(October 23, 2018 at 10:25 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 22, 2018 at 6:59 am)Khemikal Wrote: SA's resources, strategic location, and institutional continuity are what made us allies.  The middle east is a full roster of ghouls, at present (gee...what could they all have in common, lol?), so we're bound to end up as allies to one ghoul that at least fits the three above......

...however, there's good news!  If some hypothetical non murdery regime replaced the current, we'd be their buddies too.  Get to work!

But that is one stinky foreign policy; in social life we call such a person who only sees their interest as "selfish","exploiter". I mean this is very insulting because the Middle East has good people still; they are hiding only because they are scared, and because foreign politician -like the American and the Russian- seem to support only their enemies.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with Muslims having bad people like MBS. But it has to do with the western -and American;especially- foreign policy that sees everybody as a ghoul, and has a xenophobic basket that it puts all foreigners in.

And it results in supporting ghouls like the Sauds, and justify it with lame excuses like "but..everybody is a ghoul !"

You don't see that this mentality is so damaging and selfish?

I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies.  We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).  With all the attempts at regime change in the middle east these past few decades a person might even start to think that we're not entirely satisfied with our regional partners.  The saudi regime, ideologically, is trash..but they provide political stability.  That's how they've held on to their sovereignty and support.

They're who we have to work with.  We can see it as a roster of ghouls because it is..our seeing it that way didn't make it so..and if we could make things otherwise just by seeing whatever we desired we would, lol.  Alas, The Great Satan fails to live up to it's rep again.  

What's damaging and selfish is the regions ability to produce and then sustain strongmen (and authoritarian regimes).

(October 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 23, 2018 at 10:25 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: But that is one stinky foreign policy; in social life we call such a person who only sees their interest as "selfish","exploiter". I mean this is very insulting because the Middle East has good people still; they are hiding only because they are scared, and because foreign politician -like the American and the Russian- seem to support only their enemies.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with Muslims having bad people like MBS. But it has to do with the western -and American;especially- foreign policy that sees everybody as a ghoul, and has a xenophobic basket that it puts all foreigners in.

And it results in supporting ghouls like the Sauds, and justify it with lame excuses like "but..everybody is a ghoul !"

You don't see that this mentality is so damaging and selfish?

I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies.  We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).  With all the attempts at regime change in the middle east these past few decades a person might even start to think that we're not entirely satisfied with our regional partners.  The saudi regime, ideologically, is trash..but they provide political stability.  That's how they've held on to their sovereignty and support.

They're who we have to work with.  We can see it as a roster of ghouls because it is..our seeing it that way didn't make it so..and if we could make things otherwise just by seeing whatever we desired we would, lol.  Alas, The Great Satan fails to live up to it's rep again.  

What's damaging and selfish is the regions ability to produce and then sustain strongmen (and authoritarian regimes).

But Saudi Arabia has no sovereignty. The domestic population didn't choose the Sauds or build their empire. The kingdom counted on the U.S army to defend it for a payment, either the protecting was during the gulf war, invasion of Iraq or now.

What kind of sovereignty is that? Even "ARAMCO", the jewel of the Saudi oil empire has "Arabian American Oil Company" as its acronym, that is not sovereignty at all.

It's very simple: a regime does crimes. If you have a bit of dignity and authenticity, you won't deal with that regime until it stops it crimes.
The math can't be easier. But when it's the moment of acting, we get excuses atop of excuses.

Between me, democrats, republicans, Trump, Zionists: you didn't know for a single moment that Saudi Arabia did crimes like this all the time?
I mean come on ! in Jamal's case, you exposed the dirty laundry in 2 seconds.. why don't you do it with everything else and let us get drunk on the real facts?

The only ghoul here is the selfish,interest driven man with the bone saw. He has both an Arab and a White variation; though.
The international community is infested by ghouls. They only know how to "laugh" better than MBS

(October 23, 2018 at 3:13 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies.  We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).  With all the attempts at regime change in the middle east these past few decades a person might even start to think that we're not entirely satisfied with our regional partners.  The saudi regime, ideologically, is trash..but they provide political stability.  That's how they've held on to their sovereignty and support.

They're who we have to work with.  We can see it as a roster of ghouls because it is..our seeing it that way didn't make it so..and if we could make things otherwise just by seeing whatever we desired we would, lol.  Alas, The Great Satan fails to live up to it's rep again.  

What's damaging and selfish is the regions ability to produce and then sustain strongmen (and authoritarian regimes).

But Saudi Arabia has no sovereignty. The domestic population didn't choose the Sauds or build their empire. The kingdom counted on the U.S army to defend it for a payment, either the protecting was during the gulf war, invasion of Iraq or now.

What kind of sovereignty is that? Even "ARAMCO", the jewel of the Saudi oil empire has "Arabian American Oil Company" as its acronym, that is not sovereignty at all.

It's very simple: a regime does crimes. If you have a bit of dignity and authenticity, you won't deal with that regime until it stops it crimes.
The math can't be easier. But when it's the moment of acting, we get excuses atop of excuses.

Between me, democrats, republicans, Trump, Zionists: you didn't know for a single moment that Saudi Arabia did crimes like this all the time?
I mean come on ! in Jamal's case, you exposed the dirty laundry in 2 seconds.. why don't you do it with everything else and let us get drunk on the real facts?

The only ghoul here is the selfish,interest driven man with the bone saw. He has both an Arab and a White variation; though.
The international community is infested by ghouls. They only know how to "laugh" better than MBS

Atlass, please trust me. Despite my country's actions and the one you are stuck under, do know we are still individuals, and there are plenty of individuals worldwide whom do see a difference between a government, and the individual stuck under that government.

I am really pissed that America's current President has scapegoated and vilified multiple groups and especially our free press. You have far more in common with me right now, than I do with a fundy Christian who voted for Trump.

I hate that my fellow humans do not understand in large enough numbers, understand that the one home all 7 billion of us live on, is not a giant battlefield where we can keep beating each other up and expand indefinitely. It is a ball, not a infinite conquest for any side to win.

(October 23, 2018 at 3:13 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies.  We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).  With all the attempts at regime change in the middle east these past few decades a person might even start to think that we're not entirely satisfied with our regional partners.  The saudi regime, ideologically, is trash..but they provide political stability.  That's how they've held on to their sovereignty and support.

They're who we have to work with.  We can see it as a roster of ghouls because it is..our seeing it that way didn't make it so..and if we could make things otherwise just by seeing whatever we desired we would, lol.  Alas, The Great Satan fails to live up to it's rep again.  

What's damaging and selfish is the regions ability to produce and then sustain strongmen (and authoritarian regimes).

But Saudi Arabia has no sovereignty. The domestic population didn't choose the Sauds or build their empire. The kingdom counted on the U.S army to defend it for a payment, either the protecting was during the gulf war, invasion of Iraq or now.

What kind of sovereignty is that? Even "ARAMCO", the jewel of the Saudi oil empire has "Arabian American Oil Company" as its acronym, that is not sovereignty at all.

Then the population can declare as much, and when the dust on that settles we can reassess.  Meanwhile, the KSA is a sovereign country. There is a political reality to contend with.

Quote:It's very simple: a regime does crimes. If you have a bit of dignity and authenticity, you won't deal with that regime until it stops it crimes.
The math can't be easier. But when it's the moment of acting, we get excuses atop of excuses.

Between me, democrats, republicans, Trump, Zionists: you didn't know for a single moment that Saudi Arabia did crimes like this all the time?
I mean come on ! in Jamal's case, you exposed the dirty laundry in 2 seconds.. why don't you do it with everything else and let us get drunk on the real facts?

The only ghoul here is the selfish,interest driven man with the bone saw. He has both an Arab and a White variation; though.
The international community is infested by ghouls. They only know how to "laugh" better than MBS

That fucked up shit happens in the middle east all the time is a western truism, Atlas, lol.

The photograph of the Saudi prince shaking hands with Khashoggi’s son is strange. Apparently he is banned from leaving Saudi Arabia. Obviously he has been made to participate in this set up meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...holds-fire

Here you go, Atlas.

Rich motherfuckers don't care who you murder as long as you are rich enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/busin...ctionfront

Quote:Standing Ovation for Saudi Crown Prince Thrusts Conference Attendees Into Limelight

If he chopped a few heads off of bankers I might forgive him but money talks with these fucks and nothing else.

(October 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies. We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).

A good look at the course of US foreign policy in the Middle East puts the lie to that idea. There is no consistent US position at all, just individuals looking at short term desires and acting on them (often without the knowledge or approval of Washington, or alternatively with the approval of one section of Washington against the hostility of another section).

Take Iran/Persia, in the 50's the US was willing to work with Mossadegh until the UK lead coup, afterwards they were friendly with the Shah (most of the time) for no good reason, going so far as to support him during the revolution, before (too late) throwing support behind tye reactionary ayatollahs. And after 1980 the policy has been all over the place often with the ambassador or oil interests sabotaging then current official policy for personal gain.

And Iraq is even worse when you look at it, Saddam went from enemy no.1 to best friend so often and so quick your head would spin.

We consistently pursue our own interests.  The things people do without the knowledge or approval of washington are not our foreign policy. Even in that short list of politically unstable relationships the value of the saudi regime becomes apparent.

They don't have to be decent people to be useful, and short of regime change or revolution, they're the people in a position to cut deals.

(October 23, 2018 at 6:10 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Here you go, Atlas.

Rich motherfuckers don't care who you murder as long as you are rich enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/busin...ctionfront

Quote:Standing Ovation for Saudi Crown Prince Thrusts Conference Attendees Into Limelight

If he chopped a few heads off of bankers I might forgive him but money talks with these fucks and nothing else.

The boycott of this conference is really pathetic and not enough..still the Sauds made billions despite the crisis of the murder.
There's even a 30 billion $ deal with ARAMCO !

---

(October 24, 2018 at 6:13 am)Wololo Wrote:

(October 23, 2018 at 2:48 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I can only reiterate the fact that the US has no interest in supporting your enemies.  We support reliable actors who wield institutional authority, our government isn't cutting billion dollar deals with your neighbor up the street (even though he's a superswell guy!).

A good look at the course of US foreign policy in the Middle East puts the lie to that idea.  There is no consistent US position at all, just individuals looking at short term desires and acting on them (often without the knowledge or approval of Washington, or alternatively with the approval of one section of Washington against the hostility of another section).

Take Iran/Persia, in the 50's the US was willing to work with Mossadegh until the UK lead coup, afterwards they were friendly with the Shah (most of the time) for no good reason, going so far as to support him during the revolution, before (too late) throwing support behind tye reactionary ayatollahs. And after 1980 the policy has been all over the place often with the ambassador or oil interests sabotaging then current official policy for personal gain.

And Iraq is even worse when you look at it, Saddam went from enemy no.1 to best friend so often and so quick your head would spin.

This is very logical because there are rumors about the "different wings" rivaling each other in the White House; and the different presidents belong to either of the wings.

In other words; you can own the U.S if you had enough cash to buy its current president and current administration. Trump is the proof of that, with his "rude" demand for payment in return of his country's services to the Sauds and other countries.

What you say is kinda logical.

---

(October 24, 2018 at 6:21 am)Khemikal Wrote: We consistently pursue our own interests.  The things people do without the knowledge or approval of washington are not our foreign policy.  Even in that short list of politically unstable relationships the value of the saudi regime becomes apparent.

They don't have to be decent people to be useful, and short of regime change or revolution, they're the people in a position to cut deals.

Everybody thought that until Trump came, to remind us that "George Bush" and Trump are examples of presidents who saw their own personal interest, so many before them did the same.

How many politicians in the White House are like that?

(October 24, 2018 at 7:08 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

---

(October 24, 2018 at 6:21 am)Khemikal Wrote: We consistently pursue our own interests.  The things people do without the knowledge or approval of washington are not our foreign policy.  Even in that short list of politically unstable relationships the value of the saudi regime becomes apparent.

They don't have to be decent people to be useful, and short of regime change or revolution, they're the people in a position to cut deals.

Everybody thought that until Trump came, to remind us that "George Bush" and Trump are examples of presidents who saw their own personal interest, so many before them did the same.

How many politicians in the White House are like that?

Both presidents have (had) personal interests, but that's not an exclusive state of affairs.  The US as an institution has a compelling interest in a politically stable partner in the region.  One is left to wonder how..in the event that some viable alternative to the current regime emerges....the personal interests of actors in government will play out against the crushing weight of our institutional necessities.......but regardless of how that plays out.........we can recognize that the private interests of a citizen taking precedence over the national interest in foreign affairs is not an example of our system working as intended.  

We're not really there with suadi arabia.  At present, private and public interest are at least adjacent, if not equivalent.  That may be, especially from your pov, a terrible state of affairs - but it is the state of affairs until something changes.  The house of saud is a legitimate political entity and has been since the 1700s (they're older than we are, lol).  Trump had nothing to do with that, nor did bush. Each president has been (and will continue to be) forced to cut deals with whomever is in charge in a given region.

The People need to rise up...but...I'd actually suggest that your idea of what The People want might be idiosyncratic. You may not approve of the regimes mo...but our experience in the middle east has taught us that toppled authorities are replaced with the same flavor of ice cream by The People. It seems to be the case that The People of the persian gulf want their despot in charge, not an escape from despotism. Why do you think that might be?