Geopolitics

maniak said:
I think it is, generally, accurate. Sure, the rebels aren't saints, but most of the suffering generated is responsibility of SA, so it should be easy to spot the worst side of these two. I genuinely don't understand why this is so hard for you.
Click to expand...

It is so hard for me because what I read on BBC does not agree with what you are saying. And obviously I trust BBC more than I trust you, because simply I don't know you.
 
frostbite said:
It is so hard for me because what I read on BBC does not agree with what you are saying. And obviously I trust BBC more than I trust you, because simply I don't know you.
Click to expand...
Very strange answer, as a quick 10 min google search shows plenty of links from the BBC reporting war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by SA against civilians and children in this war.

The first link when I google "bbc saudi arabia yemen war" includes this beauty:

"The Saudi-led coalition has carried out thousands of air strikes, killing tens of thousands of people, according to the UN. These include "double tap" attacks, in which the first strike hits a group of rebels and the second one hits the people who go to their rescue."

Whatever you can find about the rebels tactics and crimes, I assure there something 10x worse done by the saudis. The villain is clear on this one.
 
maniak said:
Very strange answer, as a quick 10 min google search shows plenty of links from the BBC reporting war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by SA against civilians and children in this war.

The first link when I google "bbc saudi arabia yemen war" includes this beauty:

"The Saudi-led coalition has carried out thousands of air strikes, killing tens of thousands of people, according to the UN. These include "double tap" attacks, in which the first strike hits a group of rebels and the second one hits the people who go to their rescue."

Whatever you can find about the rebels tactics and crimes, I assure there something 10x worse done by the saudis. The villain is clear on this one.
Click to expand...

This doesn't include the school they bombed, using a US bomb, that led to 50 kids dying, I think.
 
maniak said:
Very strange answer, as a quick 10 min google search shows plenty of links from the BBC reporting war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by SA against civilians and children in this war.

The first link when I google "bbc saudi arabia yemen war" includes this beauty:

"The Saudi-led coalition has carried out thousands of air strikes, killing tens of thousands of people, according to the UN. These include "double tap" attacks, in which the first strike hits a group of rebels and the second one hits the people who go to their rescue."

Whatever you can find about the rebels tactics and crimes, I assure there something 10x worse done by the saudis. The villain is clear on this one.
Click to expand...


Here is what BBC says:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

The UN says both sides in the civil war may have committed war crimes. Both sides deny the allegation.
 
frostbite said:
Here is what BBC says:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

The UN says both sides in the civil war may have committed war crimes. Both sides deny the allegation.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is necessarily a good side to the Yemen civil war. But it's leading to an unprecedented famine, and you would expect the international community to step in to find a solution to the conflict, or at least a ceasefire, to alleviate the suffering of millions. Instead, the last time most people outside the region cared was when one side of the conflict hit an oil depot(?) in Saudi Arabia near the Jeddah F1 race. Cause that's when people care - for a second, cause the race weekend did continue.

(Probably some of this can go to geopolitics thread, but then it did start with a genuine Ukraine point. Not sure there's a cut-off.)

Edit: there is also the point where Saudi Arabia is clearly not a good side in this civil war (directly responsible for atrocities) yet no-one in the west thinks any less of them for it.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
This doesn't include the school they bombed, using a US bomb, that led to 50 kids dying, I think.
Click to expand...

There are pages and pages of links in the wiki conflict page where civilians were targeted, including children.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
This doesn't include the school they bombed, using a US bomb, that led to 50 kids dying, I think.
Click to expand...

And here is link about Houthis recruiting kids, and as a result 2000 kids died. It seems both sides are terrible in that civil war.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/30/2000-children-recruited-by-yemens-houthis-died-fighting-un

2,000 children recruited by Yemen’s Houthis died fighting: UN

A United Nations report found children aged between 10 and 17 years are being lured into fighting Yemen’s internationally recognised government.
 
frostbite said:
Here is what BBC says:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423

The UN says both sides in the civil war may have committed war crimes. Both sides deny the allegation.
Click to expand...

It seems you deliberately want to be misinformed about this, so let's leave at that.

There's really no excuse after almost 10 years of war for someone to think both sides are equally bad in the sa/yemen conflict. Everything, from human right's organizations, red cross and un points to the saudis being much much much worse, but if you're happy with a line from an article to form your opinion, then so be it.
 
Guys, how can you support the Houthis? How can you believe them? How can you take them seriously? Their motto is:


"God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam."
 
maniak said:
It seems you deliberately want to be misinformed about this, so let's leave at that.

There's really no excuse after almost 10 years of war for someone to think both sides are equally bad in the sa/yemen conflict. Everything, from human right's organizations, red cross and un points to the saudis being much much much worse, but if you're happy with a line from an article to form your opinion, then so be it.
Click to expand...

The more I read about this, the more I believe that the two sides are not equal. The Houthis are the worst of the two sides!

"God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam."

Are you kidding me? I am an atheist! Victory to Islam? No way!
 
frostbite said:
The more I read about this, the more I believe that the two sides are not equal. The Houthis are the worst of the two sides!

"God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam."

Are you kidding me? I am an atheist! Victory to Islam? No way!
Click to expand...
You're basing this on a slogan without any regard for context without regard for the actual situation or actions? OK then.

Also, what religious side do you think the other half and their backers Saudi Arabia are on?
 
frostbite said:
"God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam."
Click to expand...
frostbite said:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-crony-calls-west-27165205

One of Vladimir Putin's cronies has hit out at "b******s" and "degenerates" in the West who wish "death" upon Russia.

Former president Dmitry Medvdev - one of the tyrant's closest allies - is now the deputy head of the Kremlin's security council.

Recently he has made poisonous attacks on Russia's enemies in what some see as a bid for a political comeback after he was ousted as prime minister.

His latest message on his Telegram channel said: “I am often asked why my Telegram posts are so harsh.

“I respond - because I hate them. They are bastards, degenerates.

“They want death to us, to Russia. And while I am alive, I will be doing everything so that they disappear.”
Click to expand...
when the Houthis wish death to enemy backers, it's a sign of evil. when the west wishes death to Russia and the Russians complain about it, it's a sign Russia is still evil? that's doublethink which points to the shallowness of your understanding of the Yemeni conflict more than anything.
 
Cheimoon said:
And I would reiterate that there are no good sides here. The issue is the huge suffering of the general population, and the general international apathy towards that.
Click to expand...

For sure, there are no good sides, but considering one side is immensely more powerful and the vast majority of victims are on the other side, we can clearly identify the party at fault here.
 
neverdie said:
when the Houthis wish death to enemy backers, it's a sign of evil. when the west wishes death to Russia and the Russians complain about it, it's a sign Russia is still evil? that's doublethink which points to the shallowness of your understanding of the Yemeni conflict more than anything.
Click to expand...

Russia has invaded Ukraine with the stated desire to annex it. The West is helping the legal government of Ukraine.

The West is also helping the LEGAL government of Yemen.

The Houthis are not the legal government! The United Nations recognize the Houthis as a terrorist group!

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...esignating-houthis-as-terrorist-group/2520468
 
frostbite said:
Russia has invaded Ukraine with the stated desire to annex it. The West is helping the legal government of Ukraine.

The West is also helping the LEGAL government of Yemen.

The Houthis are not the legal government! The United Nations recognize the Houthis as a terrorist group!

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...esignating-houthis-as-terrorist-group/2520468
Click to expand...
the west has profited from the death of half a million Yemenis by selling the Saudis weapons. the "legal government" is a dumb argument. the west was helping the legal government of South Africa kill and oppress millions of black people and called Mandela and the rest terrorists too. the west helps the "legal" government of Israel do much the same to the Palestinians. the legal government of the Shah's Iran. the legal government of Pinochet's Chile. the legal government... and you see a pattern emerge where the status of "legal government" in states of political unrest doesn't mean a lot. what about the legal government of Putin's Russia?

you think Ukraine is an exceptional war for whatever reason. that's fine. it isn't the case for most people on the planet but if you believe that you may as well admit it instead of running mental circles around yourself trying to pretend otherwise.
 
It started out with Glaston bigging up colonialism and the British rule over India. Then we had Paxi going full denialism. Now, we have made frostbite into a Saudi Arabia stan and supporter of the West helping them kill untold amounts of people and worsening one of the worst famines in the world. Killing around 100 000 kids and an unknown amount of adults.

This war has been though on Redcafe.
 
frostbite said:
Russia has invaded Ukraine with the stated desire to annex it. The West is helping the legal government of Ukraine.

The West is also helping the LEGAL government of Yemen.

The Houthis are not the legal government! The United Nations recognize the Houthis as a terrorist group!

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-eas...esignating-houthis-as-terrorist-group/2520468
Click to expand...

This so-called "governemnt" you are supporting is no more legal than the Putin puppet that was thrown out in Maidan revolution. On that part, the two conflicts have some similarities. The main difference here is we (the West) support the foreign power (KSA) because our own interests are aligned with them. We do not care about the Yemeni kids slaughtered by the saudi regime. We've facilitated the persecution of the Zaidi (ethnic & religious group in Yemen) leaders by the Saudi regime, which led to the Iran-backed Houthis becoming the only defenders of this group,, and basically the only defenders of a Yemen independent from Saudi domination. We in the West want a Saudi-dominated Yemen because it serves our own interests, and we believe we can trust the Saudis. We do not believe we can trust a Saudi-free (democratic or not) Yemen.

I don't think anyone in the West is proud of this situation, so labelling the houthis as terrorist sure make it easier. We did it with Mandela (who was far less controversial) when we were backing the Apartheid regime in South Africa. We are doing it with basically any palestinian groups that would use violence against the Israeli occupation. We are doing it with the kurdish groups that resist Erdogan's war on their culture and their self-determination rights. There are no "moral rules" to this game. There are only interests. And for once, I'm happy our interests are -to some extent- alligned with the Ukrainian just cause (Otherwise we might have closed our eyes to Russia doing to Ukraine what they did to Chechenya, Aleppo, Georgia..).
 
Pintu said:
This so-called "governemnt" you are supporting is no more legal than the Putin puppet that was thrown out in Maidan revolution. On that part, the two conflicts have some similarities. The main difference here is we (the West) support the foreign power (KSA) because our own interests are aligned with them. We do not care about the Yemeni kids slaughtered by the saudi regime. We've facilitated the persecution of the Zaidi (ethnic & religious group in Yemen) leaders by the Saudi regime, which led to the Iran-backed Houthis becoming the only defenders of this group,, and basically the only defenders of a Yemen independent from Saudi domination. We in the West want a Saudi-dominated Yemen because it serves our own interests, and we believe we can trust the Saudis. We do not believe we can trust a Saudi-free (democratic or not) Yemen.

I don't think anyone in the West is proud of this situation, so labelling the houthis as terrorist sure make it easier. We did it with Mandela (who was far less controversial) when we were backing the Apartheid regime in South Africa. We are doing it with basically any palestinian groups that would use violence against the Israeli occupation. We are doing it with the kurdish groups that resist Erdogan's war on their culture and their self-determination rights. There are no "moral rules" to this game. There are only interests. And for once, I'm happy our interests are -to some extent- alligned with the Ukrainian just cause (Otherwise we might have closed our eyes to Russia doing to Ukraine what they did to Chechenya, Aleppo, Georgia..).
Click to expand...
Well put.

The only thing I would say is that I don't think the West (or rather: the entire world outside countries in Yemen's wider region) is 'not proud' of what's happening in Yemen. I think 'total apathy' better describes the general attitude. If Yemen were simply bombed off the world (land mass destroyed, everyone dead), probably a lot of governments would be happier, since at least people would stop occasionally reminding politicians of what's happening there.

Well, I'm sure they would display a brief 'Oh no! Anyway.' moment first. (Cue the Jeremy Clarkson gif.)
 
shamans said:
Give it a break. You went on some privileged rant all because I dared to bring into light the cost of war and how it can end.

Now I point out exact same atrocities by exactly the same guy, Putin, and youve been deflecting, running away or calling me names.
Click to expand...
This logic is basically the biggest issue with current society. That someone cares about something but is criticised for doing so because they did not care about something similar previously. You don’t need to play up to your tag line.
 
maniak said:
As you said, there's a lot of uncertainty here and of course we're all giving opinions based on what we know and and based on how we value certain things. So yeah, maybe I made it sound like those who want ukraine to fight no matter what somehow don't care about other potential impacts and I'm sorry about that.

That being said, in my view the two things aren't as dangerous, that's why I'm more concerned about one of them. If we somehow negotiate with putin something that emboldens him, I trust the west will step up and deal with it. Let's say if putin decides to go for kiyv or moldova, I trust the west to respond in a strong fashion to deal with the problem.

On the other hand, if the food situation gets worse, I don't trust the west or the world community to act in a strong way. That's generally what history tells us.

So while the potential downsides of each decision may be equally terrible, the way I believe the world will deal with them is not equal, that's why I'm more concerned about one of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes sense. I mostly agree. I just think because there’s so much uncertainty, because so much of the world exists in chaos, and because so many of these events are reliant on human decision-making, I don’t think you can take too strong a position.

If the people arguing for protecting Ukraine at any cost think that the alternative has a good chance of leading us into a nuclear war, then it’s fair for them to consider it a lesser concern than a food crisis. And I can’t really argue against their position that it would lead to a nuclear war without picking apart all of the dependencies and hidden factors within them, which takes way too much effort to do, and is so full of subjectivity that you could end up assessing the same set of factors completely differently. At a certain point all you’re doing is arguing against someone’s foundational assumptions about how the world works, and you can’t really argue against them. Or at least it won’t lead anywhere.

So I think it’s fair to advocate for your position but it seems a bit harsh to me to frame it as “fight a moral war” or “stop fighting to avoid a practical catastrophe”. There’s a lot of reason to suggest they overlap in several dimensions. I don’t think most people’s arguments are one dimensional, and all they’re thinking about is that one moral choice. They’re just sharing a simplified view with a tagline because it’s just easier to discuss things that way.
 
Zehner said:
Yeah, these double standards really needed pointing out. How can anyone dare supporting Ukraine when he also enjoys Messi playing football. Those two things are obviously morally incompatible. Luckily you are here to call people out for such hypocrisy. Not all heroes wear capes, I know that now.
Click to expand...

It's quite something when the Messi vs Ronaldo debate spills over into a thread about the war in Ukraine.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This logic is basically the biggest issue with current society. That someone cares about something but is criticised for doing so because they did not care about something similar previously. You don’t need to play up to your tag line.
Click to expand...

That's not what's happening here.

shamans is being criticised for allegedly not caring enough about Ukranians. By the same level of evidence, Zehner very probably don't care much about Chechens, or most other victims of war. If Zehner, and you and me and others, acknowledge that our position on Chechnya is bankrupt then pointing there doesn't achieve much. But, if someone wants to say that it's ok to not want to break the bank and escalate tensions with Russia over Chechnya, then they have one hell of an argument to make if they don't want their moral outrage over Ukraine to sound extremely hollow.

This isn't whataboutism.
 
NotThatSoph said:
That's not what's happening here.

shamans is being criticised for allegedly not caring enough about Ukranians. By the same level of evidence, Zehner very probably don't care much about Chechens, or most other victims of war. If Zehner, and you and me and others, acknowledge that our position on Chechnya is bankrupt then pointing there doesn't achieve much. But, if someone wants to say that it's ok to not want to break the bank and escalate tensions with Russia over Chechnya, then they have one hell of an argument to make if they don't want their moral outrage over Ukraine to sound extremely hollow.

This isn't whataboutism.
Click to expand...

By the same level of evidence?
 
Zehner said:
By the same level of evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes. Chechnya is too early for Redcafe, but there has been and still are several other conflicts, giving us all plenty of opportunities to call for large scale spending. None of us ever did. We have a very active Israel thread, a low activity Yemen thread, and so on. Not a single poster has ever advocated anything close to what we're doing in this war, I'm pretty sure. The way we care about Ukraine and Ukranians is unprecedented.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes. Chechnya is too early for Redcafe, but there has been and still are several other conflicts, giving us all plenty of opportunities to call for large scale spending. None of us ever did. We have a very active Israel thread, a low activity Yemen thread, and so on. Not a single poster has ever advocated anything close to what we're doing in this war, I'm pretty sure. The way we care about Ukraine and Ukranians is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that at least 1 caf member would have advocated to support Palestine the way we support Ukraine. Just to nitpick
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes. Chechnya is too early for Redcafe, but there has been and still are several other conflicts, giving us all plenty of opportunities to call for large scale spending. None of us ever did. We have a very active Israel thread, a low activity Yemen thread, and so on. Not a single poster has ever advocated anything close to what we're doing in this war, I'm pretty sure. The way we care about Ukraine and Ukranians is unprecedented.
Click to expand...
You realize, of course, that this is literally you saying “what about Chechnya, what about Palestine, what about Yemen?”
 
NotThatSoph said:
Yes. Chechnya is too early for Redcafe, but there has been and still are several other conflicts, giving us all plenty of opportunities to call for large scale spending. None of us ever did. We have a very active Israel thread, a low activity Yemen thread, and so on. Not a single poster has ever advocated anything close to what we're doing in this war, I'm pretty sure. The way we care about Ukraine and Ukranians is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, this is about empathy vs egotism. shaman is basically defending that it's okay for him to be egotistical because we were egotistical in other wars as well. The very fact that one side of this argument is actually supporting the victims is already evidence that they care about this stuff. So "by the same level of evidence" is already wrong. Those who care about victims are far more likely to care about them in other situations as well.

Secondly, even assuming we didn't care about other wars, there's a difference between ignorance out of a lack of knowledge ("it isn't in the media so I knew nothing about that war") and ignorance out of egotism ("I know they're suffering but the oil and gas prices are far to high, we have to consider our own interests"). In the first scenario, you could make the accusation that the individual in question didn't put in enough effort to inform himself, in the second scenario he/she knows how bad things are going but chooses their own interests anyway

Third, even if we genuinely didn't care for previous wars but now do, that is nothing one should be criticized for. You should criticize people for doing something morally wrong when they do it, not years after when they do the right thing. That's providing the completely wrong incentive and pretty cynical, even toxic.

And fourth (and this is why people are so annoyed by all this whataboutism, as this paragraph is actually offtopic again), none of the conflicts you mentioned is comparable to this one. With nuclear powers almost directly involved on both ends, a sovereign democracy under attack without any sort of at least somewhat understandable motivation behind it, deliberate and probably even ordered violations against the Geneva Comvention on an almost daily basis, the triggering of a global food crises and so forth.
 
Gehrman said:
I would imagine that at least 1 caf member would have advocated to support Palestine the way we support Ukraine. Just to nitpick
Click to expand...

A lot of caf members advocate support of Palestine, for sure. The methods, however, tend to be things like diplomatic pressure, boycotting Israel, etc. There has been some calls for military intervention, but I can't remember seeing anything close to this scale. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.

Zehner said:
I think you're wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, this is about empathy vs egotism. shaman is basically defending that it's okay for him to be egotistical because we were egotistical in other wars as well. The very fact that one side of this argument is actually supporting the victims is already evidence that they care about this stuff. So "by the same level of evidence" is already wrong. Those who care about victims are far more likely to care about them in other situations as well.

Secondly, even assuming we didn't care about other wars, there's a difference between ignorance out of a lack of knowledge ("it isn't in the media so I knew nothing about that war") and ignorance out of egotism ("I know they're suffering but the oil and gas prices are far to high, we have to consider our own interests"). In the first scenario, you could make the accusation that the individual in question didn't put in enough effort to inform himself, in the second scenario he/she knows how bad things are going but chooses their own interests anyway

Third, even if we genuinely didn't care for previous wars but now do, that is nothing one should be criticized for. You should criticize people for doing something morally wrong when they do it, not years after when they do the right thing. That's providing the completely wrong incentive and pretty cynical, even toxic.

And fourth (and this is why people are so annoyed by all this whataboutism, as this paragraph is actually offtopic again), none of the conflicts you mentioned is comparable to this one. With nuclear powers almost directly involved on both ends, a sovereign democracy under attack without any sort of at least somewhat understandable motivation behind it, deliberate and probably even ordered violations against the Geneva Comvention on an almost daily basis, the triggering of a global food crises and so forth.
Click to expand...

Most of these points I already preemtively answered in a post you replied to, but that last paragraph is such a big oof that I'm out anyway. Empathy, fecking hell.
 
NotThatSoph said:
A lot of caf members advocate support of Palestine, for sure. The methods, however, tend to be things like diplomatic pressure, boycotting Israel, etc. There has been some calls for military intervention, but I can't remember seeing anything close to this scale. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.



Most of these points I already preemtively answered in a post you replied to, but that last paragraph is such a big oof that I'm out anyway. Empathy, fecking hell.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. And do you seriously want to argue that Palestine or Iraq were as bad as the Russian invasion of Ukraine where soldiers are raping children, targeting, murdering and torturing civilians and so forth? And aren't prosecuted at home but in some cases even rewarded with honorarions? Do you really and sincerely want to argue that undeniably bad guys like Netanjahu or Bush are as bad as Putin?

I don't think that you can make any argument for that, neither in terms of quantities nor qualities of committed atrocities. So it is only natural that this war (which is the closest we've been to a third world war and nuclear warfare since the Cuba missile crisis) gathers more attention than anything else.
 
NotThatSoph said:
A lot of caf members advocate support of Palestine, for sure. The methods, however, tend to be things like diplomatic pressure, boycotting Israel, etc. There has been some calls for military intervention, but I can't remember seeing anything close to this scale. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course.
Click to expand...
How would you envision something similar in scale working in Palestine or Yemen? Calls for full occupation and another "democracy building mission" similar to Afghanistan or arming military groups there?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This logic is basically the biggest issue with current society. That someone cares about something but is criticised for doing so because they did not care about something similar previously. You don’t need to play up to your tag line.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with anyone caring about Ukraine and nothing else but if I'm being lectured on how this situation is unique and wishing for the war to end makes me selfish then I will point out said hypocricies.

I too care for Ukraine while probably ignoring many other genocides across the globe
 
Lemoor said:
How would you envision something similar in scale working in Palestine or Yemen? Calls for full occupation and another "democracy building mission" similar to Afghanistan or arming military groups there?
Click to expand...

In Palestine you could sort of do it indirectly like what's happening in Ukraine, though not as straigth forward. In Yemen it would probably have to be more direct, depending on what the goal would be.
 
Zehner said:
quantities nor qualities of committed atrocities.
Click to expand...
i think you could make the argument in terms of quantity and atrocities. falluijah and many other places were bombed to the ground and stories of atrocities were common but obviously not as widely reported in the western media. Assange's release of material which documented these war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan too was important for that reason. also, the US and Israel do charge soldiers with crimes but it isn't like Israel and the US and others too don't also turn a blind eye to many things their soldiers do. which isn't an excuse for Putin as Russia has been brutal in parts of Ukraine which mirrors their Syrian brutality in some ways.

i do think you're right about this war being different for one reason though and that's because america didn't have to deal with russia arming iraq and the potential for escalation on multiple fronts that exists today with china and taiwan being an issue too. i think a large part of american and european support for this war has to do with the rise of china and the prospect of a multipolar world order taking shape. that's unique with nothing like it existing prior to the first world war when british hegemony was being challenged on multiple fronts across the globe in the decades leading up to it. britain really was the last unipolar hegemon post Napoleonic wars but even its power at that time was nothing like that the US has now. that's why we're seeing a lot of what we're seeing. empires don't die quietly, usually anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.