|
Smudgie Buggler posted:"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." Well.....no quite that Antisemitic. But more than the British and others backtracked on their promises to the region and then started bulldozing a country out of already known inhabited territory to do so. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Sep 30, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
blowfish posted:True. Democracy at best only matters within your own country so you can feel good about yourself. In the context of "spreading democracy" in the Middle East, it more or less turned out to be feel good exercises that are completely subordinate to realpolitik. Also, I always thought end of "Three Kings" was more neo-con than leftist in its politics and sort of came out of nowhere. I guess it is always in the eye of beholder. That said, under Clinton, a lot of liberals did find interventionism far more acceptable (Kosovo) and largely changed their tune later under Bush. However, ultimately there was still a split between those more hawkish liberals and the peaceniks, and that continues today. pointsofdata posted:Some people get so excited about blaming current problems on "the Wests" (many) historical crimes that they deny agency to local actors, who also invade, enslave, murder, develop etc. On the same point, some people are very eager to pretend the West didn't have that much influence to begin with and it is mostly just a cultural issue with the region. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted: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. Some people get so excited about blaming current problems on "the Wests" (many) historical crimes that they deny agency to local actors, who also invade, enslave, murder, develop etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I get the odd feeling that the situation is more complex than "western puppetmasters rewarding lapdogs" Situations are always more complex than a four-sentence strawman. However, it's certainly true that, throughout the 20th century, Middle Eastern countries that defied Western interests suddenly faced rebellion, coups, or invasion, while Saudi Arabia brutally suppressed anyone who might dare to go against the West and enjoyed incredible stability by Middle Eastern standards. I don't want to diminish the House of Saud's agency in their conquests since it's not like Saudi Arabia sprung up fully-formed out of thin air at British decree, but British support was almost definitely a factor in the Third Saudi State succeeding where the previous two had failed, all those conquests would have vanished in the blink of an eye if Ibn Saud hadn't shut down his extremists by force as soon as they threatened British interests, and the example of the entire rest of the Middle East suggests that Saudi Arabia dodged quite the bullet by willingly giving Western countries a wildly unfair stake in Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia was never a Western puppet, but it was almost alone in avoiding significant Western meddling in its affairs, and subservience to Western interests to the point where outside intervention was never necessary to secure them was almost certainly a primary factor in that. And since such submissive interactions with the West were rarely popular with the local population, dictatorship was necessary to maintain that sort of stability, since democracies were rarely big fans of sacrificing the people's economic or territorial ambitions for the sake of "don't gently caress with the UK/US". Bro Dad posted:Really? I can't think of any. Iran and Syria, off the top of my head? Iran was briefly a constitutional monarchy, but was returned to an absolute dictatorship by a CIA-engineered coup after the parliament voted to nationalize the country's oil reserves (which were mostly owned by the British, who called in a favor from the US). Syria was democratic for a few years, but after the government voted against an oil pipeline, the CIA sponsored a military coup and installed a dictator, who immediately approved the pipeline. Bro Dad posted:I agree, I just can't stand this notion that the fractious and despotic nature of the region is the result of outside actors rather than the combination of the toxic mixing of religious and state politics, geography, and scarce resources. Also I'm a bit cynical on the idea that any real democracy can take shape there (though at least some places like Jordan have recently attempted reforms). There's nothing about Middle Eastern geography or resource availability that somehow magically leads to despotism, and with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia, mixing of religious and state politics didn't really become A Thing in the Middle East until the 70s or so. Most of the early-to-mid 20th century Arab states were largely secular, envisioning themselves as Arabic states (as the culmination of the Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism that had been developing for the past half-century) rather than Islamic states, and there were even a couple of brief attempts at uniting into larger pan-Arab states. The religious nationalism that led to things like the Iranian revolution largely arose as a response to the failure of secularism to provide stability and prosperity in the Middle East, the inability of political repression to squash religious political dissent the way that it had annihilated secular dissent, as well as a (fairly justified) perception that Western meddling was playing a key part in keeping the Middle East weak and miserable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
On a tangential matter is there any argument that can reasonably be made to someone who's complaining about obama himself driving the price of gasoline up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:However, it's certainly true that, throughout the 20th century, Middle Eastern countries that defied Western interests suddenly faced rebellion, coups, or invasion, while Saudi Arabia brutally suppressed anyone who might dare to go against the West and enjoyed incredible stability by Middle Eastern standards. I think the Shah of Iran might disagree with you that the only path to power in the Middle East is sucking up to the West.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I think the Shah of Iran might disagree with you that the only path to power in the Middle East is sucking up to the West. ...but he didn't suck up to the West, and thus he fell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-saudi-prince-arrest-beverly-hills-20150924-story.html A Saudi prince who allegedly tried to force a female worker to perform a sex act on him inside a Beverly Glen residence has now been accused of attacking other women in the home, according to Los Angeles police and court records. Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud, 29, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of forced oral copulation of an adult. Police said Friday that they are investigating claims that Al-Saud also preyed on other women on the estate. See the most-read stories this hour >> Detectives “found more victims who were also alleging crimes against Mr. Al-Saud,” Officer Drake Madison said. Al-Saud, 28, was detained by police for hours Wednesday afternoon as officers investigated a reported disturbance inside the 22,000-square-foot residence about 12:45 p.m., Madison said. He was held on suspicion of false imprisonment, sexual assault and battery. He was booked on suspicion of forcing the oral copulation of a worker inside the residence, Madison said. He could not be reached for comment Friday. A civil lawsuit filed in L.A. County Superior Court on Friday claims he attacked other women inside the home for several days. The suit, filed by three women only identified as Jane Does, accuses him of “extreme,” “outrageous,” and “despicable” behavior that started Monday and ended in his arrest. http://boingboing.net/2015/09/26/have-you-seen-the-saudi-prince.html The 'despicable' Saudi prince accused of sexually assaulting 'multiple women' over 3 days in a $37 million Beverly Hills compound has disappeared. Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud, 29, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of forced oral copulation of an adult, but was soon out of jail on $300,000 bail--even as other women came forward to say they too were sexually assaulted by a globe-trotting predator, and held against their will. The U.S. State Department and the Los Angeles Police Department's special consul division have both said Al-Saud does not appear to have diplomatic immunity. Where is the prince now? The Los Angeles Times reporter who broke the story doesn't have an answer yet, and neither does anyone else who's talking. Best guess? He's long since out of Los Angeles, on a private jet headed back home to Riyadh. He has an October 19 court date in LA, and I'd agree that it's too early to tell what, if anything, will happen on that date.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...but he didn't suck up to the West, and thus he fell. His regime was very Western friendly, at least as much as Saudi Arabia is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Sounds like a nice guy. There really isn't a more hatable group of people than "Saudi Princes"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Is there a good non-fiction history of the Saudi royal clan? They sound like they must be fascinating from the inside, like a dragon-free Game of Thrones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Female atheist lieutenants snapchat from Mecca. Pretty rare to see a six-word phrase that you know with absolute certainty no one has ever said or even thought before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:His regime was very Western friendly, at least as much as Saudi Arabia is. For most of his reign, yes. However, overconfidence caused by growing oil wealth and Nixon's overreliance on Iran led to some important breaks between Iran and the West, most notably the Shah taking advantage of the 1973 oil embargo to jack up oil prices and openly rub it in America's face. Nixon let the Shah get away with anything he wanted, but although American aid to Iran continued after Watergate, the Shah failed to recognize that Nixon's "blank check" policy was no longer in effect and continued to think he was important enough to do as he pleased as long as he stayed anti-Soviet. Having squandered US aid and goodwill and failed to fully appreciate the significant political shifts in the US over the course of the 70s, his popularity was waning among US policymakers. The fact that he had Kissinger and Rumsfeld pushing for him to be a critical pillar of US Middle East policy, as well as the heavy inertia that tends to develop in US military aid, mostly masked his declining standing in the halls of Washington, and he was largely caught by surprise when the Carter administration showed little interest in the kind of intervention that would have been needed to end the Revolution - especially since the US initially drastically underestimated the magnitude of the Revolution and did not think it was a real threat to the Shah until it was arguably too late to salvage his regime. In summary, the Shah was very friendly to the West for most of his reign, but miscalculations and political misreadings meant that while he remained on good terms with a few specific political figures, he failed to maintain friendship with the US government as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The US got about 13% of it's oil imports from Saudi Arabia last year, which is a lot less than we get from, say, Canada. And imports have been decreasing over the past 15 years or so, too, which is why the Saudis are so scared of shale oil. Oil is a fungible commodity. It doesn't matter what percentage of oil we import from them, all that matters is that they are a big producer and sold on the world market. We could import 0% of our oil from them and the Sauds would still have an effect on the price of our oil. The only way around that would be too nationalize our domestic oil production.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Hey Saudis how is your stint on the Human Rights Council goi.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudi-arabia-insists-un-keeps-lgbt-rights-out-of-its-development-goals-a6671526.html quote:Saudi Arabia is insisting the UN removes gay rights from the organisation’s Global Goals, saying it is “counter to Islamic law”.  Oh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
I think we should princely be relieved they didn't also insist it was one of their fundamental rights to execute apostates and imprison and torture political dissidents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Being "princely relieved" is the high you get after mouth raping a servant and getting away with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Being "princely relieved" is the high you get after mouth raping a servant and getting away with it. "getting away" doesn't enter the equation if being a human sex toy is part of the job description of a royal servant 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 10:34
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Any alternative regime in the Middle East you back will be way better. That is likely noty work safe...  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1406655216 Yerahhhhhh maybe not, the other dominant force in the ME is conga lining people off a dock with a 9mm in their scone... Spacman fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Support Kurdish expansionism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Any alternative regime in the Middle East you back will be way better. not keen to watch a video titled "ISIS slaughters 1500"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Support Kurdish expansionism. This but unironically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This but unironically. I wasn't being ironic either. Nearly the whole Arabian peninsula would be far better off as a province of Greater Kurdistan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Ghost of Babyhead posted:not keen to watch a video titled "ISIS slaughters 1500" You really should, because watching people who walk meekly into mass graves then who are shot in the head is your other option. Sure, The Kingdom of Saud sucks, but it really is the least lovely of a pile of lovely options here. A country that decapitates then crucifies a dude vs indescriminate mass executions into a ditch. Realise you are complicit in this them make your choice... Spacman fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Spacman posted:You really should, because watching people who walk meekly into mass graves then who are shot in the head is your other option. You gonna blame the Jews for the Holocaust next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You gonna blame the Jews for the Holocaust next? Godwin, nice. You are complicit in this, choose a side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Sure, The Kingdom of Saud sucks, but it really is the least lovely of a pile of lovely options here. A country that decapitates then crucifies a dude vs indescriminate mass executions into a ditch. Pretty much any other option is better than ISIS or the Saudis though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Sure, The Kingdom of Saud sucks, but it really is the least lovely of a pile of lovely options here. A country that decapitates then crucifies a dude vs indescriminate mass executions into a ditch. quote:Realise you are complicit in this them make your choice...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Pretty much any other option is better than ISIS or the Saudis though. But if you had to choose between ISIS and the Saud... The Saud seem fairly progressive. That is US foreign policy at the present time. Sure, they behead and crucify people from time to time, but while they massacre thousands of people it aligns with US foreign poicy. The other guys just massacre and behead thousands of people and hate the US. You are monumentaly stupid if you are from the US and consider anything other than the Kingdom of Saud as your bff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
I think I would have gone with Jordan, personally. They're a reasonably not backwards state there, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Spacman posted:But if you had to choose between ISIS and the Saud... The Saud seem fairly progressive. That is US foreign policy at the present time. Actually we should murder the Saudi royal family at our next earliest convenience. That'd be a net positive for the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Actually we should murder the Saudi royal family at our next earliest convenience. That'd be a net positive for the world. Well, the US executes more people than any other soverign state. So offing the entire house of Saud ought to be right up your alley.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Spacman posted:But if you had to choose between ISIS and the Saud... The Saud seem fairly progressive. That is US foreign policy at the present time. Were they our BFF when they bankrolled 9/11? Just asking for a friend...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Were they our BFF when they bankrolled 9/11? Just asking for a friend... You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Pretty much any other option is better than ISIS or the Saudis though. If the only criteria is "less lovely than Saudi Arabia and daesh," we could support any number of people in the region, including Iran and/or Bashar Al-Assad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Spacman posted:Well, the US executes more people than any other soverign state. So offing the entire house of Saud ought to be right up your alley. The US is #5, after China, Iran, Saudi, and Iraq. Maybe #6 if you include North Koreans. That's total, we're lower per capita. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country It's still a disgrace and should be abolished, but at least get your facts right. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Oct 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The US is #5, after China, Iran, Saudi, and Iraq. Maybe #6 if you include North Koreans. To say nothing of the fact that the US gives people a trial before execution that isn't in a kangaroo court. Our system is flawed and too often crooked, but we're not on par with the aforementioned countries in Asia and the Middle East. Also, I may be late in this, but what is this stuff that keeps cropping up where people are saying ISIS framed Assad for the gas attacks? Is there anything to this or is it just more Assad's bullshit? Spacman posted:But if you had to choose between ISIS and the Saud... The Saud seem fairly progressive. That is US foreign policy at the present time. The Saud can't comport themselves like ISIS because they're a real state. Back when they were just nomad warlords, I'm sure they did their share of similar stuff. And being from the US, I certainly don't consider Saudi Arabia an ally. Their own people hate them, with just cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
phasmid posted:
It's from a few years ago, I seem to remember back then it was just "Rebels" and not ISIS specifically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Being "princely relieved" is the high you get after mouth raping a servant and getting away with it. No war but class war. Bite the gently caress down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Sorry, remind me what part of any Western nation's foreign policy made Saudi Arabia execute a kid in an exceptionally brutal fashion for being in favour of democracy. the part where they're neocon stoogies and have been richly rewarded for their loyalty with diplomatic, economic and military protection
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 23:11
|
|
