5 ms·

Honestly, Sadam was class A ahole. But all things considered, if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to t

by hef19898 4y ago

Honestly, Sadam was class A ahole. But all things considered, if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West, NATO should have invaded Saudi.

johnea 4y ago
Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago. And certainly once they started openly dismembering people in their embassy. As much as it's appealing to blame all of this on repressive, religiously extremist governments, the bulk of the blame is laid on the US for continuing to ingratiate our entire country to these assholes in the name of petro-profit. The US is after all, a major EXPORTER of oil, and doesn't need Saudi oil except for adding additional profit to the industry...
- cassepipe 4y ago
  Note that the US is a an oil exporter since j019 only and that's only thanks to intense fracking which is much more costly that getting saudian oil and has quite an impact on the environment and nearby populations.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago." The only reason for one country to go to war with another should be in response to other country starting a war. If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. If you feel sorry about their people - accept their refugees. Nobody gives you a right to declare yourself a saint and start killing people under "high moral" pretenses. We have already completely fucked up whole bunch of other countries and killed their people just to "save" them from dictatorship with the end result of them ending up in even worst state. You are simply advocating crime.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them? Really, that is your position?
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Let's say it's not Putin's position for example. But you meanwhile are using the exact same justification as him. Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible, but think twice before blatantly calling to fight fire with fire and death with more death. Rule out at least semi-peaceful options first
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible genocide / mass murder in Cambodia for example?
        defrost 4y ago
        That's a hell of a tangent, but for what it's worth it's absolutely the case that the US was involved (inextricably linked) to the genocide to some degree or another given that the relationship between the United States' massive bombing of Cambodia and the growth of the Khmer Rouge in recruitment and popular support has been a matter of interest to historians ever since. Fear of Red China and the Domino Theory cast a long shadow as the West's attempts to put the thumb on the scale in various geopolitical locations arguably did more harm than good.
        FpUser 4y ago
        I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get involved in rectifying one of the most horrible genocides. Whether it "helped" to cause it is a totally different issue. I was not talking about that part. I was not even aware of that particular aspect.
fsckboy 4y ago
> if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West your comment is confusing, I can't quite grasp what you're trying to say, but just to clarify: The first Iraq War was about Iraq invading Kuwait. In the period leading up to the second Iraq War, there were sanctions on Iraq and Iraq was not allowed to sell oil. Iraq (and France) wanted to lift the sanctions. The war was not about getting Iraq's oil, Iraq was begging to deliver it.

johnea 4y ago

Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago. And certainly once they started openly dismembering people in their embassy. As much as it's appealing to blame all of this on repressive, religiously extremist governments, the bulk of the blame is laid on the US for continuing to ingratiate our entire country to these assholes in the name of petro-profit. The US is after all, a major EXPORTER of oil, and doesn't need Saudi oil except for adding additional profit to the industry...

cassepipe 4y ago
Note that the US is a an oil exporter since j019 only and that's only thanks to intense fracking which is much more costly that getting saudian oil and has quite an impact on the environment and nearby populations.
FpUser 4y ago
>"Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago." The only reason for one country to go to war with another should be in response to other country starting a war. If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. If you feel sorry about their people - accept their refugees. Nobody gives you a right to declare yourself a saint and start killing people under "high moral" pretenses. We have already completely fucked up whole bunch of other countries and killed their people just to "save" them from dictatorship with the end result of them ending up in even worst state. You are simply advocating crime.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them? Really, that is your position?
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Let's say it's not Putin's position for example. But you meanwhile are using the exact same justification as him. Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible, but think twice before blatantly calling to fight fire with fire and death with more death. Rule out at least semi-peaceful options first
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible genocide / mass murder in Cambodia for example?
      - defrost 4y ago
        That's a hell of a tangent, but for what it's worth it's absolutely the case that the US was involved (inextricably linked) to the genocide to some degree or another given that the relationship between the United States' massive bombing of Cambodia and the growth of the Khmer Rouge in recruitment and popular support has been a matter of interest to historians ever since. Fear of Red China and the Domino Theory cast a long shadow as the West's attempts to put the thumb on the scale in various geopolitical locations arguably did more harm than good.
        FpUser 4y ago
        I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get involved in rectifying one of the most horrible genocides. Whether it "helped" to cause it is a totally different issue. I was not talking about that part. I was not even aware of that particular aspect.

fsckboy 4y ago

> if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West your comment is confusing, I can't quite grasp what you're trying to say, but just to clarify: The first Iraq War was about Iraq invading Kuwait. In the period leading up to the second Iraq War, there were sanctions on Iraq and Iraq was not allowed to sell oil. Iraq (and France) wanted to lift the sanctions. The war was not about getting Iraq's oil, Iraq was begging to deliver it.