3 ms·

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation get

DNC collusion with the media is one that stands out to me. Also the acknowledgement that ISIS is funded in part by Saudi Arabia while the Clinton Foundation gets many donations from Saudi Arabia. If you have some time, scroll through the Wikileaks Twitter. Very little noise, mostly content. https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks

phs318u 10y ago
Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > But hey, oil right? Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.
  - phs318u 10y ago
    Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...) The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.
awinder 10y ago
This is a perpetuation of the status quo of (at least) 20 years of Washington influence with the Saudi government, though. Which isn't going to change with trump who has some equally deep ties.

phs318u 10y ago

Sadly, bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia (and by extension its state sponsorship of various Wahhabist groups) has been a thing since way before Bush Snr was president. When the Russians were in Afghanistan it was "useful". Since then - not so much. But hey, oil right?

vonmoltke 10y ago
> But hey, oil right? Why does this canard keep coming up? This isn't 1973. The Middle East does not have the West by the balls with respect to energy anymore. We're invested in Saudi Arabia to keep it from imploding, not for natural resources. Not directly, at least, since oil money is one of the few things keeping it from imploding.
- phs318u 10y ago
  Yes but think of the timeframes and the scope. Increasing energy independence is a relatively recent phenomenon - say the last decade? Geopolitical "investments" aren't traded quickly precisely because they're not supposed to be so transparently viewed as merely an investment in resources. The perception of things is still important which means such support can't be withdrawn in the short term. (Edit: so yes, I do agree, but...) The US may well be largely energy independent but a large number of significant client states within its sphere of influence are not. The viability of those client states goes directly to the global effectiveness of US hegemony.

awinder 10y ago

This is a perpetuation of the status quo of (at least) 20 years of Washington influence with the Saudi government, though. Which isn't going to change with trump who has some equally deep ties.