't just because of oil - it's a recognition of and reward for a century of enthusiastic Saudi support for and protection of Western economic, military, and political interests, typically driven by the recognition that Anglo powers have been the true kingmakers - and kingslayers - in the Middle East for over a hundred years. What's a little thing like "human rights" compared to a century of loyalty to Western interests?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What's a little thing like "human rights" compared to a century of loyalty to Western interests? And here I thought I was the only fan of Doctor Kissinger on the forums (with MIGF on indefinite leave). 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I get the odd feeling that the situation is more complex than "western puppetmasters rewarding lapdogs"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I get the odd feeling that the situation is more complex than "western puppetmasters rewarding lapdogs" sure, there's also the zionist apartheid state being the darling of fundamentalist zealots in Middle America
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Everyone has very different ideas about what human rights abuses we're supposed to ignore and which ones we're supposed to be outraged by. Saudi Arabia is really bad and I wish we were actually openly hostile to them, and I mean that, but I think most of the posters talking about evil America enabling them here probably don't have much of a problem with the us normalizing relations with Iran, which has its God police sentence teenagers to be publicly strangled to death routinely. The naked subjectivity of Internet leftist outrage makes it lose all effect. If we were openly hostile to KSA they'd still be doing this poo poo and half the posters here would just flip their positions, because now innocent people are suffering under the "unjust sanctions regime. "
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
So... Is the guy dead or what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Everyone has very different ideas about what human rights abuses we're supposed to ignore and which ones we're supposed to be outraged by. Saudi Arabia is really bad and I wish we were actually openly hostile to them, and I mean that, but I think most of the posters talking about evil America enabling them here probably don't have much of a problem with the us normalizing relations with Iran, which has its God police sentence teenagers to be publicly strangled to death routinely. The naked subjectivity of Internet leftist outrage makes it lose all effect. Pretty much exactly what people said about the Iraq sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Everyone has very different ideas about what human rights abuses we're supposed to ignore and which ones we're supposed to be outraged by. Saudi Arabia is really bad and I wish we were actually openly hostile to them, and I mean that, but I think most of the posters talking about evil America enabling them here probably don't have much of a problem with the us normalizing relations with Iran, which has its God police sentence teenagers to be publicly strangled to death routinely. The naked subjectivity of Internet leftist outrage makes it lose all effect. It's the blatant hypocrisy of drumming up fears of bearded muslim fundamentalists killing freedom and innocents to justify subsidizing the homeland security, GWOT and surveillance industries, while giving military and political protection to exactly that demographic that gets me. See also, Fighting Terror while simultaneously backing terrorist states like Pakistan to the hilt. It's obvious the whole thing's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
I don't think anyone out there actually believes they're our friends though. Even the hardcore kiss the crown prince on the lips Bushites probably see them as allies of convenience at best, and it's downhill from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
It's a shame the Middle East never developed a true secular democracy due to the interference of Western imperialists 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Everyone has very different ideas about what human rights abuses we're supposed to ignore and which ones we're supposed to be outraged by. Saudi Arabia is really bad and I wish we were actually openly hostile to them, and I mean that, but I think most of the posters talking about evil America enabling them here probably don't have much of a problem with the us normalizing relations with Iran, which has its God police sentence teenagers to be publicly strangled to death routinely. The naked subjectivity of Internet leftist outrage makes it lose all effect. Well isn't there a difference between relative basic ratcheting down of sanctions and selling them tons of military equipment? By the same token is there any action the US can do beyond going from being "best buddies" to "now we are going to starve you?" Do leftists really want the US to sell its highest tech arms to Iran now to balance everything out? tsa posted:Pretty much exactly what people said about the Iraq sanctions. Were leftists really ever supportive of sanctioning the Iraqi civilian population? I guess I was too young to remember but I didn't hear of Marxists lining up to go after Saddam at all costs. Bro Dad posted:It's a shame the Middle East never developed a true secular democracy due to the interference of Western imperialists Well they did do their best to make sure it didn't happen in a quite a few notable cases. No one looks that great though coming out of the modern history of the Middle East, yes including the Soviets. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:It's a shame the Middle East never developed a true secular democracy due to the interference of Western imperialists You joke, but Democratic regimes the world over have a habit of being destroyed by western interests. Not saying theres some evil anti-democracy council siting around a dark boardroom, but you can often see how Western things like nonsense borders in Africa or Banana Republics in South America screwed them over in the cradle. The west doesn't even have to keep doing it. Once you've set ethnic group A against religious group B they'll hate each other drat near forever, and even if you change your mind you can't really get them to stop. Which is a lot of what we see in the 3rd World today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:You joke, but Democratic regimes the world over have a habit of being destroyed by western interests. Not saying theres some evil anti-democracy council siting around a dark boardroom, but you can often see how Western things like nonsense borders in Africa or Banana Republics in South America screwed them over in the cradle. The west doesn't even have to keep doing it. Once you've set ethnic group A against religious group B they'll hate each other drat near forever, and even if you change your mind you can't really get them to stop. Which is a lot of what we see in the 3rd World today. As it as been said quite a few times, no one actually cares about democracy, they just want to get poo poo done. Admittedly, the Soviets weren't probably overly concerned with worker rights in Afghanistan at the time either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I don't think anyone out there actually believes they're our friends though. Even the hardcore kiss the crown prince on the lips Bushites probably see them as allies of convenience at best, and it's downhill from there. I wonder why there's such an anti-US sentiment in the middle east. Nah, must be religion or something, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:It's a shame the Middle East never developed a true secular democracy due to the interference of Western imperialists it didn't even get far enough to hope for that, the ME was finished when the arab states were chopped up by britain and france. it was doomed to anarchy after that
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well they did do their best to make sure it didn't happen in a quite a few notable cases. Really? I can't think of any. galagazombie posted:You joke, but Democratic regimes the world over have a habit of being destroyed by western interests. Not saying theres some evil anti-democracy council siting around a dark boardroom, but you can often see how Western things like nonsense borders in Africa or Banana Republics in South America screwed them over in the cradle. The west doesn't even have to keep doing it. Once you've set ethnic group A against religious group B they'll hate each other drat near forever, and even if you change your mind you can't really get them to stop. Which is a lot of what we see in the 3rd World today. You realize this applies to pretty much everybody right? Like if you generalize the terms it describes every single regime in human history. icantfindaname posted:it didn't even get far enough to hope for that, the ME was finished when the arab states were chopped up by britain and france. it was doomed to anarchy after that So ultimately the responsibility for this whole mess lies with expansionism during the Ottoman Empire. I guess I can live with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it didn't even get far enough to hope for that, the ME was finished when the arab states were chopped up by britain and france. it was doomed to anarchy after that Admittedly, the Cold War and its aftermath also helped quite a bit as well. At this point, though Western intervention isn't even needed to keep things pretty hosed up for several generations (between the Iranian-Saudi cold war, and a bunch of collapsed countries).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Really? I can't think of any. Iran during the 1950s, and irrevocably loving up Iraq during the 00s are usual starting places. Also, turning a blind eye to Mubarak didn't turn out to be a very sustainable strategy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Iran during the 1950s, and irrevocably loving up Iraq during the 00s are usual starting places. Also, turning a blind eye to Mubarak didn't turn out to be a very sustainable strategy. Mohammad "but they elected me dictator!" Mosaddegh quote:Mosaddegh convinced parliament to grant him emergency powers for six months to "decree any law he felt necessary for obtaining not only financial solvency, but also electoral, judicial, and educational reforms".[36] Also how does overthrowing a military dictator and replacing him a weak caretaker government that actually held democratic elections count as interfering with democracy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Mohammad "but they elected me dictator!" Mosaddegh This is, to say at a minimum, an incredibly strange reading of the coup d'etat 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Mohammad "but they elected me dictator!" Mosaddegh Emergency powers didn't make him an actual dictator considering what was happening, and once he was replaced Iranian democracy was completely a dead letter. If you want to say Iran at that time wasn't a true liberal democracy, that is fine, but it clearly became less of one through the intervention of the West. There is a pretty clear difference between Mosaddegh's policies and then what the Shah did when he actually took power. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:This is, to say at a minimum, an incredibly strange reading of the coup d'etat And this is an incredibly snide and dishonest way of reading my post. Ardennes posted:Emergency powers during an emergency didn't make him an actual dictator considering what was happening, and also once he was replaced Iranian democracy was completely a dead letter. If you want to say Iran at that time wasn't a true liberal democracy, that is fine, That is exactly what I'm saying actually. There is no proof Mossadegh would have give up his absolute powers, and to say otherwise is simply trying to argue a counterfactual. Not to say he was in any way a bad leader, it just puts him on the same level as Nasser. Also Iran did have a chance at democracy after the revolution, but the Ayatollah had more paramilitaries on the street and the willingness to use them so welp
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's now "Kevin Bacon" to point out that the U.S. hypocritically enables Saudi brutality. It's tumblr as well I suspect. It's now my favorite actor to point out what? Crowsbeak posted:Hey what are the chances of the entire SA regime going down in flames>? There's been a precipitous decline in new users per month so I'd say it's a foregone conclusion. Frostwerks fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:That is exactly what I'm saying actually. There is no proof Mossadegh would have give up his absolute powers, and to say otherwise is simply trying to argue a counterfactual. Not to say he was in any way a bad leader, it just puts him on the same level as Nasser. The type of powers Mossadegh was requesting though weren't on par with the type of state that the Shah built though, and to be honest Mossadegh was in a pretty weak position and was expecting to be overthrown from either from the left or the right for a while. Sure, Iranian democracy was more of a concept at that point than anything, but circumstances moved far further way from it due to the coup and the new regime. Ah but there is a difference between saying "only the West" strangled democracy versus they have played a major part in strangling it. You can criticize the relationship of the US and the Saudis without saying Iran are the "good guys" or that the Saudis need to be sanctioned/bombed. That said, even with the Ayatollah, for most people (non-royals) it is better to live in Iran than Saudi Arabia. As for the US, it is rather unclear what the current administration wants at this point since so much of our foreign policy seems to be a big question mark. Frostwerks posted:There's been a precipitous decline in new users per month so I'd say it's a foregone conclusion. I decided to check some of the stats, yeah it is actually pretty grim. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The type of powers Mossadegh was requesting though weren't on par with the type of state that the Shah built though, and to be honest Mossadegh was in a pretty weak position and was expecting to be overthrown from either from the left or the right for a while. Sure, Iranian democracy was more of a concept at that point than anything, but circumstances moved far further way from it due to the coup and the new regime. Yep, I totally agree. quote:Ah but there is a difference between saying "only the West" strangled democracy versus they have played a major part in strangling it. You can criticize the relationship of the US and the Saudis without saying Iran are the "good guys" or that the Saudis need to be sanctioned/bombed. That said, even with the Ayatollah, for most people (non-royals) it is better to live in Iran than Saudi Arabia. Except I haven't heard a good argument on America strangling democracy in the Middle East other than Mossadegh maybe resigning his powers and that Bush didn't do a good enough job in Iraq. I actually agree about Saudi sanctions but to say the US taking the cheap oil in exchange for looking the other way is responsible for its current state is hella disingenuous. quote:As for the US, it is rather unclear what the current administration wants at this point since so much of our foreign policy seems to be a big question mark. I think Bush kind of poisoned the well on the US having a "decisive" foreign policy for a good long time, especially in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Except I haven't heard a good argument on America strangling democracy in the Middle East other than Mossadegh maybe resigning his powers and that Bush didn't do a good enough job in Iraq. I actually agree about Saudi sanctions but to say the US taking the cheap oil in exchange for looking the other way is responsible for its current state is hella disingenuous. Granted, we have done more than take cheap oil but actively worked with their government and its military and have done so with the other gulf states as well, all of which are repressive authoritarian regimes. Then you have the US' relation Egypt-Israel, which is also very messy and definitions of "democracy" get pretty sketchy. Sure, the US isn't the only actor here, and no one really seems that interested in actual functional democracy at this point but the US doesn't have a good track record at all. That said, I get the realpolitik explanation for it, just a spade needs to be called a spade at a certain point. I have no illusions that Putin deeply cares for the Syrian people either. quote:I think Bush kind of poisoned the well on the US having a "decisive" foreign policy for a good long time, especially in the Middle East. Bush should take most of the blame no doubt, that said it is rather unclear what our objectives even are at this point (even from the point of sheer curiosity). That said, in the case of the US maybe a lack of clarity isn't the worst thing. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:I wonder why there's such an anti-US sentiment in the middle east. Nah, must be religion or something, right? It's actually probably a variety of factors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I get the realpolitik explanation for it, just a spade needs to be called a spade at a certain point. I have no illusions that Putin deeply cares for the Syrian people either. quote:Bush should take most of the blame no doubt, that said it is rather unclear what our objectives even are at this point (even from the point of sheer curiosity). That said, in the case of the US maybe a lack of clarity isn't the worst thing. I think a lot of it is people (especially in the government) realizing that the US is not the unstoppable juggernaut of progress they want it to be, but that overwhelming pressure kinda works if you focus in on one spot at a time. Like the US policy in the Middle East seems a bit muddled and weak, but American foreign policy in East Asia is anything but. Bro Dad fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well isn't there a difference between relative basic ratcheting down of sanctions and selling them tons of military equipment? I wouldn't say they were supportive of Iraqi sanctions. Probably if you want to get a leftist time capsule of what was going on, you could try watching, "Three Kings," where some American Soldiers go off the reservation during Desert Storm to try to get rich, and ending up helping some Iraqi insurgents fight off Saddam Hussein's soldiers. There's definitely a strong tone that George Bush didn't go far enough, and should have taken out Saddam Hussein when they had the chance, and supported the Iraqi insurgents. There was a lot of criticism of the embargo on Iraq, but it had the same basic complaints of most embargoes. The people on top still live like kings, the people on the bottom get screwed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Israel springing up as a colonial state in the middle of the region didn't help matters either, seeing as how it gave all the militarists every excuse they needed to seize commanding control over the state and suppress liberal and leftist dissent. It's doubtful that the Egyptian military could have become so powerful for instance without the existential threat of Israeli expansionism. Lebanon also had very strong democratic movements, and who knows what could have happened there without Palestinian refugees inevitably drawing them into A/I, on top of all the Cold War divisions going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Israel springing up as a colonial state in the middle of the region didn't help matters either, seeing as how it gave all the militarists every excuse they needed to seize commanding control over the state and suppress liberal and leftist dissent. It's doubtful that the Egyptian military could have become so powerful for instance without the existential threat of Israeli expansionism. Lebanon also had very strong democratic movements, and who knows what could have happened there without Palestinian refugees inevitably drawing them into A/I, on top of all the Cold War divisions going on. "Liberalism might have succeeded in the ME if Israel hadn't popped up and given pre-existing despots the contrived excuse of there being unwelcome Jews in their backyard to refer to in suppressing and brutalising their respective citizenries." Makes perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Why yes. Yes it does. Generally militaristic states require a foreign Other to project themselves against.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:As it as been said quite a few times, no one actually cares about democracy, they just want to get poo poo done. Admittedly, the Soviets weren't probably overly concerned with worker rights in Afghanistan at the time either. True. Democracy at best only matters within your own country so you can feel good about yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Somebody was saying that Saudi Arabia matters less since the US isn't directly importing so much of its oil from there any more, but here's the thing- other countries actually do import oil from there, and if there's a cut in supply from Saudi Arabia, that puts more demand on other suppliers, like the ones that do provide to the US. Prices still rise. It's a global economy, you can't really shield yourself from Saudi Arabia unless you can reduce demand for oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Bro Dad posted:So ultimately the responsibility for this whole mess lies with expansionism during the Ottoman Empire. I guess I can live with that. Yeah, people act like everyone was in harmony before those dastardly Brits but there were multiple large scale rebellions in the 50 years or so leading up to WW1.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:38
|
|
