4 ms·

The knowledge that we had an ally who was funding ISIS and we were doing effectively nothing about it. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wik

The knowledge that we had an ally who was funding ISIS and we were doing effectively nothing about it. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikilea...

rosser 8y ago
If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship, you're paying a very selective kind of attention.
- crazynick4 8y ago
  "things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes. > ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention. I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy. Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum. I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
  - wahern 8y ago
    The hypocrisy bothers me as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Even though there are factions that fund terrorism, unlike, say, Iran with Hamas, we can complain (and do complain) to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia will actually try to do something about it, subject (as always) to their own internal power struggles. (Plus, it's not like sanctions convinced Iran to stop funding Hamas or Hezbollah.) This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes. America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.

rosser 8y ago

If you think for one second that not antagonizing the Saudi government by officially calling out their involvement in things inimical to US interests is a consequence of partisanship, you're paying a very selective kind of attention.

crazynick4 8y ago
"things inimical to US interests" is a very euphemistic way of describing systematic executions of civilians and other ISIS warcrimes. > ..you're paying a very selective kind of attention. I think focusing on countries like Syria and Lybia while ignoring Saudi Arabia is the real instance of selective attention. I'm not the one ignoring an edge case that's inconvenient to our economy. Antagonizing the Saudi government would not be nearly enough here. Economic sanctions would be a bare minimum. I don't see how this is anything short of a scandal. And don't assume I'm implying that Republicans are innocent here.
- wahern 8y ago
  The hypocrisy bothers me as much as the next person, but the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Even though there are factions that fund terrorism, unlike, say, Iran with Hamas, we can complain (and do complain) to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia will actually try to do something about it, subject (as always) to their own internal power struggles. (Plus, it's not like sanctions convinced Iran to stop funding Hamas or Hezbollah.) This isn't a coincidence. The British installed the Saudis purposefully, knowing that they would be more accommodating to Western interests. This was reflective of their colonial strategy to install minority groups into power so the minority group would have to rely on external assistance to maintain power. Unlike the fumbling strategies of the Americans or French who simply install puppet regimes, the British strategy means that the rulers can't or won't always do your bidding. But it's a far more stable strategy with better long-term outcomes. America has to tolerate the Saudis doing things that aren't always in America's best interest, not unlike tolerating the choices of other allies. The alternative is probably a regime like Syria or Iran. Maybe that would be better for Saudi Arabian citizens, but almost certainly not better for American interests--at least not in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, geopolitical relations don't work like relations between neighbors on a cul-de-sac.