Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[garbon]

Supplying him with young men?

[Razgovory]

Supplying him with young men?

Ken Starr was into young men?

[Admiral Yi]

Again, it's not about you. They liked Stevens. But the real issue in this is about the future of Libya.

Edit: Also, which other Arab peoples have you helped? What should any of them be grateful to the US for?

The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them.  They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.

The rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.

[Razgovory]

I'm going to say I personally didn't help any of those people.

[Eddie Teach]

Supplying him with young men?

He's dead, man.

[Sheilbh]

The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them. 

Well let's balance that against eighty years of them being crushed by the House of Saud and call it a wash in terms of thankfulness.

They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.

Again that has to be balanced against forty years of oppression and it seems to rather be taking the credit for the Egyptian revolution. So I don't think this example stands up either.

The rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.

You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.

As an aside I think natural disaster aid's a bit weak too. By that measure the world should feel very grateful to the EU.

[Viking]

The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them. 

Well let's balance that against eighty years of them being crushed by the House of Saud and call it a wash in terms of thankfulness.

I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.

Arguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.

If every international issue revolves about how what the US did or should have done then you are deliberately obfuscating the issues on the ground.

They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.

Again that has to be balanced against forty years of oppression and it seems to rather be taking the credit for the Egyptian revolution. So I don't think this example stands up either.

Same as above. The Egyptians themselves created the Free Officer Regime, not the US. Apparently the US is to blame for every action by every dictatorship it isn't actively trying to overthrow while at the same time it is imperialistic when it tries to overthrow said dictatorships.

The rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.

You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.

As an aside I think natural disaster aid's a bit weak too. By that measure the world should feel very grateful to the EU.

Saving Egypt in 1956 sort of stands out as the kind of actual principled altruistic deed that should be remembered. Threatening to screw over your most important ally in the world to help Egypt nationalize the Suez Canal?

[CountDeMoney]

I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.

We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen.  Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head. 
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead.  That would be incorrect.

Arguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.

I doubt anybody but the most Weeniest of the EUOT Euroweenie faggot meatbags actually believe the latter part of your argument anyway.

Meh, selling Saddam a few weapons in the late 70s when he was a bona fide Soviet state client isn't the same as stabilizing the House of Saud through both military and economic means;  it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.

[garbon]

Supplying him with young men?

He's dead, man.

I see your accusation and resent it.

[Viking]

I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.

We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen.  Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head. 
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead.  That would be incorrect.

People spend most of their lives making up excuses to convince themselves that they are good, competent, decent people. I don't expect the Arabs to be any different. This might be how it is seen but we are not complicit for the simple reason that we are not responsible for the evil acts of others.

Arguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.

I doubt anybody but the most Weeniest of the EUOT Euroweenie faggot meatbags actually believe the latter part of your argument anyway.

Meh, selling Saddam a few weapons in the late 70s when he was a bona fide Soviet state client isn't the same as stabilizing the House of Saud through both military and economic means;  it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.

1 - the US did not sell Saddam any weapons, his weapons were Eastern Bloc, French and South African.
2 - Saudi nationalized Aramco in 1980.


The saudis were stabilizing themselves and no military presence was there until the first gulf war. There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.


But to sum up.

The Moral Equivalency argument is immoral and the facts backing it up are untrue.

[Sheilbh]

I might respond later, when I've a laptop, but I don't see anything in what you've posted that suggests Arabs should feel gratitude to the US which is what we were talking about. Most Europeans, big chunks of East Asia, Africa - yes, there's a claim there. From Arab peoples, not so much.

[CountDeMoney]

People spend most of their lives making up excuses to convince themselves that they are good, competent, decent people. I don't expect the Arabs to be any different. This might be how it is seen but we are not complicit for the simple reason that we are not responsible for the evil acts of others.

Yeah, well it doesn't work that way, now does it?

1 - the US did not sell Saddam any weapons, his weapons were Eastern Bloc, French and South African.
2 - Saudi nationalized Aramco in 1980.


The saudis were stabilizing themselves and no military presence was there until the first gulf war. There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.

1.  Yeah, funneling them munitions through the Saudi pipeline doesn't really count.  NO RECEIPTS LULZ
2.  I wrote it past tense "like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades" for a reason.  You do remember the 1970's when the peninsula was swarming with Americans and Euros, right?  The Arabians do.

But to sum up.

The Moral Equivalency argument is immoral and the facts backing it up are untrue.

Good luck trying to get your average Arab knucklehead to buy that one. Moonworshippers can't handle cartoons, for fuck's sake.

[Viking]

I might respond later, when I've a laptop, but I don't see anything in what you've posted that suggests Arabs should feel gratitude to the US which is what we were talking about. Most Europeans, big chunks of East Asia, Africa - yes, there's a claim there. From Arab peoples, not so much.

Well, the independence of Egypt and possession of the Suez Canal for one.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's your one relevant point. But I think historical distance, subsequent history and national myth gets in the way, you may as well ask Britain to be grateful over the war. As I say I'm away from a laptop so I can't respond fully.

[Viking]

I think that's your one relevant point. But I think historical distance, subsequent history and national myth gets in the way, you may as well ask Britain to be grateful over the war. As I say I'm away from a laptop so I can't respond fully.

It is relevant. The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that, The russians and chinese still have mongol issues to this day. I challenge you to name one act by one nation towards another in human history that was as altruistic and as effective as that one. I also challenge you to find a people on this planet that hates any other country or people more (israel excepted) than the arabs hate the US.

BTW, I am fucking grateful to all the allies for WWII. Even if they did it for selfish reasons or did so involuntarily.