Originally
posted by
Angel1:
1) I would stop supporting Saudi Arabia if the reality on the ground in the Middle East were a little different. Sadly, supporting one bad actor is a primary way of containing a worse actor in the Middle East right now. For the time being, I would pressure Saudi Arabia as much as possible to liberalize their country and would flat out demand that they shut down the religious schools that are creating jihadists.
Not sure how you can call Jordan an oppressive dictatorship. While the King of Jordan does hold significant power, they seem pretty far from a dictatorship in the class sense. The treatment in politics of women and Christians is an example of that should be held up for the rest of the Middle East. Frankly, they're one of the few Middle Eastern countries that deserves significant support.
In Egypt, we have a military that is friendly to the US/Israel. We have a military that seems intent on keeping Egypt headed in a path towards a Jordan-like future. We have also had an idiotic constitutional process which held elections for a government and then wrote the constitution. Really? Have we learned nothing from history? First comes writing the constitution. Second comes ratifying the constitution by super-majority. Then and only then do you elect the government to operate under the terms and restrictions of the country's constitution. The Military toppling Morsi was not the military toppling a properly elected leader; no the Muslim Brotherhood wrote the constitution for the Muslim Brotherhood, not all Egyptians. Agree or disagree with the military's power in Egypt, the serve to balance the country. Right now the Egyptian government is fighting and facing opposition that would suppress other Egyptians most basic rights.
Saudi Arabia - We've been supporting Saudi Arabia since its inception. If you don't care at all about human rights, which apparently you don't since you're selective in who you support, you shouldn't support them at all. Almost every single 9/11 hijacker was from Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda is FUNDED by Saudi Arabia. Al Nusrah Front too. All of these extremist Sunni groups you prima facie *say* you hate are funded by Saudi Arabia. They've beheaded more people THIS YEAR than ISIL has. And how are you going to "pressure" them? With what threat? You and I both know America is going to do no such thing.
Jordan - I am a Jordanian (but born and raised American) citizen. You have no idea what you're talking about here. Their legislature is totally superficial. The King holds absolute power and treats his citizens like fluff. People are too afraid to talk about politics outside of their own homes from fear of being arrested by undercover mukhabarat (hidden intelligence - think KGB) agents.
Egypt - So what if they're friendly? Once again you purport to care about human rights, yet when we need people tortured, we send them to a black site in Egypt.
http://www.pbs.org/...stories/rendition701/map/
Not to mention Egypt's own human rights abuses.
https://www.amnesty.org/...t-and-north-africa/egypt/
2) Israel has unilaterally pulled back from Palestinian areas numerous times. It has only bought them more death. The only time Israel has gotten the peace they asked for in exchange for the land they held was when they made peace with Egypt. If the world wants to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then the world needs to sit the Palestinians down and tell them how it has to be. Until the world is willing to see Palestinians equally the perpetrators of violence as the world is willing to see them as the victims of oppression, we are unlikely to get anywhere. When the rest of the world stops the violence towards Israel, then the US could find the political will to bring Israel along in the peace process. For now, however, Israel will continue to expand their settlements because they have never gained peace by stopping or reversing settlements. Bottom line, Israel has a right to exist in peace on much of the land they occupy. Modern Israel is not now, nor have they ever been a colonial power; what they have been is the victim of near continuous aggression from their neighbors.
Not even going to bother to address this, since this is probably the only point that facts mean little to you. Won't bother linking to their human rights abuses, etc. And besides, my point is that we DON'T NEED to support them. We pour billions of dollars into them and they could easily take on every single Arab state simultaneously without our help. Their military is that good. They're seriously a top 5 world power, and yet we keep sinking American taxpayer dollars into them, and by association tarnish our reputation.
3) I actually agree with this position, mostly. The Kurds deserve US support because they have by and large supported our interests for decades. Other organizations should be supported on a common interests basis. I don't think we should take sides in sectarian conflicts, but the US should recognize when one side or the other has taken sides against the US.
Why are we playing world police at all? Let them sort out their own problems. Why interfere?
4) I suppose that Kuwait deserved to be invaded or that the Shiites/Kurds deserved to be gassed. You know what we actually should have done? We should have finished the job the first time; that's the lesson we can take from Iraq.
Did you forget Saddam was one of our top allies in the 80s, and we provided him with the weapons to gas the Kurds? We knew it was happening at the time yet we did nothing.
5) Let's not pretend that some of these dictators didn't create their own instability. Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing agent in the Middle East. The only good he did was keep Iran in check and by the time he was taken out, even that was on shaky ground. To be honest, I am not certain that Iraq can really exist as a country in the long-term. In hindsight, the US probably should have tried to use Iraq to solve Turkey's conflict with their Kurdish population (vis a vis a United Kingdom devolution style solution), induced Syria to friendlier relations, and enticed Iran to the negotiating table. In short, the US should have invaded Iraq with the intention breaking the country apart. We should have taken care of the peoples in Iraq instead of trying to preserve the nation.
I would not have supported the fall of Hosni Mubarak, but would have moved to ensure a far more orderly and proper constitutional process after he fell. In Libya, there was likely very little the US or anyone could have done through action or inaction to effect the long-term outcome of their Civil War. Dictatorships are, by their own nature, unstable governments.
All this being said, I'm not about to support removing the House of Saud from power in Saudi Arabia, even as I support pressuring them to modernize/liberalize.
Saddam - Destabilizing? If you think the Middle East was *more* destabilized before he was killed, you have absolutely zero clue about current geopolitical events. I know Shia Iraqis who *wish* he was still back in power compared to the rampant carnage that resulted after he was ousted.
Mubarak - You wouldn't have supported Hosni being removed? DUDE he was fluffing BRUTAL. Yes, he was a stabilizing factor in his country (like Saddam), but if you care at all about human rights (you've demonstrated you only care about them when it's convenient, which means you don't care at all about them) then you would have fully supported his removal.
Saud - Of course you don't care about ousting them, because you don't give a rat's ass about the people being murdered on a daily basis by the regime.
The Middle East has plenty of problems that would exist with or without a US presence. While their are many situations, particularly when conflicts are staying contained to the areas involved that the US should mind our own business, there are also situations where innocent countries have been attacked or where the US has legitimate interests at play. Let's not pretend that all the bad (or even a majority of the bad) situations in the Middle East are caused by the US. The Middle East is a conflict rich part of the world all on its own.
"where the US has legitimate interests at play". Okay, this is all you had to say instead of your long-winded defense of human rights abuse and murder. If what you care about is geopolitical strategy, then yes, you can make a case (although I would argue differently that it's not in our best interest). Everything above is just justification for the line I quoted. No need to attempt at whitewashing complete disregard for human rights, just say it plain that you don't care.
