by TerryWalstrom 143 Replies latest jw friends
It is indeed shameful that the West cozies up to the Saudi regime.
Saudi aggression in Yemen can only be blamed on the regime itself; if the West refused to sell them weapons, the regime would get them elsewhere.
Here's another thought that can be difficult for some people to get their head around: the Yemen war is about different groups of Muslims slaughtering each other, nothing more, nothing less.
It's a Sunni vs Shia power struggle - nothing to do with the West.
It is indeed a civil war, luhe. It would take a lot of research to sort out the the politics of it all— I read some back ground on it. But it is a civil war and l believe the UN stays out of those. Even when there were the first demonstrations in Syria against Assad and violence broke out the US stayed out. Why? If it was a civil war their policy was to stay out of another country’s civil war.
One thing is clear, however. By selling arms to one side and not the other in the case of Yemen, the US wasn’t neutral. The US can’t claim that it was merely being a “gun shop” and wash the blood off.
Come to think —don’t we have laws requiring back ground checks here in the U S? Our gun laws do not allow the sale of guns to those convicted of domestic violence. My point has been that the US is not being governed by principles but by Big Money. There are many more than the Yemenis who are noting our self-serving behavior.
SlimBoyFat—The US did melt the civilians in Fallujah into goo with white phosphorous. That’s a fact.
Our soldiers simply followed orders. That stuff was not supposed to be used except in certain cases. It wasn’t classified as chemical weapon but it was illegal to use in the vicinity of civilians because everyone knew what it would do.
Good points Terry. The problem for your argument luhe is that as Terry and humbled mention there are external interest groups who are rubbing their hands together in glee. So while it is true that civil war, and warring factions within a country are engaging in civil war there are also powerful competing external groups who are adding to and escalating problems for those engaged more directly in the civil war.
@Ruby - and the issue with yours, Terry's and Humbled's approach is that you're not placing enough emphasis on the Saudi regime, if you're allowing them agency at all.
You also don't seem to want to know the details of the Yemen conflict.
The West sells arms to Saudi Arabia, that's bad, and that's all you want to know.
Saudi (the fount of Sunni Islam) and Iran (the fount of Shia Islam) are fighting a proxy war in Yemen. About 55% of Yemenis are Sunni and 45% are Shia. Saudi supports the disposed president and his Sunni allies; Iran backs and funds the Houthi rebels (Shia).
If neither the West nor anybody else sold Saudi weapons, there would still be a conflict - they'd be massacring and beheading each other with swords. Like I said, this is a war within Islam ... nothing to do with the West.
Luhe Please don,t invent what I am saying.
Luhe Please don,t invent what I am saying - I'm not inventing what you're saying, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.
Are you? If you were then you have registered that I drew attn to competting interest groups. You want to adhere to a narrow nationalistic agenda - I.e each nation for itself. We are showing you (as I understand Terry and humbled ) the hypocrisy of this position - and it is hypocritical because when we want to take we are happy to ignore national barriers. Example, the focus on keeping economics as free and unregulated as possible.
You want to adhere to a narrow nationalistic agenda - I.e each nation for itself - allow me to expand on this point, in an attempt to explain my position.
The nation state gives us stability, it puts a lid on tribalism and has allowed e.g. us Brits to advance culturally, economically and advance our technology and knowledge.
If us Brits never became a nation, we'd still be painting are faces blue and would be slaughtering each other. The nation state has all but stopped this, the exceptions being football violence and London gang stabbings. The latter is not helped by the current trend of multiculturalism which is fracturing our society.
In short, the nation state is the best arrangement we've come up with.
Of course each nation looks after itself but what I want is for nations to have mutually beneficial relationships and business deals.
If you think there is a better arrangement than the nation state, please describe and give an example.
That sounds religious or from spending too much time on a bnp site
