Why do conservatives love Sharia and Saudi Arabia so much?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wahhabis are good at making other Muslims look bad and as an excuse to get involved militarily in the middle east.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

They have oil and are slightly more pragmatic than the leaders of other countries in the region like Erdogan or Iran's council?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They have oil and are slightly more pragmatic than the leaders of other countries in the region like Erdogan or Iran's council?

Saudi Arabia might be more pragmatic than North Korea, but even that is iffy.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Well, for Netanyahu it's not really loving Saudi Arabia. I rarely defend him, but on this issue he's right- Israel has been one of the few nations willing to point out the Saudi hypocrisity in the past, but when all the rest of the countries around you are ruled by murderous antisemites who use you as their scapegoat for everything (Iran, Turkey etc) and want to destroy you, do you really blame Bibi for trying regional cooperation with anyone who's willing, no matter how repugnant their regime? I mean, Iran called for erasing Israel off the map and Erdogan refuses to listen and made it a habit to bash Israel whenever he's in trouble, so do you want Bibi to burn himself with the third important regional power, logic and survival instinct be damned?

[All Along The Watchtower]

They have oil and are slightly more pragmatic than the leaders of other countries in the region like Erdogan or Iran's council?

"Pragmatic" in what sense?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also no one is going to erase off the map the one country in the Middle East that actually has nuclear weapons.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyway, to answer the question of the OP: Whatever else you might say about them, Saudi Arabia has remained a pretty steadfast strategic ally of the US ever since dying FDR met with Ibn Saud in early 1945 (in which he promised the Saudi King that he wouldn't commit to supporting a Jewish state in Palestine).

Even after Truman broke this "promise" and the US pretty clearly became Israel's ally (and the USSR decided to support the Arab states that fought against Israel in 1948), even after the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur and the OPEC boycott (from which American oil companies and the House of Saud both mad profited), even after 9/11, the al-Saud have stuck with the US - and the US's Western allies. Consequently, they've refrained from attacking Israel.

And, though many Saudis still hate Jews and complain about the treatment of Palestinians, yadda yadda (while doing nothing for them, other than - at least historically - funding the Hamases and Islamic Jihads of the region), compared to an openly hostile Iranian Islamic Revolution (the three scariest words in the English language to the House of Saud) that has allied governments in Syria and (sort of?) Iraq now - and of course, Russia and China - and has, via the IRGC/Quds Force, Hezbollah, etc., created incredibly powerful and locally embedded proxies that the Iranian regime can still have a "command-and-control" relationship with (compare to the Saudis' schizophrenic and self-contradictory relationship with al-Qaeda and ISIS, lol)...well, why wouldn't the Saudis (and the Emiratis) look to the US's military and economic might for protection?

Plus, the whole political Islam thing ie. the Muslim Brotherhood, whom hilariously, were once supported by the Saudis (kind of like bin Laden and al-Qaeda were!) before they became powerful and popular enough to pose a *real* threat to the House of Saud's very existence...

Anyway, all of this is very useful stuff for the US/the UK, etc. (and Israel) if they're looking for a powerful friend in the regional and global geopolitical chessboard of the region, where the aforementioned countries have and share a lot of enemies (especially since we seem to keep making them ). Naturally, the most militaristic and chauvinistic of the people in our countries will tend to double down on keeping our friendly Middle East neighborhood autocrats in power.

[SATW]

Conservatives don't "love" sharia or Saudi Arabia. It'd be nice if people actually talked to us on stuff like this instead of being arrogant.

We think, for the most part (because paleoconservatives and libertarians disagree), that Iran is worse on an ideological and geopolitical level. Also, KSA's opposition to the Iran Deal has aligned them on a pragmatic level

I had a good back and forth on the issue w/ Old School Republican recently:

Old School Republican: 1. There was no real evidence that Iran was complying with the Iran Deal and I'd argue that they violated the spirit of the agreement by lying about their pre-negotiations intentions for their nuclear program (Thanks to Israel for bringing to the public's attention the extent of Iran's lies).

The deal also did not solve any long-term problems in relations to Iran's multi-faceted belligerence:
a) It only kicked the can down the road in terms of the nuclear question (the sunset clause, of course, being the most glaring problem but not the only problem). This makes Iran's nuclear ambitions a continued and nagging problem that down the road. This was not the goal of the negotiations. The goal should've been to end Iran's dreams of nuclear weapons and imperialism. Containment doesn't work with countries that have an ideological vision.
b) The clause focusing on the "inspections anytime, anyplace" was great on paper and awful in practice. Iran has never been honest with its intentions in regards to inspections and Mossad's operation proved this when it showcased that Iran had been much farther ahead in one of its facilities than they had let on and that the IAEA even said that this facility had clearly been scrubbed before in depth inspections could occur. Furthermore, Iran has never allowed the IAEA to inspect certain facilities and there's also the question of how many secret facilities exist that we don't know about?
c) The Deal did NOTHING to address ballistic missiles testing, Iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations across the ME and the world and Iran's saber-rattling with its neighbors.
d) In addition to all of the above concerns, my biggest concern and reason for opposition is the the mass release of sanctions relief in light of the deal. Billions of dollars were thrown at Iran without any concrete promises being carried out or implemented on Iran's part. We essentially gave them billions of dollars just to sign the nuclear accord without any way of policing Iran's actions in any real legitimate manner. Let's say that the IAEA was able to inspect facilities that were off limits and they did find major violations...how would we be able to punish Iran? We already gave them billions in sanctions relief. Europe would likely have fought back sanctions on Iran regardless of the situation. I rather leave the deal and sanction Iran NOW instead of allowing Iran to secretly build up more of their program and try to implement sanctions after the fact. Most of that sanctions relief money was not used for domestic or economic purposes.


Here are some links that more intelligently define my concerns and my positions:

https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/sites/default/files/JCPOA%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/trump-pulled-iran-deal-happen-article-1.3978645
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal/559721/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-deal/559733/

Dont you think its hypocritical though that the US supports Saudi Arabia while being enemies with Iran. I mean the Saudis ideology is far more than Iran's is and you could argue that ISIS and Al-Qaeda may not have existed without them due to the Saudis funding of Whabbi Mosques. Also the worst radical Islamic terrorist groups in the world are Sunni not Shia and its the Sunni terrorist groups who are the bigger threat as well and Iran wants to destroy these groups not help them(since these groups want to destroy Iran as well).
 

Lastly I believe The IAEA also said that Iran was complying with the Deal:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iran-complying-with-nuclear-deal-but-could-do-better-iaea-idUSKCN1IP2IR

1. Hypocritical? Only partially. I'm not a pure idealist when it comes to foreign policy. Which is why Charles Krauthammer's parameters for neoconservatism ("democratic realism") fit my worldview the best.

While pure realism and realpoltik is bad and unbecoming of well-intentioned western nations one can't also expect any country - yet alone a super power - to make all of its considerations based off idealism.

Saudi Arabia is a deeply flawed nation that has engaged in awful domestic and international policies in the past. However, they are proving themselves to be a useful ally in opposing Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and Iran's plans to destabilize the western-aligned factions of the Middle East. Also, Iran only wants to destroy sunni terror groups so they could implement their own Shia terror groups and cause chaos.

Saudi Arabia's alleged sponsorship of terrorism in the past is of deep concern to me and I believe the U.S. and U.K. should use their influence to push KSA into ending that type of behavior. President Trump has, imo, been slightly successful in this already as MBS has pushed small "progressive" reforms in domestic sectors. This must continue and we need to pressure them more to follow human rights and international law.

But, we live in a world of bad options. Saudi Arabia, to me, is less worse than Iran. Iran has a complex and widening network of terror groups under its control. It is also Iran who is aligned with the brutal and human rights-violating Assad Regime.


2. The IAEA also stated numerous times that this is based off the limited inspections they have conducted. Iran has not allowed the IAEA to inspect certain sites, including Military sites. Also, as stated above Iran lied about how developed their program was in certain facilities (and this was before and during the negotiations for the deal occurred). Why should we trust a sponsor of terrorism?

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20170830-story.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-refuses-u-n-inspectors-access-to-scientists-and-military-officers-complicating-nuclear-deal-1438813826
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/are-iranian-military-bases-limits-inspection

Again, I'm not advocating for pure realpolitik, but I'm also much more against naive idealism. The idea that Iran is less worse than Saudi Arabia because Saudi is more openly fanatical in terms of theology is a naive one to me. Iran's ideology is also extremist and theological.

Also, I'm completely and utterly reject the idea that we can "put our beef" with Iran aside.

1. Saudi Arabia is a U.S. Ally - regardless of its history or extremism. Having Saudi Arabia as an ally does provide us with tangible benefits and a key voice in the Arab world. We do not have relations with Iran. Even many of the Deal supporters would shudder at the idea of trusting Iran in the fight against terrorism.
2. Iran promotes Anti-American, Anti-British and Anti-Israeli ideology inside and outside of its borders. This is not a random position they hold it is a firm ideological tenant of the Islamic Republic's purpose. Saudi Arabia's actions, on the otherhand, are a result of uncontrolled greed that manifested itself into chaotic acts of terror. Therefore, Iran is a significantly bigger threat to the world order.
3. We can debate on which terrorists are more dangerous but the reality is that the Saudis are not supporting Assad's regime. Iran is. It is also Iran who started a bloody battle in Yemen that is permanently destroying that country. It is also Iran who is funding an increasingly dangerous tumor (Hezbollah) from within Lebanon that threatens to start a war on the border of Israel. It is currently Iran that is spreading chaos and terror throughout the world. They are trying to shift the hegemony of the world into their hands.

I also want to clarify that I am not in love with KSA. I have always criticized their chaotic hierarchy that talks 5 different ways on terrorism. Some which have killed American lives. I have always criticized KSA's atrocious record on human rights. I will continue to speak out when needed but I will not trick myself into a black and white battle on a clearly grey area topic.


This article from Salon does a good job of explaining why America's awkward marriage w/ the Saudis is important: https://www.salon.com/2017/02/26/should-the-u-s-maintain-its-alliance-with-saudi-arabia-unfortunately-were-stuck-with-them/

Also finally:

"The big failure on the part of the US was unlike in 1945 when the US immediate positioned themselves to stop the USSR from expanding further they didn't do the same thing to the Mujahideen in 1989 which they should have."

You are risking the same thing happening by ignoring the Iranian threat until a later time. Iran will only grow stronger if KSA is abandoned and weakened. KSA has become interested in enriching uranium and having a nuclear program for "domestic purposes." This is a consequence of the failed Iran Deal. The only way we can mitigate this is by continuing to fund and influence KSA.

[SATW]

In addition to my commentary above:

I have always made it clear that my recent alignment w/ KSA on Middle Eastern Geopolitics is clearly out of pragmatism and out of necessity in opposing Iran - who, regardless of the awkwardness, is still aligned w/ Russia overall.

Yes, I have said on the forum that I believe MBS is a FF. This was in the comparison of others in the Royal family + MBS's opposition to Iran. However, I freely admit that this weakens my record on human rights issues.

Just like the numerous amount of  left or center-left posters who rated Hassan Rouhani a FF or a good leader. They also look bad on human rights issues when they choose to call Rouhani a FF or a reformist (he is neither).

The reality is that there is almost no way anyone will ever have a completely spotless record on human rights. It is a constant battle of lesser evils. IMO, KSA is a much more tolerable evil than Iran. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear ambitions and fanatical belief in international supremacy is nearly on par to the threat USSR Communism posed in the 20th century.

ALSO:
I have been critical of KSA's abysmal human rights record and will continue to be.
I am critical of KSA's decision to torpedo relations w/ Canada but also believe that we are still missing parts of the story.
I am increasingly critical and concerned about KSA's war in Yemen. KSA and UAE have failed to heed western military advice and now risk losing this war. More importantly, they are not doing anywhere near enough to prevent civilian casualties. All of this is providing the Iranian-backed Houthis momentum and it is very concerning to me. A loss for KSA is devastating for anyone who is opposed to Iranian aggression and suppression of human rights. However, KSA's disregard for human rights will, likely, pave an ironic road to Iran and the Houthis.

[SATW]

Well, for Netanyahu it's not really loving Saudi Arabia. I rarely defend him, but on this issue he's right- Israel has been one of the few nations willing to point out the Saudi hypocrisity in the past, but when all the rest of the countries around you are ruled by murderous antisemites who use you as their scapegoat for everything (Iran, Turkey etc) and want to destroy you, do you really blame Bibi for trying regional cooperation with anyone who's willing, no matter how repugnant their regime? I mean, Iran called for erasing Israel off the map and Erdogan refuses to listen and made it a habit to bash Israel whenever he's in trouble, so do you want Bibi to burn himself with the third important regional power, logic and survival instinct be damned?

Lastly: ParrotGuy, as usual, great take!

[America Needs R'hllor]

Also no one is going to erase off the map the one country in the Middle East that actually has nuclear weapons.

It really doesn't matter. The point is, cooperation with Iran is impossible right now, so Bibi is justified in looking for any nation willing to cooperate in the region.

[DavidB.]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

Is this an attempt at trolling? It's called realpolitik. Nobody loves sharia and Saudi Arabia. It's also not as if left-wing or progressive Western governments have behaved meaningfully differently towards Saudi Arabia.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

Is this an attempt at trolling? It's called realpolitik. Nobody loves sharia and Saudi Arabia. It's also not as if left-wing or progressive Western governments have behaved meaningfully differently towards Saudi Arabia.

I would dispute that. Sweden has opposed arms exports to the KSA to the fury of the moderates and their allies; Canada is currently in a diplomatic rift with the KSA because of their human rights abuses to the fury of the Canadian right and while obama was well known to be at constant loggerheads with the royals of Saudi Arabia (although regrettably not enough) while Donald "Cuckold" Trump plays the supine fool. If it's Realpolitik, it's pretty stupid, given what immense damage the Saudi money has done to the global Sunni population. How can any western leader look at a Saudi prince without demanding an apology for 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, Mosul, the betrayal of the Arab Spring, Nice, Berlin etc? All because we are on a completely arbitrary "side" between a tedious bickering match between Riyadh and Tehran? Who cares?

[SATW]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

Is this an attempt at trolling? It's called realpolitik. Nobody loves sharia and Saudi Arabia. It's also not as if left-wing or progressive Western governments have behaved meaningfully differently towards Saudi Arabia.

I would dispute that. Sweden has opposed arms exports to the KSA to the fury of the moderates and their allies; Canada is currently in a diplomatic rift with the KSA because of their human rights abuses to the fury of the Canadian right and while obama was well known to be at constant loggerheads with the royals of Saudi Arabia (although regrettably not enough) while Donald "Cuckold" Trump plays the supine fool. If it's Realpolitik, it's pretty stupid, given what immense damage the Saudi money has done to the global Sunni population. How can any western leader look at a Saudi prince without demanding an apology for 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Paris, Brussels, Madrid, Mosul, the betrayal of the Arab Spring, Nice, Berlin etc? All because we are on a completely arbitrary "side" between a tedious bickering match between Riyadh and Tehran? Who cares?

There is nothing arbitrary about Iran's worldwide network of terrorism and its multi-layered terror cells. The same goes for opposing Iranian attempts to subvert the voice of their own people. And for being concerned about Iran using a failed nuclear deal as a healing elixir for its terror network and nuclear ambitions.

Also, unlike Iran, the west can influence KSA to change some of its behaviors. This is dependent on U.S. and U.K. governments utilizing pressure effectively, but this is a real possibility for us to control KSA's behaviors. But, even if we can't, KSA's regional ambitions have shown themselves to be floundering in Yemen. After defeating the Iranian threat, we can deal w/ KSA's violations of human rights in a much less painless matter.

Iran's terror network is well-developed on its own and Russia will still keep its interests invested in Iran even when tensions are running high between the two internally because Moscow believes it can control Iran in moderate doses because it also fears a strong Iranian regime.

KSA, on the other hand, needs U.S. and U.K. support to functionally do much of anything.

Iran, in my view, is a much more harmful threat at the current moment. That doesn't absolve KSA of its human rights abuses and its disgusting behaviors in the past but cutting our own noses off for no reason is not good policy.

Also: As I stated, I don't agree w/ KSA's decision to torpedo relations w/ Canada and I believe the State Department's revised statement is better than its original one (all showcased here: https://www.cfr.org/blog/saudi-arabia-and-canada). But, even w/ that 2nd statement, I prefer a stronger statement outlining that while both are key U.S. allies we also need to showcase that there are differences on human rights and that those differences won't go away until KSA makes long-term, meaningful reforms.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Maybe I’m biased but last time I checked the perpetrators and funders of the massacre of 3,000 Americans and others on American soil in broad daylight and partially on live TV weren’t Iranian.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Also the Iran nuclear deal was realpolitik too. And I’m 100% sure it would have been quite positive  long-term for American and global interests, but alas, certain very powerful regimes and foreign policy “hawks” suffer from acute Iran Derangement Syndrome, and so the product of very delicate and smart realpolitik was stupidly destroyed. Very sad.

[parochial boy]

I dunno I mean, the fuelling of war crimes in Yemen, slave labour, intense mysoginy and well attributed financial and intellectual support for the worst of violent islamism seem worse than anything Iran has done. And definitely bad enough to make the claim of realpolitik look cynical in the extreme, especially when claiming to be upholding liberal and democratic values with the other side of the face.

And even the effectiveness of US "realpolitik" is dubious enough as it is. It is a factor in why Europe is dealing with a refugee crisis (and let's not forget that the Americans owe us for that) and is also something that the islamists will happily cite as a motivating factor...

Israel's situation is more understandable (although still looks somewhat hypocritical, if less hypocritical than the Saudis amusing triangulation), but it is really hard to be understanding of the US or UK apparently insisting that one bunch of genocidal fascists are better than the others

[Antonio the Sixth]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

[DC Al Fine]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If we are to use America's friends as examples of what America likes, then we could just as well say the GOP hates religion as is theocratic, owing to its support for the "secular" governments of Central Asia, whose help certain people enlisted during and since our entrance into Afghanistan. The point is that we are either a theocracy or a state so aggressively secular as to cut off men's beards. (Someone can bring up the fact that the "anti-terrorism" fetish of Central Asian leaders is a bogey meant to crush any other opposition, but the point still stands)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

What are supposed to make of the common conservative refrain that Muslims aren't ready for democracy, something used to defend everybody from Suharto to the inbred royal families of the Gulf?

If we are to use America's friends as examples of what America likes, then we could just as well say the GOP hates religion as is theocratic, owing to its support for the "secular" governments of Central Asia, whose help certain people enlisted during and since our entrance into Afghanistan. The point is that we are either a theocracy or a state so aggressively secular as to cut off men's beards. (Someone can bring up the fact that the "anti-terrorism" fetish of Central Asian leaders is a bogey meant to crush any other opposition, but the point still stands)

I mean, I am half trolling here: the mindset that we have to defend is hypocritical post hoc justifications for demented geopolitics. It's why mainstream conservatives will say it's important to protect Sisi's regime to protect ethnic minorities from the Sunni majority, while dismissing similar spurious defences of the Assad regime. It's why conservatives will occasions spare crocodile tears for the Arab Christians, while conveniently airbrushing them out of history while convenient. It's why, in the name of geopolitics, every single Republican administration has flattered, funded and fraternised with jihadi groups who ostensibly share the same enemies as America's geopolitical goes. And at the same time, they have the tanacity to claim the Left have the problem with islamists? Ridiculous.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The US foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia has clearly been bipartisan.


Do I support it no, but to only blame Conservatives for it is just false .

[Antonio the Sixth]

Donald Trump, the Canadian Conservative Party, Netanyahu, Theresa May etc. Obviously the conservative mindset is one that sees a likemind in the dystopian theocratic petrostates of the Gulf, and an inclination towards prostating oneself towards a corrupt and capricious royal family. This inclination is, of course, based on some form of masochism given the scale of the damage the Saudis have inflicted upon the outside world, or perhaps on a perverse vicarious sadism when the Saudis inflict cruel punishments on their regional rivals and guest workers. They key questions we must ask ourselves, it seems, is whether the conservatives' hostility to democracy in the Middle East (as indicated by their strong ties with some of the most regressive factions of the region) is evidence of cultural relativism or of their genuine dislike of democracy in general?

ding ding ding

Republicans are right to this day still trying to make it harder for people to vote. Their entire political strategy is premised on weakening democracy. Even if you agree with them on other areas of policy, I was hoping at least you would have the lucidity/intellectual honesty to recognize that.

[EPG]

I don't think there's a left-right difference in electable parties. Very few countries go out of their way to cause trouble to each other, or get involved in their business. Maybe Hollande or Schroeder went to war with KSA, I don't remember but I doubt it.