[quote]will to power wrote:
Now you’re justifying immoral actions because people might still criticize you?[/quote]
I am saying what is moral is revelant. Any move we make is judged immoral by the world. So, what is moral? Who makes the call?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Edit: Ah, but what’s this? The Catholic Church possibly setting up shop in SA? Now this will be interesting to watch. Better build a very, very, very sturdy church, and keep the parishoners away from the windows.
[/quote]
We all know this church will be toast.
[quote]lixy wrote:
This is priceless!
Cheney On Two-Thirds Of The American Public Opposing The Iraq War: “So?”
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/19/cheney-poll-iraq/
[/quote]
He disgusts me. What an arrogant POS.
Smug little weasel isn’t he?
[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Shit, Bush actually got them to hold municipal elections ~ 4 years ago. Unfortunately they didn’t seem to spread or get the hang of it. Do you propose we overthrow their government and write a new constitution for them?
You live in a black and white world, don’t you?
We never hear a peep from Washington denouncing the horrors of the Saudi regime. All you give them, is weapons, pads on the back and invitations. If any other country had that level of religious intolerance, the White House will be demonizing them non-stop.
Here’s what you need to do: Stop sending them weapons,
Do we also blockade them so the Chinese don’t sell them weapons?
You live in a black and white world don’t you?
You don’t need to blockade the Chinese. Isn’t it enough that your country be doing the moral thing?[/quote]
What moral thing? Stopping selling weapons and letting an amoral country like China do it would be worse not better.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Now you’re justifying immoral actions because people might still criticize you?
I am saying what is moral is revelant. Any move we make is judged immoral by the world. So, what is moral? Who makes the call?
[/quote]
Are you trying to say there is ambiguity in whether or not giving military support to a despotic regime with a human rights record like that of the Saud’s is moral?
You make moral judgments all the time, why do you need someone else to make the call on this one? I’m discussing this with you, so tell me, what do you think is the moral action? And if it is to support the Sauds, please, explain that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
You don’t need to blockade the Chinese. Isn’t it enough that your country be doing the moral thing?
What moral thing? Stopping selling weapons and letting an amoral country like China do it would be worse not better.[/quote]
How would that be different? They are already committing numerous human rights abuses, and you continue to offer them weapons, military aid, and training for their troops. They are a despotic monarchy, enforcing the most extremist Islamic regime around now that the Taliban is gone. What difference would there be if another country offered them these services, other than that yours would no longer be aiding the oppression of Arabia?
[quote]will to power wrote:
I’m discussing this with you, so tell me, what do you think is the moral action? And if it is to support the Saudis, please, explain that.[/quote]
I am pleased to respond.
I recall in the 1970’s when the Ayatollah returned to Iran, some of the left wingers in this country said, “Let him be, he’s a Holy man, just like The Pope.” So the US did nothing when he deposed the Shah. Am I correct here?
Then, what happened? You had the hostage situation, the civil war in Lebanon, attacks on UN peacekeepers, the Marine Barracks attack, and terrorism exported around the world. Perhaps being a Shia from Lebanon, you see nothing wrong with this. I, being from the US, do not agree.
So, what should we do? Let radicals like al-qaeda, who already attacked the US gain control of the heart of Islam, or keep the status quo?
Morally it would be reprehensible if we knew AQ was on the verge of taking SA and did nothing like we did Iran during the 70’s given their reputation for violence and destruction.
What do you think the moral thing would be? Do you think AQ in charge of SA would be a benefit or a detriment to the world?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I recall in the 1970’s when the Ayatollah returned to Iran, some of the left wingers in this country said, “Let him be, he’s a Holy man, just like The Pope.” So the US did nothing when he deposed the Shah. Am I correct here? [/quote]
Amazing! I would have pegged you for a 17 years old.
And no, “he” deposed nobody. The Iranian people did.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Amazing! I would have pegged you for a 17 years old.
And no, “he” deposed nobody. The Iranian people did.[/quote]
He was in charge of the movement, no?
Getting back to what I said earlier, if you will respond to another post of mine, do you think the US would have opposed the Bhutto regime had she taken control of Pakistan?
Where are these other opposition groups you speak of in SA? Do they have names or do they exist in your mind?
If it is wrong in your eyes to attack AQ in Pakistan (as you critisized the US of doing) and wrong for us to back Musharraf, what can we do about AQ in Pakistan? Not sure what options are open to us in your opinion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
will to power wrote:
I’m discussing this with you, so tell me, what do you think is the moral action? And if it is to support the Saudis, please, explain that.
I am pleased to respond.
I recall in the 1970’s when the Ayatollah returned to Iran, some of the left wingers in this country said, “Let him be, he’s a Holy man, just like The Pope.” So the US did nothing when he deposed the Shah. Am I correct here?
Then, what happened? You had the hostage situation, the civil war in Lebanon, attacks on UN peacekeepers, the Marine Barracks attack, and terrorism exported around the world. Perhaps being a Shia from Lebanon, you see nothing wrong with this. I, being from the US, do not agree.
[/quote]
The Lebanese Civil War predates the overthrow of the Shah, and what happened there was to do with tensions in our own country. Iran supported certain people, it did not make their ideologies.
As for the hostage situation, that was a direct response to your government having installed the dictator they had just overthrown. What did you expect? The people would love you after installing and supporting their oppressor? That is what you need to avoid doing to keep that from happening again. Individual leaders don’t matter, if the Ayatollah had not lead them, someone else would have and they still would have hated you. If you had been an Iranian you would have hated America too.
Al Qaeda is not on the verge of taking SA, though of course I would be against that. But the US has not declared, ‘we will step in and stop a coup by AQ’. You are simply supporting the Saudi regime, through all their human rights abuses, through their oppression of their people. If AQ tried to take over and the US stepped in, I would not consider that wrong. But that is not what is happening. You are standing watch, offering weapons and training against whomsoever may wish to challenge their regime. The world is not the status quo v AQ.
You are, however, doing exactly what creates support for organisations like AQ. Did you learn nothing from Iran? If you had never installed the Shah, Khomeini would have likely never taken power, and certainly the people would not have hated you.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Al Qaeda is not on the verge of taking SA, though of course I would be against that. But the US has not declared, ‘we will step in and stop a coup by AQ’. You are simply supporting the Saudi regime, through all their human rights abuses, through their oppression of their people. [/quote]
Let me add that it’s been going on long before Al-Qaeda was born.
So, who is going to step in and take over SA if not AQ? I do not see any other groups coming to the forefront.
Maybe a new US President will have a new outlook on things.
I can only see what happened in Pakistan. A moderate was gaining power and was killed by the radicals.
Who’s to say that will not happen in SA? If we withdraw support, what’s the chances of it not happening?
You also have not said what we should do about the rising Taliban and AQ threat in Pakistan. If we attack, you have said it is wrong, if we support Musharraf, you have said we are wrong, if we support a moderate, the moderate is assassinated.
What is to be done then?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, who is going to step in and take over SA if not AQ? I do not see any other groups coming to the forefront.
Maybe a new President will have a new outlook on things.
I can only see what happened in Pakistan. A moderate was gaining power and was killed by the radicals.
Who’s to say that will not happen in SA? If we withdraw support, what’s the chances of it not happening? [/quote]
Radicals would take over SA. Any moderates that step up would be suicide bombed and assassinated into submission. Even so, that’s their problem.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, who is going to step in and take over SA if not AQ? I do not see any other groups coming to the forefront.
[/quote]
I’m not aware of any groups. Why would any form, or come to the forefront with no chance to change anything given that the US insures the Saud stay in control? Plenty among their people are not happy though, and if given the freedom people would push for change.
It has already happened. What do you consider the Sauds? Sure, a different radical oppressive regime might take over, but a republic might be installed. I don’t see why it worries you anyway. You obviously don’t care if the people of Arabia are oppressed, so long as you are safe, and the danger comes to you in supporting the oppressors. If you stopped supporting despots terrorism against your country would stop because the people would no longer blame you for their oppression.
[quote]
You also have not said what we should do about the rising Taliban and AQ threat in Pakistan. If we attack, you have said it is wrong, if we support Musharraf, you have said we are wrong, if we support a moderate, the moderate is assassinated.
What is to be done then?[/quote]
We’re not talking about Pakistan, and honestly I need to do more research on the subject. If you want to talk about Pakistan it’d be better to start a new thread, we’ve already hijacked the shit out of this one.
Let the radicals take Pakistan too.
So basically what you are saying WTP, is none of our choices make moral sense. We stick up for the Saudi Arabians and we are supporting a dictator and breeding AQ.
We take down a dictator and we are also breeding AQ.
We stick up for Fatah because we are interested in a peace treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, yet are critisized for not backing Hamas, who wants no peace with Israel. Any logical person could see there is nothing to gain by backing Hamas and Fatah is the choice if you are looking for peace.
Are any other nations brokering peace between the Palestinians and Israelis? Name them if they are.
I am just tired of people taking pot shots at the US every time you turn around, everything our country does.
There is no morality to be had when every thing we do no matter what it is is considered to be morally wrong.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So basically what you are saying WTP, is none of our choices make moral sense. We stick up for the Saudi Arabians and we are supporting a dictator and breeding AQ.
We take down a dictator and we are also breeding AQ.
We stick up for Fatah because we are interested in a peace treaty between Palestinians and Israelis, yet are critisized for not backing Hamas, who wants no peace with Israel. Any logical person could see there is nothing to gain by backing Hamas and Fatah is the choice if you are looking for peace.
Are any other nations brokering peace between the Palestinians and Israelis? Name them if they are.
I am just tired of people taking pot shots at the US every time you turn around, everything our country does.
There is no morality to be had when every thing we do no matter what it is is considered to be morally wrong. [/quote]
As long as they don’t threaten the sovereignty of your state, let the people there determine their own faith. This is common sense.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So basically what you are saying WTP, is none of our choices make moral sense. We stick up for the Saudi Arabians and we are supporting a dictator and breeding AQ.
We take down a dictator and we are also breeding AQ.
[/quote]
Look back at my posts, I specifically said not to take down the Saud family, but to just not support them. Both of the choices you listed, yes, are wrong. You need to stop trying to control the Middle East.
Hamas was democratically elected. That’s what the people wanted. If you want to broker peace, why not talk to the actual representatives chosen by people, rather than add civil strife to the war and actually reduce the chance of peace over even what it would be with a Hamas government?
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Libya, Qatar, Syria, Oman, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, Bahrain, Mauritania, Comoros, Djibouti and Somalia. They’ve all signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative, which has been brought before Israel several times now.
I don’t consider everything you do morally wrong. We are, however, discussing what you do that is wrong. And any way you slice it, backing human rights abusing despots like the Sauds is wrong. And we are specifically discussing this [if I remember right, this hijack has gotten long] to explain how to stop people wanting to kill you, and that is to leave them alone. At least in the military sense. Before you say it, yes there are a few exceptions [Afghanistan for example] but usually, a non-interventionist policy would lead to no hostility.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
will to power wrote:
I don’t consider everything you do morally wrong. We are, however, discussing what you do that is wrong. And any way you slice it, backing human rights abusing despots like the Sauds is wrong. And we are specifically discussing this [if I remember right, this hijack has gotten long] to explain how to stop people wanting to kill you, and that is to leave them alone. At least in the military sense. Before you say it, yes there are a few exceptions [Afghanistan for example] but usually, a non-interventionist policy would lead to no hostility.
This is an interesting paragraph. Basically you are saying, “If you all would just leave others alone, everyone would leave you alone, too.” This essentially means that only the US is capable of / interested in “interventionism,” doesn’t it? Am I misunderstanding you?
[/quote]
I’m speaking as far as terrorism. I don’t think you needs to worry about other countries deciding they want to take an active role in the domestic issues of the US through their military.
[quote]
In any case, this is something that always seems a bit of a conondrum to me: Obviously moral behavior is desirable, but how moral can one be living in a ghetto where life is dog-eat-dog? Given the opportunity, don’t ALL countries take advantage of / exploit one another in any and all ways possible? [/quote]
I’d say the foreign policy of countries does tend to be less moral than you would normally expect of people, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to change that. This is especially true when you’re in as strong a position as the US.
I’m also arguing that in this case, it is more beneficial to you, the average American, if the US stopped backing the Sauds due to reduced terrorism. So even from a pragmatic stand point, it makes sense to those of you who don’t profit massively from oil and engineering deals with the Sauds.