Support democracy by sending things to Saudi? But they're a monarchy. Who makes those claims?

@ TrPrado: "Support democracy by sending things to Saudi?"

No. You miss the point. The UK government, and other NATO members, often use the language of "supporting democracy" to justify their unjustified interventions in other areas. If it were true that their foreign policy was really based on spreading democracy, they would not be able to countenance being so friendly with Saudi Arabia.

Get it?

For example, if you can bear to do so, read the full text of this speech from Tony Blair in 2003, in which he goes to great lengths to justify the UK and USA's illegal and unjustified Iraq war, specifically on the basis that it would bring democracy to Iraq:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignpolicy.iraq1

The UK strongly supported the repressive and wholly undemocratic Saudi regime, at that time (as it still does).

I agree this is abhorrent, Jamie.

What would you rather see the UK government do?

Can you give some options for us to consider? (Other than ambassadors/heads of states voicing their disfavour)

The options seem limited to me. We can't ignore evety country/foreign government that does something we dislike. Saudi Arabia is particularly extreme, you're right, but what alternatives do you propose?

I'm unsure what you're arguing for, Jamie. Do you wish us to invade Saudi Arabia for the sake of consistency, or are you in favour of us ignoring it completely so that the oppression can carry on with renewed vigour whilst we wash our hands and say nothin to do with us, guv.

No, he has no options or suggestions. It's just Jamie being his typical whiny, bitching self trying to assert that everything about "western" civilization is evil, even though he lavishes and lives *only* because of the benefits of those imperfect societies.

He's an ignorant moron who likes to stand on his pedestal and tell us how intellectually and morally superior he is...even though his assertions are often fraught with holes - information he has purposely left out - or worse, peppered with lies and half-truths.

He is not worth listening to.

What would he have the UK government do? He HAS NO ANSWER to that...which is what makes his feigned outrage ridiculous.

lulz, Jamie why don't you go to Saudi Arabia and fix this? Take Orathaic with you.

'Realpolitik of the most immoral kind' - yes, because one of the key ingredients of realpolitik is morality... ;-/ Genius thread is genius.

+1 fiedler.

Is there a GoFundMe account for sending Jamie and Orath to Saudia Arabia to solves all the world's woes?

I think I was just +1ed by krellin.

I feel dirty.

But kinda nice.

Couldn't the UK put some pressure on Saudi Arabia to correct injustices like these? I think Jamiet's problem stems from the appearance of the government condoning injustice by sending weapons and supporting these governments. The reality is that interactions between governments is complicated. The give and take can't be boiled down to "here, have some guns, by the way this shows we like the way you kill your teenage protesters."

Dein you have exceeded the 'making sense' limit of this forum. I'm sorry, but you are now looking at a potential lifetime ban.

@ wjessop, Octavious, krellin, fiedler:

What do I think we should do about it?

Well, we could stop supplying them with weapons, that would be a good start. We could also stop treating them as a favoured ally, and stop helping them to market themselves positively on the international stage.

"Do you wish us to invade Saudi Arabia for the sake of consistency...?"

No. I am not generally in favour of us attacking countries we don't like. Look at the fucking shitstorm we've created in Iraq.

@fiedler: "'Realpolitik of the most immoral kind' - yes, because one of the key ingredients of realpolitik is morality... ;-/ Genius thread is genius"

Uhhhhh... I was making the point that this kind of realpolitik is immoral. I'm glad you seem to agree.

Do you think there should be a moral steer to our foreign policy, or should morality be completely ignored when "democratic" governments make foreign policy decisions? Is it possible to be both morally bankrupt and a freedom-loving democracy at the same time?

"Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot."
- Lenin.

I feel that foreign policy should be based on what is achievable, and what is desirable from a point of view of morality and self interest.

I can see what we gain from selling goods (including weapons) to the Saudis. We gain a significant amount of money and good jobs, and a debatable amount of influence which we can use to push them slowly towards democracy whilst remaining an island of relative stability.

If we cease trading we lose the significant amount of money and jobs, we lose the debatable amount of influence, and we gain... Hmmm... We don't seem to gain anything. We neither help the people of Saudi Arabia nor the people at home. In what sense is that a moral victory?

We have treated Saudi Arabia as a favoured ally since 1914. How long is your slow push towards democracy going to take? How many children will be crucified between now and then?

Neither of those two options you've come back with will help with the particular case you headlined this thread with.

I very much get the sentiment, but you can crucify a 14-year-old without weapons from the West.

For the sake of accuracy the Saudis are not, in fact, crucifying a 14 year old. He is 17, and may well be older when actually executed.

This does not detract from the fact that crime was committed when he was very much a minor.

My bad, but the point stands.

Something that makes politics especially dumb is happening right here; it's a great object lesson.

"We should stop supporting nations that torture and eat puppies on TV."

"Well, I disagree with you on some other points, so I'm going to float absurd objections to your obviously correct statement. What are you doing about it? Why aren't you personally trying to overthrow a country that spends 11% of its GDP on the military? Didn't you ever consider the puppy-eating economy?"

The point I think Jamiet is trying to make is that Western countries should stop acting as the moral compass of this world when they have allies like Saudia Arabia. I agree (if that's what he's trying to say) and don't see why people are making a big deal out of this. If the US and UK want to be pals with Saudia Arabia fine. The least they can do is stop acting as if they actually give a shit about other countries having "democracy" and interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

Syria for instance. The country wouldn't be in the situation it is now were it not for the support of Western nations (such as France UK US) and their Arab allies. When the West started supporting the rebels, they did it in the name of freedom and democracy. Saudia Arabia happens to be one of the Arab allies supporting the rebels.
Hypocrisy at its finest.

What support?

Syria is where it is now primarily because of the brutality of the vile dictator, Assad. You cannot inflict that kind of tyranny upon a population without creating fertile soil for evil like ISIS to grow in. The West, when this first started, had the opportunity to take strong action to help matters. However the British left wing, still shamed by the complete hash they made of Iraq, decided to take the easy option yet again and vote against it.

We offered sod all support. Whilst those in Syria who wanted to fight for democracy were bombed and gassed and shelled to oblivion, we stood back and sent food parcels and bandages. Syria is how it is not because we did too much, but because we did too little.

I am not going to stand here and claim it would all be peachy in Syria if we'd done more. It wouldn't. Assad would likely have been toppled, and we would currently be proping up a weak pro-Western Syrian government fighting a brutal Islamist insurgency. But that would still be infinitely preferable to the mess we have now.

You have no idea what you're talking about repeating the trash that American propaganda creates.

The opposition was armed. Where do you think they got all those weapons from?

And I like how you have the audacity to say that the UK and US should have "taken strong actions."

Why is it so hard to acknowledge your country was or is in someway responsible the things it caused? The contradiction between toppling governments (and democratically elected ones, such as Mohammed Mossadegh's or Salvador Allende's, although Saddam Hussein is most striking as he clearly was not a communist, it was well after the Berlin Wall fell and things were definitely less subtle) in the name of democracy and supporting the only remaining Absolute Monarchy in the world is seen as a shocking exemple of how US and the UK pursue essentially this interests and vaguely claim to have some moral justification on the way by literally everyone with moderate knowledge of world affairs outside North America and Western Europe. Sorry to tell you that, but it is hard to understand your reluctancy in accepting the absurdness of some of the things the so-called Western democracies are accountable for.

+1

@ stephanodangello: If the West is not allies with Iran or Saudi Arabia, then it's possible to be enemies of both.

Has Diplomacy taught you nothing?

I agree Western ideals are mostly propaganda tools, to be relied upon only when it favours us. Not exactly news. It's wrong, but alienating Saudi Arabia doesn't solve it, exactly.

It's a much deeper problem and as of right now, I'm at a loss for a solution.

I personally prefer a more honest approach, saying it as it is, but governments do what they can get away with and I suppose the general public doesn't see or doesn't care about the deception.

@ Hannibal: "The point I think Jamiet is trying to make is that Western countries should stop acting as the moral compass of this world when they have allies like Saudi Arabia."

That is *exactly* the point. Thank you.

By the way, the reason that I've been quiet on the forum for the past few days is that I took fiedler's advice and personally travelled to Saudi Arabia and single-handedly overthrew their royal family and set up a progressive social democracy in its place. It was remarkably easy once I set my mind to it.

The reason you haven't heard about this yet is simply down to the right-wing bias of the western media.

Hahaha :)