3 ms·

Sly injection of American politics by the above poster and entirely bullshit. Biden’s administration has embraced Saudi Arabia just as much. In fact, if you act

by babesh 5y ago

Sly injection of American politics by the above poster and entirely bullshit. Biden’s administration has embraced Saudi Arabia just as much. In fact, if you actually look at history, you will see that the US has embraced Saudi Arabia for many decades (since at least the 80s). This is by BOTH parties. Secretary of State visit https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/09/saud-j09.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/09/saud-j09.html Brother of MBS visits and meets with Secretary of Defense https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/07/saudi-arabias-prince-khalid-describes-great-meeting-blinken https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/07/saudi-arabias-p...

babesh 5y ago
Look who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t just Republicans. Interesting which Democrats voted for it. Biden, Schumer, Clinton https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...
- undersuit 5y ago
  >Sly injection of American politics by the above poster Why just list those three Senators when 29 Democrats voted YEA? Sly injection indeed.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Because every party can have dissenters, but these are the core, most powerful members.
  - babesh 5y ago
    Because one is the POTUS, another is the Senate Majority leader, and the third was the Presidential candidate. So basically the first and third most powerful politicians in the US.
danans 5y ago
> Biden’s administration has embraced Saudi Arabia just as much. In fact, if you actually look at history, you will see that the US has embraced Saudi Arabia for many decades (since at least the 80s). This is by BOTH parties. Absolutely. It's required that any US administration be at the table with the gulf oil states - that's just realpolitik. Better to be there than not. However the Republican party has been far more closely wedded to petroleum interests, especially those that provide oil infrastructure services to the Gulf states, in both policy and rhetoric. Don't you remember "drill baby drill", which while marketed as being about energy independence was anything but, because the price of oil is a global commodity, not something that the US has the capacity to change. Democrats were at one time too, but then they lost most of their political power in petroleum industry focused parts of the US. Perhaps Rep. Charlie Wilson of Texas was among the last of such Democrats. Most Democrats have now cast their lot with post petroleum aligned policies, technologies, and industries - look no further than the politically clearly aligned battle around fuel economy standards or the Keystone XL pipeline.
- babesh 5y ago
  Fair enough. The distinction is the gulf oil states where both the parties are aligned versus the American petroleum interests which are more closely aligned with the Republicans.

by babesh 5y ago

babesh 5y ago

Look who voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t just Republicans. Interesting which Democrats voted for it. Biden, Schumer, Clinton https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

undersuit 5y ago
>Sly injection of American politics by the above poster Why just list those three Senators when 29 Democrats voted YEA? Sly injection indeed.
- coryrc 5y ago
  Because every party can have dissenters, but these are the core, most powerful members.
- babesh 5y ago
  Because one is the POTUS, another is the Senate Majority leader, and the third was the Presidential candidate. So basically the first and third most powerful politicians in the US.

danans 5y ago

> Biden’s administration has embraced Saudi Arabia just as much. In fact, if you actually look at history, you will see that the US has embraced Saudi Arabia for many decades (since at least the 80s). This is by BOTH parties. Absolutely. It's required that any US administration be at the table with the gulf oil states - that's just realpolitik. Better to be there than not. However the Republican party has been far more closely wedded to petroleum interests, especially those that provide oil infrastructure services to the Gulf states, in both policy and rhetoric. Don't you remember "drill baby drill", which while marketed as being about energy independence was anything but, because the price of oil is a global commodity, not something that the US has the capacity to change. Democrats were at one time too, but then they lost most of their political power in petroleum industry focused parts of the US. Perhaps Rep. Charlie Wilson of Texas was among the last of such Democrats. Most Democrats have now cast their lot with post petroleum aligned policies, technologies, and industries - look no further than the politically clearly aligned battle around fuel economy standards or the Keystone XL pipeline.

babesh 5y ago
Fair enough. The distinction is the gulf oil states where both the parties are aligned versus the American petroleum interests which are more closely aligned with the Republicans.