Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
It's not revisionism it's grumblthorn trying to both sides things to pretend Trump isn't as bad as he actually is.
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
Care to provide a little more context on the Yemen comment? I think i get your point, but not sure.
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
To be fair, the intelligence and foreign policy people in the White House continued to push being huge friends with the Saudis regardless of Obama's personal feelings on the matter.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I think maybe a more accurate statement would be that despite whatever his public personal feelings on the matter, the US did not disenage as an ally to the Saudis under the Obama administration and this, rightfully or not, does not play well to the anti-imperialists.
I think maybe a more accurate statement would be that despite whatever his public personal feelings on the matter, the US did not disenage as an ally to the Saudis under the Obama administration and this, rightfully or not, does not play well to the anti-imperialists.
It also makes the liberal/Democratic outrage over this a little less convincing.
*KSA destroys the nation of Yemen, Obama government refuels their planes and sells them missiles*
Democrats: "Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- or the economy)"
*KSA kills Kashoggi*
Trump: Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- and the economy)"
Democrats: "HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT"
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
I don't really think Egypt is a rival of Saudi Arabia, nor has it been in recent ears. Negotiations with Iran/the JCPOA was the main problem between the KSA and the Obama admin.
Kaputa on
+6
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
The two US parties may not agree on many things, but maintaining the hegemony is one area where they line up. As best I can tell the only real disagreements are over how to best implements the policy of empire, with no real debate about whether or not we should. The Dems seem to like soft power with frequent medium scale military interventions, while the GOP likes constant small military intervention with occasional large scale military action.
Both are fine with selling weapons to almost everyone. If they aren't fine with it, that sentiment hasn't made it into policy under any administration.
Edit/Addition: Constant use of special forces seems popular at all times as well.
Meeqe on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think maybe a more accurate statement would be that despite whatever his public personal feelings on the matter, the US did not disenage as an ally to the Saudis under the Obama administration and this, rightfully or not, does not play well to the anti-imperialists.
It also makes the liberal/Democratic outrage over this a little less convincing.
*KSA destroys the nation of Yemen, Obama government refuels their planes and sells them missiles*
Democrats: "Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- or the economy)"
*KSA kills Kashoggi*
Trump: Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- and the economy)"
Democrats: "HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT"
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
I don't really think Egypt is a rival of Saudi Arabia, nor has it been in recent ears. Negotiations with Iran/the JCPOA was the main problem between the KSA and the Obama admin.
Remember when Egypt and KSA were negotiating over the transfer of some land? The reason it was so contentious is because they are rivals.
I think maybe a more accurate statement would be that despite whatever his public personal feelings on the matter, the US did not disenage as an ally to the Saudis under the Obama administration and this, rightfully or not, does not play well to the anti-imperialists.
It also makes the liberal/Democratic outrage over this a little less convincing.
*KSA destroys the nation of Yemen, Obama government refuels their planes and sells them missiles*
Democrats: "Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- or the economy)"
*KSA kills Kashoggi*
Trump: Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- and the economy)"
Democrats: "HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT"
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
I don't really think Egypt is a rival of Saudi Arabia, nor has it been in recent ears. Negotiations with Iran/the JCPOA was the main problem between the KSA and the Obama admin.
Remember when Egypt and KSA were negotiating over the transfer of some land? The reason it was so contentious is because they are rivals.
I thought the reason it was contentious was that the idea of Egypt selling its territory for Saudi $$$ pissed off Egyptians. I don't think Egypt is strong enough to be a rival to Saudi Arabia right now, and they don't oppose each other geopolitically in the way that KSA and Iran or even Qatar do.
The current Egyptian military government had already ingratiated itself to the Saudis on the day of the coup, because they removed the Muslim Brotherhood - which Riyadh despises - from power. The Saudis gave Sisi's regime absurd amounts of money in order to keep Egypt's ailing economy afloat, making Cairo somewhat dependent on Riyadh. The Egyptians have backed the Saudi war on Yemen (I think they even contributed aircraft, although I'm not certain on that) and have aligned themselves with the KSA and UAE against Qatar.
I guess I'm curious why you see them as rivals/how you see that rivalry manifested? I mean I might be wrong about this but it just doesn't jive with my understanding of the region's politics.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The Egyptians believe they can be the regional power, as opposed to KSA. They don't have the oil, but they have the strategic position, and the population. I guess it is more accurate to say there is a desire to be on that level, rather than it is a state of fact now.
I think maybe a more accurate statement would be that despite whatever his public personal feelings on the matter, the US did not disenage as an ally to the Saudis under the Obama administration and this, rightfully or not, does not play well to the anti-imperialists.
It also makes the liberal/Democratic outrage over this a little less convincing.
*KSA destroys the nation of Yemen, Obama government refuels their planes and sells them missiles*
Democrats: "Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- or the economy)"
*KSA kills Kashoggi*
Trump: Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- and the economy)"
Democrats: "HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT"
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
I don't really think Egypt is a rival of Saudi Arabia, nor has it been in recent ears. Negotiations with Iran/the JCPOA was the main problem between the KSA and the Obama admin.
Remember when Egypt and KSA were negotiating over the transfer of some land? The reason it was so contentious is because they are rivals.
The GCC states prop up their fellow Arab states like Egypt through remittances and aid. Egypt is also not competitive with KSA on oil production. The Saudis were also supportive of the Arab states (which included Egypt) during the later Arab-Israeli wars including enacting the Arab oil embargo in 73 pulling the US in to force a peace treaty.
They haven't been "rivals" since at the latest when Nasser died in 1970 and very likely before that. And it was a much more nebulous "rivalry" of Pan-Arabism versus Pan-Islamism and Pan-Arabism really lost with the failure of the United Arab Republic.
The reason land negotiations, or anything involving money, would be contentious between Egypt and Saudi Arabia is because Saudi Arabia, like the other GCC countries, is the revenue big fish in the pond of the Arab world and there is a lot of resentment (this is the same reason the Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait). It doesn't help that Egypt relies on Egyptian workers in Saudi for remittances.
The Egyptians believe they can be the regional power, as opposed to KSA. They don't have the oil, but they have the strategic position, and the population. I guess it is more accurate to say there is a desire to be on that level, rather than it is a state of fact now.
I'm not sure this is true or has been true since 1970. After the death of Nasser and the failure of Pan-Arabism Egypt was barely holding on. The 1973 war was a desperate move by Sadat to try and regain some face from the failure of the 1967 war, and to differentiate his legacy from the declining legacy of Nasser. And since that time and the peace treaty with Israel, they've been fighting to prop up a declining economy.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Unlike the situation at the time of Nasser, Mubarak's Egypt – a conservative dictatorship closely allied with the United States – no longer represented an ideological or political polar opposite to Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, there remained a rivalry between the two countries, both aspiring to preeminence in the Arab World in general and among the Arab allies of the US in particular. This rivalry manifested itself, for example, when U.S. President Barack Obama made a major tour of the Middle East in 2009, soon after assuming power. The Saudis resented Obama's choice of Cairo as the venue for making a key policy speech, and State Department officials made an effort to mollify them by following up the Cairo speech with a high-profile Presidential visit to the Saudi capital.
During the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Saudi King Abdullah expressed support for Hosni Mubarak. "No Arab or Muslim can tolerate any meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt by those who infiltrated the people in the name of freedom of expression, exploiting it to inject their destructive hatred. As they condemn this, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and government declares it stands with all its resources with the government of Egypt and its people."[8] He condemned the "people who tried to destabilise the security and stability of Egypt."[9]
A different sort of rivalry than say, between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but rivalry nonetheless, particularly revolving around who would be the US nexus in the Middle East.
The two US parties may not agree on many things, but maintaining the hegemony is one area where they line up. As best I can tell the only real disagreements are over how to best implements the policy of empire, with no real debate about whether or not we should. The Dems seem to like soft power with frequent medium scale military interventions, while the GOP likes constant small military intervention with occasional large scale military action.
Both are fine with selling weapons to almost everyone. If they aren't fine with it, that sentiment hasn't made it into policy under any administration.
Edit/Addition: Constant use of special forces seems popular at all times as well.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The government operates on being reliable wth allies so any deals the Republicans make the Dems go with because continuity with foreign policy is a must to maintain trust with other countries. Which is why it's very difficult for the Dems to tell Turkey and SA to fuck off, and that's ignoring any logistical advantages America desires access to from those regions. This is why Trump is fucking up big time right now, he's destabilising that trust. Another factor is the Military Industrial Complex who have a large influence on foreign policy which the Dems can't just ignore, even if they wanted to. Not to mention the Dems are in no position to really turn down sponsorships from powerful people and nations engaging in these corruptive activities because they want to be a mainstream political party and that isn't cheap to run or maintain.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I'm aware of the structural factors that surround the decisions relating to foreign policy within the Dem establishment. I just don't believe the existence of those factors absolves them of responsibility for their participation when the US commits human rights abuses under Democratic watch.
I'm aware of the structural factors that surround the decisions relating to foreign policy within the Dem establishment. I just don't believe the existence of those factors absolves them of responsibility for their participation when the US commits human rights abuses under Democratic watch.
They definitely deserve some responsibility for their actions, but I can understand why they think they have to go about those approaches. Unfortunately it's not an easy scenario to get out of, which is by design by those vary factors.
Changes in US foreign policy are constrained to a large degree by institutional inertia and embedded interests within the US government. The president is not a god-king after all. You can hear lots of people from the Obama admin complaining about "the blob" or similar problems.
You can look at the Israel situation for an example of Obama's obvious personal views vs what the President can actually accomplish unilaterally.
But an equivalence between Obama and Trump here is just a bullshit attempt at both-sides-ing the issue. If nothing else, we know Trump literally just doesn't care.
No, I think you're right. Egypt is a natural power, for reasons already stated. Its just had a rough half-century and right now isn't in a position to do much of anything.
If somehow Egypt got rid of its military dictators, turned its economy around, and most importantly broke out of its deep cultural stagnation, it could be a regional power again within two generations.
I can't find it right now, but wasn't it revealed in the past year or so that the Gulf states not only backed Sisi after the coup, but that they helped orchestrate the coup itself? I could swear I read something about this
No, I think you're right. Egypt is a natural power, for reasons already stated. Its just had a rough half-century and right now isn't in a position to do much of anything.
If somehow Egypt got rid of its military dictators, turned its economy around, and most importantly broke out of its deep cultural stagnation, it could be a regional power again within two generations.
I can't find it right now, but wasn't it revealed in the past year or so that the Gulf states not only backed Sisi after the coup, but that they helped orchestrate the coup itself? I could swear I read something about this
Pretty much. They were extremely concerned about Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood possibly turning Egypt into a local bastion for Arabian/North African/Muslim democracy.
My push back on the term "rivalry" is because I think it implies an equal or near equal footing, and Egypt has, at least as of now, fallen far behind KSA in importance. They, of course, are still vying for attention from the US because it would increase their strategic relevance. Being friendly with the US also means an easier time getting aid and they've been using IMF and WB loans to build up their energy sector, including solar.
My push back on the term "rivalry" is because I think it implies an equal or near equal footing, and Egypt has, at least as of now, fallen far behind KSA in importance. They, of course, are still vying for attention from the US because it would increase their strategic relevance. Being friendly with the US also means an easier time getting aid and they've been using IMF and WB loans to build up their energy sector, including solar.
Potential, or erstwhile rivalry then.
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
My push back on the term "rivalry" is because I think it implies an equal or near equal footing, and Egypt has, at least as of now, fallen far behind KSA in importance. They, of course, are still vying for attention from the US because it would increase their strategic relevance. Being friendly with the US also means an easier time getting aid and they've been using IMF and WB loans to build up their energy sector, including solar.
Potential, or erstwhile rivalry then.
Given the right conditions and about 20 years, this could be it.
NSDFRand summed it up well, since Nasser's sudden death in 1970, and the Soviet bloc not continuing to back diminishing returns on arms sales and military aid to Egypt under Sadat, their ability to project has been nowhere near what their rhetoric claims it to be. At this time they'd be lucky to mount something akin to the 1973 Yom Kippur "war", let alone anything sustained like Nasser's support of the Republicans during the North Yemeni Civil War from 1963-1967.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
Care to provide a little more context on the Yemen comment? I think i get your point, but not sure.
When I search Google for Obama and Saudi Arabia, here are the hits:
Like... it's a pretty remarkable snapshot of how the story of 2018 is completely at odds with the story of 2016. Yemen's fallen off the list a little bit, pushed off by Khashoggi stories, but a few months ago, it was prevalent among the 2018 stories.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Changes in US foreign policy are constrained to a large degree by institutional inertia and embedded interests within the US government. The president is not a god-king after all. You can hear lots of people from the Obama admin complaining about "the blob" or similar problems.
You can look at the Israel situation for an example of Obama's obvious personal views vs what the President can actually accomplish unilaterally.
But an equivalence between Obama and Trump here is just a bullshit attempt at both-sides-ing the issue. If nothing else, we know Trump literally just doesn't care.
I would think that Trump's actions have given us new insights into what the President can unilaterally do in the realm of foreign policy.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Par for the course with Saudia Arabia. Trump, Obama and Bush all turned a blind eye to this and shit like the murder of Khashoggi.
Uh what? Wasn't Obama notoriously frostier with Saudi Arabia than any other president? He made specific points to court Iran, Egypt, and Qatar, all regional rivals to the Saudis.
Man, Yemen has sure caused a whole lot of historical revisionism on Obama.
Care to provide a little more context on the Yemen comment? I think i get your point, but not sure.
When I search Google for Obama and Saudi Arabia, here are the hits:
Like... it's a pretty remarkable snapshot of how the story of 2018 is completely at odds with the story of 2016. Yemen's fallen off the list a little bit, pushed off by Khashoggi stories, but a few months ago, it was prevalent among the 2018 stories.
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because while he did much to benefit SA he was also bringing their chief geopolitical rival in from the cold.
Cutting the Saudis off and throwing in with Iran would have been a domestic nightmare and probably ended in disaster.
But it would lay the groundwork for a future administration to put pressure on SA as we would have had an ally for us to shift favor too in cases like this one.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
My push back on the term "rivalry" is because I think it implies an equal or near equal footing, and Egypt has, at least as of now, fallen far behind KSA in importance. They, of course, are still vying for attention from the US because it would increase their strategic relevance. Being friendly with the US also means an easier time getting aid and they've been using IMF and WB loans to build up their energy sector, including solar.
Potential, or erstwhile rivalry then.
Yeah, I could see that. I am mainly thinking of Egypt post-2011 when I argue that the two countries aren't rivals. Hippofant's counterexample referred to the pre-Arab Spring era - it's still a valid counterexample, since the context of the discussion was Obama admin policy and the Obama admin was in power for a couple years before the revolt. And I could see Egypt eventually trying to regain its regional clout and in so doing become a rival to the Saudis. The initial argument was about US-Saudi relations under Obama, and the US's willingness to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt probably did rankle the Saudis. I don't think the same is true for US support for Egypt post-2013 coup, though.
So, fair enough, it's a nuanced situation. I agree that the Obama admin didn't simply do everything the Saudis wanted - another example is that the US did not destroy the Syrian government, restricting its anti-government involvement to training and arms transfers. But at the end of the day the US under Obama still aided the Saudis in what I view as their most horrific action in decades - the war on Yemen - and continued to sell them record amounts of arms. I'm glad that the public perception of the Saudis has been shifting toward a more negative view in recent years. But the way a lot people here react to Trump's response to the Kashoggi killing makes it sound like Trump is beyond the pale in prioritizing regional politics and arms/oil trade above moral concerns, which I just do not think is accurate given recent history. Trump stopped refueling aid over Yemen (something many of us had been advocating during Obama's admin, with no success) and issued some questionably worded statements about why he's not doing more. What do people think Obama would have done differently in the current situation? Ended arms sales or passed sanctions? I doubt it; realistically we'd have gotten the same minor concession and some strongly worded statements that were less straightforward about the brutal reasoning involved.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
My push back on the term "rivalry" is because I think it implies an equal or near equal footing, and Egypt has, at least as of now, fallen far behind KSA in importance. They, of course, are still vying for attention from the US because it would increase their strategic relevance. Being friendly with the US also means an easier time getting aid and they've been using IMF and WB loans to build up their energy sector, including solar.
Potential, or erstwhile rivalry then.
Yeah, I could see that. I am mainly thinking of Egypt post-2011 when I argue that the two countries aren't rivals. Hippofant's counterexample referred to the pre-Arab Spring era - it's still a valid counterexample, since the context of the discussion was Obama admin policy and the Obama admin was in power for a couple years before the revolt. And I could see Egypt eventually trying to regain its regional clout and in so doing become a rival to the Saudis. The initial argument was about US-Saudi relations under Obama, and the US's willingness to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt probably did rankle the Saudis. I don't think the same is true for US support for Egypt post-2013 coup, though.
So, fair enough, it's a nuanced situation. I agree that the Obama admin didn't simply do everything the Saudis wanted - another example is that the US did not destroy the Syrian government, restricting its anti-government involvement to training and arms transfers. But at the end of the day the US under Obama still aided the Saudis in what I view as their most horrific action in decades - the war on Yemen - and continued to sell them record amounts of arms. I'm glad that the public perception of the Saudis has been shifting toward a more negative view in recent years. But the way a lot people here react to Trump's response to the Kashoggi killing makes it sound like Trump is beyond the pale in prioritizing regional politics and arms/oil trade above moral concerns, which I just do not think is accurate given recent history. Trump stopped refueling aid over Yemen (something many of us had been advocating during Obama's admin, with no success) and issued some questionably worded statements about why he's not doing more. What do people think Obama would have done differently in the current situation? Ended arms sales or passed sanctions? I doubt it; realistically we'd have gotten the same minor concession and some strongly worded statements that were less straightforward about the brutal reasoning involved.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I'm not sure "evil" factors into it all, so much as outrage.
It's really not that people are disregarding Obama's complicity in evil but taking on Trump's, so much as what Obama did was de rigeur, in the name of the war on terrorism, protecting the interests of the State - as vaguely and vacuously as that might have been - and what Trump's doing is not.
Like, let's be real: Obama's administration killed a shitton of people. If someone told me that more people had been killed under Obama's drone strike and special forces-based global anti-terrorism strategy than under Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I might not even be surprised. But the way Obama did it, generally, didn't put American lives at risk, it was quiet and largely under the radar. That's the difference that drives the difference response, imo.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
Thank you for taking the time to sum it up so nicely. I frankly get sick of the hang wringing and faux outrage of Khashoggi's death. I think a large part of the super focus on this by the left is the fact that Obama was not a bloviating sabre rattler like Trump and most American's left or right are fine with blowing people up in far away places, extra judicial killings of American citizens as long as it doesn't get brought to their attention.
Between Obama's direct complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, (yay cluster bomb sales) and he and Clinton's contributions to further destabilization of the middle east, while talking politely about it or ignore it outright. I will take Trumps idiotic verbal diarrhea and considerably less active role in the Middle East.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
Thank you for taking the time to sum it up so nicely. I frankly get sick of the hang wringing and faux outrage of Khashoggi's death. I think a large part of the super focus on this by the left is the fact that Obama was not a bloviating sabre rattler like Trump and most American's left or right are fine with blowing people up in far away places, extra judicial killings of American citizens as long as it doesn't get brought to their attention.
Between Obama's direct complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, (yay cluster bomb sales) and he and Clinton's contributions to further destabilization of the middle east, while talking politely about it or ignore it outright. I will take Trumps idiotic verbal diarrhea and considerably less active role in the Middle East.
Bingo. Also, a lot of this effort is from people trying to whitewash the Bush administration and seriously, fuck that. The GOP is Trump's party now because Bushniks delivered one of the worst US presidents in history, so watching them getting applauded for their sick burns to Trump is sickening. It point blank says "we don't care about the dead as long as we don't get the blood spill on us".
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
I didn't say it made it better, I said race was not really the main factor imo. It's a question of where the victims are, how much we identify with them, whether they make the news, etc, etc, etc. Like, I don't think you would ever say america is not racist against black people but a bunch of black people getting shot in a church in the US is going to make more news then, say, a bunch of christians getting bombed in Syria.
Kashoggi got more press because it was an international incident, more because of the poorly handled cover-up then anything. And because he's a single identifiable person rather then a statistic.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
Thank you for taking the time to sum it up so nicely. I frankly get sick of the hang wringing and faux outrage of Khashoggi's death. I think a large part of the super focus on this by the left is the fact that Obama was not a bloviating sabre rattler like Trump and most American's left or right are fine with blowing people up in far away places, extra judicial killings of American citizens as long as it doesn't get brought to their attention.
Between Obama's direct complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, (yay cluster bomb sales) and he and Clinton's contributions to further destabilization of the middle east, while talking politely about it or ignore it outright. I will take Trumps idiotic verbal diarrhea and considerably less active role in the Middle East.
Nah. Despite your continual attempts to excuse Trump and not to pretend it's faux outrage, it's a big deal because the story is gruesome and sensational and because both MbS and Trump are so clearly incompetent are trying to cover it up or spin it.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
Thank you for taking the time to sum it up so nicely. I frankly get sick of the hang wringing and faux outrage of Khashoggi's death. I think a large part of the super focus on this by the left is the fact that Obama was not a bloviating sabre rattler like Trump and most American's left or right are fine with blowing people up in far away places, extra judicial killings of American citizens as long as it doesn't get brought to their attention.
Between Obama's direct complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, (yay cluster bomb sales) and he and Clinton's contributions to further destabilization of the middle east, while talking politely about it or ignore it outright. I will take Trumps idiotic verbal diarrhea and considerably less active role in the Middle East.
Nah. Despite your continual attempts to excuse Trump and not to pretend it's faux outrage, it's a big deal because the story is gruesome and sensational and because both MbS and Trump are so clearly incompetent are trying to cover it up or spin it.
I agree. There's a very confusing element of, "If people looked at the world I look at the world, they'd be more outraged about this and less outraged about that, but since they're not, obviously they're just full of faux outrage," and my mental response is, "Uhhh, no, go back and look at the starting premise you had there. That's where your problem lies."
Really, there is nothing about this public/media response that is solely attributable to Trump or racism or whatever. This is how the world and the people in it have always been. Y'all Americans don't learn about the Rape of Nanjing. Why? It's not because of racism or because people wanted to discredit Roosevelt or something; it's because Americans have historically never given a shit about Chinese people. You go back to 1937 and check the headlines, maybe the ongoing war between Japan and China gets like a after-the-fold mention in a little box in the corner, while the headlines are maybe screaming about some young white girl who got raped and murdered. That's not "faux outrage;" that's actually just how public outrage works. Even now, Western historians continue to cite WWII as starting in 1939, ignoring years of war between Japan and China; that which is over there isn't relevant to you unless there's something special about it that makes it so.
Now is that racism? Maaaybe, but I think attributing it solely to racism falls far short of the mark, because if you go to other countries and check their news headlines, you'll see a symmetrical result. British newspapers aren't writing about the opioid crisis in the US, German newspapers aren't writing (extensively) about the wildfires in the US, etc.. I'd argue that this phenomenon is more a generator of racism than a result thereof. "If it bleeds, it leads," is not actually accurate; there are other important factors, such as proximity, violation of social norms, perceived risk to self, uniqueness of the event, etc.. The amount people care about a news event has never really tracked with body count. Consider the obsessive way the US media covered Malaysian Airlines flight 370 compared to, say, Lion Air 610, which barely gets a story or two in one whole news cycle (and even then, a lot of the story has revolved around the brand new-ness of the American-built airplane that a lot of Americans will be flying on). It's not like Americans are racist against Indonesians but not Malaysians, nor was there vast political movement to shit on Malaysian Airlines or something.
IOW: It's not racism as much as... self-centered-ism?
That the people to whom bad things are happening far away happen to be a different color/religion/etc is not as significant as them being far away, and thus of less interest.
Posts
It's not revisionism it's grumblthorn trying to both sides things to pretend Trump isn't as bad as he actually is.
Care to provide a little more context on the Yemen comment? I think i get your point, but not sure.
To be fair, the intelligence and foreign policy people in the White House continued to push being huge friends with the Saudis regardless of Obama's personal feelings on the matter.
*KSA destroys the nation of Yemen, Obama government refuels their planes and sells them missiles*
Democrats: "Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- or the economy)"
*KSA kills Kashoggi*
Trump: Yeah it sucks, but realpolitik (edit- and the economy)"
Democrats: "HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT"
I don't really think Egypt is a rival of Saudi Arabia, nor has it been in recent ears. Negotiations with Iran/the JCPOA was the main problem between the KSA and the Obama admin.
Both are fine with selling weapons to almost everyone. If they aren't fine with it, that sentiment hasn't made it into policy under any administration.
Edit/Addition: Constant use of special forces seems popular at all times as well.
Remember when Egypt and KSA were negotiating over the transfer of some land? The reason it was so contentious is because they are rivals.
The current Egyptian military government had already ingratiated itself to the Saudis on the day of the coup, because they removed the Muslim Brotherhood - which Riyadh despises - from power. The Saudis gave Sisi's regime absurd amounts of money in order to keep Egypt's ailing economy afloat, making Cairo somewhat dependent on Riyadh. The Egyptians have backed the Saudi war on Yemen (I think they even contributed aircraft, although I'm not certain on that) and have aligned themselves with the KSA and UAE against Qatar.
I guess I'm curious why you see them as rivals/how you see that rivalry manifested? I mean I might be wrong about this but it just doesn't jive with my understanding of the region's politics.
The GCC states prop up their fellow Arab states like Egypt through remittances and aid. Egypt is also not competitive with KSA on oil production. The Saudis were also supportive of the Arab states (which included Egypt) during the later Arab-Israeli wars including enacting the Arab oil embargo in 73 pulling the US in to force a peace treaty.
They haven't been "rivals" since at the latest when Nasser died in 1970 and very likely before that. And it was a much more nebulous "rivalry" of Pan-Arabism versus Pan-Islamism and Pan-Arabism really lost with the failure of the United Arab Republic.
The reason land negotiations, or anything involving money, would be contentious between Egypt and Saudi Arabia is because Saudi Arabia, like the other GCC countries, is the revenue big fish in the pond of the Arab world and there is a lot of resentment (this is the same reason the Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait). It doesn't help that Egypt relies on Egyptian workers in Saudi for remittances.
I'm not sure this is true or has been true since 1970. After the death of Nasser and the failure of Pan-Arabism Egypt was barely holding on. The 1973 war was a desperate move by Sadat to try and regain some face from the failure of the 1967 war, and to differentiate his legacy from the declining legacy of Nasser. And since that time and the peace treaty with Israel, they've been fighting to prop up a declining economy.
A different sort of rivalry than say, between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but rivalry nonetheless, particularly revolving around who would be the US nexus in the Middle East.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The government operates on being reliable wth allies so any deals the Republicans make the Dems go with because continuity with foreign policy is a must to maintain trust with other countries. Which is why it's very difficult for the Dems to tell Turkey and SA to fuck off, and that's ignoring any logistical advantages America desires access to from those regions. This is why Trump is fucking up big time right now, he's destabilising that trust. Another factor is the Military Industrial Complex who have a large influence on foreign policy which the Dems can't just ignore, even if they wanted to. Not to mention the Dems are in no position to really turn down sponsorships from powerful people and nations engaging in these corruptive activities because they want to be a mainstream political party and that isn't cheap to run or maintain.
They definitely deserve some responsibility for their actions, but I can understand why they think they have to go about those approaches. Unfortunately it's not an easy scenario to get out of, which is by design by those vary factors.
You can look at the Israel situation for an example of Obama's obvious personal views vs what the President can actually accomplish unilaterally.
But an equivalence between Obama and Trump here is just a bullshit attempt at both-sides-ing the issue. If nothing else, we know Trump literally just doesn't care.
No, I think you're right. Egypt is a natural power, for reasons already stated. Its just had a rough half-century and right now isn't in a position to do much of anything.
If somehow Egypt got rid of its military dictators, turned its economy around, and most importantly broke out of its deep cultural stagnation, it could be a regional power again within two generations.
I can't find it right now, but wasn't it revealed in the past year or so that the Gulf states not only backed Sisi after the coup, but that they helped orchestrate the coup itself? I could swear I read something about this
Pretty much. They were extremely concerned about Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood possibly turning Egypt into a local bastion for Arabian/North African/Muslim democracy.
Potential, or erstwhile rivalry then.
Given the right conditions and about 20 years, this could be it.
NSDFRand summed it up well, since Nasser's sudden death in 1970, and the Soviet bloc not continuing to back diminishing returns on arms sales and military aid to Egypt under Sadat, their ability to project has been nowhere near what their rhetoric claims it to be. At this time they'd be lucky to mount something akin to the 1973 Yom Kippur "war", let alone anything sustained like Nasser's support of the Republicans during the North Yemeni Civil War from 1963-1967.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
When I search Google for Obama and Saudi Arabia, here are the hits:
Like... it's a pretty remarkable snapshot of how the story of 2018 is completely at odds with the story of 2016. Yemen's fallen off the list a little bit, pushed off by Khashoggi stories, but a few months ago, it was prevalent among the 2018 stories.
I would think that Trump's actions have given us new insights into what the President can unilaterally do in the realm of foreign policy.
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because while he did much to benefit SA he was also bringing their chief geopolitical rival in from the cold.
Cutting the Saudis off and throwing in with Iran would have been a domestic nightmare and probably ended in disaster.
But it would lay the groundwork for a future administration to put pressure on SA as we would have had an ally for us to shift favor too in cases like this one.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So, fair enough, it's a nuanced situation. I agree that the Obama admin didn't simply do everything the Saudis wanted - another example is that the US did not destroy the Syrian government, restricting its anti-government involvement to training and arms transfers. But at the end of the day the US under Obama still aided the Saudis in what I view as their most horrific action in decades - the war on Yemen - and continued to sell them record amounts of arms. I'm glad that the public perception of the Saudis has been shifting toward a more negative view in recent years. But the way a lot people here react to Trump's response to the Kashoggi killing makes it sound like Trump is beyond the pale in prioritizing regional politics and arms/oil trade above moral concerns, which I just do not think is accurate given recent history. Trump stopped refueling aid over Yemen (something many of us had been advocating during Obama's admin, with no success) and issued some questionably worded statements about why he's not doing more. What do people think Obama would have done differently in the current situation? Ended arms sales or passed sanctions? I doubt it; realistically we'd have gotten the same minor concession and some strongly worded statements that were less straightforward about the brutal reasoning involved.
As far as "both sides"-ing goes, I am not trying to assert that the Obama and Trump administrations are morally/strategically equivalent or whatever. I'm arguing that entirely justified outrage toward the Saudis today was just as justified three years ago, but that the outrage was largely lacking when it wasn't Trump in power, or at least it was far less unanimous/mainstream among liberals and Democrats. When one US government does something terrible people rush to find nuance and context to defend it, but when the next does the same shit all of the discussion is suddenly about how personally evil the current president is.
I'm not sure "evil" factors into it all, so much as outrage.
It's really not that people are disregarding Obama's complicity in evil but taking on Trump's, so much as what Obama did was de rigeur, in the name of the war on terrorism, protecting the interests of the State - as vaguely and vacuously as that might have been - and what Trump's doing is not.
Like, let's be real: Obama's administration killed a shitton of people. If someone told me that more people had been killed under Obama's drone strike and special forces-based global anti-terrorism strategy than under Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, I might not even be surprised. But the way Obama did it, generally, didn't put American lives at risk, it was quiet and largely under the radar. That's the difference that drives the difference response, imo.
I can tell you what it is. It's racism. Specifically, killing scores of Arab men, starving them, and directly participating to aid in the creation human catastrophes in backwards Arab countries is basically acceptable to large swathes of western liberals. Not they would accept this happening to an Arab living in America or Denmark, much less one who has become a member of esteemed institutions (that makes them people). But Arabs living in some no-name village in Yemen? Yeah, they're okay to kill, and it's faux pas to bring them up, and also here's the list of reasons it's basically fine they're dead now.
I think it's one thing for people to not say anything (what's even Yemen?), but that people make sure to go out of their way to be indignant of the mention of these atrocities in the context of the US’s long destructive years in the middle east is just sad.
I'm not sure why you'd think it was race based. It's basically the reaction to this kind of thing going on anywhere.
This podcast was a bit too brief, but was a good intro and review as to what's been happening these past 10 years or so.
https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/thetake/2018/11/darfur-forgotten-war-181116182627496.html
I dunno, I remember the difference in reaction to, say, the Paris attacks or the Ariana Grande bombing in comparison to various bombings of Arab, African, and Asian cities like Beirut, Sanaa, and Kabul which occurred at similar times.
When it's not racism, it's still a form of nationalism, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. At the very least I think it's clearly an "unworthy" vs. "worthy" victims thing.
For example an NGO (Save the Children) recently estimated that 85,000 Yemeni children have starved to death as a result of the war so far. Fucking eighty five thousand kids! They say it is a "conservative estimate." But this receives .01% of the focus of the Kashoggi killing because those kids didn't work at the Washington Post.
So who might they accidentally leak that stuff to if they get it?
More concerned about who they intentionally give it to.
I should have put "accidentally leak" in scare quotes.
Thank you for taking the time to sum it up so nicely. I frankly get sick of the hang wringing and faux outrage of Khashoggi's death. I think a large part of the super focus on this by the left is the fact that Obama was not a bloviating sabre rattler like Trump and most American's left or right are fine with blowing people up in far away places, extra judicial killings of American citizens as long as it doesn't get brought to their attention.
Between Obama's direct complicity in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, (yay cluster bomb sales) and he and Clinton's contributions to further destabilization of the middle east, while talking politely about it or ignore it outright. I will take Trumps idiotic verbal diarrhea and considerably less active role in the Middle East.
Bingo. Also, a lot of this effort is from people trying to whitewash the Bush administration and seriously, fuck that. The GOP is Trump's party now because Bushniks delivered one of the worst US presidents in history, so watching them getting applauded for their sick burns to Trump is sickening. It point blank says "we don't care about the dead as long as we don't get the blood spill on us".
I didn't say it made it better, I said race was not really the main factor imo. It's a question of where the victims are, how much we identify with them, whether they make the news, etc, etc, etc. Like, I don't think you would ever say america is not racist against black people but a bunch of black people getting shot in a church in the US is going to make more news then, say, a bunch of christians getting bombed in Syria.
Kashoggi got more press because it was an international incident, more because of the poorly handled cover-up then anything. And because he's a single identifiable person rather then a statistic.
Nah. Despite your continual attempts to excuse Trump and not to pretend it's faux outrage, it's a big deal because the story is gruesome and sensational and because both MbS and Trump are so clearly incompetent are trying to cover it up or spin it.
I agree. There's a very confusing element of, "If people looked at the world I look at the world, they'd be more outraged about this and less outraged about that, but since they're not, obviously they're just full of faux outrage," and my mental response is, "Uhhh, no, go back and look at the starting premise you had there. That's where your problem lies."
Really, there is nothing about this public/media response that is solely attributable to Trump or racism or whatever. This is how the world and the people in it have always been. Y'all Americans don't learn about the Rape of Nanjing. Why? It's not because of racism or because people wanted to discredit Roosevelt or something; it's because Americans have historically never given a shit about Chinese people. You go back to 1937 and check the headlines, maybe the ongoing war between Japan and China gets like a after-the-fold mention in a little box in the corner, while the headlines are maybe screaming about some young white girl who got raped and murdered. That's not "faux outrage;" that's actually just how public outrage works. Even now, Western historians continue to cite WWII as starting in 1939, ignoring years of war between Japan and China; that which is over there isn't relevant to you unless there's something special about it that makes it so.
Now is that racism? Maaaybe, but I think attributing it solely to racism falls far short of the mark, because if you go to other countries and check their news headlines, you'll see a symmetrical result. British newspapers aren't writing about the opioid crisis in the US, German newspapers aren't writing (extensively) about the wildfires in the US, etc.. I'd argue that this phenomenon is more a generator of racism than a result thereof. "If it bleeds, it leads," is not actually accurate; there are other important factors, such as proximity, violation of social norms, perceived risk to self, uniqueness of the event, etc.. The amount people care about a news event has never really tracked with body count. Consider the obsessive way the US media covered Malaysian Airlines flight 370 compared to, say, Lion Air 610, which barely gets a story or two in one whole news cycle (and even then, a lot of the story has revolved around the brand new-ness of the American-built airplane that a lot of Americans will be flying on). It's not like Americans are racist against Indonesians but not Malaysians, nor was there vast political movement to shit on Malaysian Airlines or something.
That the people to whom bad things are happening far away happen to be a different color/religion/etc is not as significant as them being far away, and thus of less interest.