Changes in Arabia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep. The USA are fecking up things routinely. The consequences are that millions of people around the world suffer. But if you dare to talk smack about a dead GI, you are done. :lol:
 
Danny1982 said:
Yup I know. That was my point. Regardless what they do. Terrorism, human rights violations, war crimes...
Click to expand...

They aren't a quid pro quo for a change in their domestic policy. Whether or not they should be is another question.
 
PedroMendez said:
I am well aware of the situation on the energy market and SA is certainly not acting in the best interest of the USA at the moment. OPEC is de-facto toast. What do you actually mean by "keeping the Saudis as friends"? The Saudis act as friends in a diplomatic context, but when it comes to meaningful policies they don´t follow up. Sure, there are still some boundaries; for example support for Israel or not exporting certain weapons. Still all of that is minor compared to what the USA is doing for Saudi Arabia.
I am not proposing any specific policy to antagonise them for the sake of it. Still it is pretty obvious that their goals and the goals of the West (not some romantic nonsense like liberal values, but actual economic, political and military interests) are very different and we have to acknowledge that and act accordingly.

In areas where our interests are actually aligned, cooperation might still be sensible despite the terrible nature of their regime. I just don´t see it.
Click to expand...
But I thought when it comes to oil price, SA is acting in the inerest of USA. US is not very dependent on SA in terms of energy anymore, however, SA's reluctance not to cut production would keep price low, and have positive net effect on US's economy. This in turn pushes Russian economy to the edge while reducing Iran's revenue.
 
The silence on this atrocity is disgusting. Whit House spokesman was on the other day, saying that the US was concerned. You're concerned but still giving them weapons to kill. Feck off.
 
Adisa said:
The silence on this atrocity is disgusting. Whit House spokesman was on the other day, saying that the US was concerned. You're concerned but still giving them weapons to kill. Feck off.
Click to expand...
Their real concern is Saudi Arabia's failure to win the war after a year and a half, despite how unbalanced the war is.

And by the way, here are some updates (that the CNN, or the BBC, or the other propaganda machines don't find worthy of tears or concern):

Saudi airstrike hits a school in northern Yemen, killing 10 children
SANAA, Yemen — Ten children died and 28 were injured in what Yemeni locals and officials described as an airstrike on a school in northern Yemen by a U.S.-backed Saudi-led coalition. The aid group Doctors Without Borders confirmed receiving casualties at its medical facility in the area.

The children, according to local reports, were taking exams inside their classrooms in Haydan, an enclave of the city of Saada. Gruesome images of what appeared to be the bodies of the children have emerged on social-media sites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...039cf2-617c-11e6-84c1-6d27287896b5_story.html
Click to expand...


Doctors Without Borders Is Pulling Staff After Hospital Bombings in Yemen
SANA, Yemen — Doctors Without Borders announced on Thursday that it would evacuate its staff from six hospitals in northern Yemen because it could not get assurances that its hospitals would not be bombed again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/world/middleeast/yemen-doctors-without-borders-hospitals.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


AP interview: Red Cross chief decries Yemen violence
GENEVA (AP) — "Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years," the head of the international Red Cross says, describing the devastation from a conflict that has left more than 1,900 people dead since March.

Peter Maurer, fresh off a trip to the war-torn country in the Arabian Peninsula, said entrenched poverty, months of intensified warfare and limits on imports because of an international embargo have contributed to "catastrophic" conditions in Yemen.

"The firepower with which this war is fought on the ground and in the air is causing more suffering than in other societies which are stronger and where infrastructures are better off and people are wealthier and have reserves and can escape," Maurer told The Associated Press at his office in the headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-a...ief-decries-yemen-violence-2015-8--10--2?IR=T
Click to expand...


And many more, but I don't want to "spam" the thread with things that don't matter. So, what's trending on Twitter again?
 
Adisa said:
The silence on this atrocity is disgusting. Whit House spokesman was on the other day, saying that the US was concerned. You're concerned but still giving them weapons to kill. Feck off.
Click to expand...
Strictly business. Always has been for the yanks:wenger:
 
Danny1982 said:
Their real concern is Saudi Arabia's failure to win the war after a year and a half, despite how unbalanced the war is.
Click to expand...
Workshy feckers would probably win this 'war' if they could get some slave workers to fight it out for them. :wenger:
 
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/lobbying


Have you ever wondered why the U.S. would quickly resume arms sales to an unsavory ally after a bloody crackdown on protesters? Why Congress would side with a repressive regime in labeling the opposition as a terrorist threat? Or why an annual spending bill would mandate that foreign aid be spent on a desolate strip of the Sahara?

Sure, U.S. economic and strategic interests may be at play. But for every foreign policy decision our leaders make, it’s usually a safe bet that a small army of hired guns are working behind the scenes to make sure foreign governments’ best interests are protected.

Al-Monitor’s Julian Pecquet and Abigail Kukura have sifted through hundreds of lobbying and financial records to bring you the most comprehensive resource available on Middle East lobbying in Washington. The series reveals the who, the why - and the how much - discreetly guiding all aspects of foreign policy, from weapons contracts and foreign aid to trade deals and financial sanctions.

All that information would be pretty useless, however, without some way to measure foreign nations' success at getting what they want. That's why we've also pored over State Department budgets, Pentagon arms deals and more to reveal the quantifiable ups and downs in US bilateral relations beyond the political spin and diplomatic platitudes. Wherever possible we’ve presented that data in easy-to-read graphics just waiting to be shared on Twitter and Facebook.

And while numbers really can tell a story, it wouldn't be complete without Al-Monitor’s authoritative reporting and exclusive interviews with some of the key diplomats driving the conversation in Washington. So just click on any of the countries above, and find out just who’s helping shape US policy in the Middle East.


(...)
Click to expand...
 
Adisa said:
The silence on this atrocity is disgusting. Whit House spokesman was on the other day, saying that the US was concerned. You're concerned but still giving them weapons to kill. Feck off.
Click to expand...
Weapons that include Western-made cluster bombs, which are incredibly sinister since much of the ordinance does not 'successfully' go off. Until farmers or kids playing in the fields find them years later, that is.

People are still getting maimed/killed in Laos because of cluster bombs dropped in the Vietnam War.
 
Synco said:
Sounds like it in that quote. Would that be an escalation (coming from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia) or just sectarian business as usual?
Click to expand...

PedroMendez said:
why do sunnis allow other sects to do the pilgrimage to Mecca? Could that ever change and are there historical examples for that?
Click to expand...

End of the day the Saudi government or whoever else runs the Hijaz are pragmatic enough to recognise the economic and diplomatic benefits of running an inclusive hajj, not to mention the prestige they get out of it. The rabble-rousing by this dude is nothing new but interesting in that it obviously springs from the same takfiri ideology that has ISIS targeting the Shi'a throughout the region, or Bradford taxi drivers murdering shop-keepers in Glasgow.

This article might help answer these questions, the context is the hajj violence of 1987 - http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/khomeinis-messengers-in-mecca/
 
2cents said:
Saudi Arabia’s top cleric says Iran’s leaders ‘not Muslims’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1cc66c-7424-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

There is some suggestion that he was actually referring to the Shi'a in general, not just Iran's current rulers.
Click to expand...
It's not a "suggestion", and there is nothing strange about that. Listen to what the Saudi imam recite to all the pilgrims in his prayers during Hajj.



You can imagine what the Wahhabi imams say to their followers when they don't use loudspeakers and when their speeches (/prayers) are not aired live for everybody to see and hear in such a popular event.

By the way, who are the "Mujahideen in Iraq?" ;)


PedroMendez said:
why do sunnis allow other sects to do the pilgrimage to Mecca? Could that ever change and are there historical examples for that?
Click to expand...
:nono: Not Sunnis, but Wahhabis. Don't mix the two. There are many many (still till our day) Sunnis who are moderate enough to live with different sects and religions. It's true that the Wahhabi ideology is (unfortunately) spreading in the Sunni communities, but that doesn't mean it's the same. The problem is the Wahhabis not the Sunnis.
 
I know the difference, but Wahhabis/the Saudis weren´t always in control of the pilgrimage sides. It was just a general question, that interested me. 2cents link and a bit of google already helped me to come to a better understanding of the issue. So yes, there are historic examples where access has been restricted for some groups.
 
PedroMendez said:
I know the difference, but Wahhabis/the Saudis weren´t always in control of the pilgrimage sides. It was just a general question, that interested me. 2cents link and a bit of google already helped me to come to a better understanding of the issue. So yes, there are historic examples where access has been restricted for some groups.
Click to expand...
I know you didn't actually mean that, and I know you know a lot about the middle East, it's just that for me this is a very important point, and many people don't realize this because the media is actively trying to blend those terms.

Apart form the crazy Wahhabi ideology (which actually believes that everything should be destroyed), why would any sane ideology even think about preventing other people from visiting any part of their heritage/religious symbols? I don't see a sane reason for doing that. I can see them enforcing some regulations that go in line with their beliefs, but totally preventing people from visiting it can only be counter-productive imo (and stupid).
 
PedroMendez said:
I agree with all of that.
But when they made their investments and their calculations, their costs of production were also significantly higher. Now you have more efficient processes and even if various companies go out of business, the technology and expertise continues to exist.
It is true, that the USA can´t be a swing producers like Texas/Saudi Arabia in the past, but I also doubt that any country is going to actively take this role. OPEC is done and dusted and Saudi Arabia in a difficult situation and no one else can do it. We´ll see a shift to more free market which could create some volatility, especially in the beginning.
That said my knowledge is very limited and I´d be very interested to hear a more of your thoughts on the issue. Especially on US shale oil and I am definitely willing to change my mind on all these issues.
Click to expand...
My (quite delayed) point was that you can only vertically integrate so much until the diminishing returns approach zero. It's not about technology anymore as they are reaching their limits in this particular aspect and efficiencies can only realistically be improved to a point, especially since the oil industry lost a huge amount of expertise at the worst possible time.

They've been talking about the big 'crew change' (the average age of a Petroleum Engineer was somewhere in the late 40's last I checked) for awhile now, and they've lost an enormous amount of talent with this last crash. This along with SEC filings based on recoverable reserves at a certain price point and stricter debt guidelines mean the demand/price relationship will continue to be inelastic until geopolitical issues stabilize, and that US production will remain a wildcard.
 
Hardly been in the news but a coalition air strike killed 22+ civilians this week.
 
Adisa said:
Hardly been in the news but a coalition air strike killed 22+ civilians this week.
Click to expand...

Of course not, the weapons came from the West.

If I were the Russians I'd hammer this home, shine light on the US-backed warcrimes in Yemen, it'll shut up Kerry and Samantha Power's sanctimonious drivel over Syria.
 
Kaos said:
Of course not, the weapons came from the West.

If I were the Russians I'd hammer this home, shine light on the US-backed warcrimes in Yemen, it'll shut up Kerry and Samantha Power's sanctimonious drivel over Syria.
Click to expand...

Meh. Cluster bombs and WP ammunition. It is only a human-rights issue, when Assad starts using it. Nothing to see here. You have to look further to the north. Didn´t you get the memo?
 
Obama also said the move would open Americans abroad, especially those serving in the military, to prosecutions by foreign countries, since this would remove the reciprocal agreements that now protect both sides from such lawsuits.
He also pointed to complaints that allied nations have made about the measure. This legislation, he said, "threatens to limit their cooperation on key national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions."
Click to expand...
Seems a pretty sensible move. Maybe not be to the everyone's liking but with the American military involved in a lot of countries,makes sense to not expose them to litigation..
 
America's alliance with Saudi Arabia pretty much makes a mockery of their supposed "freedom/demoracy" values. In the real politik game though it's part of building a middle east that they feel is on their side.
 
Desert Eagle said:
America's alliance with Saudi Arabia pretty much makes a mockery of their supposed "freedom/demoracy" values. In the real politik game though it's part of building a middle east that they feel is on their side.
Click to expand...
Until Iran becomes more moderate, which won't happen for another generation at least, the US doesn't have much of a choice.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Until Iran becomes more moderate, which won't happen for another generation at least, the US doesn't have much of a choice.
Click to expand...
Possibly not. That whole area is filled with shades of grey everywhere. No doubt the biggest losers in all this are the innocents caught in the mess though. Until we live in a world without competing national interests, its gonna be really hard to fix this problem. Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there.
 
Adisa said:
Compared to the Saudis, Iran is a moderate country.
Click to expand...
The country itself, perhaps. Certainly its people. But not in regards to its foreign policy. Iran has been using terrorism abroad as a function of statecraft for quite some time. Far more so than the Sauds.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
The country itself, perhaps. Certainly its people. But not in regards to its foreign policy. Iran has been using terrorism abroad as a function of statecraft for quite some time. Far more so than the Sauds.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Iran certainly funds Lebanese and Iraqi militia, but compared to Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and perhaps even ISIS, ie the darlings of the Gulf Arab states, its no comparison.

The biggest cancer in the region and perhaps the world is Wahabism, which serves as the ideological backbone to groups such as ISIS and AQ, guess which country is the beating heart of Wahabism?
 
Kaos said:
Nope.

Iran certainly funds Lebanese and Iraqi militia, but compared to Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and perhaps even ISIS, ie the darlings of the Gulf Arab states, its no comparison.

The biggest cancer in the region and perhaps the world is Wahabism, which serves as the ideological backbone to groups such as ISIS and AQ, guess which country is the beating heart of Wahabism?
Click to expand...
I understand that. But both you and the previous post missed my point. I said as a function of statecraft, i.e. the government itself is directly responsible for it, not rich individuals. No other country involved in this uses terrorism as a tool of their foreign policy more than Iran.

Unless you consider drone strikes terrorism...then it's the US.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I understand that. But both you and the previous post missed my point. I said as a function of statecraft, i.e. the government itself is directly responsible for it, not rich individuals. No other country involved in this uses terrorism as a tool of their foreign policy more than Iran.

Unless you consider drone strikes terrorism...then it's the US.
Click to expand...

The Saudi, Qatari and Turkish government definitely sponsor Islamist elements in Syria, not just through backdoor clandestine means too.
 
You're right the Iranians are just as bad, just a certain poster likes to absolve his side of any blame. One needs to ask how did Shia militias from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Iranian guards ended up fighting for Assad on sectarian grounds.

Also the first suicide bombers started with Iranian shias, let's not pretend they aren't as ideological extreme as the some of the Sunni movements.

Organic Potatoes said:
I understand that. But both you and the previous post missed my point. I said as a function of statecraft, i.e. the government itself is directly responsible for it, not rich individuals. No other country involved in this uses terrorism as a tool of their foreign policy more than Iran.

Unless you consider drone strikes terrorism...then it's the US.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.