Even though I don't agree with a lot of the US foreign policy, I find it hard to blame Saudiarabia's government for the works of al Qaida or IS. In all honesty al Qaida is more of a product of US foreign policies in the 1980's and 1990's, as it is a result of Saudiarabian inability to prevent islam extremism.
As long as the US and Saudiarabia has common interests, they will be allies (or partners in crime?). Right now that common interest is Iran and Syria (and to complicate things, you can add Iraq to that mess).
Of course Saudiarabia is a ruthless sort of dictatorship (just as China). But in all honesty it's not possible to compare Saudiarabian action in the middle east with Russian action against Ukraine. There simply aren't any similarities at all. The major difference is that Saudiarabia comply with international laws and respect sovereign countries. They work within the rules set up by the international community. Russia on the other hand try to bypass those rules, and sometimes even change them. For instance one might argue that the Russian foreign policy says that international rules and laws do not comply to countries from the former Soviet union (unless those countries are members of NATO and/or members of EU). That doctrine is far more serious and dangerous to the world than a ruthless dictatorship complying with international rules.
Oh boy Russia, lol the country that "annexes" a sovereign region in Georgia and Ukraine and seems ready to restart its conquest of Eastern Europe.
USA annexed soveign parts of serbia. And besides that ukraine and georgia broke up from the soviet union which was also against the sovereigny of the soviet union like america violated the sovereignty of britain 300 years ago.
I don't know what you're talking about with Serbia, but you seem to lack an understanding of both history and what soverignty means. First, while many Soviet Republics had declared their independence in 1990 and 1991, they all had one final meeting to formally dissolve the Soviet Union and declare themselves the Commonwealth of Independent States. So that breakup was perfectly legal. Second, America didn't violate Britain's sovernty. Since the British still considerd America to be their territory, it was more like a domestic dispute within the British Empire. That dispute came to an end in 1783 when the British Empire agreed to let America be free. If anything, the French were the ones who violated Britain's sovereignty since they were an outside force who participated in the American Revolution against the British.
Nope they hadnt such a meeting. US violated Britains sovereignty, britain agreed to nothing, you won your indepence with war just like the people in donbass are fighting for. So france is resposible for american indepence ? lol so why arent you playing national hymne of france during independence day?
You declared kosovo independent, its terriotory of serbia
Again, what happened between the US and Britain was a demostic dispute. This dispute was ended with a peace treaty in 1783 between the US, Britain and France where Britain agreed to let go of America and recognize America's independence. Your link is about what happened in 1787. That was the year when the US ratified the constitution that it currently lives under. That has nothing to do with the end of the American Revolution since the constitution that the US was living under during the American Revolution was the failed Articles of Confederation. Since you like wikipedia, here's an article that talks the meeting you said that never happened. I will also agree that what's going in Ukraine is pretty much the same thing.
Domestic wars of independence happen a lot. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. Also, you ask why we never play France's national hymne on our Independence day? It's the same reason Western Europe doesn't play the American National Anthem on V.E. Day. It's not our song. We have ours just like they have theirs.
Since you brought up Kosovo, I know what you're talking about.....sort of. See, the US didn't declare Kosovo's independence. They declared it themselves and the US along with other countries simply recognized it. Recognizing one nation or territory has nothing to do with violating another country's sovereignty. Had the US actually invaded Serbia and declared Cosovo as a nation, then that would have been considered a violation of Serbia's soverignty
-yeah sure America won ww2?
-So why is russia recognizing abchasia and south ossetia violating georgias sovereignty? Or recognizing the crimean vote who want to be a part of russia?
- so invading serbia and not declaring kosovo as indepdent is okay?
- donbass people fighting for sovereinty is okay as long as they win the fight and ukraine is forced to reconzie it just like uk recognized us state? so that makes your founding fathers terrorists because thats what american media is calling the rebels in eastern ukraine?
Ah, but you're only a rogue if you don't follow international norms. Rogue states means just that, the pariahs like Qaddafi's Libya, or North Korea presently. Even the "rogue" status of Iran and Cuba is questionable, since they play ball with a lot of countries (just not the US).
Rogue States in the US diplomatic lexicon just seems to be "countries we don't like, post Cold War", because our enemies abroad cannot be put into a neat little box anymore, so we include states like Iran or, up until a few days ago, Cuba, in these listings.
Well, actually the US broke international norms by the worldwide spying and torturing. But you're right, nobody will stand against the US in these matters. So basically the US can get away with everything, as long as they don't declare everyone as an enemy.
And certainly the matter with Cuba is very interesting. It was long overdue if you ask me to normalize the affairs between both countries. It would make me happy if it wasn't overshadowed by so much going wrong in the world currently.
In his well-known book "clash of civilizations", Samuel Huntington states that hypocrisy and double standards are ultimately inevitable side-effects of the west's "universalism":
"Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle."
Hmm maybe I will reread Clash of Civilizations. I remember not being a big fan of it in school. I know I didn't like Fukyama "End of History" and it's kind of a response to that.
You read Clash of Civilizations in school? Wow, I'm kind of jealous - I'm sceptical that this book would even be allowed as official school literature in my country...
I still consider it being one of the best/most enlightening books I've ever read; just like Brzezinski's "The grand chessboard", I think even if one does not agree with everything, one will find many interesting insights in these books.
I didn't even know/remember it was a response to Fukuyama, but that actually makes sense: In one of the later chapters, Huntingon even says that the central thesis of his book is that belief in western culture etc. being universal is wrong, immoral and dangerous. Instead, he suggests that Fukuyama's mindset is actually rather typical for a culture in decay; At a certain point in their development, cultures tend to arrogantly believe that their culture, institutions etc. are near-perfect and thus superior to the rest of the world, and thus they foolishly believe in a kind of "end of history", for they expect the only remaining development to be other countries finally realizing their culture, values etc. to be superior and thus adopting them. Which, as I understand, is very close to what Fukuyama suggested in his book.
In his well-known book "clash of civilizations", Samuel Huntington states that hypocrisy and double standards are ultimately inevitable side-effects of the west's "universalism":
"Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle."
Hmm maybe I will reread Clash of Civilizations. I remember not being a big fan of it in school. I know I didn't like Fukyama "End of History" and it's kind of a response to that.
Both viewpoints are wrong. Fukuyama because he didn't recognize that much of the supposed "free markets" and "liberal democracy" in the developing world after the end of the Cold War were really neither of those things. I tend to agree that modes of government will reach a singularity as time goes by, but the Post Cold War world was not the beginning of the end of history. There is still much to be written before things settle in that direction.
Huntington believes deeply that cultural differences make the western mode of government mostly untenable in areas beyond Western Europe (and even within Western Europe there are contentions, according to him, due to the Catholic/Protestant divide). I find this largely to be a load of malarkey, in that while culture has had a tremendous impact on where we are and where we're going, economics is what determines the dominant order of the day. Traditional government (monarchies/theocracies and their ilk) were swept away by modern state systems: democracy, military rule, and various one-party systems, and this was because of changing economic modes. As the world "flattens" economically, so the world shall normalize politically.
Oh boy Russia, lol the country that "annexes" a sovereign region in Georgia and Ukraine and seems ready to restart its conquest of Eastern Europe.
USA annexed soveign parts of serbia. And besides that ukraine and georgia broke up from the soviet union which was also against the sovereigny of the soviet union like america violated the sovereignty of britain 300 years ago.
I don't know what you're talking about with Serbia, but you seem to lack an understanding of both history and what soverignty means. First, while many Soviet Republics had declared their independence in 1990 and 1991, they all had one final meeting to formally dissolve the Soviet Union and declare themselves the Commonwealth of Independent States. So that breakup was perfectly legal. Second, America didn't violate Britain's sovernty. Since the British still considerd America to be their territory, it was more like a domestic dispute within the British Empire. That dispute came to an end in 1783 when the British Empire agreed to let America be free. If anything, the French were the ones who violated Britain's sovereignty since they were an outside force who participated in the American Revolution against the British.
Nope they hadnt such a meeting. US violated Britains sovereignty, britain agreed to nothing, you won your indepence with war just like the people in donbass are fighting for. So france is resposible for american indepence ? lol so why arent you playing national hymne of france during independence day?
You declared kosovo independent, its terriotory of serbia
Again, what happened between the US and Britain was a demostic dispute. This dispute was ended with a peace treaty in 1783 between the US, Britain and France where Britain agreed to let go of America and recognize America's independence. Your link is about what happened in 1787. That was the year when the US ratified the constitution that it currently lives under. That has nothing to do with the end of the American Revolution since the constitution that the US was living under during the American Revolution was the failed Articles of Confederation. Since you like wikipedia, here's an article that talks the meeting you said that never happened. I will also agree that what's going in Ukraine is pretty much the same thing.
Domestic wars of independence happen a lot. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. Also, you ask why we never play France's national hymne on our Independence day? It's the same reason Western Europe doesn't play the American National Anthem on V.E. Day. It's not our song. We have ours just like they have theirs.
Since you brought up Kosovo, I know what you're talking about.....sort of. See, the US didn't declare Kosovo's independence. They declared it themselves and the US along with other countries simply recognized it. Recognizing one nation or territory has nothing to do with violating another country's sovereignty. Had the US actually invaded Serbia and declared Cosovo as a nation, then that would have been considered a violation of Serbia's soverignty
-yeah sure America won ww2?
-So why is russia recognizing abchasia and south ossetia violating georgias sovereignty? Or recognizing the crimean vote who want to be a part of russia?
- so invading serbia and not declaring kosovo as indepdent is okay?
- donbass people fighting for sovereinty is okay as long as they win the fight and ukraine is forced to reconzie it just like uk recognized us state? so that makes your founding fathers terrorists because thats what american media is calling the rebels in eastern ukraine?
- Yes, the USA was one of the main victors of WWII. Without American involvement, there would have been no opening in the Western Front or any invasion of Italy. The Germans would have been able to focus all theri resources on the Eastern front and that part would have most likely ended with an amistice. The Americans also destyoed Japans war machine to the point when the USSR finally joined that fight, they were more or less kicking someone who was already down. Also, with America on the side of the Allies, the Allies had the resources and logistics of an entire planet. So yes, I will aruge that WWII would not have been won by Allies without American intervention.
- As far as violating soverignty is concerned, yes, Russia has done that quite often. Before these states were recognized, before votes were carried out, Russia had invaded these countries. With Crimea, their vote for independence wasn't carried out until after the Russian invasion. Not to mention, Russia had violated an agreement they had with Ukraine regarding Crimea. Russia has, time and time again proven that they really don't give a shit about the borderlines of any of their neighboring countries and has in some ways even said that. I'm not saying the USA is any more innocent. We violated Iraq's soverignty in 2003. We even violated Pakistan's soverignty in 2011 when we crossed their border to assassinate Osama bin Laden. That also leads to more complicated issues with wether it's okay to violate another country's soverignty.
- The Kosovo War in the 1990's was considered a humanitarian crisis by both NATO and the UN. It therefore became an international incident.
- Yes, if the Unkrainian government recognizes Donbass, than that's it. As for right now, they are rebels, just like how the Americans were rebels in the American War for Independence, just like how the Southern States were rebels in the American Civil War. It doesn't matter what the American people think or what the news media thinks. Until the issue is resolved wether Ukraine recognizes their independence or not, they are officially rebels in Ukraine.
Your problem is you can't compare things that have already happened to things that are currently happening. The American Revolution, the Cosovo War, and other things like that have already been decided by history. We're able to look back and see what has happened. You can't do that with Donbass. 50 years from now, people in that region might think the strguggle was worth it, or they might think it was a complete waste of time. We don't know yet.
Oh boy Russia, lol the country that "annexes" a sovereign region in Georgia and Ukraine and seems ready to restart its conquest of Eastern Europe.
USA annexed soveign parts of serbia. And besides that ukraine and georgia broke up from the soviet union which was also against the sovereigny of the soviet union like america violated the sovereignty of britain 300 years ago.
I don't know what you're talking about with Serbia, but you seem to lack an understanding of both history and what soverignty means. First, while many Soviet Republics had declared their independence in 1990 and 1991, they all had one final meeting to formally dissolve the Soviet Union and declare themselves the Commonwealth of Independent States. So that breakup was perfectly legal. Second, America didn't violate Britain's sovernty. Since the British still considerd America to be their territory, it was more like a domestic dispute within the British Empire. That dispute came to an end in 1783 when the British Empire agreed to let America be free. If anything, the French were the ones who violated Britain's sovereignty since they were an outside force who participated in the American Revolution against the British.
Nope they hadnt such a meeting. US violated Britains sovereignty, britain agreed to nothing, you won your indepence with war just like the people in donbass are fighting for. So france is resposible for american indepence ? lol so why arent you playing national hymne of france during independence day?
You declared kosovo independent, its terriotory of serbia
Again, what happened between the US and Britain was a demostic dispute. This dispute was ended with a peace treaty in 1783 between the US, Britain and France where Britain agreed to let go of America and recognize America's independence. Your link is about what happened in 1787. That was the year when the US ratified the constitution that it currently lives under. That has nothing to do with the end of the American Revolution since the constitution that the US was living under during the American Revolution was the failed Articles of Confederation. Since you like wikipedia, here's an article that talks the meeting you said that never happened. I will also agree that what's going in Ukraine is pretty much the same thing.
Domestic wars of independence happen a lot. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes they're not. Also, you ask why we never play France's national hymne on our Independence day? It's the same reason Western Europe doesn't play the American National Anthem on V.E. Day. It's not our song. We have ours just like they have theirs.
Since you brought up Kosovo, I know what you're talking about.....sort of. See, the US didn't declare Kosovo's independence. They declared it themselves and the US along with other countries simply recognized it. Recognizing one nation or territory has nothing to do with violating another country's sovereignty. Had the US actually invaded Serbia and declared Cosovo as a nation, then that would have been considered a violation of Serbia's soverignty
-yeah sure America won ww2?
-So why is russia recognizing abchasia and south ossetia violating georgias sovereignty? Or recognizing the crimean vote who want to be a part of russia?
- so invading serbia and not declaring kosovo as indepdent is okay?
- donbass people fighting for sovereinty is okay as long as they win the fight and ukraine is forced to reconzie it just like uk recognized us state? so that makes your founding fathers terrorists because thats what american media is calling the rebels in eastern ukraine?
- Yes, the USA was one of the main victors of WWII. Without American involvement, there would have been no opening in the Western Front or any invasion of Italy. The Germans would have been able to focus all theri resources on the Eastern front and that part would have most likely ended with an amistice. The Americans also destyoed Japans war machine to the point when the USSR finally joined that fight, they were more or less kicking someone who was already down. Also, with America on the side of the Allies, the Allies had the resources and logistics of an entire planet. So yes, I will aruge that WWII would not have been won by Allies without American intervention.
- As far as violating soverignty is concerned, yes, Russia has done that quite often. Before these states were recognized, before votes were carried out, Russia had invaded these countries. With Crimea, their vote for independence wasn't carried out until after the Russian invasion. Not to mention, Russia had violated an agreement they had with Ukraine regarding Crimea. Russia has, time and time again proven that they really don't give a shit about the borderlines of any of their neighboring countries and has in some ways even said that. I'm not saying the USA is any more innocent. We violated Iraq's soverignty in 2003. We even violated Pakistan's soverignty in 2011 when we crossed their border to assassinate Osama bin Laden. That also leads to more complicated issues with wether it's okay to violate another country's soverignty.
- The Kosovo War in the 1990's was considered a humanitarian crisis by both NATO and the UN. It therefore became an international incident.
- Yes, if the Unkrainian government recognizes Donbass, than that's it. As for right now, they are rebels, just like how the Americans were rebels in the American War for Independence, just like how the Southern States were rebels in the American Civil War. It doesn't matter what the American people think or what the news media thinks. Until the issue is resolved wether Ukraine recognizes their independence or not, they are officially rebels in Ukraine.
Your problem is you can't compare things that have already happened to things that are currently happening. The American Revolution, the Cosovo War, and other things like that have already been decided by history. We're able to look back and see what has happened. You can't do that with Donbass. 50 years from now, people in that region might think the strguggle was worth it, or they might think it was a complete waste of time. We don't know yet.
- russia always had their troops there they never really invaded crimea
- so if you see it that way why are you branding these people as evil?
- what has nato for authority to recognize something which isnt part of west? Its a western alliance which is waging wars. Second UN never recognized kosovo everything was vetoed by russia or china, as well as nato bombings.
But then we have Saudia Arabia which is the birth place of islamism and have constantly puked out alqaeda and Islamic group leaders everywhere. They just keep silent about it and just say "it's a minority issue with extremists! I love to suck the king cock in exchange for oil!"
Why create so many enemies when your allies are fucking you over the arsehole and making you their bitch for as long as I remember? Did nk or Russia constantly blow themselves killing your own people? Did the "commies" do 9/11? Did north Korea ever attack USA? Does putin constantly say "death to America death to Israel curse the jews victory to islam" ?
what exactly has Saudi Arabia done to us? Are you saying that we should go after the country for the acts of some individuals? It's not like Putin or Kim are just low level people. Their governments are doign stuff that are harming people. It also has very little to do with oil. Since y'know they are a tiny supplier to us:
Saudi Arabia also has the honor of hosting a huge number of US bases. And we share at least one huge common enemy.
bouzane said: Saudi Arabia is a special case because they effectively conquered the nation turning America into a glorified vassal state. Hence why America does little more than pander to their interests while doing everything in her power to topple any communist regime capable of resisting Islamofascism.
Haha, that's funny. You're funny. Saudi Arabia is our little bitch.
NobleTeam360 said: Our government isn't run by we the people anymore, it's run by a bunch of big banks who have no loyalties to the US.
I don't even see how this relates.
BraveNewWorld said: It doesn't fit the media's liberal agenda of coddling 'minorities'.
Look at the media coverage of the black Muslim who just murdered two NYPD officers. The shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, is an afterthought.
ehh... are North Koreans no longer considered a minority? Or Iran. See a lot of hate in the media for Iran. How are the Saudis a minority but not these two countries' residents?
But then we have Saudia Arabia which is the birth place of islamism and have constantly puked out alqaeda and Islamic group leaders everywhere. They just keep silent about it and just say "it's a minority issue with extremists! I love to suck the king cock in exchange for oil!"
Why create so many enemies when your allies are fucking you over the arsehole and making you their bitch for as long as I remember? Did nk or Russia constantly blow themselves killing your own people? Did the "commies" do 9/11? Did north Korea ever attack USA? Does putin constantly say "death to America death to Israel curse the jews victory to islam" ?
what exactly has Saudi Arabia done to us? Are you saying that we should go after the country for the acts of some individuals? It's not like Putin or Kim are just low level people. Their governments are doign stuff that are harming people. It also has very little to do with oil. Since y'know they are a tiny supplier to us:
Saudi Arabia also has the honor of hosting a huge number of US bases. And we share at least one huge common enemy.
bouzane said: Saudi Arabia is a special case because they effectively conquered the nation turning America into a glorified vassal state. Hence why America does little more than pander to their interests while doing everything in her power to topple any communist regime capable of resisting Islamofascism.
Haha, that's funny. You're funny. Saudi Arabia is our little bitch.
NobleTeam360 said: Our government isn't run by we the people anymore, it's run by a bunch of big banks who have no loyalties to the US.
I don't even see how this relates.
BraveNewWorld said: It doesn't fit the media's liberal agenda of coddling 'minorities'.
Look at the media coverage of the black Muslim who just murdered two NYPD officers. The shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, is an afterthought.
ehh... are North Koreans no longer considered a minority? Or Iran. See a lot of hate in the media for Iran. How are the Saudis a minority but not these two countries' residents?
Can you tell me why does America kill herself fighting Saudi Arabia's wars? Why topple the secular regimes in Syria, Libya, Iraq and countless other Arab nations in order for your Islamofascist enemies to run wild? It certainly isn't in the interests of your nation. America's entire foreign policy exists in order to fellate Saudi Arabia. Which nation has wasted billions developing and supporting the other? Which nation protects the interests of the other? Which nation fights wars on behalf of the other? I hate to break it to you but America is Saudi Arabia's vassal and little more. That's why instead of improving the lives of her citizens or actually protecting democracy, liberty and secularism America paves the way for a Saudi dominated Islamofascist Middle East.
Edit: The map you posted proves my point in a hil,arious fashion. The American military largely exists to protect its master.
