Donald Trump to announce $350bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia ~ one of the largest in history

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Donald Trump will use his upcoming Saudi Arabia trip to announce one of the largest arms sales deals in US history - somewhere in the neighborhood of $98bn to $128bn worth of arms. That could add up to $350bn over ten years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-sale-arab-nato-gulf-states-a7741836.html

Remember when people here were complaining about Hillary Clinton finishing up a $97 Billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia that was started under her predecessor? Of course Trump is determined to outdo everyone else by now offering up a much larger deal for Saudi's with his new arms deal! Trump has the best and biggest Arms deal than anyone around!

Obviously Trump is King Salman's puppet. Or maybe it's just that he's been letting the foreign policy establishment do all his foreign policy for him, and our foreign policy establishment loves this backwards autocratic regime for some reason.

Of course, Trump is also heavily invested in Saudi Arabia-- investments that he made during the presidential campaign. If Trump's policy looks like an exaggeration of what people think Hillary Clinton was likely to do, that's probably because he didn't think he was going to win and made investments under the assumption that he wouldn't win. Since he did win, his policy mirrors hers because he aligned his financial interests with her foreign policy aims. And since he is president, the Saudi monarchy also has reason to treat his business favorably now as well. Reciprocity.

But hey, this is all technically legal, right? And that's a sufficient defense, right? The foreign policy establishment does things like this anyway, right? So it's totally fine that an elected official of either party goes along with it, right?

Or maybe it's all bad. Maybe we'd be able to point at shit like this with some credibility if our own candidates weren't doing much the same. Oh, but it's a higher dollar amount this time! Well, that makes all the difference.

It's supposed to make all the difference: why would people vote Republican if it was the same as Democrat? People need to see differences between the two parties. People need to see that, well, one might be bad, but the other is certainly worse! And people who like giving tax money to our defense industry and weapons to authoritarian regimes so they can bomb potato chip factories and hospitals, well, they need to have their choice between one party that is good and another that is certainly better!

Seanchaidh:
Obviously Trump is King Salman's puppet. Or maybe it's just that he's been letting the foreign policy establishment do all his foreign policy for him, and our foreign policy establishment loves this backwards autocratic regime for some reason.

Of course, Trump is also heavily invested in Saudi Arabia-- investments that he made during the presidential campaign. If Trump's policy looks like an exaggeration of what people think Hillary Clinton was likely to do, that's probably because he didn't think he was going to win and made investments under the assumption that he wouldn't win. Since he did win, his policy mirrors hers because he aligned his financial interests with her foreign policy aims. And since he is president, the Saudi monarchy also has reason to treat his business favorably now as well. Reciprocity.

But hey, this is all technically legal, right? And that's a sufficient defense, right? The foreign policy establishment does things like this anyway, right? So it's totally fine that an elected official of either party goes along with it, right?

Or maybe it's all bad. Maybe we'd be able to point at shit like this with some credibility if our own candidates weren't doing much the same. Oh, but it's a higher dollar amount this time! Well, that makes all the difference.

It's supposed to make all the difference: why would people vote Republican if it was the same as Democrat? People need to see differences between the two parties. People need to see that, well, one might be bad, but the other is certainly worse! And people who like giving tax money to our defense industry and weapons to authoritarian regimes so they can bomb potato chip factories and hospitals, well, they need to have their choice between one party that is good and another that is certainly better!

If you read he let his son in law Jared Kushner arrange this deal in advance. Unless his family is " the establishment" I am not sure how that can be the case. LOL

EDIT: I was only pointing this since I was told that Hillary finishing up that Arm's deal was why people shouldn't vote for her. I pointed out at the time that all administrations have done this and that Trump would more likely have bigger deals rather than to end Arms deals with the Saudis.

EDIT2: This is not a reason to not vote for someone btw, Clinton's paid sick leave and college funding in her first years budget was reason enough to show a difference between the parties.

Their position on education, healthcare, social security and programs for the middle class and poor are the difference that matters to most people.

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
Obviously Trump is King Salman's puppet. Or maybe it's just that he's been letting the foreign policy establishment do all his foreign policy for him, and our foreign policy establishment loves this backwards autocratic regime for some reason.

Of course, Trump is also heavily invested in Saudi Arabia-- investments that he made during the presidential campaign. If Trump's policy looks like an exaggeration of what people think Hillary Clinton was likely to do, that's probably because he didn't think he was going to win and made investments under the assumption that he wouldn't win. Since he did win, his policy mirrors hers because he aligned his financial interests with her foreign policy aims. And since he is president, the Saudi monarchy also has reason to treat his business favorably now as well. Reciprocity.

But hey, this is all technically legal, right? And that's a sufficient defense, right? The foreign policy establishment does things like this anyway, right? So it's totally fine that an elected official of either party goes along with it, right?

Or maybe it's all bad. Maybe we'd be able to point at shit like this with some credibility if our own candidates weren't doing much the same. Oh, but it's a higher dollar amount this time! Well, that makes all the difference.

It's supposed to make all the difference: why would people vote Republican if it was the same as Democrat? People need to see differences between the two parties. People need to see that, well, one might be bad, but the other is certainly worse! And people who like giving tax money to our defense industry and weapons to authoritarian regimes so they can bomb potato chip factories and hospitals, well, they need to have their choice between one party that is good and another that is certainly better!

If you read he let his son in law Jared Kushner arrange this deal in advance. Unless his family is " the establishment" I am not sure how that can be the case. LOL

Ah, I guess he only lets the establishment do military strikes on their own. (A few weeks into the presidency he decided to delegate authority for doing drone strikes and such to the military.)

EDIT: I was only pointing this since I was told that Hillary finishing up that Arm's deal was why people shouldn't vote for her. I pointed out at the time that all administrations have done this and that Trump would more likely have bigger deals rather than to end Arms deals with the Saudis.

If only by virtue of being a Republican, sure. There wasn't very much other reason to think so, other than his investments (which, to be fair, are not by themselves conclusive). A lot of people thought he wasn't a typical Republican. Indeed, Hillary Clinton pushed the narrative that he's very atypical for Republicans. And the going narrative now is "THIS ISN'T NORMAL!" Well, it kind of is. Because of this narrative that Donald Trump isn't a normal Republican, Republicans have felt emboldened to try to pass whatever Republican wet dreams they can, like the AHCA and massive tax cuts for the rich, because their responsibility is diffused onto the president. "It was the president's agenda!" they can now easily claim. Of course it was extreme! And they no doubt love this deal with Saudi Arabia as well. And since the President is wholly inadequate at whatever job he does aside from Reality Television host, and is really just an incredibly superficial person who has no interest whatsoever in policy, he lets the Republicans do whatever they want and even accepts responsibility for it and pretends it's all his ideas because he doesn't want to look like the uninterested, disposable figurehead that he really is.

Democrats should love that Donald Trump is at least tarnishing the Republican brand with these actions rather than that it is Hillary Clinton tarnishing the Democratic brand with similar actions. I don't want people who claim to represent me doing things like this. If something like this is going to be done, I'd much rather it be accomplished by someone I'd never vote for rather than someone who thinks they deserve my vote and pretends to represent me.

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

Seanchaidh:
Obviously Trump is King Salman's puppet. Or maybe it's just that he's been letting the foreign policy establishment do all his foreign policy for him, and our foreign policy establishment loves this backwards autocratic regime for some reason.

Of course, Trump is also heavily invested in Saudi Arabia-- investments that he made during the presidential campaign. If Trump's policy looks like an exaggeration of what people think Hillary Clinton was likely to do, that's probably because he didn't think he was going to win and made investments under the assumption that he wouldn't win. Since he did win, his policy mirrors hers because he aligned his financial interests with her foreign policy aims. And since he is president, the Saudi monarchy also has reason to treat his business favorably now as well. Reciprocity.

But hey, this is all technically legal, right? And that's a sufficient defense, right? The foreign policy establishment does things like this anyway, right? So it's totally fine that an elected official of either party goes along with it, right?

Or maybe it's all bad. Maybe we'd be able to point at shit like this with some credibility if our own candidates weren't doing much the same. Oh, but it's a higher dollar amount this time! Well, that makes all the difference.

It's supposed to make all the difference: why would people vote Republican if it was the same as Democrat? People need to see differences between the two parties. People need to see that, well, one might be bad, but the other is certainly worse! And people who like giving tax money to our defense industry and weapons to authoritarian regimes so they can bomb potato chip factories and hospitals, well, they need to have their choice between one party that is good and another that is certainly better!

If you read he let his son in law Jared Kushner arrange this deal in advance. Unless his family is " the establishment" I am not sure how that can be the case. LOL

Ah, I guess he only lets the establishment do military strikes on their own. (A few weeks into the presidency he decided to delegate authority for doing drone strikes and such to the military.)

EDIT: I was only pointing this since I was told that Hillary finishing up that Arm's deal was why people shouldn't vote for her. I pointed out at the time that all administrations have done this and that Trump would more likely have bigger deals rather than to end Arms deals with the Saudis.

If only by virtue of being a Republican, sure. There wasn't very much other reason to think so, other than his investments (which, to be fair, are not by themselves conclusive). A lot of people thought he wasn't a typical Republican. Indeed, Hillary Clinton pushed the narrative that he's very atypical for Republicans. And the going narrative now is "THIS ISN'T NORMAL!" Well, it kind of is. Because of this narrative that Donald Trump isn't a normal Republican, Republicans have felt emboldened to try to pass whatever Republican wet dreams they can, like the AHCA and massive tax cuts for the rich, because their responsibility is diffused onto the president. "It was the president's agenda!" they can now easily claim. Of course it was extreme! And they no doubt love this deal with Saudi Arabia as well. And since the President is wholly inadequate at whatever job he does aside from Reality Television host, and is really just an incredibly superficial person who has no interest whatsoever in policy, he lets the Republicans do whatever they want and even accepts responsibility for it and pretends it's all his ideas because he doesn't want to look like the uninterested, disposable figurehead that he really is.

Democrats should love that Donald Trump is at least tarnishing the Republican brand with these actions rather than that it is Hillary Clinton tarnishing the Democratic brand with similar actions. I don't want people who claim to represent me doing things like this. If something like this is going to be done, I'd much rather it be accomplished by someone I'd never vote for rather than someone who thinks they deserve my vote and pretends to represent me.

I'd rather Trump not be President.


Yes, I heard during the election from some democrats who were of the belief that the democrats were intentionally tanking this election so the people would learn what would happen if the republicans were in control just so they would ensure that the democrats would be in control for a very long time after. That way, they would just have to argue about " how to make universal healthcare better" and " how to make public education better" instead of arguing about where it should exist in the first place. They cannot get to the point of improving it until it is established that it should be there in the first place. I thought that to be an insane idea, but as this has gone since the republicans took control, it appears it might not be such a crazy of an idea now. LOL

So, uh... where are the deficit hawks about this ORGY of government spending? How is Trump going to pay for this?

Seanchaidh:
So, uh... where are the deficit hawks about this ORGY of government spending? How is Trump going to pay for this?

That's the sad news. In order for the GOP to push their oncoming tax reforms it is necessary that they create a "balance" by cutting funds "here" to pay for more "there".

Which is where the $880 [EDIT: million] billion cut from Medicaid via Trumpcare becomes vital: Without those cuts the GOP can, possibly, push tax cuts out but according to Senate rules unless those cuts balance out overall the longest term they can last for without being voted to be renewed is 10 years.

That's what happened to the Bush II tax cuts: The GOP lacked the supermajority necessary to make the tax cuts permanent so they punted and hoped that they would be able to renew them or make them permanent 10 years later.

Reality ensued and we ended up with the 2008 Great Recession as a result of said tax cuts which negated the possibility of their being renewed.

Trump wants to push a new set of cuts that would effectively gut the US government while promising the Moon at the same time.

Same old song. Different administration. :(

Basement Cat:
Which is where the $880 million cut from Medicaid via Trumpcare becomes vital: Without those cuts the GOP can, possibly, push tax cuts out but according to Senate rules unless those cuts balance out overall the longest term they can last for without being voted to be renewed is 10 years.

Billion, not million.

Quick correction.

Sonmi:

Basement Cat:
Which is where the $880 million cut from Medicaid via Trumpcare becomes vital: Without those cuts the GOP can, possibly, push tax cuts out but according to Senate rules unless those cuts balance out overall the longest term they can last for without being voted to be renewed is 10 years.

Billion, not million.

Quick correction.

Thanx for the heads up. I edited it for accuracy. :)

How lucky Hillary wasn't elected eh? She was way too friendly with saudi arabia

the last thing the saudis need is more weapons to drop on yemen

Yup, there was no winning this election with the options presented.

Basement Cat:

Seanchaidh:
So, uh... where are the deficit hawks about this ORGY of government spending? How is Trump going to pay for this?

That's the sad news. In order for the GOP to push their oncoming tax reforms it is necessary that they create a "balance" by cutting funds "here" to pay for more "there".

Which is where the $880 [EDIT: million] billion cut from Medicaid via Trumpcare becomes vital: Without those cuts the GOP can, possibly, push tax cuts out but according to Senate rules unless those cuts balance out overall the longest term they can last for without being voted to be renewed is 10 years.

That's what happened to the Bush II tax cuts: The GOP lacked the supermajority necessary to make the tax cuts permanent so they punted and hoped that they would be able to renew them or make them permanent 10 years later.

Reality ensued and we ended up with the 2008 Great Recession as a result of said tax cuts which negated the possibility of their being renewed.

Trump wants to push a new set of cuts that would effectively gut the US government while promising the Moon at the same time.

Same old song. Different administration. :(

Blaming tax cuts for the financial crisis is a bit of a stretch. Certainly, they might hasten the business cycle a bit, but they don't cause a liquidity crisis with bank and hedge funds defaulting on debt. Tax cuts don't create a housing bubble or a fraudulent market in bundled subprime mortgage securities, nor over-leveraged investments in such securities or the great phenomenon of taking out as many insurance policies as you like on an investment (or a client's investment, if you're just a triple-A grade douchebag) also known as the problem with unregulated credit default swaps.

At most, tax cuts are a fiscally expansionary policy which causes inflation. The Bush years enjoyed inflation rates that ranged between 2.5% and 5%; nothing all that special, honestly, except possibly by the standards of neoliberal economics which are hyper concerned about inflation because creditors don't like inflation and neoliberal economics are all about creating an economy which is violently sucked into the foreign bank accounts of creditors. Obama naturally had less inflation because his fiscal policy was a bit underwhelming by the Keynesian numbers for all the carping Republicans did about deficits (which is especially hilarious because the Republicans and other critics of both the fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing were also worried about hyperinflation while Obama was having stretches of months where the inflation rate had settled between -2 and 0, or in 2015, between -0.2 and 0.7.)

No, if you want to blame something, you've got to go to the repeal of Glass-Steagall or other instances where politicians willfully disposed of the regulatory response to the Great Depression. And that was quite a bipartisan agenda. I say "was" because there's very little left of Roosevelt's economic regulation. Which is a large contributing factor to why everything is shit.

Also, the Bush era tax cuts were extended and then all but the top rate of the Bush era tax cuts were made permanent in 2012. They did not simply expire. Now, do I agree with the Bush tax cuts? No. When the economy is humming along fine, it ought instead to raise taxes, because that slows the business cycle and gives the government more resources to deal with whatever bust might happen in the future. Indeed, such a system can be made automatic (as some of it already is with things like food stamps and unemployment insurance), with a solution like the employer-of-last-resort job guarantee: literally make it so that recessions don't cause unemployment, and the vicious cycle potentially caused by the beginning of a recession-- even one caused by a financial crisis-- is cut off at the knees.

This is not something neoliberals nor Republicans want to hear, because neither of them are paid to care too much about the state of the economy as a whole-- what they care about is how well rich people can do in it, and rich people have all the tools they need to make money no matter the economic conditions. Oh, the economy looks bad? Time to short-sell. Even the IMF of all things is starting to sour a little (but just a little) on the neoliberal paradigm. I guess they're not as corrupted as our Congress. ^^

pookie101:
the last thing the saudis need is more weapons to drop on yemen

I find Saudi arms purchases are bizarre generally.

The only credible military enemy of Saudi Arabia is Iran. But Iran can't readily attack Saudia Arabia without trampling over so many toes (and other states' sovereignty) that it will have the whole world dogpiling it if it tries. After that, the Saudi military gets involved in remarkably little.

After that, what does the Saudi military do in terms of other operations? Basically, approaching nothing. It gets the West to step in whenever it wants any heavy lifting done.

Thus, my general conclusion is that the Saudi military largely exists with that sort of funding so the Saudi royalty can show off and play with shiny, destructive toys like the lamest of tinpot dictators. But they sure make useful export sales for us.

crimson5pheonix:
Yup, there was no winning this election with the options presented.

I don't know, my country isn't adopting the corporate tyranny that is the TPP because of one of those options, which the other wouldn't have even considered dropping, so I'd say my country came out on top because of that, as did the others that had treacherous governments that wanted to sell their nations out to megacorporations.

i feel there should be a word for the horrible thing you knew would happen but was hoping against hope that it wouldn't despite the obvious evidence that it would. i suggest Trump

Agema:

Thus, my general conclusion is that the Saudi military largely exists with that sort of funding so the Saudi royalty can show off and play with shiny, destructive toys like the lamest of tinpot dictators. But they sure make useful export sales for us.

I think it could be more then that. Even ignoring Yemen, they're known for being the stabilising force for the dictatorships around them. When Bahrain had mass protests begin when the Arab Spring spread to it, it was the Saudis who put it down. And even ignoring that and the fact it's just as much to keep their own people in line as well as their neighbours, the Saudis are still at war with Israel. While there is the odd triangle of alliance in between Israel, the US and the Saudis, the two are still at war with the Saudis still arming terrorists and still offering monetary rewards to the families of those who die killing Israeli civilians. with that situation it wouldn't take much for the two to enter a shooting war.

Of all the nations that tried to exterminate Israel only Egypt and Jordan have made peace. It isn't unrealistic to think the Saudis think another war, in which they're likely to take 100:1 looses given the disparity both in terms of equipment, training and biology (there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of... well anyway it's so bad that British soldiers training Saudi air force pilots only recently got them and their military to become confident enough to let them fly night missions) that resulted in disastrous consequences in previous wars, it isn't unreasonable for them to want to be well armed for if such a fight happens. It also doesn't help that their major cities are pretty much assured to be on the list for being hit by the Samson Option, so even if they aren't involved in another war they'd likely face potential consequences.

Eh. Selling guns to the Saudis is the most normal American Presidential thing he's done so far.

Zontar:
... there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of... well anyway...

Come on now, don't be a tease. What gives people bad night sight after fourteen hundred years?

Zhukov:
Eh. Selling guns to the Saudis is the most normal American Presidential thing he's done so far.

Zontar:
... there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of... well anyway...

Come on now, don't be a tease. What gives people bad night sight after fourteen hundred years?

Probably some kind of joke about islam since it is fourteeen hundred years old. This is bait

As I said in the other thread. Regardless of who was voted in -- more dead Yemeni civilians. Only apparently the death toll will be even larger than with Hillary despite the whole 'non-interventionist' candidate pledge. What a fucking joke. Anybody who laughs deserves the same fate as those weapons will enact on thousands of innocent people. $350bn new toys in the hands of an autocratic mass murdering clan of backwards fuckwits making the world a worse place to live.

Within a year those weapons and ammo will be the hands of Wahhabist mercenaries and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Literally the biggest threat to civilized life for most conflict zones on the planet has been given an arms budget that rivals China more than twice over. Apparently the scores of secretive armsdealers, German gunrunners, Swiss moneylaunderers, and French munitions suppliers weren't enough already.

The U.S. is giving the biggest terrorist organization in the world, with a ideology and behaviour that makes the fucking Romans look like saints, access to an arms budget that rivals the U.S.' closest geostrategic competitor. And now there is none of the relative windfall of lost value purchasing given that it's the U.S. government selling in bulk one of the largest single arms deals in history rather than relying on merely private grey market merchant suppliers.

What then?

The weapons they sell now will be a problem for a generation.

Agema:
But they sure make useful export sales for us.

Possibly that's the point. Might merely be a convenient way to ensure certain friends or business partners receive a sudden wad of cash, in exchange for something we aren't seeing.

Hahahahaha! Hahahahaa....ahhh...heh.

I remember when everyone was grousing because they thought Clinton was going to win. Good Lord, I'd prefer a post-menopausal gender-swapped Kissinger over whatever sentient shitstorm you assholes ended up electing.

Zontar:
...the Saudis are still at war with Israel... with that situation it wouldn't take much for the two to enter a shooting war.

No, Saudi Arabia is not at war with Israel. They do not have official diplomatic relations with Israel, because Israel is a pariah nation to the Muslim world, and SA fancies itself as leader of the (Sunni) Muslim world. However, under the surface rhetoric and sniping, Israeli-Saudi relations are stable and improving. There is considerable intelligence and policy co-operation with respect to Iran and its Shia allies, activity towards increased economic ties, for instance.

There isn't going to be a shooting war between Israel and SA unless either Israel or its immediate neighbours fancy starting a war with each other - and even then, it is highly doubtful Saudi Arabia would do more than send a token force. Besides, Israel has nukes. It is effectively impossible for any state to militarily threaten its fundamental integrity.

in which they're likely to take 100:1 looses given the disparity both in terms of equipment, training and

Israel would be lucky to achieve 1:10 losses. It's not a disparity like spear-wielding tribesmen attacking machine guns.

biology (there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of...

Sorry, but that is a load of utter bullshit. There is nothing to credibly justify it and you absolutely should know that.

It's worse even than that, because it's bullshit made up and propagated purely by racism and gullibility. This is the same sort of gibberish about cultural degeneracy and genetic inferiority that was used to stoke anti-Semitism and justify the Holocaust, practice eugenics on indigenous populations, and deny civil rights to blacks.

Look, Zontar. If you keep writing nonsense that cannot be defended, you look bad. Even worse, when it is racist nonsense, you just seem for all the world like a racist. So I strongly suggest you retract that ASAP, and probably even apologise for staining this forum with it in the first place.

Of course Arabs don't have an eyesight problem. Many Arab military services may not, however, have had any useful doctrine, training or experience in night fighting and consequently had to learn it. Like every other military had to once upon a time.

This is from the same guy who called out Saudi Arabia for being behind 9/11. And he was right. One of rare things that Trump had going for him is his open contempt for Saudi Arabia. Except that it wasn't real at all. He just said it because he knew people would react positively to it. But he doesn't give a fuck. He registered 8 companies in Saudi Arabia during the election.

Zontar:
there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of...

You can finish the sentence. Hell, I'll back you up on this one.

INBREEDING.

He wanted to say inbreeding. Zontar is actually right about this one. Inbreeding is a huge problem in some Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I think are the most notable examples. Muslims are allowed to marry their first cousins and in those backwards nations they take advantage of that right quite often. So yeah, Middle Eastern Muslim countries suffer from many problems related to inbreeding. I'm not sure about eyesight specifically though. Could be related.

Agema:

Look, Zontar. If you keep writing nonsense that cannot be defended, you look bad. Even worse, when it is racist nonsense, you just seem for all the world like a racist. So I strongly suggest you retract that ASAP, and probably even apologise for staining this forum with it in the first place.

My point was that Saudi Arabia has a neighbour that it is still officially at war with that it could see conflict with in the near future, and that that is a reason (amongst others) that they could be using to rationalise spending large amounts of money on their military for.

Of course Arabs don't have an eyesight problem. Many Arab military services may not, however, have had any useful doctrine, training or experience in night fighting and consequently had to learn it. Like every other military had to once upon a time.

Actually in Saudi Arabia there is an eyesight problem. It's not "we're all blind" levels, but it is enough of an issue that for the Saudi air force night operations are a relatively new thing.

Adam Jensen:

Zontar:
there's an interesting phenomenon in many Islamic nations of eyesight problems at night due to a fourteen hundred years of...

You can finish the sentence. Hell, I'll back you up on this one.

INBREEDING.

He wanted to say inbreeding. Zontar is actually right about this one. Inbreeding is a huge problem in some Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I think are the most notable examples. Muslims are allowed to marry their first cousins and in those backwards nations they take advantage of that right quite often. So yeah, Middle Eastern Muslim countries suffer from many problems related to inbreeding. I'm not sure about eyesight specifically though. Could be related.

Pakistan definitely has it the worst of them all. From what I've seen claimed, I think the number of first cousin marriages there is somewhere around 70% compared to 30%-40% in other middle eastern nations, though I could be wrong about the specific numbers themselves.

It actually makes me curious about what type of problems exist in the middle east because of that which we're unaware of. I mean on top of the obvious problems, since a Pakistani student I went to school with had depression issues due to the fact he was born sterile, and he claimed he wasn't the only one in his near family to have that problem.

Zontar:
Actually in Saudi Arabia there is an eyesight problem. It's not "we're all blind" levels, but it is enough of an issue that for the Saudi air force night operations are a relatively new thing.

No there isn't, for heaven's sakes.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. There's a incredibly dumb, racist meme rumour originating from a Danish racist who spends his time posting racist articles on the internet for which he has done no studies and cites no reasonable studies to defend the slightest thing he claims.

This is what you are doing. You are absolutely uncritically propounding racism from racists because you have not spent the slightest damn effort bothering to check the slightest thing you say. And then you defend yourself as if you're oh so reasonable. And honestly Zontar, that just makes you part of the problem of racism, and there is no reason whatsoever not to make that same accusation of you too.

Next - because I am a biological scientist even though genetics is not my specialism - it just displays utter lack of understanding of genetics.

Cousin marriage will cause a greater susceptibility to genetic problems, okay. But we have a whole country. What cousin marriage will do is essentially create discrete "pools" - multiple groups with heavy interrelatedness but reduced relatedness to each other - within the country. What that means is some putative "problem gene" such as a night vision lack may be more likely to arise with a group, but then is actually likely to be restricted to that group, because the cousin marriage constrains it being passed to other groups.

So what you might expect is a certain group of Saudis to have vision problems, but the majority unaffected.

It is of course quite possible that Saudis have genetically less night vision - although a much more plausible explanation is that it's stupidly fucking bright in the desert under the sun virtually every day of the year, so over the course of tens of thousands of years evolution, maybe their eyesight has slightly evolved to lower sensitivity (or maybe everywhere else in the world increased). It's fucking ludicrous to assume it's the result of inbreeding.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
As I said in the other thread. Regardless of who was voted in -- more dead Yemeni civilians. Only apparently the death toll will be even larger than with Hillary despite the whole 'non-interventionist' candidate pledge. What a fucking joke. Anybody who laughs deserves the same fate as those weapons will enact on thousands of innocent people. $350bn new toys in the hands of an autocratic mass murdering clan of backwards fuckwits making the world a worse place to live.

Within a year those weapons and ammo will be the hands of Wahhabist mercenaries and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Literally the biggest threat to civilized life for most conflict zones on the planet has been given an arms budget that rivals China more than twice over. Apparently the scores of secretive armsdealers, German gunrunners, Swiss moneylaunderers, and French munitions suppliers weren't enough already.

The U.S. is giving the biggest terrorist organization in the world, with a ideology and behaviour that makes the fucking Romans look like saints, access to an arms budget that rivals the U.S.' closest geostrategic competitor. And now there is none of the relative windfall of lost value purchasing given that it's the U.S. government selling in bulk one of the largest single arms deals in history rather than relying on merely private grey market merchant suppliers.

What then?

The weapons they sell now will be a problem for a generation.

Saelune:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
As I said in the other thread. Regardless of who was voted in -- more dead Yemeni civilians. Only apparently the death toll will be even larger than with Hillary despite the whole 'non-interventionist' candidate pledge. What a fucking joke. Anybody who laughs deserves the same fate as those weapons will enact on thousands of innocent people. $350bn new toys in the hands of an autocratic mass murdering clan of backwards fuckwits making the world a worse place to live.

Within a year those weapons and ammo will be the hands of Wahhabist mercenaries and terrorists throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Literally the biggest threat to civilized life for most conflict zones on the planet has been given an arms budget that rivals China more than twice over. Apparently the scores of secretive armsdealers, German gunrunners, Swiss moneylaunderers, and French munitions suppliers weren't enough already.

The U.S. is giving the biggest terrorist organization in the world, with a ideology and behaviour that makes the fucking Romans look like saints, access to an arms budget that rivals the U.S.' closest geostrategic competitor. And now there is none of the relative windfall of lost value purchasing given that it's the U.S. government selling in bulk one of the largest single arms deals in history rather than relying on merely private grey market merchant suppliers.

What then?

The weapons they sell now will be a problem for a generation.

BTW, back when Mike 'Torture the gay away' Pence was appointed, didn't Zontar claim that Hillary was worse on LGBTQ rights because she was "Too friendly with Saudi Arabia"?

CyanCat47:

BTW, back when Mike 'Torture the gay away' Pence was appointed, didn't Zontar claim that Hillary was worse on LGBTQ rights because she was "Too friendly with Saudi Arabia"?

An arms deal isn't exactly the same as personal relations with the ruling family of a dictatorship that views the LGBT as subhuman.

It's why I don't hold the arms deal my country made with them against Trudeau (not that I have to, he's done plenty else to earn my ire).

Agema:
Snip

If any of this is true, I sure didn't know about it. The only information I've seen is someone speaking in a purely academic tone about the subject, with a few numbers being thrown out regarding how common such relations are and the different medical issues that have arisen from it. Unless what you're talking about is someone else, there was nothing that implied racism in what I read given it made no judgement about them, simply statistics regarding how many children are born with X in 1,000 compared to other countries (and even then it's like crime in the West vs crime in Japan where even the worst one of the two isn't exactly earth shattering).

Zontar:

If any of this is true, I sure didn't know about it. The only information I've seen is someone speaking in a purely academic tone about the subject, with a few numbers being thrown out regarding how common such relations are and the different medical issues that have arisen from it. Unless what you're talking about is someone else, there was nothing that implied racism in what I read given it made no judgement about them, simply statistics regarding how many children are born with X in 1,000 compared to other countries (and even then it's like crime in the West vs crime in Japan where even the worst one of the two isn't exactly earth shattering).

That is not an excuse.

Academic tone is insufficient. Anyone with decent language skills can ape academic tone, especially because some racist scumbags get high level academic degrees.

One of the most basic things anyone can do when they encounter controversial stories is to check a) their provenance and b) whether they are backed up by other reputable sources. This can be learned in secondary school, and is unavoidable as a basic higher education skill. It is quick and easy to do a basic Google search (there's even Google Scholar for the heavyweight stuff) and see who is producing and spreading this sort of thing, what their reputations are, and their organisation (if any). It's easy to do a basic Google search and see whether they are backed up by additional reputable sources. It's not hard to spot this nonsense night vision stuff is part of texts from very dodgy sources explicitly setting out to argue Arabs are physically and mentally inferior to other humans and culturally degenerate, which should sound alarm bells in most people's heads.

The thing is, Zontar, if anyone had made those sorts of outlandish and negative claims about your racial / cultural group, I can absolutely bet you one of the first things you'd have done is check other sources in the hope it wasn't true. One simple example of racism is being happy to believe the worst about other races with evidential standards far below what they'd accept for similar accusations against their own.

It's racism just on the grounds of consequence (irrespective of intent), because it is believing lies about other races, and propagating them which may induce other people to form negative opinions of them. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse. The minute you want to advance controversy you should have a minimum responsibility to a) check you are on reasonable grounds and/or b) provide major caveats to anyone so they know it's potentially unreliable.

And let's be clear here Zontar, this is far from the first time you've done something like this. If you make the same mistakes again and again and again, always the same targets for false denigration, why should anyone believe you when you protest your innocence?

Zontar:

CyanCat47:

BTW, back when Mike 'Torture the gay away' Pence was appointed, didn't Zontar claim that Hillary was worse on LGBTQ rights because she was "Too friendly with Saudi Arabia"?

An arms deal isn't exactly the same as personal relations with the ruling family of a dictatorship that views the LGBT as subhuman.

It's why I don't hold the arms deal my country made with them against Trudeau (not that I have to, he's done plenty else to earn my ire).

Cause its "Just business" right?

Adam Jensen:
This is from the same guy who called out Saudi Arabia for being behind 9/11. And he was right.

Saudi Arabia wasn't behind 9/11, because Saudi Arabia is not the same as some Saudi Arabian citizens.

He wanted to say inbreeding. Zontar is actually right about this one.

Cosanguinuity per se is an issue in numerous ways in these states (Saudi Arabia has introduced genetic testing in an attempt to dissuade marriages between the excessively consanguinous.) After that, however, what was described was a load of garbage which you shouldn't encourage (and seemingly don't understand), either.

Let's also bear in mind what we're talking about is things like Saudi Arabia having a rate of genetic diseases about 1:1000 compared to 1:4000 in the USA. It's far from the stuff of legends of Appalachian mountain people.

Muslims are allowed to marry their first cousins

As, indeed, is virtually everyone else in the world. Many countries permit it (including numerous Western ones). Even many of those that have banned it do not enforce those laws: it runs over 5% in some.

It is not only Muslim countries where it can be prevalent, nor is universally prevalent amongst Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, however, have particularly high rates.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here