6 ms·

> By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. Well, the West went and took down the regime in Iraq, but some think that didn't go so

by sampo 7y ago

> By supporting Saudi Arabia the West really shoots itself in the foot. Well, the West went and took down the regime in Iraq, but some think that didn't go so well, either. SA is ruled by a clan and king, so it's not a full theocracy at least. If you go and perturb things, there is also room to make the situation worse.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
One could cut trade relations without violently attempting regime change.
- tehjoker 7y ago
  Fwiw, the sanctions the US imposes on other countries often are brutal to their innocent population. One thing we could do is provide asylum for persecuted people, but appearently we don't do that anymore (and never have done it in great quantity).
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    A lot of the early European settlers in the US were fleeing religious persecution. But I suppose it wasn’t the USA then... https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >A lot of the early European settlers in the US were fleeing religious persecution. What's your point? Some of them turned around and treated people who didn't fit in with them even worse than they themselves had been treated when in Europe. I can think of a couple groups who, in retrospect, the natives should have killed on day 1.
      - lostlogin 7y ago
        My comment wasn’t clear - tehjoker stated that the US had never let in a lot of persecuted people. The early European colonisers included a lot of small groups fleeing persecution. As you mention, formerly persecuted groups don’t seem to behave better when they get power.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
_bxg1 7y ago
There's a difference between overthrowing the government and not letting them invest in Uber.
dannykwells 7y ago
Also different than selling them like 10Bil in arms. Europe, for example, has not invaded SA, but is not buddy buddy with MBS. Also, it's clear that sanctions are a much more powerful weapon than invasion. Western sanctions (or embargo) on SA oil would certainly put them in a tight(er) spot. No excuses!!!
- Cyph0n 7y ago
  Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
  - sampo 7y ago
    You just need to estimate to level of sanctions so that the monarchy will still be able to stay in power, without risking an Islamic revolution.
    - beagle3 7y ago
      You forgot the /s Or Are you not aware that the monarchy is already Islamic, of the kind least tolerant towards personal freedoms?
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      What would an Islamist revolution risk for those that aren’t rulers in SA? Other Islamists regimes have done less harm than SA.
    - justforyou 7y ago
      What's the net benefit of continuing to support the monarchy which exported wahhabism to the rest of the middle east?
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    The russians would be very happy to help probably.
    - 7y ago
luckylion 7y ago
Iraq and Libya, both of which seemed moderate compared to SA (Saddam less so then Qaddafi). Neither Iraq nor Libya have, to my knowledge, ever been used as an argument for why "we" have to unconditionally support SA, though. Neither of them have been an ally before "spreading democracy", so they don't make good analogies either imho. Also, "unwavering ally" and "we'll remove their state and let the country fall into civil war" aren't the only options on the table.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  I believe the point is that sometimes a tyrant is worse than cutting off the head and seeing the hydra. Of course it’s possible Iraq would’ve gone different without the Coalition Provisional Authority’s early orders.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >I believe the point is that sometimes a tyrant is worse than cutting off the head and seeing the hydra. If the last several dictators ousted from nations in the middle east teaches us anything it's that we do not want the hydra. It cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to dump all the crap out of the Iraq vacuum. Egypt was teetering on the edge for quite awhile after the arab spring. Libya is still in ruins. Syria speaks for itself. Afghanistan is slipping back into Taliban control. Every time we touch it it gets worse. While I think we can all agree that totalitarian rulers are not the global maximum they seem to be a pretty clear local maximum in the middle east. The situations that develop in their absence are so much worse on a "suffering per time" basis that it's basically impossible to justify trying to oust them.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      Oh that was a helluva a slip. I'd meant to write sometimes a tyrant is better than the hydra. I believe you're right on the money with your point about a local maximum.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Sometimes that may be true. In these examples it certainly hasn't, and has destabilized the whole region. Even a bad ruler is better than anomie, especially for local minorities. The yazidis may not have been happy with Assad or Saddam, but I'm pretty sure they preferred them to ISIS and similar groups.
Cyph0n 7y ago
I think the US handled the aftermath of the invasion quite poorly for a variety of reasons, one of which was the heavy exploitation of the sectarian divide.
mahkeiro 7y ago
Can you tell me what is worst between a theocracy and an absolute monarchy? In SA, the king is bound by no law not even the law of god. He wants you dead on spot, and then you die. Doesn't sound to me a better system.
- cr0sh 7y ago
  Whereas in a theocracy, the Ruler is bound by the law of God. God wants You dead on the spot, and the Ruler is his instrument on Earth - and then You die. The Ruler is now not at fault, because God told, and used, the Ruler to do the deed. The Ruler is absolved of responsibility - God's Will. ...do you see and understand the difference?
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    There is no difference, and the ruler is still responsible for not refusing the god's will.
mikeash 7y ago
Approximately nobody is saying that we should invade SA and overthrow the government. But could we at least stop selling them weapons and giving them nuclear technology and giving them defensive cover from our military?

by sampo 7y ago

ilikehurdles 7y ago

One could cut trade relations without violently attempting regime change.

tehjoker 7y ago
Fwiw, the sanctions the US imposes on other countries often are brutal to their innocent population. One thing we could do is provide asylum for persecuted people, but appearently we don't do that anymore (and never have done it in great quantity).
- lostlogin 7y ago
  A lot of the early European settlers in the US were fleeing religious persecution. But I suppose it wasn’t the USA then... https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >A lot of the early European settlers in the US were fleeing religious persecution. What's your point? Some of them turned around and treated people who didn't fit in with them even worse than they themselves had been treated when in Europe. I can think of a couple groups who, in retrospect, the natives should have killed on day 1.
    - lostlogin 7y ago
      My comment wasn’t clear - tehjoker stated that the US had never let in a lot of persecuted people. The early European colonisers included a lot of small groups fleeing persecution. As you mention, formerly persecuted groups don’t seem to behave better when they get power.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

_bxg1 7y ago

There's a difference between overthrowing the government and not letting them invest in Uber.

dannykwells 7y ago

Also different than selling them like 10Bil in arms. Europe, for example, has not invaded SA, but is not buddy buddy with MBS. Also, it's clear that sanctions are a much more powerful weapon than invasion. Western sanctions (or embargo) on SA oil would certainly put them in a tight(er) spot. No excuses!!!

Cyph0n 7y ago
Weapons sanctions are guaranteed way to hit the Gulf monarchies hard. They are extremely dependent on US tech as far as I know.
- sampo 7y ago
  You just need to estimate to level of sanctions so that the monarchy will still be able to stay in power, without risking an Islamic revolution.
  - beagle3 7y ago
    You forgot the /s Or Are you not aware that the monarchy is already Islamic, of the kind least tolerant towards personal freedoms?
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    What would an Islamist revolution risk for those that aren’t rulers in SA? Other Islamists regimes have done less harm than SA.
  - justforyou 7y ago
    What's the net benefit of continuing to support the monarchy which exported wahhabism to the rest of the middle east?
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  The russians would be very happy to help probably.
  - 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

Iraq and Libya, both of which seemed moderate compared to SA (Saddam less so then Qaddafi). Neither Iraq nor Libya have, to my knowledge, ever been used as an argument for why "we" have to unconditionally support SA, though. Neither of them have been an ally before "spreading democracy", so they don't make good analogies either imho. Also, "unwavering ally" and "we'll remove their state and let the country fall into civil war" aren't the only options on the table.

mieseratte 7y ago
I believe the point is that sometimes a tyrant is worse than cutting off the head and seeing the hydra. Of course it’s possible Iraq would’ve gone different without the Coalition Provisional Authority’s early orders.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >I believe the point is that sometimes a tyrant is worse than cutting off the head and seeing the hydra. If the last several dictators ousted from nations in the middle east teaches us anything it's that we do not want the hydra. It cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to dump all the crap out of the Iraq vacuum. Egypt was teetering on the edge for quite awhile after the arab spring. Libya is still in ruins. Syria speaks for itself. Afghanistan is slipping back into Taliban control. Every time we touch it it gets worse. While I think we can all agree that totalitarian rulers are not the global maximum they seem to be a pretty clear local maximum in the middle east. The situations that develop in their absence are so much worse on a "suffering per time" basis that it's basically impossible to justify trying to oust them.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    Oh that was a helluva a slip. I'd meant to write sometimes a tyrant is better than the hydra. I believe you're right on the money with your point about a local maximum.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Sometimes that may be true. In these examples it certainly hasn't, and has destabilized the whole region. Even a bad ruler is better than anomie, especially for local minorities. The yazidis may not have been happy with Assad or Saddam, but I'm pretty sure they preferred them to ISIS and similar groups.

Cyph0n 7y ago

I think the US handled the aftermath of the invasion quite poorly for a variety of reasons, one of which was the heavy exploitation of the sectarian divide.

mahkeiro 7y ago

Can you tell me what is worst between a theocracy and an absolute monarchy? In SA, the king is bound by no law not even the law of god. He wants you dead on spot, and then you die. Doesn't sound to me a better system.

cr0sh 7y ago
Whereas in a theocracy, the Ruler is bound by the law of God. God wants You dead on the spot, and the Ruler is his instrument on Earth - and then You die. The Ruler is now not at fault, because God told, and used, the Ruler to do the deed. The Ruler is absolved of responsibility - God's Will. ...do you see and understand the difference?
- a1369209993 7y ago
  There is no difference, and the ruler is still responsible for not refusing the god's will.

mikeash 7y ago

Approximately nobody is saying that we should invade SA and overthrow the government. But could we at least stop selling them weapons and giving them nuclear technology and giving them defensive cover from our military?