|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2016 13:40 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On December 17 2016 13:04 a_flayer wrote:I'm just glad Hillary's increased military support of Saudi Arabia (assuming Assange's statement that the US weapon sales to them increased by 200% under her tenure as Secretary of State is correct) is being put to a bit of a halt. Maybe now civilians in Yemen will stop dying by the droves as they are in Syria at the hands of various factions of rebels and Russian bombs intended to stop the rebels. I know it's a long standing policy of the US to support the murderous Saudi King, but it's not like she did anything to lessen this thing that I disagree with out of principle. I'd have criticized other people too regarding this if they would have run for president. On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like. I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things. I hate to break it to you but Saudi Arabia is very much looking forward to work with the new US administration. I am under no illusions regarding this, doesn't change that Clinton worked to make it worse. Nonetheless, there's still a vague hope that the deep state issue which helps promote this kind of behaviour by the US government will be somewhat resolved through those term limits Trump campaigned on (not that my hopes are high regarding any aspect of that).
yeah I don't know what exactly will happen but i just found it interesting that along with Russia and Hungary, Saudi Arabia was also extremely pleased with the results.
not sure term limits will do much except create way more lobbyists but I'm not like an expert on it
|
On December 17 2016 12:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 12:41 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 11:57 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 10:02 Acrofales wrote:On December 17 2016 07:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:19 zlefin wrote:On December 17 2016 07:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gonna be insanely disappointed in Obama if nothing comes of our fucking drone being stolen in international waters. what would you like him to do? I'm pretty sure he'll do something; but there's only so much that can be done. Sometimes the best plan is to use a situation to gain international support from 3rd parties by being outraged, rather than any more direct retaliation. That's the spirit. Get hacked by Russia and get robbed by China, then show power by pouting. Liberal foreign policy strategies are some the dumbest in the world I swear to god. I consider myself heavily liberal, but this idea that everything can be solved by letting people pound you in the ass is getting old. Pretty sure you're confusing liberal with dovish. If you recall, one of the main policy criticisms against Clinton was that she's too hawkish, so they don't necessarily go hand in hand. Yes and all my Oregon hyper-liberal friends refused to call her anything but a republican because of it. Edit: The amount of times I've seen the word "hawk" on my fucking facebook feed............................ why do they insist on being inaccurate? Is it the usual tribalism? attempting to "other" someone who's views they consider not part of their own, and they insist Democrats must all be nice and good and peaceful? Fact: Clinton supports 12 instead of 15 min wage Fact: Clinton thinks the military has a purpose Conclusion: Hilary Clinton is a Republican war criminal. Welcome to the pacific northwest. Enjoy your fucking stay.
That's also true here in SF.
|
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened.
|
On December 17 2016 13:43 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:40 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 13:39 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On December 17 2016 13:04 a_flayer wrote:I'm just glad Hillary's increased military support of Saudi Arabia (assuming Assange's statement that the US weapon sales to them increased by 200% under her tenure as Secretary of State is correct) is being put to a bit of a halt. Maybe now civilians in Yemen will stop dying by the droves as they are in Syria at the hands of various factions of rebels and Russian bombs intended to stop the rebels. I know it's a long standing policy of the US to support the murderous Saudi King, but it's not like she did anything to lessen this thing that I disagree with out of principle. I'd have criticized other people too regarding this if they would have run for president. On December 17 2016 13:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "the military has a purpose" is a good descriptor of the hawkish aspects of Clinton that people don't like. I think its purpose ought to be deterrence and peacekeeping as agreed upon by the UN Security Council or something to that effect. Same way that the CIA should be for intelligence purposes and not training rebels to fight. But I'm a crazy person when it comes to these kinds of things. I hate to break it to you but Saudi Arabia is very much looking forward to work with the new US administration. I am under no illusions regarding this, doesn't change that Clinton worked to make it worse. Nonetheless, there's still a vague hope that the deep state issue which helps promote this kind of behaviour by the US government will be somewhat resolved through those term limits Trump campaigned on (not that my hopes are high regarding any aspect of that). yeah I don't know what exactly will happen but i just found it interesting that along with Russia and Hungary, Saudi Arabia was also extremely pleased with the results. not sure term limits will do much except create way more lobbyists but I'm not like an expert on it
Well, there is a vague hope that the people (senators and stuff?) who vote on bills promoting weapons sales will no longer vote for them in order to save the jobs of weapon manufacturing companies because they won't stay in power anyway so the idea that they're voting against having jobs (which loses them votes from the people who put them in power) by voting against weapons sales won't affect them, and instead some type of moral code will... yeah. Nevermind. As I said, vague hopes that don't amount to much. I'm mostly just criticizing HRC (because people keep defending her) rather than trying to say Trump is going to adhere more to my own morals regarding this than previous administrations and attempting to find the slightest point to be positive about regarding the horror that will be next 4 years.
|
oh k.
other random thoughts I have
dems need to start pushing something to deal with the outbreak of black lung in miners. that would get them back on track a bit. It will be interesting to see what actually happens once he gets sworn in and if anything actually is able to get done. =
|
On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened.
What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties?
|
|
|
Well pretty much any country in that region is a theocracy, but Wahhabism isn't ISIS. In fact ISIS is an enemy of the Saudi state because they consider them allies of the West and want to tear Mekka down and build their caliphate. Every currently existing state is in the way of this.
Everybody in the region roughly employs the same moral code as ISIS does, it's the Middle East. But politically it makes no sense to equate ISIS and the Arabian peninsula, they're strategic enemies
User was warned for this post
|
On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties?
How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany?
That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all.
|
On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all.
Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet.
If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"?
|
On December 17 2016 14:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all. Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet. If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"?
Why, then, are these same things reasons for abandoning relations with Russia, North Korea, etc. And imposing sanctions on them? It makes no sense. And I'm not saying abandon relations entirely, I'm saying don't give them weapons. They are using them to kill Yemeni civilians by the thousands. I mean holy shit? Speaking of butchering people...
|
On December 17 2016 14:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all. Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet. If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"? Why, then, are these same things reasons for abandoning relations with Russia, North Korea, etc. And imposing sanctions on them? It makes no sense. And I'm not saying abandon relations entirely, I'm saying don't give them weapons. They are using them to kill Yemeni civilians by the thousands. I mean holy shit? Speaking of butchering people...
we sanction Russia because they annexed parts of Ukraine, not because they hate gay people which is of course stupid but nothing we can do anything about. Same applies to the Yemen situation, yes the war is bad but we won't stop the war by not cooperating, they'll just buy weapons somewhere else. Also civilians aren't 'dying by the thousands' quite yet. I think the overall official death count is around 2k or something. Which again is bad ,but it's a little more complicated given that Iran is involved with the resistance and so it has essentially turned into a proxy war.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 14:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:36 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 14:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all. Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet. If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"? Why, then, are these same things reasons for abandoning relations with Russia, North Korea, etc. And imposing sanctions on them? It makes no sense. And I'm not saying abandon relations entirely, I'm saying don't give them weapons. They are using them to kill Yemeni civilians by the thousands. I mean holy shit? Speaking of butchering people... we sanction Russia because they annexed parts of Ukraine, not because they hate gay people which is of course stupid but nothing we can do anything about. Same applies to the Yemen situation, yes the war is bad but we won't stop the war by not cooperating, they'll just buy weapons somewhere else. Also civilians 'dying by thousands' quite yet. I think the overall official death count is around 2k or something. Which again is bad ,but let's stick to the facts
Let's take it from a purely human life perspective: How many human lives are negatively effected, and to what extent, by Saudi Arabia's backwards, hateful, bigoted bullshit? How many human lives were negatively effected by Crimea?
Is Crimea, as it pertains to the net human experience, really that much worse than Saudi Arabia? What about when you consider the spread of Wahhabism and how it has effected the middle east? What about Saudi funding of Wahhabi ideologies?
It is fairly simple to compare SA to other countries with strict sanctions and conclude that SA should be treated the same, if not worse, than other countries.
Edit: Essentially what I am arguing is (Number of humans) * (Shittiness of experience) as it pertains to which country is causing said shittiness, sure does bode poorly for Saudi Arabia. At least compared to Crimea.
|
Again, I do not disagree with any of that, but that's besides the point. Foreign policy is not about the internal affairs of SA, Russia or anybody else, because we will not influence this positively by dropping relationships. That is the important point. You cannot just go "I am outraged!" you have to ask "what will change in relations accomplish?"
You cannot bring your (justified) moral outrage about SA into foreign policy, that's not the place for it. The civil rights situation in about 150 countries on this planet is going to suck in the foreseeable future, we won't change this through foreign policy.
|
On December 17 2016 14:53 Nyxisto wrote:
Again, I do not disagree with any of that, but that's besides the point. Foreign policy is not about the internal affairs of SA, Russia or anybody else, because we will not influence this positively by dropping relationships. That is the important point. You cannot just go "I am outraged!" you have to ask "what will change in relations accomplish?"
You cannot bring your (justified) moral outrage about SA into foreign policy, that's not the place for it.
Consider North Korea. Didn't the world collectively turn against NK and say "You are sufficiently shitty for us to justify us ruining your trade etc"? Why should we turn against NK and not SA?
If you consider the number of deaths caused by Wahhabi bullshit, it becomes a difficult dilemma.
|
On December 17 2016 14:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:41 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:36 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 14:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all. Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet. If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"? Why, then, are these same things reasons for abandoning relations with Russia, North Korea, etc. And imposing sanctions on them? It makes no sense. And I'm not saying abandon relations entirely, I'm saying don't give them weapons. They are using them to kill Yemeni civilians by the thousands. I mean holy shit? Speaking of butchering people... we sanction Russia because they annexed parts of Ukraine, not because they hate gay people which is of course stupid but nothing we can do anything about. Same applies to the Yemen situation, yes the war is bad but we won't stop the war by not cooperating, they'll just buy weapons somewhere else. Also civilians 'dying by thousands' quite yet. I think the overall official death count is around 2k or something. Which again is bad ,but let's stick to the facts Let's take it from a purely human life perspective: How many human lives are negatively effected, and to what extent, by Saudi Arabia's backwards, hateful, bigoted bullshit? How many human lives were negatively effected by Crimea? Is Crimea, as it pertains to the net human experience, really that much worse than Saudi Arabia? What about when you consider the spread of Wahhabism and how it has effected the middle east? What about Saudi funding of Wahhabi ideologies? It is fairly simple to compare SA to other countries with strict sanctions and conclude that SA should be treated the same, if not worse, than other countries. Edit: Essentially what I am arguing is (Number of humans) * (Shittiness of experience) as it pertains to which country is causing said shittiness, sure does bode poorly for Saudi Arabia. At least compared to Crimea.
Will more human lives or less human lives be hurt if Saudi Arabia had no allies from the west?
|
On December 17 2016 14:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:53 Nyxisto wrote:
Again, I do not disagree with any of that, but that's besides the point. Foreign policy is not about the internal affairs of SA, Russia or anybody else, because we will not influence this positively by dropping relationships. That is the important point. You cannot just go "I am outraged!" you have to ask "what will change in relations accomplish?"
You cannot bring your (justified) moral outrage about SA into foreign policy, that's not the place for it. Consider North Korea. Didn't the world collectively turn against NK and say "You are sufficiently shitty for us to justify us ruining your trade etc"? Why should we turn against NK and not SA? If you consider the number of deaths caused by Wahhabi bullshit, it becomes a difficult dilemma.
If there was any hope to increase safety for SK and improve the lives of the NK people we should absolutely pick up relations. But that's not the case, they've just declared us enemies and are batshit insane. There's nothing you can really do apart from containing them. So that's a different situation altogether.
We don't denounce NK for moral reasons, we do so because anything else wouldn't help either.
|
On December 17 2016 15:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:48 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:41 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:36 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 14:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 14:30 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:On December 17 2016 13:51 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe Clinton had a plan in progress to drop Saudi Arabia as an "ally" in the MidEast. Would certainly be long overdue if it happened. What's the reason for this besides "ermahgerd muslims"? It's a stable country that in contrast to Assad isn't actively butchering its population while also not being openly hostile towards Israel(because they both can't stand Iran). Why should the US sever these ties? How would you compare the Saudi approach to women and gays, in contrast with Germany? That's important. We've come to expect such blatant bullshit from the region that we stop realizing just how abhorrent it really is. It's not just some other perspective. Its downright archaic nonsense that has no place in modern society. I'm past the point of putting my arms in the air and saying "lol culture". It is shit. SA needs to change immediately. The world shouldn't be tolerating it at all. Terrible of course, but what has this to do with geopolitics? You don't pursue allies based on ethics, or else you'd have none in that region. Of course abandoning relationships with SA won't help the women in SA either, at least now we have some levers to pressure them on human rights issues, if there is no alliance there is no pressure. This is just moralising feel good stuff. You're not actually helping anybody by abandoning relationships with every autocracy on the planet. If you care about women in that region keep the political relationship alive. What do you think they'll do if we drop the effort? Throw up their arms and go "oh no Germany has abandoned us, let's make a secular constitution!"? Why, then, are these same things reasons for abandoning relations with Russia, North Korea, etc. And imposing sanctions on them? It makes no sense. And I'm not saying abandon relations entirely, I'm saying don't give them weapons. They are using them to kill Yemeni civilians by the thousands. I mean holy shit? Speaking of butchering people... we sanction Russia because they annexed parts of Ukraine, not because they hate gay people which is of course stupid but nothing we can do anything about. Same applies to the Yemen situation, yes the war is bad but we won't stop the war by not cooperating, they'll just buy weapons somewhere else. Also civilians 'dying by thousands' quite yet. I think the overall official death count is around 2k or something. Which again is bad ,but let's stick to the facts Let's take it from a purely human life perspective: How many human lives are negatively effected, and to what extent, by Saudi Arabia's backwards, hateful, bigoted bullshit? How many human lives were negatively effected by Crimea? Is Crimea, as it pertains to the net human experience, really that much worse than Saudi Arabia? What about when you consider the spread of Wahhabism and how it has effected the middle east? What about Saudi funding of Wahhabi ideologies? It is fairly simple to compare SA to other countries with strict sanctions and conclude that SA should be treated the same, if not worse, than other countries. Edit: Essentially what I am arguing is (Number of humans) * (Shittiness of experience) as it pertains to which country is causing said shittiness, sure does bode poorly for Saudi Arabia. At least compared to Crimea. Will more human lives or less human lives be hurt if Saudi Arabia had no allies from the west?
I am operating under the assumption that every government will succumb to the pressure of being completely left out to die. If SA was faced with either complete economic collapse, or not being bigoted shit bags, I bet you they would stop stoning gay people.
On December 17 2016 15:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 14:59 Mohdoo wrote:On December 17 2016 14:53 Nyxisto wrote:
Again, I do not disagree with any of that, but that's besides the point. Foreign policy is not about the internal affairs of SA, Russia or anybody else, because we will not influence this positively by dropping relationships. That is the important point. You cannot just go "I am outraged!" you have to ask "what will change in relations accomplish?"
You cannot bring your (justified) moral outrage about SA into foreign policy, that's not the place for it. Consider North Korea. Didn't the world collectively turn against NK and say "You are sufficiently shitty for us to justify us ruining your trade etc"? Why should we turn against NK and not SA? If you consider the number of deaths caused by Wahhabi bullshit, it becomes a difficult dilemma. If there was any hope to increase safety for SK and improve the lives of the NK people we should absolutely pick up relations. But that's not the case, they've just declared us enemies and are batshit insane. There's nothing you can really do apart from containing them. So that's a different situation altogether. We don't denounce NK for moral reasons, we do so because anything else wouldn't help either.
I agree that NK is unique, but I am just trying to point out that SA is legitimately terrible and we have applied sanctions for much less. And yet they are *allies*.
|
China is pretty much the only thing holding up NK right now and with the way their reacting to Trump I don't see them being much inclined to change that approach. don't really know much about Saudi Arabia to have anything meaningful to say about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
