Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[MonkeyHead]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

[Sergarr]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

But isn't USA already oil-independent due to all the fracking oil? Seems like now would be a good moment to change the allies.

[MonkeyHead]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

But isn't USA already oil-independent due to all the fracking oil? Seems like now would be a good moment to change the allies.

Why, when it is a ready export market for many millions of arms deals thanks to decades old oil friendship? Better the devil you know, and all that.

[Sergarr]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

But isn't USA already oil-independent due to all the fracking oil? Seems like now would be a good moment to change the allies.

Why, when it is a ready export market for many millions of arms deals thanks to decades old oil friendship? Better the devil you know, and all that.

Spreading democracy and freedom of speech?

I heard Saudi's are pretty bad at those two things. And they also have oil, which makes them, like, the IDEAL target for invasion.

[MonkeyHead]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

But isn't USA already oil-independent due to all the fracking oil? Seems like now would be a good moment to change the allies.

Why, when it is a ready export market for many millions of arms deals thanks to decades old oil friendship? Better the devil you know, and all that.

Spreading democracy and freedom of speech?

I heard Saudi's are pretty bad at those two things. And they also have oil, which makes them, like, the IDEAL target for invasion.

Yeah, but oil they have been willing to sell, US supplied arms they have been willing to use in assistance of the US's lil crusades, and they have also been willing to host US bases/troops. These sort of things count for a lot, apparently.

[mainiac]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Iran has spent more then a decade supporting efforts to undermine democracy in Lebanon and increasing tensions between Hamas and Israel.  They supplied weapons that got Americans killed in Iraq.  They support a faction in the Syrian civil war that the US isn't fond of.

It's not really complicated, if you actively pursue actions that the US doesn't like and you openly state that you will continue to do such actions, the US views you as an enemy.

[Sergarr]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Iran has spent more then a decade supporting efforts to undermine democracy in Lebanon and increasing tensions between Hamas and Israel.  They supplied weapons that got Americans killed in Iraq.  They support a faction in the Syrian civil war that the US isn't fond of.

It's not really complicated, if you actively pursue actions that the US doesn't like and you openly state that you will continue to do such actions, the US views you as an enemy.

You say it as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan haven't done the same things. It just gets conveniently ignored when they do shit like supporting ISIS or hiding Osama bin Laden near the military academy from USA.

[10ebbor10]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Because of who is willing to trade oil to who - simple really. Saudi oil goes to the US, and the cash generated flows back and forth in the form of arms deals, hence why the Saudi air force has nice shiny F-18's and whatnot. Iranian oil went to the USSR.

Not so sure about that actually. Iran's Ayatollah considered communism incompatible with the Islam, and relations weren't very well since the Islamic revolution kicked out and suppressed the communists that had helped them overthrow the Shah.

[mainiac]

You say it as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan haven't done the same things. It just gets conveniently ignored when they do shit like supporting ISIS or hiding Osama bin Laden near the military academy from USA.

The reason they are treated differently is because there are differences.  I mean if you want to throw your hands in the air and say "BUT THEY'RE THE SAME GUYS!" then go right ahead.  But if your goal is to actually understand a complex situation, then purposefully trying to not understand wont get you very far.  And if your goal is to engage me in argument then I dont care.

[Vilanat]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

Its because you are Russian and Iran are allies with Russia so your state sponsored propaganda made you think Iran is better than Saudi Arabia, while in truth, they are both hideous countries that stomp their own people human rights and support terrorist organizations across the world. Iran is an imperialistic country that has thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of active troops in places like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and that's not counting proxy groups such as Hezbollah or the houthis that are almost de facto iranian soldiers. shia affiliated terror organizations have committed atrocities not better than ISIS, they just didn't do it to western journalists recently and that's the only thing that counts because "nobody" really gives a fuck what they do to each other.

The truth is, the westerners that are not brainwashed by propaganda knows this so the question of choosing Iran over Saudi Arabia or vice versa is not a moral question because morally wise, they both deserve hard spanking to get them back in line with humanity (Among many others).

So apparently, Sweden is getting a shitstorm after its Foreign Minister criticized Saudi Arabia's human right record.

I must say, there is a disgraceful amount of silence on the part of the rest of Europe.

But can you guess which nation the UN condemned for violating women rights?

[Darvi]

But the point is the other governments are terribler!

[Reelya]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

The Saudi-based terrorists mostly have a goal of toppling the Saudi government. It's the same reason they wanted to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt. Note that a huge number of Al Qaeda types are Egyptians or Saudis for that reason. Taking down the Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships is/was one of the long-standing goals of the militants. I heard a great speech given by a intelligence specialist here, explaining that the main reason those groups target US influence is because US foreign policy directly supports those dictators, so they figure fighting against US regional influence would lead to the fall of the governments. In these cases, more often than not, the long-term goal is actually removing the local dictator, and fighting the USA was seen as a necessary step to achieve that.

While I despise the Saudi government, the idea that they're knowingly haboring terrorists is counterfactual. In fact, one major recruiting tool used by Al Qaeda was promising to topple the many dictatorships in the middle east region, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq under Saddam. By doing this, they could align their interests with the many regional militants who wanted to overthrow their dictators. So, dictators do breed terrorists, but not by supporting terrorism, but by oppressing their own people to the point they become open to radicalized political groups.

[Sergarr]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

The Saudi-based terrorists mostly have a goal of toppling the Saudi government. It's the same reason they wanted to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt. Note that a huge number of Al Qaeda types are Egyptians or Saudis for that reason. Taking down the Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships is/was one of the long-standing goals of the militants. I heard a great speech given by a intelligence specialist here, explaining that the main reason those groups target US influence is because US foreign policy directly supports those dictators, so they figure fighting against US regional influence would lead to the fall of the governments. In these cases, more often than not, the long-term goal is actually removing the local dictator, and fighting the USA was seen as a necessary step to achieve that.

While I despise the Saudi government, the idea that they're knowingly haboring terrorists is counterfactual. In fact, one major recruiting tool used by Al Qaeda was promising to topple the many dictatorships in the middle east region, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq under Saddam. By doing this, they could align their interests with the many regional militants who wanted to overthrow their dictators. So, dictators do breed terrorists, but not by supporting terrorism, but by oppressing their own people to the point they become open to radicalized political groups.

What about Pakistan, though? They've had been hiding the Terrorist #1 for quite a while, and I don't think it could be blamed on anti-government organizations. I've heard that USA has been forced to make preparations for Osama operation in secrecy from their "allies", even going as far as to using a stealth helicopter because the supposed Pakistan "allies" could've tipped him off.

With allies like these, who needs enemies?

EDIT: time tenses fixing.

[smjjames]

I'm still baffled as to why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered to be "allies" to the West (mostly to USA, though...) when they've been supplying and giving place to hide for most of the terrorist organizations in the world, while the reasonable, strong, stable countries, like Iran, are considered as "enemies", even going as far as to pissing all over several attempts to establish friendly relationships (Axis of Evil bullshit comes to mind).

The Saudi-based terrorists mostly have a goal of toppling the Saudi government. It's the same reason they wanted to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt. Note that a huge number of Al Qaeda types are Egyptians or Saudis for that reason. Taking down the Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships is/was one of the long-standing goals of the militants. I heard a great speech given by a intelligence specialist here, explaining that the main reason those groups target US influence is because US foreign policy directly supports those dictators, so they figure fighting against US regional influence would lead to the fall of the governments. In these cases, more often than not, the long-term goal is actually removing the local dictator, and fighting the USA was seen as a necessary step to achieve that.

While I despise the Saudi government, the idea that they're knowingly haboring terrorists is counterfactual. In fact, one major recruiting tool used by Al Qaeda was promising to topple the many dictatorships in the middle east region, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq under Saddam. By doing this, they could align their interests with the many regional militants who wanted to overthrow their dictators. So, dictators do breed terrorists, but not by supporting terrorism, but by oppressing their own people to the point they become open to radicalized political groups.

What about Pakistan, though? They've been hiding the Terrorist #1 for quite a while, and I don't think it could be blamed on anti-government organizations. I've heard that USA has been forced to make preparations for Osama operation in secrecy from their "allies", even going as far as to using a stealth helicopter because the supposed Pakistan "allies" could've tipped him off.

With allies like these, who needs enemies?

They WERE hiding the #1 terrorist, yes, he's dead now, unless they're hiding whoever is now #1.

And if Al Quaeda put as much effort into toppling the Saudi government as they do trying to kill the US, then maybe the Saudi monarchy would have been toppled by now. But ah, with that ideology, they might actually turn out to be even worse.

[Reelya]

Pakistan is totally different. The history goes back to joint US/Pakistan efforts in Afghanistan back in the 1980's. Pakistan's ISI intelligence service armed militants, with US backing, to topple the Soviet-back secular government. Pakistan government / ISI elements continued to work with militants after the war as a proxy for Pakistani influence in Afghanistan.

It was a huge mistake to destabilize things, other than being "dirty commies" the Soviet-backed Afghans were actually a lot more palatable on a human level. but another mistake was the USA abandoning it's allies in Afghanistan after the Soviets left: there were good moderate people like Massoud that the West left to fend for themselves against the Pakistan-backed nutjob element.

I think Pakistan is tolerated because it's basically the only way to access Afghanistan. If you don't have the bases there you can't wage war in Afghanistan at all. Otherwise you have to fight from bases in Iran or the ex-Soviet territories.