5 ms·

Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago. And certainly once they started openly dismembering

by 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.
        defrost 4y ago
        I'm a third party here, my comment above aside I've not said anything. You didn't bring an example where the West didn't get involved, you bought an example of an outcome arguably caused by the West (ie. involved from the get go). This reinforces the earlier point that "not involvement" is not really possible - global events are interconnected and penduluums swing both ways .. not giving a toss about the outcome of events someone had a large role in getting rolling is not an example of distance, just a lack of moral backbone.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them?" Yes. Exactly. Because by trying to fix it you will inevitably kill more and ruin the country completely and leave it in the worse state. The examples are numerous. Nobody gave you such rights. I however will support your personal decision if you grab the rifle go there and join their resistance.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >>leave it in the worse state. that is because of half measures. The US policy was attempting to not be British where the "King" took and replaced completely the governance of the land / nation aka Colonization. That is one extreme The US took the other extreme were by we ripped out the government and replaced it with nothing leading to worse problems, or in the rare times we did attempt to replace it we replaced it with governance by committee, and not a Constitutional republic, more of a EU style parliament also leading to worse outcomes as parliamentary governance can only work with established societies not newly formed ones If instead if we would have put in-place actual constitutional republics under the doctrine of federalism for these nations I think there would have been far far far more successes and American would be seen more as a savoir than a conquer on the world stage today or included them as US Territories like Puerto Rico
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"If instead if we would have put in-place actual constitutional republics under the doctrine of federalism for these nations I think..." Sure, we all know how to fix the world problems. NOT.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The alternative is to try to invade half the countries in the world. Since WW2, the US has killed over 30 million people in various military actions, and everyone of them was framed as some humanitarian action. Since 1991, we have invaded or attacked other countries over 120 times. Check out https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ But really the alternative is to let whomever controls where the camera is pointed decide who the US invades next. Which means the US makes sure it controls where the camera is pointed, because that generates carte blanche for invasion. Now I will tell you a secret that will give you the powers to predict the future: you can tell when the US is preparing to attack another country by watching an increase in human rights complaints on Western media. It's like clockwork. Compare the media coverage of about human rights in Iran vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia. Why is that? Because we've decided to overthrow one of these governments but not the other. Soon, we will start hearing about human rights abuses in Turkey, as they are defying the US by allying themselves with Russia and making peace with Syria, and so they may be next in line for regime change. You can tell if they are next in line by looking for news reports about atrocities perpetrated by Turkey. We can't just stand by! In the same way, you can tell when the US has decided to back a government by watching the human rights complaints in media disappear. A good example is Venezuela, which we are reconciling with in order to gain access to their oil now that OPEC+ is giving us the cold shoulder. Notice how the atrocities and torment of the people of Venezuela is no longer a regular mainstream news item. When Yugoslavia fell apart, all the various ethnic groups began attacking each other and ethnically cleansing rival groups from areas they controlled. We picked one enemy -- Serbs -- as they were aligned with Russia, and accused them of genocide even though the Croatians, Muslims in Bosnia, and other groups were all doing the same thing. We pointed the camera in one direction, got people worked up, and then bombed hospitals, bridges, trains, power stations, water treatment plants in Serbian controlled areas until they agreed to give up a portion of their land so that we could redraw their borders, shrinking their territory. Those ethnic groups in the new lands proceeded to ethnically cleanse their land of serbs. Mission Accomplished for the humanitarian superpower, who really had no interest in humanitarianism but wanted to punish a Russian ally, and knew the domestic population and media was filled with fools who could be convinced that invading another country was OK - even moral - as long as you had enough cameras pointed at the right atrocities. Also, one consequence of this "invade the world" policy is that the US makes so many global enemies, and is forced into so many commitments, that we become overextended and sufficiently hated that we lose our Global Cop status. Our Navy must now police the Straights of Taiwan, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, Pacific Islands, the Caribbean and Atlantic. But we have lost our ship-building industry. We have 850 military bases from Africa to Asia to Europe and the Middle East. But we can no longer mass produce ammunition and many soldiers depend on food stamps. We have an overcommitment crisis because we insist on the right to invade anyone, at any time, that we decide is violating our unwritten set of rules. That's where this idea of humanitarian-based invasions gets you.
- ramphastidae 4y ago
  > If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. Is that what you would have told Jamal Khashoggi?
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I am talking about countries. Khashoggi is a not country. You can save the drama. Would you start a war over a single human?

by johnea 4y ago

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.
        defrost 4y ago
        I'm a third party here, my comment above aside I've not said anything. You didn't bring an example where the West didn't get involved, you bought an example of an outcome arguably caused by the West (ie. involved from the get go). This reinforces the earlier point that "not involvement" is not really possible - global events are interconnected and penduluums swing both ways .. not giving a toss about the outcome of events someone had a large role in getting rolling is not an example of distance, just a lack of moral backbone.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them?" Yes. Exactly. Because by trying to fix it you will inevitably kill more and ruin the country completely and leave it in the worse state. The examples are numerous. Nobody gave you such rights. I however will support your personal decision if you grab the rifle go there and join their resistance.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>leave it in the worse state. that is because of half measures. The US policy was attempting to not be British where the "King" took and replaced completely the governance of the land / nation aka Colonization. That is one extreme The US took the other extreme were by we ripped out the government and replaced it with nothing leading to worse problems, or in the rare times we did attempt to replace it we replaced it with governance by committee, and not a Constitutional republic, more of a EU style parliament also leading to worse outcomes as parliamentary governance can only work with established societies not newly formed ones If instead if we would have put in-place actual constitutional republics under the doctrine of federalism for these nations I think there would have been far far far more successes and American would be seen more as a savoir than a conquer on the world stage today or included them as US Territories like Puerto Rico
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"If instead if we would have put in-place actual constitutional republics under the doctrine of federalism for these nations I think..." Sure, we all know how to fix the world problems. NOT.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The alternative is to try to invade half the countries in the world. Since WW2, the US has killed over 30 million people in various military actions, and everyone of them was framed as some humanitarian action. Since 1991, we have invaded or attacked other countries over 120 times. Check out https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ https://sites.tufts.edu/css/mip-research/ But really the alternative is to let whomever controls where the camera is pointed decide who the US invades next. Which means the US makes sure it controls where the camera is pointed, because that generates carte blanche for invasion. Now I will tell you a secret that will give you the powers to predict the future: you can tell when the US is preparing to attack another country by watching an increase in human rights complaints on Western media. It's like clockwork. Compare the media coverage of about human rights in Iran vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia. Why is that? Because we've decided to overthrow one of these governments but not the other. Soon, we will start hearing about human rights abuses in Turkey, as they are defying the US by allying themselves with Russia and making peace with Syria, and so they may be next in line for regime change. You can tell if they are next in line by looking for news reports about atrocities perpetrated by Turkey. We can't just stand by! In the same way, you can tell when the US has decided to back a government by watching the human rights complaints in media disappear. A good example is Venezuela, which we are reconciling with in order to gain access to their oil now that OPEC+ is giving us the cold shoulder. Notice how the atrocities and torment of the people of Venezuela is no longer a regular mainstream news item. When Yugoslavia fell apart, all the various ethnic groups began attacking each other and ethnically cleansing rival groups from areas they controlled. We picked one enemy -- Serbs -- as they were aligned with Russia, and accused them of genocide even though the Croatians, Muslims in Bosnia, and other groups were all doing the same thing. We pointed the camera in one direction, got people worked up, and then bombed hospitals, bridges, trains, power stations, water treatment plants in Serbian controlled areas until they agreed to give up a portion of their land so that we could redraw their borders, shrinking their territory. Those ethnic groups in the new lands proceeded to ethnically cleanse their land of serbs. Mission Accomplished for the humanitarian superpower, who really had no interest in humanitarianism but wanted to punish a Russian ally, and knew the domestic population and media was filled with fools who could be convinced that invading another country was OK - even moral - as long as you had enough cameras pointed at the right atrocities. Also, one consequence of this "invade the world" policy is that the US makes so many global enemies, and is forced into so many commitments, that we become overextended and sufficiently hated that we lose our Global Cop status. Our Navy must now police the Straights of Taiwan, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean, Pacific Islands, the Caribbean and Atlantic. But we have lost our ship-building industry. We have 850 military bases from Africa to Asia to Europe and the Middle East. But we can no longer mass produce ammunition and many soldiers depend on food stamps. We have an overcommitment crisis because we insist on the right to invade anyone, at any time, that we decide is violating our unwritten set of rules. That's where this idea of humanitarian-based invasions gets you.
ramphastidae 4y ago
> If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. Is that what you would have told Jamal Khashoggi?
- FpUser 4y ago
  I am talking about countries. Khashoggi is a not country. You can save the drama. Would you start a war over a single human?