|
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 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened.
1980 to 2011 is quite a long time so you're reaching. If Bill Clinton and Tenet in the 90s had appreciated Al Qaeda's threat, it could've ended there. Not really a case you should bring up to support non-interventionism.
The way Obama handled funding rebel groups in Syria is a good example. But that's just poor interventionism in it's own right.
|
On December 18 2016 09:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened. 1980 to 2011 is quite a long time so you're reaching. If Bill Clinton and Tenet in the 90s had appreciated Al Qaeda's threat, it could've ended there. Not really a case you should bring up to support non-interventionism. The way Obama handled funding rebel groups in Syria is a good example. But that's just poor interventionism in it's own right.
A policy of "arm rebels then shoot them" doesn't seem like a particularly humanitarian approach to the Middle East.
|
On December 18 2016 09:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 09:31 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened. 1980 to 2011 is quite a long time so you're reaching. If Bill Clinton and Tenet in the 90s had appreciated Al Qaeda's threat, it could've ended there. Not really a case you should bring up to support non-interventionism. The way Obama handled funding rebel groups in Syria is a good example. But that's just poor interventionism in it's own right. A policy of "arm rebels then shoot them" doesn't seem like a particularly humanitarian approach to the Middle East.
I think he's pointing out that intervention happened during Clinton we would not have had a 9/11
|
On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened.
The question was not whether we should intervene or not. The question is, if you believe SA is not a good ally then which is a better ally to have in the Middle East.
|
On December 18 2016 10:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened. The question was not whether we should intervene or not. The question is, if you believe SA is not a good ally then which is a better ally to have in the Middle East.
Iran? Ironically it might be one of the stabler countries in the region.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran, to answer your question. They are the ME powers of strength close enough to the area of interest. US chose three of four, in a manner of speaking.
I would rate SA as the worst of the four though.
|
On December 18 2016 10:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 09:36 a_flayer wrote:On December 18 2016 09:31 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened. 1980 to 2011 is quite a long time so you're reaching. If Bill Clinton and Tenet in the 90s had appreciated Al Qaeda's threat, it could've ended there. Not really a case you should bring up to support non-interventionism. The way Obama handled funding rebel groups in Syria is a good example. But that's just poor interventionism in it's own right. A policy of "arm rebels then shoot them" doesn't seem like a particularly humanitarian approach to the Middle East. I think he's pointing out that intervention happened during Clinton we would not have had a 9/11
You just can't go crazy with "X proves interventionism is bad." My only point.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
American interventions in recent history have generally gone poorly though, whether or not "intervention is bad" as a whole.
|
On December 18 2016 10:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2016 09:36 a_flayer wrote:On December 18 2016 09:31 Danglars wrote:On December 18 2016 09:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 18 2016 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 18:40 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 17 2016 16:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:
A criticism of SA can't be only focused on their internal affairs. I mean, yeah, they're shitty there, but they've also done as much as they can to spread islamist extremism and fundamentalism throughout the muslim world (and beyond). You cannot forget that when you discuss their influence on the global situation. Would you rather: A.) Cut ties with the middle east and not try to make allies there. B.) Start alliances where you can and hope that after enough time passes (my guess is 100-200 years) the two cultures finds a middle ground and both sides end up happier for it. 200 years? Last i heard Saudi has maybe 30-40 years of oil left.And we all know that oil is harder to extract than the stuff they've already pulled out. Saudi gets 90% of it's revenue from oil, it will be a total minnow on the global political stage with a few decades and it is very unlikely the current monarchy will still exist.They will probably go back to being nomadic traders which to me is far preferable than the atrocities they are committing in Yemen right now in the name of globalism and the "war on terror". Can you name those Middle East countries who could ally with us with enough muscle to positively affect the region? I'm more of a non-interventionist. Even now, if the US cut all funding to "rebel" groups and pulled out of the mid east the situation there would be far better in a few years i think. Even Bin Laden was funded by the US in the 80s, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.That is pretty common knowledge but without that US funding and support iof Bin Laden and his allies it is quite possible 9/11 would not have happened. 1980 to 2011 is quite a long time so you're reaching. If Bill Clinton and Tenet in the 90s had appreciated Al Qaeda's threat, it could've ended there. Not really a case you should bring up to support non-interventionism. The way Obama handled funding rebel groups in Syria is a good example. But that's just poor interventionism in it's own right. A policy of "arm rebels then shoot them" doesn't seem like a particularly humanitarian approach to the Middle East. I think he's pointing out that intervention happened during Clinton we would not have had a 9/11
Yes, and the chain of posts he was responding to was saying that if the US hadn't armed Osama maybe they wouldn't have had to shoot him. So we're right back at arming rebels into shooting them, which was what sparked the discussion. Whether Bill Clinton could have done it or Obama actually did it doesn't matter. It's arming them for your own purposes, and then shooting them once they go their own way or turn against you. Just like how the US ally armed ISIS with the intent of taking down Assad and now they have to be shot (if John Kerry can criticize Russia for not keeping Assad in check, I can criticize the US for not keeping SA in check).
|
On December 18 2016 10:41 LegalLord wrote:
American interventions in recent history have generally gone poorly though, whether or not "intervention is bad" as a whole.
Yourself and others are a little too hasty to generalize events to themes. Evaluate individually according to some limited principles and drawing from the unique aspects of the situation, but cite multiple events across timespans if you wish to make some esoteric point of form. Middle East interventions have gone badly, recently, but the differences abound. As another poster said, Obama never showed any interest in doing anything other than breaking shit, which contrasts with Bush.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The common theme of the many failed ME interventions can be summarized simply as "power abhors a vacuum." In each situation, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, the US did not give enough forethought as to what would follow their involvement and how that situation could be kept from spiraling downward into a bitter quagmire that really can't be solved by American methods of intervention.
|
People do realise though that Iran absolutely hates Israels guts right, there will be no deep cooperation with both at the same time. The Saudis on the other hand don't really care about Israel and actually have some intelligence exchange going on due to the Iran threat. Also if you're afraid of Islam Iran isn't a good partner either, they're actually a legitimate theocracy. SA is just rich monarchs in cosplay.
|
On December 18 2016 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:
People do realise though that Iran absolutely hates Israels guts right, there will be no deep cooperation with both at the same time. The Saudis on the other hand don't really care about Israel and actually have some intelligence exchange going on due to the Iran threat. Also if you're afraid of Islam Iran isn't a good partner either, they're actually a legitimate theocracy. SA is just rich monarchs in cosplay.
SA does a lot more problematic funding though. though it's often not the monarchs themselves doing it rather its other elements in SA.
basic problem with SA; is that if you overthrew the monarchy, the society itself would probably choose a theocracy that's very fundamentalist.
real shortage of good options.
|
The biggest problem is that there is no such thing as intervention. You either conquer the area and live there, like Israel, or you don't try at all.
|
Any UAV hobbyists around these parts?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Collection of minor stories overnight:
China says they will return the drone, Trump says "they can keep it" for no apparent reason.
The courts say that the electors cannot be mandated to vote one way or the other, one elector says he will vote against Trump.
Lots of partisan divide over whether or not the electors should pick Trump and whether or not the hacking is a reason to postpone the electoral vote.
Rumor has it that Ivanka is going to take up some of the responsibilities that the First Lady has.
Old but hilarious Mike Pence meme:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 18 2016 20:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Any UAV hobbyists around these parts?
Yes I've played with and changed the controller from my robotics days.
Surprisingly tank drive is really good I feel with the triggers as up and down.
The drone that was lost was a uuv I believe very interesting advancement in anti sub measures.
|
It's nice how the presidency has now become almost entirely a royal position, with the whole family involved. Next thing you know there'll be dynasties and such.
|
We have already had political dynasties at the big level like Kennedys/Clintons/Bushes etc but also lesser ones like several generations that end up all being state representatives or in congress.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
For the folks here that defend Iraq as better than Libya and Syria for the US, what is the rationale for such a position? Or in other words, what went right in Iraq that went wrong in Syria and Libya?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
