America's support for Saudi despotism

[realibrad]

Said the rulers of every empire everywhere ever.

And sometimes its true. What is your point?

 

[bshole]

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?

How many has AMERICA been involved in?! America is by and far away the biggest obstacle to Middle East peace that exists. We can't stop putting our big ass dicks into other countries fucking business.

 

[IronWing]

And sometimes its true. What is your point?

My point is that you are painting a fantasy of conjecture not based in historical fact but based on modern prejudice and the conceits of the conquerors. We don't know what Arabs would have or not have done free of imperial interference.

 

[sm625]

All Saudi 9/11 connections got swept under the rug. Every single one. Once that happened it was clear they can get away with anything. Who can blame them for exploiting that fact.

 

[realibrad]

My point is that you are painting a fantasy of conjecture not based in historical fact but based on modern prejudice and the conceits of the conquerors. We don't know what Arabs would have or not have done free of imperial interference.

What we do know is that those imperial rulers did a lot to stop violence when it effected commerce. I am not going to say if it was good or bad, because the methods used were in no way nice. But, when violence happened, the rulers had a big incentive to shut it down so they could continue to leech the people.

The hatred the peoples had started long before the imperial powers took them over, and now that they are pretty much gone, seem to be coming back. I would argue its not a fantasy of conjecture, but a fairly supported hypothesis based on facts and logic.

The Arab world has been messed with for a very long time and its people have gotten used to rejecting foreign powers. That being said, there is a reason Iran and Saudi Arabia do not like each other, and it has nothing to do with the US.

 

[Omar F1]

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.

I disagree. Hezbollah relation with Iran isn't a mere influence, I'd say they're directed by Iran and loyal to it, instead of Lebanon.
Houthi I guess would become another Iranian example of Hezbollah, didn't you notice the way Abdul Malik al-Houthi (their leader) talks and his hands movement while talking, it's exact copy of Hasan Nasrullah.

 

[Omar F1]

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.

Democracy isn't necessary the best way to rule, and definitely you shouldn't try and force it on other foreign nations.
Try for example SA itself, we seriously fear another Iraqi model if anything bad happens to it's monarchy.


I think you're over exaggerating the Arabic history too much . At least, I believe that we didn't fight each other more often than the rest of the world have done throughout the humankind history. I mean, it's not religious-specific as much as I consider it a human-nature.

The US peace-keeper role in ME? I believe that it's playing both rules here: both destabilizing the region and to a lesser extent keeping peace as well. Again, it depends solely on US interests.

 

[Omar F1]

My point is that you are painting a fantasy of conjecture not based in historical fact but based on modern prejudice and the conceits of the conquerors. We don't know what Arabs would have or not have done free of imperial interference.

Can't be said better.

 

[Jhhnn]

All Saudi 9/11 connections got swept under the rug. Every single one. Once that happened it was clear they can get away with anything. Who can blame them for exploiting that fact.

Meh. There were the Israeli "student movers", too, but both wander too close to conspiracy theory for me to go there.

I think that what does matter is that KSA & the Gulf Sheikdoms are the fountainhead of radical islam and the financiers, too. Directing Jihad outward lets them contain it at home. In case nobody else noticed, the Saudi religious police, the Wahhabis, have it bolted down tight at home, very tight indeed. And for that, they get paid to spread Jihad abroad. It's much the same partnership that brought Saud to power in the 1920's. It's the price of protection, ya know?

Meanwhile, Saudi Royalty has become part of the world's power elite through enormous accumulation of wealth. They have powerful financial partners as well.

They & their royal neighbors been a model of stability in a region they keep destabilized with as many radical madrassas as they care to finance & we're apparently willing to endure the consequences.

But they're nice to the Israelis, & they know how to keep their women folk in line, so I guess we just have to put up with their foibles, huh?

Funny that.

 

[realibrad]

Democracy isn't necessary the best way to rule, and definitely you shouldn't try and force it on other foreign nations.
Try for example SA itself, we seriously fear another Iraqi model if anything bad happens to it's monarchy.


I think you're over exaggerating the Arabic history too much . At least, I believe that we didn't fight each other more often than the rest of the world have done throughout the humankind history. I mean, it's not religious-specific as much as I consider it a human-nature.

The US peace-keeper role in ME? I believe that it's playing both rules here: both destabilizing the region and to a lesser extent keeping peace as well. Again, it depends solely on US interests.

I think that much of the world has been fighting for a long time. The difference is that in the west, they were able to fight and nobody was there to stop them. If there was not a clear winner, then the people stopped the leadership from fighting. Wars are expensive and if your side is not winning, you dont want to pay for a forever war. So, what you see is lots of fighting, then it stops for a while.

In the Arab world, they did not get to do that post Mongols. The Arab world was not able to fight it out and deal with their differences. They always had an occupying force that was a bigger thing to deal with, so the little things like who should rule was unimportant. The main difference between Shia and Sunni is who should lead, and if you are occupied by a non Muslim its kinda unimportant. Remove those occupiers and it pops up again.

The Arab world is largely a victim of its situation. Generations have been raised in a occupy vs victim role.

The west had lots of bloody battles before it started calming down. Then we had two world wars and that really changed the west. The things that happened in Vietnam is nothing compared to the firebomb raids done in WWII. The west does not have the stomach for blood like it once did. The Arabs find their culture trying to grow past violence, but now having the means to do much more damage than it did in the past.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Is it? Saudis are right next door. You speak of limitations, but isn't the complaint that they've been too direct? United States shouldn't be directly involved... which would include not telling the Saudis what they can or cannot do with Yemen.

Unless someone wants to speak of Saudi.... "crimes" in this affair, then it is no affair of ours.

 

[Jaskalas]

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!

Democracy, is that what you'd call the Muslim Brotherhood? I support the Egyptian military maintaining peace in Egypt. As I support Assad against ISIS. Yemen against Houthis. If a reign of religious terror is what occurs when Muslim countries are freed from tyrants, as what happened in Iraq, then actions to "free" them are crimes against humanity.

The Iraq war was a grave crime, and a lesson deeply learned. The crimes committed under the guise of freedom are far worse atrocities than what any dictator has done. ISIS is the proof that the Middle East needs strong leaders to maintain peace and stability. Saddam was a bad person. The "democracy" that replaced him... far worse.

If the Saudis see a neighbor descending into the fanatical chaos that has engulfed other fallen countries, and they wish to restore order, then I support them in that action. They could kill every last Houthi and the body count will probably be lower than if the Houthis are left to run amok causing genocide of their own.

I wish the Saudis luck in fighting a common enemy.

You should oppose them because they are brutal and despotic.

Yes... the Saudis are quite terrible. Yet they seem to act as a government that values peace and stability. They can be negotiated with... reasoned with... This is preferable over a chaotic terrorist group.

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.

Involvement in Yemen is simply choosing sides in a civil war. "Illegal act", how? Yemen has a recognized government and the Saudis are fighting on their behalf. Has the UN, or anyone, recgonzied or sided with the Houthis?

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.

I appreciate that you live in such terrible conditions, that you don't comprehend the difference between peaceful democratic protests in Kiev and a terrorist conquest in Yemen. The two situations are vastly different.

 

[The Green Bean]

Democracy, is that what you'd call the Muslim Brotherhood? I support the Egyptian military maintaining peace in Egypt. As I support Assad against ISIS. Yemen against Houthis. If a reign of religious terror is what occurs when Muslim countries are freed from tyrants, as what happened in Iraq, then actions to "free" them are crimes against humanity.

You are oblivious to the ground realities in Yemen. I have strong ties to Yemen and the local populace are seeing this as a Saudi war against Yemen itself. The Houthis and the Zaidis (50%+ combined of the total Yemeni population) are fighting side by side. Is the bombing of a refugee camp killing innocents including children a war crime?

The Iraq war was a grave crime, and a lesson deeply learned. The crimes committed under the guise of freedom are far worse atrocities than what any dictator has done. ISIS is the proof that the Middle East needs strong leaders to maintain peace and stability. Saddam was a bad person. The "democracy" that replaced him... far worse.

That's because the democracy that replaced him is akin to a dictatorship. Real democracy takes time to take root.

If the Saudis see a neighbor descending into the fanatical chaos that has engulfed other fallen countries, and they wish to restore order, then I support them in that action. They could kill every last Houthi and the body count will probably be lower than if the Houthis are left to run amok causing genocide of their own.

If you consider the Bahraini massacre of their own population restoring order then you have a distorted world-view. The rulers don't represent their populations. They rule with an iron first with total brutality when needed.

I wish the Saudis luck in fighting a common enemy.

The common enemy is the Saudi dictatorship. If America had the ability to look beyond their short term capitalistic goals, they would have realized this a long time ago.

Yes... the Saudis are quite terrible. Yet they seem to act as a government that values peace and stability. They can be negotiated with... reasoned with... This is preferable over a chaotic terrorist group.



Involvement in Yemen is simply choosing sides in a civil war. "Illegal act", how? Yemen has a recognized government and the Saudis are fighting on their behalf. Has the UN, or anyone, recgonzied or sided with the Houthis?

Recognized by everyone but the people of Yemen themselves. Has the UN authorized or sided with the Saudis? This makes this war an illegal act of aggression.

I appreciate that you live in such terrible conditions, that you don't comprehend the difference between peaceful democratic protests in Kiev and a terrorist conquest in Yemen. The two situations are vastly different.

Just about sums up all your posts in PnN. Whoever you don't agree with is a terrorist. The rest are freedom fighters.

 

[realibrad]

So long as you believe this, you will filter everything and see things incorrectly.

The Iraq war was a grave crime, and a lesson deeply learned. The crimes committed under the guise of freedom are far worse atrocities than what any dictator has done. ISIS is the proof that the Middle East needs strong leaders to maintain peace and stability. Saddam was a bad person. The "democracy" that replaced him... far worse.

Was Iraq wrong, Yes. Did terrible unjust things happen, Yes. Should people be punished for war crimes, Probably. It is worse than gassing the Kurds and the horrific effects, goddamn NO!

Iraq is bad enough on its own. You don't need to inflate the situation, and it only makes you seem stupid.

 

[Omar F1]

Democracy, is that what you'd call the Muslim Brotherhood? I support the Egyptian military maintaining peace in Egypt. As I support Assad against ISIS. Yemen against Houthis. If a reign of religious terror is what occurs when Muslim countries are freed from tyrants, as what happened in Iraq, then actions to "free" them are crimes against humanity.
.....

I'd like to ask have we ever known which group is truly behind the almost-daily suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003? Is it really that hard for the Iraqi govt. to pinpoint the perpetrators' origin after every attack, or rather blame al-Qaeda's phantom army for every single one?

The same applies to ISIS as well. Accusations between the West and ME could keep going on, but the real question is still unanswered: How they were allowed to gain numbers and base, acquire finance and weapons, their army crossing the border from Syria into Iraq, and later the vague retreat of Iraqi army from Mosul.

 

[Omar F1]

So long as you believe this, you will filter everything and see things incorrectly.



Was Iraq wrong, Yes. Did terrible unjust things happen, Yes. Should people be punished for war crimes, Probably. It is worse than gassing the Kurds and the horrific effects, goddamn NO!

Iraq is bad enough on its own. You don't need to inflate the situation, and it only makes you seem stupid.

If 9/11 was the biggest Arabic-crime in recent history, then US illegal war on Iraq is their worst since the nukes on Japan at the end of WWII.
If you think otherwise, then I believe that you partially understand the situation here in ME.

 

[realibrad]

If 9/11 was the biggest Arabic-crime in recent history, then US illegal war on Iraq is their worst since the nukes on Japan at the end of WWII.
If you think otherwise, then I believe that you partially understand the situation here in ME.

Like I said, Iraq was horrible and does not need anyone to exaggerate how horrible it was. Simply looking at historical facts shows how bad it was. But, that does not mean you need to say stupid shit like its the worse than anything a tyrant has ever done. There are far more things that have killed more and made many more suffer than Iraq.

 

[Jaskalas]

You are oblivious to the ground realities in Yemen. I have strong ties to Yemen and the local populace are seeing this as a Saudi war against Yemen itself. The Houthis and the Zaidis (50%+ combined of the total Yemeni population) are fighting side by side. Is the bombing of a refugee camp killing innocents including children a war crime?

As Iraq has proven, far worse atrocities occur if you fail to restore order. Sometimes the cost of that is high, but that's why I'd encourage the governments of that region to take the lead in seeing it done. They know the ground situation far better than us. It's their call how to fight.

Now, if they start waging a genocide of their own, then condemnation for those acts is proper. There is a line that should be defined and not crossed. You cite a single incident, and I'll take your word that it happened, but that does not move me because it does not indicate a pattern of intent.

What was the body count?
How many times have refugee camps been bombed?
Was the target properly and knowingly chosen?
Were there military targets among them?

Details of the incident are necessary. You are the news bearer for this, the person bringing it to my attention but you provide no links to cite, no support to make your case. I think I need a very good reason to get involved and take action that risks turning Yemen into a quagmire.

That's because the democracy that replaced him is akin to a dictatorship. Real democracy takes time to take root.

We replaced Saddam with a weak Democracy, and a genocide has since resulted. Should we accept such groups taking over the governments of Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Maybe we should protect those governments and not see them fall.

Perhaps Democracy needs to be put on hold in the Middle East if the consequences of it are groups like ISIS.

If you consider the Bahraini massacre of their own population restoring order then you have a distorted world-view. The rulers don't represent their populations. They rule with an iron first with total brutality when needed.

What good would more death and destruction do for them? Are you saying you want an American lead "Operation Bahraini Freedom", because Iraq was such a smashing success? You are happy with what we did there? No? Then what would you have us do?

The common enemy is the Saudi dictatorship. If America had the ability to look beyond their short term capitalistic goals, they would have realized this a long time ago.

Says the man whose country housed Bin Laden. Pakistan tortured the doctor that helped us, and you'd give advice on who our friends and enemies are?
You say a lot about the Saudis while leaving out the nuclear elephant in the room.

Just how close are your ties to Iran and the Shias?

Recognized by everyone but the people of Yemen themselves. Has the UN authorized or sided with the Saudis? This makes this war an illegal act of aggression.

UN sanctions Houthis in Yemen

Just about sums up all your posts in PnN. Whoever you don't agree with is a terrorist. The rest are freedom fighters.

Russia is the violent aggressor in Ukraine.
Just as the Houthis are the violent aggressor in Yemen.

 

[zephyrprime]

Said the rulers of every empire everywhere ever.

Give me some quotes where some old empires ever said anything like this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Russia is the violent aggressor in Ukraine.
Just as the Houthis are the violent aggressor in Yemen.

Reaching for false equivalency, as usual. Saudi involvement is more equivalent to Russian involvement in Ukraine, but, uhh, that's not what you want to believe, so you don't.

 

[cabri]

Where was the threat to Russia in the Eastern Ukraine or Crimea?

 

[Jaskalas]

Reaching for false equivalency, as usual. Saudi involvement is more equivalent to Russian involvement in Ukraine, but, uhh, that's not what you want to believe, so you don't.

Let's leave Russia in its own topic. It was a distraction for me to respond to Green Bean's parallel and I'd rather this remained a discussion about Yemen with Saudi involvement.

You think it's wrong for anyone to intervene in a civil war?

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's leave Russia in its own topic. It was a distraction for me to respond to Green Bean's parallel and I'd rather this remained a discussion about Yemen with Saudi involvement.

You think it's wrong for anyone to intervene in a civil war?

Never admit to erroneous reasoning. God only knows where that might lead.

 

[Jhhnn]

So long as you believe this, you will filter everything and see things incorrectly.



Was Iraq wrong, Yes. Did terrible unjust things happen, Yes. Should people be punished for war crimes, Probably. It is worse than gassing the Kurds and the horrific effects, goddamn NO!

Iraq is bad enough on its own. You don't need to inflate the situation, and it only makes you seem stupid.

Please. Iraq used poison gas against Iran on a regular basis & I don't recall America's right wing whining about it. To expect them to act any differently with rebellious populations while engaged in an existential struggle would be foolish.

Perhaps you'd care to explain how HE, Willy Peter, napalm & cluster munitions are somehow less offensive.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yemen’s President: The Houthis Must Be Stopped

Why should we not side with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen in stopping the Houthis?