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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

Their government is complicit. They're not exactly doing anything to prevent the spread of Wahhabism. Quite the opposite. And wahhabism is one of the main causes of Muslim fundamentalism.

Agema:
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.

Yeah, I hear you. I said that I wasn't sure about the whole eyesight thing. First time I heard about it, actually. But I knew what he wanted to say because I was aware of the fact that culturally that part of the world (Middle East and parts of South Asia) had a real problem with inbreeding and genetic disorders. Obviously that doesn't automatically mean that every genetic disorder can be attributed to inbreeding. But inbreeding certainly doesn't help. And I think that if a problem exists it shouldn't be ignored.

Agema:
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.

There's a big difference between the official law and the cultural acceptance of the practice. Even if it's legal in some countries, it's usually frowned upon. The problem with some of the Middle Eastern countries is that it's not frowned upon. Or at least not as much.

Agema:
It is not only Muslim countries where it can be prevalent, nor is universally prevalent amongst Muslim countries.

Never said that it was.

Adam Jensen:

Their government is complicit. They're not exactly doing anything to prevent the spread of Wahhabism. Quite the opposite. And wahhabism is one of the main causes of Muslim fundamentalism.

So by the same token is the USA and allies complicit in the Muslim terrorism, by repeatedly invading Middle Eastern countries. That doesn't mean they wanted it to happen.

For decades, facilitating Wahhabism provided the ruling Saud regime with two benefits - firstly, fobbing off internal discontent, and secondly providing a means to influence other countries as the sect's heart was in their country. Unfortunately for everyone, the Sauds did not expect Wahhabists to start a campaign of blood and misery across the world - including threatening the Sauds themselves.

But inbreeding certainly doesn't help. And I think that if a problem exists it shouldn't be ignored...

There's a big difference between the official law and the cultural acceptance of the practice. Even if it's legal in some countries, it's usually frowned upon. The problem with some of the Middle Eastern countries is that it's not frowned upon. Or at least not as much.

Indeed.

Cousin marriage seems common enough that it perhaps isn't very strongly disapproved of, even if it makes some of us feel a bit queasy. At low levels, it's basically harmless. And in most places, it's more about happenstance than design. Historically, cousin marriage was hardly uncommon (rates of ~5% in Europe). I'm pretty sure there's 17-19th century literature where the hero / heroine's love interest is a cousin or not much more distant. If you imagine the ancient or medieval eras where people tended to live in small villages, travelled relatively little and so on, realistically cousins might easily be about 5% of the potential pool of available mates so cousin marriage perhaps reflected a simple matter of proportion. However, as this form of occurrence in society, down the generations people in a family are very unlikely to consistently be marrying cousins.

Marrying cousins in some countries however occurs as a specific social habit. It mostly seems to stem from an idea that a family's wealth and power gets dispersed through the generations by marriage. However, it can be consolidated back by marrying branches of the family together. A similar concept exists with respect to immigration: get family members from the poor country to the richer via marriage which can grant citizenship.

But these sorts of deep-rooted cultural practices can be very ingrained. For instance, the ancient Egyptians are thought to have done plenty of cosanguinous marrying (and closer than first cousins, too) - it's potentially an extraordinarily old and established practice in some places. Consequently destroying it may be very tough. SA's move to genetic testing is an interesting one - trying to find a technological way to avoid the the deficits without the probably unpopular tactic of destroying the tradition.

Seanchaidh:

While I'm on board with the message that the Democratic Party needs to undergo a period of serious soul-searching, that video contains some shoddy logic, and does a disservice to the case.

"Think about how bad, how unappealing, how offensive Barack Obama and ultimately Hillary Clinton had to be to the American population in order for them to even remotely begin to choose someone like Donald Trump [...]"

Put aside the conflation of correlation with causation, which wouldn't have cut the mustard in a SAT-level essay. This assumes the rationality of the choice the American public made, and of the decision-making process they went through. It assumes shared priorities, for one thing, but it also assumes a right-and-proper evaluation took place, and that culpability therefore rests solely with the loser. It places great (and undue) faith in the intelligence, rationality and evaluative power of the voter.

The loser holds some culpability. A great deal, in fact, given their influence. But sometimes voters will vote in idiotic ways: squarely against their own interests. That happened here. A right and proper evaluation did not take place.

Saelune:

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?

When a conservative does it.

If a liberal does it, they're "in bed with dictators".

Adam Jensen:

There's a big difference between the official law and the cultural acceptance of the practice. Even if it's legal in some countries, it's usually frowned upon. The problem with some of the Middle Eastern countries is that it's not frowned upon. Or at least not as much.

I'm not too familiar with most of this issue so I'm going to keep my mouth shut about it, but from what I understand, cousin marrying is very accepted in the Bible Belt. Go figure, am I right?

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

While I'm on board with the message that the Democratic Party needs to undergo a period of serious soul-searching, that video contains some shoddy logic, and does a disservice to the case.

"Think about how bad, how unappealing, how offensive Barack Obama and ultimately Hillary Clinton had to be to the American population in order for them to even remotely begin to choose someone like Donald Trump [...]"

Put aside the conflation of correlation with causation, which wouldn't have cut the mustard in a SAT-level essay. This assumes the rationality of the choice the American public made, and of the decision-making process they went through. It assumes shared priorities, for one thing, but it also assumes a right-and-proper evaluation took place, and that culpability therefore rests solely with the loser. It places great (and undue) faith in the intelligence, rationality and evaluative power of the voter.

The loser holds some culpability. A great deal, in fact, given their influence. But sometimes voters will vote in idiotic ways: squarely against their own interests. That happened here. A right and proper evaluation did not take place.

To compound on this idea, it's not always the fact that voters are well enough equipped to do logical thinking for themselves.

Trump's margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively).

...

Due largely to the dramatic movement among whites with no college degree, the gap between college and non-college whites is wider in 2016 than in any past election dating to 1980.

(source)

And some are equipped, but overlook potential miscarriages that could be levied towards them for possible economic gain.

Rejecting the candidate who had aimed to be America's first female president, 53% of white women voted for Trump, according to CNN exit polls.

White women without a college degree supported Trump over Hillary Clinton by nearly a two to one margin. White women with a college degree were more evenly divided, with 45% supporting Trump, compared with 51% supporting Clinton.

"*There*'s your shy Trump vote," Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson tweeted on Tuesday night, noting that Trump had only lost white women with college degrees by a narrow margin.

Women of color, in contrast, voted overwhelmingly for Clinton: 94% of black women supported her, and 68% of Latino women. While exit polling data has flaws, the early responses underline a stark racial divide among American women: the majority of white women embraced Trump and his platform, while women of color rejected him.

(source)

When Trump picked a Labor head who is against fair wages for labor and mandatory break time. Trump wishes to do away with Title II, and zeroing out Title II could hamper implementation of the new Every Student Succeeds Act, lead to teacher layoffs, and make it tougher for educators to reach special populations of students, or use technology in their classrooms... not to mention he picked an educational leader who knows nothing about the education follies of this country and suggests that is a broken system so parents should look to charter and private schools.

The man sold our online privacy rights so Internet companies could profit from us more, then decided that the poor companies didn't have enough... so he got a chairman to get rid of net neutrality so they can charge us more for basic Internet speeds, allow throttling, and make a tier system for regular puerile top have decent speeds. Trump is continuing to try to sell governmentally protected lands, even after congress last attempt almost cost 6.1 million jobs and 646 billion in revenue... a complete flip flop from a interview in 2015 where he said we must protect those lands because they are a symbol what makes this country great.

How does or can any of this make America great? Almost every decision comes at a cost to the public and benefits the corporations.

Wait, what the hell does inbreeding has to do with a 350billion dollar arms deal?

Parasondox:
Wait, what the hell does inbreeding has to do with a 350billion dollar arms deal?

It's A typical misdirection tactic. You point out something distasteful that can be proven to justify any and all negative feelings you might have.

Like "LOOK AT CRIME IN CHICAGO!" to justify any cop who shoots a man in seconds.

erttheking:

Adam Jensen:

There's a big difference between the official law and the cultural acceptance of the practice. Even if it's legal in some countries, it's usually frowned upon. The problem with some of the Middle Eastern countries is that it's not frowned upon. Or at least not as much.

I'm not too familiar with most of this issue so I'm going to keep my mouth shut about it, but from what I understand, cousin marrying is very accepted in the Bible Belt. Go figure, am I right?

And incest/faux incest porn is massively rising, so glass houses I guess.

I could make a joke about snowflakes not wanting to meet people who challenge their preconceptions, but by phrasing it this way I can also joke about how smug I am.

Parasondox:
Wait, what the hell does inbreeding has to do with a 350billion dollar arms deal?

Racist deflection from an action taken by a side's chosen champion that they'd be crucifying somebody else for.

Racist people are just dumb ignorant fucking assholes. If they use racism to defend a point, then they are too stupid to form an actual thought.

Was I too harsh? Pity. I should be harsher. Sick of ignorance creating division.

Agema:
For decades, facilitating Wahhabism provided the ruling Saud regime with two benefits - firstly, fobbing off internal discontent, and secondly providing a means to influence other countries as the sect's heart was in their country. Unfortunately for everyone, the Sauds did not expect Wahhabists to start a campaign of blood and misery across the world - including threatening the Sauds themselves.

I'm inclined to say that campaigns of blood and misery is the logical end point for any ideology that preaches conformism to strict codes of behavior and appearance under threat of corporeal punishment while simultaneously discouraging any contact with people that do not share your ideology. On the other hand, I share your belief that the Sauds never meant for Wahhabism to spin out of control like it has, and probably didn't expect it to turn as violent and bloodthirsty as it has.

apparently jared kushner put in a private word to some executive at lockheed martin to lower the price of a radar system for the saudi's

ObsidianJones:
How does or can any of this make America great? Almost every decision comes at a cost to the public and benefits the corporations.

It doesn't. Trump was a question mark. Turns out he's a dyed in the wool Republican, or just so uninterested in policy that he lets the corporate establishment do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

While I'm on board with the message that the Democratic Party needs to undergo a period of serious soul-searching, that video contains some shoddy logic, and does a disservice to the case.

"Think about how bad, how unappealing, how offensive Barack Obama and ultimately Hillary Clinton had to be to the American population in order for them to even remotely begin to choose someone like Donald Trump [...]"

Put aside the conflation of correlation with causation, which wouldn't have cut the mustard in a SAT-level essay. This assumes the rationality of the choice the American public made, and of the decision-making process they went through. It assumes shared priorities, for one thing, but it also assumes a right-and-proper evaluation took place, and that culpability therefore rests solely with the loser. It places great (and undue) faith in the intelligence, rationality and evaluative power of the voter.

The loser holds some culpability. A great deal, in fact, given their influence. But sometimes voters will vote in idiotic ways: squarely against their own interests. That happened here. A right and proper evaluation did not take place.

In the logic of one-off tactical voting, sure. In the logic of coalition building, no. Hillary Clinton was absolutely inadequate in what she offered to voters to build her coalition and mistargeted her appeals toward moderate Republicans instead of the dissatisfied people in her own party. Donald Trump was able to corral together racists, misogynists, and some of the people who were so dissatisfied with the course of the country that they didn't want anything to do with established power and so they were willing to vote for a bloviating moron because he might be different. That turned out to be a more viable coalition than whoever supported Hillary's agenda of administering moderate doses of the tranquilizing drug of gradualism and making sure that neither a progressive agenda nor meaningful campaign finance and ethics reform ever happen.

She treated the grassroots of her coalition with no respect: Bernie had the support of many (maybe most, I'll have to dig that information up sometime) local labor unions, while Hillary obtained the support of national labor leaders for no particularly compelling reason. It's clear why Sanders would have labor support: he has a bold labor-friendly agenda. Sec. Clinton, on the other hand, made little effort to sway labor voters with a policy agenda and instead relied on inadequate arguments about personality and competence and endorsements by Washington insider national labor leaders as if workers are just a hive mind represented by the leadership of AFL-CIO.

This is the sort of story that makes potential coalition members think "yeah, no thanks, go fuck yourself" about a presidential candidate that supposedly represents them. Instead of treating this lack of support from the grassroots of the labor movement as the problem that it definitely was, the Clinton campaign blamed Sanders for stirring the people up with an actually progressive policy platform. And then didn't do anywhere near enough to fix the damage that had been delivered by the striking contrast between their two candidacies.

Seanchaidh:
This is the sort of story that makes potential coalition members think "yeah, no thanks, go fuck yourself" about a presidential candidate that supposedly represents them. Instead of treating this lack of support from the grassroots of the labor movement as the problem that it definitely was, the Clinton campaign blamed Sanders for stirring the people up with an actually progressive policy platform. And then didn't do anywhere near enough to fix the damage that had been delivered by the striking contrast between their two candidacies.

I think what really, really soured me towards Hillary was the New York Primary. 125k Brooklyn votes gone, Voters' affiliations switched without their approval, Voters being told they have to vote for seven delegates but Sanders only having six . The Closed Primary of New York keeping 3 Million registered Independents from picking their candidate.

Again, I don't feel bad for her with the campaign she ran. I feel bad for all of us that a lot of shady business went down to make sure that Clinton was the only hope we had against Trump.

Agema:

So by the same token is the USA and allies complicit in the Muslim terrorism, by repeatedly invading Middle Eastern countries. That doesn't mean they wanted it to happen.

Yeah... and if I give a disgruntled school kid a gun and sell him a box of ammo, no way am I complicit in that school shooting. Your argument falls apart on two fronts. Yes Saudi Arabia wants Wahhabist mercenaries like Al Shabaab to kill people in places like Somalia. We have proof SA, Qatar, etc has been money laundering and selling thrm arms for decades now. Yes, the arms manufacturers want a greater market for weapons, yes the U.S. government (amongst others) is complicit in wanting that market to thrive by manufacturing a need for guns on twi fronts... whether that be Christian and Druze militia protecting their towns from 'moderate' Syrian Rebels, and groups like the Taliban.

Isn't it funny how things like that happen? Assad the butcher, and despite that yet more Christians and Druze are signing up to fight in pro-Assad militia to defeat the 'rebels' who have been kidnapping and mutilating the bodies of their soldiers? But of course if that information started circulating about suddenly the arms manufacturers who lobbied government to sell more arms to 'moderate' Syrians and 'moderate' Arab states might not seem as if the facilitators of basic liberty. But why have direct sales when you can have Wahhabists do your dirty work as always?

Totally makes one 'non complicit' doesn't it. I mean Saudi Arabia and Turkey sending weapons to these groups isn't complicity .... it's merely .... what excuse are we going to use now? I'm legitimately asking... Whether or not you place any faith in consequentialism... what excuse helps clean off that blood?

Answer correctly and Armalite has a lobbying job in the pipeline for you.

You know.... the people that aided Islamic terrorism in the West that both the Sunni Arabs and CIA propped up in the 80s? I wonder what they've been up to in the 21st century? Propping up the Taliban in 80s couldn't possibly be seen as being complicit for any actions whatsoever... I mean assuming that propping up the Taliban had dire consequences for the West is like assuming means, motive, opportunity and history are things we should take on board when we evaluate the consequences of actions. When in truth the only consequences we should ever truly consider is just how much those poor dears in gunrunning are faring if we totally don't help out homicidal sadists in the [insert psychopathic regime here].

Totally non-complicit. Nothing personal, only business.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Agema:

So by the same token is the USA and allies complicit in the Muslim terrorism, by repeatedly invading Middle Eastern countries. That doesn't mean they wanted it to happen.

Yeah... and if I give a disgruntled school kid a gun and sell him a box of ammo, no way am I complicit in that school shooting. Your argument falls apart on two fronts. Yes Saudi Arabia wants Wahhabist mercenaries like Al Shabaab to kill people in places like Somalia. We have proof SA, Qatar, etc has been money laundering and selling thrm arms for decades now. Yes, the arms manufacturers want a greater market for weapons, yes the U.S. government (amongst others) is complicit in wanting that market to thrive by manufacturing a need for guns on twi fronts... whether that be Christian and Druze militia protecting their towns from 'moderate' Syrian Rebels, and groups like the Taliban.

Isn't it funny how things like that happen? Assad the butcher, and despite that yet more Christians and Druze are signing up to fight in pro-Assad militia to defeat the 'rebels' who have been kidnapping and mutilating the bodies of their soldiers? But of course if that information started circulating about suddenly the arms manufacturers who lobbied government to sell more arms to 'moderate' Syrians and 'moderate' Arab states might not seem as if the facilitators of basic liberty. But why have direct sales when you can have Wahhabists do your dirty work as always?

Totally makes one 'non complicit' doesn't it. I mean Saudi Arabia and Turkey sending weapons to these groups isn't complicity .... it's merely .... what excuse are we going to use now? I'm legitimately asking... Whether or not you place any faith in consequentialism... what excuse helps clean off that blood?

Answer correctly and Armalite has a lobbying job in the pipeline for you.

You know.... the people that aided Islamic terrorism in the West that both the Sunni Arabs and CIA propped up in the 80s? I wonder what they've been up to in the 21st century? Propping up the Taliban in 80s couldn't possibly be seen as being complicit for any actions whatsoever... I mean assuming that propping up the Taliban had dire consequences for the West is like assuming means, motive, opportunity and history are things we should take on board when we evaluate the consequences of actions. When in truth the only consequences we should ever truly consider is just how much those poor dears in gunrunning are faring if we totally don't help out homicidal sadists in the [insert psychopathic regime here].

Totally non-complicit. Nothing personal, only business.

I am...not sure if you are genuinely disagreeing with Agema, or being sarcastic.

Saelune:
I am...not sure if you are genuinely disagreeing with Agema, or being sarcastic.

Porque no los dos?

The argument that there is zero complicity is garbage. The U.S. is directly, provably complicit in Islamic terrorism. This is basic history. 4th grader stuff. The U.S. government doesn't even deny it. We even have recordings of Cheney corresponding with (what would be) the Taliban. Salafists might, but pretending like that argument should be taken on board is also answerable by most 4th graders, as well. It is not merely living history, it was happening when I was physically alive and most likely while thry were as well. I don't need to recreate some forgotten era of history to accurately portray a well known fact about it and hammer home how it could be classed as funding Islamic terrorism.

It might be something they observed directly unfolding on their tvs and in their newspapers.

(Edit) When literally the only "stable" argument they have is: "God orders me to murder people...." giving them a gun is complicit in them murdering people. It's also pretty solid grounds for anyone to call out any participant in the sale of weapons to them complicit as war criminals under any reasonable discussion of the merits of justifiable conflict and reasonable praxis in the conducting of soldiery and warfare.

This is not a slippery slope argument, either. "Hello, here's guns for you to 'potentially' brutalize innocent people with..." and saying that they will, and have, brutalized innocent people willfully with them, and that represents complicity, is not some stretch of the word in any English definition.

Only so many times people can claim naivete before it is nothing but openly transparent corruption and willful aiding of war criminality. These people are actively making the world an unsafer place. They are knowingly making the world an unsafer place. They are profiting off making the world an unsafer place.

Saudi Arabia does not merely want this 'campaign of blood', it profits from it as much as those arms dealers do. This is a fact. It's not terrorists shooting missiles into Yemen. It's not terrorists selling stockpiled military supplies to various gunrunners in Somalia, Mali and Nigeria. It's not some mysterious Saudi bankrollers funding their operations... it's money laundered through 'nationally' owned banks by these 'Princes' (warlords historically and contemporaneously)... it's about as governmental as it gets, because there's no real government. It's a clan of warlords... warlords who have always been warlords and will always be warlords for as long as those guns keep rolling and they can put down any resistance to them.

This mass murder of the Yemeni is nothing but a 'redo' of the first house of Al Saud 270 years ago. Same reasons ... build empire ... It worked for them back then and it's working now. Al Saud are openly the adherents of the philosophies of Wahhab. Wahhab was a Saudi warlord in the 18th century. Indeed probably the first 'Saud' warlord. They are still using his goddamn playbook on how to 'deal' with the enemies who have resisted them for centuries. Only this time exchange swords with high brisant munitions they can use with impunity because we prop them up to the exclusion of its enemies' means to fight back or even defend themselves.

If you ended, and relentlessly prosecuted any participant in, weapon sales to SA today... within 15 years that autocracy would collapse, and a 300 year wound on our collective humanity can start to heal. Until then, expect that 300 year war roll on into another century.

Parasondox:
Racist people are just dumb ignorant fucking assholes. If they use racism to defend a point, then they are too stupid to form an actual thought.

Was I too harsh? Pity. I should be harsher. Sick of ignorance creating division.

Ah, but if you extend that logic, anyone who isn't a "dumb ignorant fucking asshole" isn't racist. That guy I like who might say things that seem racist, maybe he's a family member or something, he's not a "dumb ignorant fucking asshole" so he's not really racist.

For that matter, I don't consider myself a "dumb ignorant fucking asshole", so I should consider myself totally free from racism, immune to all the racist influences of our society, and in no way can I be part of the problem.

I will say the saudis are smart.. they gave trump a gold medal when he arrived.. which both strokes his ego and gives him something shiny to play with

Thaluikhain:
For that matter, I don't consider myself a "dumb ignorant fucking asshole", so I should consider myself totally free from racism, immune to all the racist influences of our society, and in no way can I be part of the problem.

If you consider yourself not a dumb ignorant fucking asshole, there is a good chance you're actually a dumb ignorant fucking asshole.

The only way to escape from this stupidity paradox is through comprehensive self-hatred.

bastardofmelbourne:

Thaluikhain:
For that matter, I don't consider myself a "dumb ignorant fucking asshole", so I should consider myself totally free from racism, immune to all the racist influences of our society, and in no way can I be part of the problem.

If you consider yourself not a dumb ignorant fucking asshole, there is a good chance you're actually a dumb ignorant fucking asshole.

The only way to escape from this stupidity paradox is through comprehensive self-hatred.

I usually ask myself periodically "Am I racist?"

Usually in the shower. Cause you know, its technically "white washing".

Saelune:
I usually ask myself periodically "Am I racist?"

Usually in the shower. Cause you know, its technically "white washing".

I lol'd so hard I just emancipated my spleen.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
I usually ask myself periodically "Am I racist?"

Usually in the shower. Cause you know, its technically "white washing".

I lol'd so hard I just emancipated my spleen.

I too found it funny, but the reaction was better.

So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

Fox12:
So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

As it turns out, not even. Every time I try to look up this story all I can find is Trump is planning to give the Saudis $110bn over 10 years, when Obama gave them $115bn over the course of his presidency.

crimson5pheonix:

Fox12:
So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

As it turns out, not even. Every time I try to look up this story all I can find is Trump is planning to give the Saudis $110bn over 10 years, when Obama gave them $115bn over the course of his presidency.

So its only bad because its trump. I see. Just like how Obama's administration was fine with targeting the families of terrorists, and everyone was fine with it, but then they shit themselves when Trump mentioned it.

Fox12:

crimson5pheonix:

Fox12:
So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

As it turns out, not even. Every time I try to look up this story all I can find is Trump is planning to give the Saudis $110bn over 10 years, when Obama gave them $115bn over the course of his presidency.

So its only bad because its trump. I see. Just like how Obama's administration was fine with targeting the families of terrorists, and everyone was fine with it, but then they shit themselves when Trump mentioned it.

Unfortunately, now that I look it up I can find plenty of sources that say 350 over 10 years. So I don't know anymore. I do know that a lot of what Trump put forward was set up by Obama.

crimson5pheonix:

Fox12:

crimson5pheonix:

As it turns out, not even. Every time I try to look up this story all I can find is Trump is planning to give the Saudis $110bn over 10 years, when Obama gave them $115bn over the course of his presidency.

So its only bad because its trump. I see. Just like how Obama's administration was fine with targeting the families of terrorists, and everyone was fine with it, but then they shit themselves when Trump mentioned it.

Unfortunately, now that I look it up I can find plenty of sources that say 350 over 10 years. So I don't know anymore. I do know that a lot of what Trump put forward was set up by Obama.

That still just means he's expanding democratic policies

Fox12:

crimson5pheonix:

Fox12:

So its only bad because its trump. I see. Just like how Obama's administration was fine with targeting the families of terrorists, and everyone was fine with it, but then they shit themselves when Trump mentioned it.

Unfortunately, now that I look it up I can find plenty of sources that say 350 over 10 years. So I don't know anymore. I do know that a lot of what Trump put forward was set up by Obama.

That still just means he's expanding democratic policies

Oh he's expanding democratic policies all over the middle east.

image

Fox12:
So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

Context - and consistency - are important. One of the arguments levelled against Hillary Clinton was that she was too close to Saudi Arabia, a country with a terrible human rights record. There were false claims that Clinton had $1.8 billion moved to a Qatar bank. In particular, it was argued that Trump was better than Clinton on LGBT rights specifically because of Clinton's alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, a country infamous for its poor treatment of homosexuals.

The implication behind these arguments was twofold. First, it cast Clinton as a hypocrite for supporting women's rights and democracy in public but engaging in shady financial deals with repressive Middle Eastern states in private. Secondly, it implied Trump would do different. Virulent Islamophobia was a cornerstone of Trump's campaign strategy, and his supporters saw no difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran in that respect. The argument was that a vote for Clinton was a vote for continued Saudi influence over US politics, but a vote for Trump was a vote against sharia law and imperialist Islamism and support for ISIS.

These arguments have been revealed to be pure fantasy. Trump is just as willing to toss Saudi Arabia's salad as Clinton was or would have been. He has ramped up US involvement in the Yemeni civil war in a way that only benefits Saudi royalty. He's sent his son-in-law to negotiate billion-dollar arms deals. He's walked on a red carpet in a Saudi palace and literally had a gold medal hung around his neck. Every step he takes treads on the promises he made to his voters - promises that no US president could ever hope to keep, because Saudi Arabia has too much influence over world oil prices to make any diplomatic censure worth it in terms of economic fallout.

Sure, it's all shit that Clinton would have done. But Clinton didn't explicitly promise not to do it.

bastardofmelbourne:

Fox12:
So trump is expanding a Hillary Clinton policy? And this is the reason why trump is worse then Hillary?

Well, I'm grateful I voted third party

Context - and consistency - are important. One of the arguments levelled against Hillary Clinton was that she was too close to Saudi Arabia, a country with a terrible human rights record. There were false claims that Clinton had $1.8 billion moved to a Qatar bank. In particular, it was argued that Trump was better than Clinton on LGBT rights specifically because of Clinton's alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, a country infamous for its poor treatment of homosexuals.

The implication behind these arguments was twofold. First, it cast Clinton as a hypocrite for supporting women's rights and democracy in public but engaging in shady financial deals with repressive Middle Eastern states in private. Secondly, it implied Trump would do different. Virulent Islamophobia was a cornerstone of Trump's campaign strategy, and his supporters saw no difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran in that respect. The argument was that a vote for Clinton was a vote for continued Saudi influence over US politics, but a vote for Trump was a vote against sharia law and imperialist Islamism and support for ISIS.

These arguments have been revealed to be pure fantasy. Trump is just as willing to toss Saudi Arabia's salad as Clinton was or would have been. He has ramped up US involvement in the Yemeni civil war in a way that only benefits Saudi royalty. He's sent his son-in-law to negotiate billion-dollar arms deals. He's walked on a red carpet in a Saudi palace and literally had a gold medal hung around his neck. Every step he takes treads on the promises he made to his voters - promises that no US president could ever hope to keep, because Saudi Arabia has too much influence over world oil prices to make any diplomatic censure worth it in terms of economic fallout.

Sure, it's all shit that Clinton would have done. But Clinton didn't explicitly promise not to do it.

Oh, I knew he was going to do it. That's why I didn't vote for him. Maybe other people made that claim, but not me. So it's little more then a straw man. In any case, it also highlights my point that Clinton was not worth voting for, since I opposed those policies. I'm somehow still amazed that democrats seem to base their entire morality on which party says something, instead of on any kind of clear logic. And they refuse to admit their inconsistencies.

This isn't contributing much of value to the discussion, but...

image

Man, international politics can be really fucking tacky.

Zhukov:

Man, international politics can be really fucking tacky.

It looks like he's holding a Batarang.

Zhukov:
This isn't contributing much of value to the discussion, but...

image

Man, international politics can be really fucking tacky.

my favorite part of that picture is that the man in the middle looks like he is questioning every decision in his life that has led him to this moment

Fox12:
Oh, I knew he was going to do it. That's why I didn't vote for him. Maybe other people made that claim, but not me. So it's little more then a straw man.

It's a straw man in relation to you specifically, but there are people out there on the Internet who genuinely believed that Trump was going to deliver something different when it came to US-Saudi relations. I know they exist because I've spoken to them. I'm not making up these arguments in order to knock them down; these are arguments I witnessed firsthand, coming from the mouths of otherwise-intelligent people.

Fox12:
In any case, it also highlights my point that Clinton was not worth voting for, since I opposed those policies.

I don't know if it does. Whether or not it was "worth it" to vote for Clinton on the basis of US-Saudi foreign policy is a weird and hazy calculus. Clinton represented the Same Old Shit, but she also represented a continuation of the Obama administration, and the Saudis hated Obama because he had the gall to criticise their human rights record and negotiate with Iran. And in private, Clinton expressed distaste for the kingdom and advocated curbing its capacity to fund overseas terrorism. Those two factors meant the Saudis developed a clear preference for Trump, because he dissed the deal with Iran and because he's a transparently corrupt douchelord who they literally buy apartments from.

If Clinton had won the election, you would have seen arms deals like this, yes. You probably would have seen the same increase in US involvement in Yemen and potentially a similarly theatrical foreign visit like this one. But Clinton wouldn't have trashed the Iran deal, because she helped negotiate it. And the Saudis wouldn't have shone a picture of her face on the side of the hotel where she was staying. The tremendous irony here is that Trump sold himself to his voters as an alternative to the conventional Saudi Arabia policy, and now that he's in office they're exchanging handjobs and compliments in equal measure.

I mean, if you decided your vote in 2016 on the basis of US-Saudi relations, you had a choice between the guy who was in bed with the Saudis and lying about it, or the lady who was in bed with the Saudis because she had to be. You didn't have a choice to not be in bed with the Saudis because the Saudis were fucking everybody.

Edit: I don't want it to seem like I'm criticising you for your choice of who to vote for. That's your decision to make. What I'm kinda trying to say is that while both Clinton and Trump would've done this kind of shit, Clinton was at least aware that it was a moral compromise. Trump doesn't give a shit about the morality of dealing with the Saudis. He only signed this deal because it gives the US government the funds that it needs to finance planned cuts to taxes and healthcare.

Let me try and summarise; Clinton represented a perpetuation of conventional US-Saudi foreign policy. Trump represents an escalation of it. Clinton wouldn't have solved the problem, but Trump is actively making it worse.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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