America's support for Saudi despotism

[realibrad]

Genocide happens every single day in a ton of countries and we do nothing. Its not where we draw the line. In the old days, maybe. But now? Now at most we puff out our chests and threaten "pin prick" bombings.

We do nothing because we have other things we consider more important. The US is coming to the idea that we cant be the worlds police. We don't try and stop all the little genocide, but we tend to jump in during overt large scale genocide. Again, not because we are super nice people, but because its in our interests.

When I said that the US is letting them fight it out but stopping at nukes and genocide, I meant that the US is going to do nothing up until those 2 things. With nukes, when we jump in, it will be a strong reaction. With genocide, it would start out with a "noooo guys, come on, dont do that". If the world cries thought, we will jump in with some force. Either way, the US would prefer no genocide because its more for us to deal with.

 

[shira]

We do nothing because we have other things we consider more important. The US is coming to the idea that we cant be the worlds police. We don't try and stop all the little genocide, but we tend to jump in during overt large scale genocide. Again, not because we are super nice people, but because its in our interests.

When I said that the US is letting them fight it out but stopping at nukes and genocide, I meant that the US is going to do nothing up until those 2 things. With nukes, when we jump in, it will be a strong reaction. With genocide, it would start out with a "noooo guys, come on, dont do that". If the world cries thought, we will jump in with some force. Either way, the US would prefer no genocide because its more for us to deal with.

And more than this, the U.S. has come to understand that when we DO try to do something, we almost always end up making things worse.

For example, when we get rid of a brutal dictator, what rises up from the ashes of the old regime are competing extremist groups with no tolerance for those with ideas different from their own. The only way to (temporarily) prevent THAT bloody, intolerant outcome is to make an unlimited commitment of American troops and money; and that just causes festering resentment by the the non-combatants were're actually trying to protect, leading to an ever-more-fruitful recruiting environment for the extremist groups we're trying to suppress.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The middle east is better off with despots than with freedom. With freedom, the middle eastern countries just vote themselves in ISIS. Any crimes the saudis may have committed against their own people are minor compared to the crimes isis commits every day.

What is your definition of 'freedom'? From the context it seem that if you have a democracy that equals freedom in your mind. Would that be correct?

 

[Jaskalas]

Yemen?

Violent rebels overthrew the government there... it's open season for anyone who has an interest. Saudis obviously have a great interest and they are involved. They didn't start the violence, but they may be the ones to finish it.

Why should I oppose Saudis getting involved in Yemen?

 

[zephyrprime]

What is your definition of 'freedom'? From the context it seem that if you have a democracy that equals freedom in your mind. Would that be correct?

Yes. I am not considering some sort of total freedom.

 

[Omar F1]

Yemen?

(Iranian-backed) Violent rebels overthrew the government there... it's open season for anyone who has an interest. Saudis obviously have a great interest and they are involved. They didn't start the violence, but they may be the ones to finish it.

Why should I oppose Saudis getting involved in Yemen?

I made a slight correction, and it makes all the difference in reality.

Simply put, if Iran could be that stupid to try and control SA, then it may be the end of one of either nations. If you guys think that you've seen enough Jihadists in the recent years, then you might have saw nothing yet-in case Iran would attack SA someday.

We've a serious differences between al-Khomaini Islamic-doctrine and the majority of Sunni world. Trying to force it all the way to Makkah and Madina could bring a true religious war into the region, unlike the criminal/fake ISIS/al-Qaeda one.

 

[Strk]

I made a slight correction, and it makes all the difference in reality.

Simply put, if Iran could be that stupid to try and control SA, then it may be the end of one of either nations. If you guys think that you've seen enough Jihadists in the recent years, then you might have saw nothing yet-in case Iran would attack SA someday.

We've a serious differences between al-Khomaini Islamic-doctrine and the majority of Sunni world. Trying to force it all the way to Makkah and Madina could bring a true religious war into the region, unlike the criminal/fake ISIS/al-Qaeda one.

I'd say how far they'd like to go with proxy is the real question. How many Sunni vs Shiite proxy wars has Iran been involved in?

 

[IronWing]

I made a slight correction, and it makes all the difference in reality.

Simply put, if Iran could be that stupid to try and control SA, then it may be the end of one of either nations. If you guys think that you've seen enough Jihadists in the recent years, then you might have saw nothing yet-in case Iran would attack SA someday.

We've a serious differences between al-Khomaini Islamic-doctrine and the majority of Sunni world. Trying to force it all the way to Makkah and Madina could bring a true religious war into the region, unlike the criminal/fake ISIS/al-Qaeda one.

Maybe the Sauds could stop funding groups that blow up Shiites. Hell, the Sauds might even consider granting religious freedom to Saudi Shiites.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yemen?

Violent rebels overthrew the government there... it's open season for anyone who has an interest. Saudis obviously have a great interest and they are involved. They didn't start the violence, but they may be the ones to finish it.

Why should I oppose Saudis getting involved in Yemen?

Off and on tribal warfare has been the norm in Yemen since forever with their most peaceful times being when foreign interference was least. American & Saudi air attacks have mostly pissed off all kinds of people. As the British found out, northern hill tribes are just about as ornery as Afghans, ungovernable by outsiders.

We seem to be figuring that out in Afghanistan but can't apply the lesson in Yemen, another historical quagmire for outside forces.

 

[Omar F1]

It looks like the US is starting to have the policy of letting the Arab world fight it out, but stopping at nukes and genocide. For a long time, the US has stepped in to further its interests and been hated for it. One of its interests was a relatively stable Arab world. They tried to play peacekeeper while getting the resources they wanted. Propping up governments and taking down others has not worked out well.

Sadly, this is how cultures grow. Either they destroy themselves, or they figure out how to get along. Right now, all the hatred that has been building up is starting to be released. I hope as few die as possible, but it does not look good.

Honestly speaking, the US has long lost most of it's credibility after 2003 in the Arabic world. They had the chance to create democracy and spread peace in there, but no, the target was only Saddam regime and they demonstrated a great example to the world about the US power, effectiveness and efficiency in doing so. That was all what mattered and mission was accomplished indeed.

As I stated earlier, US just works only toward it's own interests. Simply we use a religious cover while the US use a democracy one. Both sides honestly are accused of lying and hypocrisy.


Prolonging wars in this region or another is a highly lucrative market and it's one of the US interests (weapons industry), in addition to weaken your enemy (Arabs) by letting them fight each other or possibly fight upcoming unnecessary-war with Iran.
As much as Israel security or oil-supply aren't affected by it, the US shouldn't give a crap. Are we blaming the US entirely for that? No way, our stupidity and weakness are to be blamed first.

 

[Omar F1]

I'd say how far they'd like to go with proxy is the real question. How many Sunni vs Shiite proxy wars has Iran been involved in?

Lebanon, Iraq, Syria (although Bashar isn't Shiite), accusation of supporting Bahrain's previous revolt, influence on Palestine by supporting Hamas, and now the Houthi in Yemen.

Of course controlling Yemen would pose a serious and direct threat for SA more than ever, hence the offensive attack was deemed necessary.

Maybe the Sauds could stop funding groups that blow up Shiites. Hell, the Sauds might even consider granting religious freedom to Saudi Shiites.

I'd say they have a restricted religious-freedom. As far as I know they have some Shiite mosques in the Eastern side, but I also heard they aren't allowed in a high-authority positions or even accepted in the army (I'm not completely sure about this one).

About blowing up Shiite subject, the forever unanswered question is: How al-Qaeda mercenaries has been brought from Afghanistan into Iraq? Which border did they cross? Beside conspiracy theories, I really doesn't know.

 

[Omar F1]

Off and on tribal warfare has been the norm in Yemen since forever with their most peaceful times being when foreign interference was least. American & Saudi air attacks have mostly pissed off all kinds of people. As the British found out, northern hill tribes are just about as ornery as Afghans, ungovernable by outsiders.

We seem to be figuring that out in Afghanistan but can't apply the lesson in Yemen, another historical quagmire for outside forces.

Completely agree here. Actually that's why nobody dare to talk about ground forces yet, the Egyptians had tried that before and lost an estimated 15,000 soldiers in 1967.

Air strikes alone wouldn't accomplish victory and ground troops must start moving, as every day pass could turn more Yemeni people into enemies for that war.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course controlling Yemen would pose a serious and direct threat for SA more than ever, hence the offensive attack was deemed necessary.

I doubt that Iran has designs on "controlling" Yemen. They're too smart. It's like trying to control Afghanistan. They recognize the limitations inherent in backing any single faction. Influence, yes, not control.

We don't see it that way, of course, given lingering delusional Neocon influence on policy.

 

[The Green Bean]

The middle east is better off with despots than with freedom. With freedom, the middle eastern countries just vote themselves in ISIS. Any crimes the saudis may have committed against their own people are minor compared to the crimes isis commits every day.

You are quick in jumping to conclusions that the Arab world would vote for ISIS. Just take a look at Pakistan: despite the perceived public support for radicalism, NOT ONE of the 2000 odd seats was one by any of the extremist groups even though they contested. Even all religious parties combined won less than 10% of all votes.

 

[The Green Bean]

Maybe the Sauds could stop funding groups that blow up Shiites. Hell, the Sauds might even consider granting religious freedom to Saudi Shiites.

That won't happen. The anti-Shia lobby is too strong in Saudia and a Shite uprising will break the state.

 

[The Green Bean]

Yemen?

Violent rebels overthrew the government there... it's open season for anyone who has an interest. Saudis obviously have a great interest and they are involved. They didn't start the violence, but they may be the ones to finish it.

Why should I oppose Saudis getting involved in Yemen?

What makes the Yemeni government more legitimate than let's say Morsi? You can't go cherry picking which dictators and which democracies to support!

You should oppose them because they are brutal and despotic. You should oppose them because this is an illegal act of aggression and goes against the basis of America's justification of its own wars.

America should also provide logistical and intelligence support to the Russians in their campaign in Ukraine. Their justification of war is the same: the legitimate government in Kiev has been undermined by other forces.

 

[realibrad]

Honestly speaking, the US has long lost most of it's credibility after 2003 in the Arabic world. They had the chance to create democracy and spread peace in there, but no, the target was only Saddam regime and they demonstrated a great example to the world about the US power, effectiveness and efficiency in doing so. That was all what mattered and mission was accomplished indeed.

As I stated earlier, US just works only toward it's own interests. Simply we use a religious cover while the US use a democracy one. Both sides honestly are accused of lying and hypocrisy.


Prolonging wars in this region or another is a highly lucrative market and it's one of the US interests (weapons industry), in addition to weaken your enemy (Arabs) by letting them fight each other or possibly fight upcoming unnecessary-war with Iran.
As much as Israel security or oil-supply aren't affected by it, the US shouldn't give a crap. Are we blaming the US entirely for that? No way, our stupidity and weakness are to be blamed first.

The Arab world did not ask for the US to spread peace or democracy. The Arab world is not ready for democracy. There cannot be peace in the Arab world until they deal with centuries of hatred. The US lost any credibility when it supported Israel. Its what created a huge rift between SA and eventually all other Arab nations. Everything after that only made things worse, but support for Israel was the downfall of US relations.

But, the Arab world was and has been a cluster fuck for a long time. It still is and that has nothing to do with the US. The US did not help, but it did not make it worse either. The majority of the Arab countries do not their neighbors, but hate the US more. Give them enough time with out the US doing anything, and they will go right back to killing each other. There is a reason Muslim terrorist kill more Muslims than westerners.

 

[IronWing]

The Arab world did not ask for the US to spread peace or democracy. The Arab world is not ready for democracy. There cannot be peace in the Arab world until they deal with centuries of hatred. The US lost any credibility when it supported Israel. Its what created a huge rift between SA and eventually all other Arab nations. Everything after that only made things worse, but support for Israel was the downfall of US relations.

But, the Arab world was and has been a cluster fuck for a long time. It still is and that has nothing to do with the US. The US did not help, but it did not make it worse either. The majority of the Arab countries do not their neighbors, but hate the US more. Give them enough time with out the US doing anything, and they will go right back to killing each other. There is a reason Muslim terrorist kill more Muslims than westerners.

When did this epic age of Arab nations fighting each other occur? The Arab world was under the Ottoman thumb from the 1500s until the European colonial powers grabbed chunks from the Ottomans in the 19th and 20th centuries. We'd have to go back to the warring caliphates of the middle ages to find Arab nations warring on each other free of external emperial control.

 

[realibrad]

When did this epic age of Arab nations fighting each other occur? The Arab world was under the Ottoman thumb from the 1500s until the European colonial powers grabbed chunks from the Ottomans in the 19th and 20th centuries. We'd have to go back to the warring caliphates of the middle ages to find Arab nations warring on each other free of external emperial control.

What makes you think that the fighting was done country by country. People fight and kill each other without the backing of the nation.

From the 13th century on, the Arab world had someone attacking/controlling the area. The people were able to focus on the Mongols, then the Ottomans, then the English, then the Soviets, then the US. Large country wars would not have been possible. Sectarian conflicts have been around for almost the entire history of the Arab world.

It is a fallacy to look at the Arab world like you do in the Western world. There is not much of a national identity like there is in other places. This is why Sunni and Shia fight all over the Arab world. The reason there has not been more fighting in recent history is because they were held back by other nations.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yes. I am not considering some sort of total freedom.

You are aware that democracy is a type of government and not "freedom" as you put it, correct? Sounds like Bush all over again.

 

[The Green Bean]

Sectarian conflicts have been around for almost the entire history of the Arab world.

Source? Shias and Sunnis have largely co-existed peacefully before Western intervention.

 

[realibrad]

Source? Shias and Sunnis have largely co-existed peacefully before Western intervention.

When do you consider western intervention? They started fighting just after Muhammad died in like 600 something.

 

[The Green Bean]

When do you consider western intervention? They started fighting just after Muhammad died in like 600 something.

Not really. The first civil war was 35 years AFTER his demise. Even though the two sides that fought are generally regarded as the beginning of the two major sects (the sunnis believe both the armies were right in their stances), there was no schism until after the "arbitration" which followed Siffin. There have no wars based purely on sectarianism and Shias and Sunnis have generally got on well with each other. Muslims defended each other against outsiders.

There have been periods of bloodshed and persecution but nothing like what we see today after the colonization of the Muslim word by Western powers. The Saudis are the major problem: they along with Iran haven been funding their ideologies which believe that you must kill a Shia to enter paradise.

 

[realibrad]

Not really. The first civil war was 35 years AFTER his demise. Even though the two sides that fought are generally regarded as the beginning of the two major sects (the sunnis believe both the armies were right in their stances), there was no schism until after the "arbitration" which followed Siffin. There have no wars based purely on sectarianism and Shias and Sunnis have generally got on well with each other. Muslims defended each other against outsiders.

There have been periods of bloodshed and persecution but nothing like what we see today after the colonization of the Muslim word by Western powers. The Saudis are the major problem: they along with Iran haven been funding their ideologies which believe that you must kill a Shia to enter paradise.

They have been fighting for a while. The thing is that they have also been occupied for a while. Their civilization has seen a lot of invaders from the Mongols who pretty much took them down from their peak, to England and France turning them into colonies. The fighting we see today has little to nothing to do with the western world. These are rifts that have been around a long time. The fighting we have seen during those times has been muted because they were squashed by the rulers that were occupying them. Now, nobody is stopping them.

 

[IronWing]

They have been fighting for a while. The thing is that they have also been occupied for a while. Their civilization has seen a lot of invaders from the Mongols who pretty much took them down from their peak, to England and France turning them into colonies. The fighting we see today has little to nothing to do with the western world. These are rifts that have been around a long time. The fighting we have seen during those times has been muted because they were squashed by the rulers that were occupying them. Now, nobody is stopping them.

Said the rulers of every empire everywhere ever.