"British Military Sent On Secret Mission To Protect Saudi" Topic

…Oilfields

"The United Kingdom has had troops deployed in Saudi Arabia to protect its oilfields from attacks since February this year, The News reported this week, a local newspaper in Portsmouth in the UK.

A small team from the 16th Regiment Royal Artillery, which is based near Portsmouth, were sent to Saudi Arabia to man Giraffe radars, which can track aircraft and missiles up to 75 miles away.

After the report, the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed that the mission was to protect oilfields in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, from attacks, in the wake of the September 2019 attacks on critical Saudi oil infrastructure that affected half of Saudi Arabia's oil production, or around 5 percent of global oil supply, for weeks…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The counter-drone unit, I'm sure.

I hope HM Government are charging premium rates for their services!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I'm sure the Saudis will be glad for the help. Regardless what Iran does or wants.

Saudis prefer infidel foreigners to die for them.

Again, many in that region, Sunni or Shite, think foreigners are infidels. As well as each other. Regardless of the fact Sunni and Shia fight each other or in some cases among themselves. Sunnis fight Sunnis in many regions. Kurds are Sunni and so are ISIS. AQ is Sunni as is ISIS. In both cases they fight among themselves regardless of all being Sunni.

Sunni tribes fight among themselves in A'stan as well as the minority Shite Tribe, IIRC the Hazara. Now ISIS is in A'stan. So with the Taliban, AQ and ISIS there along with the 6 major Tribes, along with Warlord and Mullahs. You need different colored numbered sports jerseys and a roster to tell who is who …

My point ? The West supports which ever tribe, religion, etc. that is to our advantage. If the Saudis didn't have oil there'd be no reason for the West to deal with them at all, IMO. Reality sometimes is that way …

Let's keep building them windmills and the fellers can come home.

Good job we live on a very windy little island…

The West supports which ever tribe, religion, etc. that is to our advantage.

What advantage? Protecting Chinese oil supplies?

link

Whilst all of those tribes, religions, etc work hard at undermining the west by supporting spread of Islamic fundamentalism and associated terrorism.

Saudis committed one of the biggest atrocities against the west yet still we chum with them.

The west no longer does anything for its own advantage though it does things to support the advantage of corrupted elites in the west who have no loyalty to their people or country.

What advantage?

The USA does not need their but many of our allies do …

Whilst all of those tribes, religions, etc work hard at undermining the west by supporting spread of Islamic fundamentalism and associated terrorism.

When post I something similar to that I've been called some very bad things. And if I don't say those are only 1% of them someone jumps up to remind me … From another thread when I mentioned Iran …

Close to 80% of the population would probably favor a move away from the current theocracy and toward a greater degree of Westernization.

I hope it's that much !

Saudis committed one of the biggest atrocities against the west yet still we chum with them.

I also say the Saudi Royal Family/Gov't does not support jihadis. But like Egypt and and Jordan many in their leadership likes us but many in their populations don't.

As I said on another post … "But so far the 1 or 2% lunatic fringe gets all the headlines. And kill the infidel which include other muslims who don't believe as they do. E.g. Sunni vs Shia, or ISIS vs. everybody …" But I have a tendency to believe it is larger than that, even if only at least in tacit support.

An insurgency can't survive without, not only some outside support, but inside support as well as. It's just one of the principles of an insurgency, generally. The figure that was posted by another TMPer of 20% may be a bit high. But not too much, IMO. Of course we are not privy to much of the intel that would tell us this and more.

I also say the Saudi Royal Family/Gov't does not support jihadis.

The Saudi government supported jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

They currently support jihadis in both Syria and Libya – indeed there was a scandal when it turned out NATO member Croatia was selling huge amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia who was then funnelling them to jihadis.

link

Saudi Arabia was critical in strengthening ISIS.

link

And then there's Qatar who supports Jihadis even the Saudi and Emirates find distasteful.

---

Then there's the Saudi funding of religious schools across the west and elsewhere that are known to be recruiting centres for terrorists.

link

link

Basically Saudi Arabia is the world's leading supporter and funder of salafist jihadism.

link

Is this another case of bias – putting one's fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalalala"?

SA spends lavishly on American and British arms so it doesn't hurt to kiss their behinds…

I'd rather not sell those weapons to a country whose values are so opposed to our own and who have both actively and covertly pursued objectives completely against western interests and that have cost western lives and who are currently committing atrocities on a massive scale in Yemen.

To be blunt, KSA is not that far removed from ISIS or AQ (both of whom share KSA's ideology). I mean this is a country where they literally organised for a dissident to be hacked up in their embassy in Turkey.

US foreign policy vis-a-vis KSA is predicated on realpolitik rather than idealpolitik due to their common enemy Iran. Even Israel is getting friendly with the Kingdom as Sunnis are the lesser evil compared to Shiites, for the moment at least.

Realpolitik allows for double standards whereas idealpolitik does not.

I understand realpolitik.

But given:

1. US is now self sufficient in oil,

2. Britain imports barely any oil/gas from KSA (in fact they import far more from Russia),

link

3. Soviet communism is no longer a threat,

I am not sure what the realpolitik objectives are, except lining the pockets of Boeing and BAe Systems executives and shareholders.

In fact if the Americans really want to tighten the screws on the Russians, then chumming it up with Iran makes far more sense.

And if screwing the Chinese Communists over is important, then again they should at least be pressuring the supposed Arab oils to restrict energy exports to China.

Instead the Americans and British subsidise Chinese oil security and suppress Iran as a threat to Russia whilst supporting a dictatorial murderous regime whose ultimate goals include the destruction of the west and the creation of a world based on fundamentalist Salafist Islam.

And US policy is basically based on promoting Saudi et al's ambitions in the world be it in Syria, Yemen, Libya or arguably even the west (thanks to allowing Saudis to fund religious organisations in the west).

It means peace in the middle east won't be possible until all Shias are enslaved or exterminated (much like KSA's own Shia minority is kept heavily oppressed).

And the Americans and British are committed to this goal through their support of KSA and their attempts to strangle the Iranian regime.

The "partnership" with the Saudis is essentially a cold war throwback.

It just creates problems for the west. It needs to be at best revised and at worst scrapped entirely.

And I'm not the only one who thinks the west needs to rethink its relationship with KSA:

link

You may be right, but as long as Israel insists on treating Iran as the overblown threat that it is things will never change. Just saying.

Fanatik, I totally agree.

Iran is a very useful bogeyman for Israel. It keeps the US weapons and aid flowing in and also acts as a useful distraction from the Palestinian issue.

In fact it distracts not just the western media but the current Arab powerhouses.

Without Iran, KSA et al can divert their eyes to Israel.

It should be noted while the KSA didn't send troops much to fight the Israelis, it did spend billions on weapons that were funnelled to the Egyptians and Jordanians to fight the Israelis.

For example the Egyptian Mirage 5's used against Israel in 1973 were funded by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia stopped supporting Egypt once the Egyptian signed a peace treaty with Israel.

The Saudi government supported jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Coordinated thru the US CIA, etc.

As I tried to say and you did,

US is now self sufficient in oil,

Critical fact …

I think it comes down to who is the bigger threat … Saudi Arabia or Iran …

Britain imports barely any oil/gas from KSA (in fact they import far more from Russia),

So the UK buys from a nation that wants to destroy the US. Realpolitik ?

Soviet communism is no longer a threat,

But Putin's Russia is trying to be a threat to the USA.

Again the Russians and PRC/CCP are not friends of the USA. But in the long or short run neither is Saudi Arabia or Iran … Looks like the USA should not do any downsizing of it's Military and elect a whole bunch of new capable leadership …

In the meantime, we should take every opportunity to eliminate ISIS, AQ, and any others like that … often and in large numbers. More than we have already. Realizing some CD many occur, but in an insurgency it is a fact of life.

"You may be right, but as long as Israel insists on treating Iran as the overblown threat that it is things will never change. Just saying".

Yea, never mind that they now have 10 – 12X the amount of refined uranium they were permitted under the deal, are adding more centrifuges and speeding up production even more, have ballistic missiles, and have threatened to wipe out Israel and the West, including their little death chants in the streets in just the last day or so.

Hmmmm, radical jihadis with nuclear armed missiles aren't a concern???

But Putin's Russia is trying to be a threat to the USA.

After the US kept its boot on Yeltsin era Russia. A more supportive US approach might have created an environment whereby Putin wasn't even an option.

As I keep saying, Russia could be a disarmed liberal democracy and America's first goal would continue to be to destroy it regardless of other threats.

In the meantime, we should take every opportunity to eliminate ISIS, AQ, and any others like that

A total waste of time when you're not shutting down their true support bases or even acting consistently.

And note the Americans let Saudis/Turks/Emirates/Qataris arm and fund ISIS, Al Nusra etc to pursue jihad in Syria.

The US indirectly supported AQ in Yemen when they decided to support the war against the Houthis.

US foreign policy is a confused waste of time and resources. The country is chasing its tail.

This is why the Chinese will end up the ruling super power.

It's also why the Muslim world will continue to be radicalised.

In an interview in the Atlantic, Obama talked about the spread of conservative (fundamentalist) Islam through SE Asia. He said it wasn't like that when he was growing up in Indonesia.

He said the reason for the increased conservativism is Saudi money being pumped into the region.

And given Muslims will be the most dominant religion by 2070 (nearly 40% of all people on the planet will be muslim and primarily sunni muslim), it is absolutely imperative that the slide towards fundamentalism is averted.

But no, the US will continue chumming it up with the biggest exporters of Sunni Islamo-fascism….

Yea, never mind that they now have 10 – 12X the amount of refined uranium they were permitted under the deal, are adding more centrifuges and speeding up production even more, have ballistic missiles, and have threatened to wipe out Israel and the West, including their little death chants in the streets in just the last day or so.

So what? Iranian leadership is not stupid. Their main goal is regime survival.

Just like those Norks you Americans keep assuming are dumb but whose leadership has survived fall of European communism and who have managed to survive 30 years of near total isolation.

Hmmmm, radical jihadis with nuclear armed missiles aren't a concern???

Pakistan( and presumably Saudi Arabia courtesy of investment in Pakistani program) already has nukes.

Analysts think the most likely next use of nuclear weapons will be Pakistan and that that country is also the most likely source of terrorists obtaining nukes given how radicalised the Inter Service Intelligence is and how close that country is to becoming a failed state.

Of course we can all continue eating the US propaganda which has resulted in the loss of western power.

After the US kept its boot on Yeltsin era Russia. A more supportive US approach might have created an environment whereby Putin wasn't even an option.

As I keep saying, Russia could be a disarmed liberal democracy and America's first goal would continue to be to destroy it regardless of other threats.

I don't agree with both of these comments. But everyone is entitled to an opinion, yes ?

A total waste of time when you're not shutting down their true support bases or even acting consistently.

Kill those that want to kill you is never a waste of time.

And note the Americans let Saudis/Turks/Emirates/Qataris arm and fund ISIS, Al Nusra etc to pursue jihad in Syria.

I don't really believe that. You have a very skewed negative concept of the USA.

The US indirectly supported AQ in Yemen when they decided to support the war against the Houthis.

IIRC we killed the AQ leader in Yemen.

US foreign policy is a confused waste of time and resources.

Sometimes I agree … but not always …

This is why the Chinese will end up the ruling super power.

That will not be the case unless you can see the future. They may try but won't succeed anytime soon.

It's also why the Muslim world will continue to be radicalised.

I think the USA can't be blamed for all of that. The Europeans having many colonies in many of those islamic nations. And have a larger population of muslims in their countries. E.g. France is 9% muslim … the USA less that 2%

The second that the US recognized and supported Israel from '48 on. We became the enemy to the radicals and their supporters. They made their own bed with 9/11 and terrorist attacks before that as well.

Obama talked about the spread of conservative (fundamentalist) Islam through SE Asia. He said it wasn't like that when he was growing up in Indonesia.

He said the reason for the increased conservativism is Saudi money being pumped into the region.

So if that is true, and it very well may be. The Saudis should be handle how in our opinion ?

And given Muslims will be the most dominant religion by 2070 (nearly 40% of all people on the planet will be muslim and primarily sunni muslim), it is absolutely imperative that the slide towards fundamentalism is averted.

I don't know if that will occur. Basing that on their birth rate is one thing. The West generally does not like the dogma.

But no, the US will continue chumming it up with the biggest exporters of Sunni Islamo-fascism….

You mean the Saudis or Sunnis in general. But I have repeatedly said, I think the lunatic fringe is more than the 1% that many believe. And they have many supporters that assist. In one way or another. Even if by just turning a blind eye.

It's also common knowledge that Kim in N. Korea has nukes by now. If anything, Iran is behind. Don't let their directed-for-domestic consumption "Death to USA, Death to Israel" chants or burning of effigies in the wake of the assassination of their scientist fool you, the Iranian leadership isn't suicidal.

I don't really believe that.

I have already provided articles whereby US facilitated sale of Croatian weapons to Saudi Arabia who then transferred them to jihadis!

The US allowed the Arabs and Turk to arm and support jihadis in Syria. It wasn't until there was significant blowback in Iraq that they ended up having to get involved.

link

the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" – and states that "western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey" were supporting the opposition's efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

I don't agree with both of these comments.

US actions post fall of USSR support the notion the US did everything to irritate the Russians – NATO expansion, missile defence shield, onerous economic reform requirements etc etc. US goals were to turn Russia into a powerless isolated beggar state surrounded by NATO and other USA allies (really no change from Cold War).

They may try but won't succeed anytime soon.

They already are succeeding. Do you not follow the news?!?

So if that is true, and it very well may be. The Saudis should be handle how in our opinion ?

Sanctions, cessation of weapon deals, support of democratic/moderate groups within KSA. Etc.

All the same stuff you do to Iran!

I don't know if that will occur. Basing that on their birth rate is one thing.

Yep it's called statistics and demographics. It's part of that science thing.

link

So Muslims have 2.9 children, compared with 2.2 for all other groups combined (and often below 2 for Europe or North Asia).

Muslims are young too – median age is 24, everywhere else is 31 and in Europe and North Asia it's close to 40 or older (Japan median age is 48)!

You mean the Saudis or Sunnis in general.

KSA though Qatar and UAE are there as well and Turkey is now a major player.

And it has nothing to do with lunatic or fringe. Greater conservativism in Islamic populations impacts on democratic outcomes, government policies (from everything from religious tolerance to family to even economics).

You have a very skewed negative concept of the USA

Only because the USA is meant to be the leader of the free world yet they're throwing it away, acting stupidly and allowing others to replace them.

The following articles would have been unheard of up to a few years ago especially in the mainstream:

link

link

But the USA is not what it used to be and regardless of who the President is, can't seem to pick up the pieces.

I have already provided articles whereby US facilitated sale of Croatian weapons to Saudi Arabia who then transferred them to jihadis!

The US allowed the Arabs and Turk to arm and support jihadis in Syria. It wasn't until there was significant blowback in Iraq that they ended up having to get involved.

I have a hard time believing the US knew that was going on. If so there may be more behind that than is still classified, IMO.

I know you[and some others here] have a very negative opinion about the US, albeit primarily our gov't. But some of those things you posted seem to be a bit biased, IMO. Some in the media[or here !] always like to make the USA bad.

After all this time I have learned not to trust much I read in the media regardless where it comes from.

They already are succeeding. Do you not follow the news?!?

I do follow the news … but again I don't trust much of what I see of read. And much of the coverage are is very biased and skewed, IMO.

Sanctions, cessation of weapon deals, support of democratic/moderate groups within KSA. Etc.

All the same stuff you do to Iran!

So both are supporters of terrorist worldwide. We know this. I believe we use the Saudis as a defense against the Iranians. Sunni vs. Shia …

Yep it's called statistics and demographics. It's part of that science thing.

So Muslims have 2.9 children, compared with 2.2 for all other groups combined (and often below 2 for Europe or North Asia).

Muslims are young too – median age is 24, everywhere else is 31 and in Europe and North Asia it's close to 40 or older (Japan median age is 48)!

I understand the science behind it, I'm not that dumb ! [Well maybe a little bit] … So all these young muslims are going to get Europe and the USA and overrun those locations by sheer numbers ? And no one is going to see that. Since e.g. the US is only about 2% muslim …

Only because the USA is meant to be the leader of the free world yet they're throwing it away, acting stupidly and allowing others to replace them.

Hmmm more and more I'm not so sure about that. Seems the USA does more than it's share while others stand-by.

The following articles would have been unheard of up to a few years ago especially in the mainstream:

So if we are not seen as a reliable ally, I don't know that else we can do with all that is going on. Our pockets are not endlessly deep. It seems as you have alluded to, we are heading for a new Crusade against islam … No one wants that … AFAIK …

But the USA is not what it used to be and regardless of who the President is, can't seem to pick up the pieces.

That very well may be true. I don't see anything good upon the horizon for the USA. With all the liberal, Left, academic, intellectual, socialist, anti-American, etc., influence/agenda occurring. Not from outside but from within.

Many of my friends tell me it is hard to get ammo for our personal firearms. As we don't want to see what has happened in places like Seattle and Portland. Defunding LEOs, and anti-American groups running the streets, looting, burning, pulling statues down, etc. But it seems to be what may happen in many places in the USA.

We will have a hard time being the world's leadership as we are having all these problems here at home …

[QUOTE]I have a hard time believing the US knew that was going on. If so there may be more behind that than is still classified, IMO.

Sure they knew what was going on – Biden even critised US allies supporting jihadis in Syria.

link

After all this time I have learned not to trust much I read in the media regardless where it comes from.

Oh well keep thinking it's 1991 and all is well with the world.

So both are supporters of terrorist worldwide. We know this. I believe we use the Saudis as a defense against the Iranians. Sunni vs. Shia …

Last time I checked Saudis committed a far bigger atrocity against the US than Iran could even imagine (9-11). Most terror attacks in the west are Sunni.

Or is 9-11 and Sunni terrorism another media conspiracy.

I understand the science behind it, I'm not that dumb ! [Well maybe a little bit] … So all these young muslims are going to get Europe and the USA and overrun those locations by sheer numbers ? And no one is going to see that. Since e.g. the US is only about 2% muslim …

Did I ever say that.

The point is the young Muslims will grow up conservative or fundamentalist and that will affect their countries.

Which will mean more "Islamification" of secular institutions, more oppression of non-Islamic minorities (already ramping up in even supposedly secular countries like Turkey and Malaysia), more laws and actions that violate human rights.

Oh and more terrorism in the periphery including the west. But also as muslim populations grow especially in Europe, there will be more calls for sharia for muslims etc. This happens in Australia where muslim population is 2%. Now imagine when they are 10-20% of the population!

All of this is funded and supported by US allies who are "defending" you from a small has-been regional power whose Islamic adherence is to the Shia faction which is a measly 10% of all Muslims.

Hmmm more and more I'm not so sure about that. Seems the USA does more than it's share while others stand-by.

What the west really needs from the US is leadership. It is the largest western democracy. It is the most powerful.

And it has not provided leadership – look at the South China Sea. The US literally let the Chinese take it over – Obama even prevented his generals from criticising China.

The message to allies was clear – this is now China's playground. So Thailand, Malaysia and especially Philippines figure out the wind has changed and get more friendly with China.

Australia and others are less likely to support US actions such as FONOPs because they no longer trust the US will really have their back and they don't want to irritate the Chinese.

we are heading for a new Crusade against islam

What crusade against Islam? The west actively supports Sunni fundamentalism be its support for KSA, UAE, Qatar and Pakistan, immigration programs or turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Islamic parts of the world. It turns a blind eye to endemic pseudo slavery in the Gulf states (millions of third worlders effectively enslaved to build Doha, Dubai etc).

The west has actively supported destruction of secular regimes in Libya and Syria and tacitly or actively supported jihadis.

Whackamole of terrorists is just pretending to be doing something about the issue. And it clearly has not worked in 19 years.

It's like occasionally popping a bunch of Wehrmacht troopers in foxhole whilst ignoring the whole Nazi regime.

Biden even critised US allies supporting jihadis in Syria.

That may be the only thing that was right when it came to geopolitics … But again we don't know what is going on in between the lines. We only know what they want us to…

Oh well keep thinking it's 1991 and all is well with the world.

To quote … I never said that. And I never believed things would be right with the world after the fall of the USSR. As we know nature hates a vacuum. With the USSR becoming Russia. That left a lot of opening for that vacuum to be filled by many things we'd rather not have come about.

Last time I checked Saudis committed a far bigger atrocity against the US than Iran could even imagine (9-11). Most terror attacks in the west are Sunni.

The Iranian overrunning our embassy and taking hostages was bad enough. But 9/11 attacking the US homeland was whose. And let there be no doubt we have killed many Sunni everywhere the US went in the Mid East and A'stan. But like islam itself the Sunni are not on monolithic block. They are full of rival competing factions, tribes, mullahs, etc., etc. E.g. again the Kurds, AQ and ISIS are all Sunni. And AFAIK they don't get along very well.

The point is the young Muslims will grow up conservative or fundamentalist and that will affect their countries.

Which will mean more "Islamification" of secular institutions, more oppression of non-Islamic minorities (already ramping up in even supposedly secular countries like Turkey and Malaysia), more laws and actions that violate human rights.

As long as they keep it among themselves and not try to kill or overrun Europe, the USA, etc. Just like in A'stan, they can kill and slaughter each other over religion, tribes, warlords, etc. As long as they keep it in their own sandbox. I'm pretty sure many in the West don't have a problem with that. The West should also stop sending support of any kind to those regions. Until they can at least move into the 19th or 20th Century.

Oh and more terrorism in the periphery including the west. But also as muslim populations grow especially in Europe, there will be more calls for sharia for muslims etc. This happens in Australia where muslim population is 2%. Now imagine when they are 10-20% of the population!

That is too bad for Europe and Australia. The USA will not let that happen here. And for better of worse, there are a lot of Americans feel the same as I do. As it is the US, it is only about 2% muslim as well. And the calls for sharia don't get very far, and won't.

All of this is funded and supported by US allies who are "defending" you from a small has-been regional power whose Islamic adherence is to the Shia faction which is a measly 10% of all Muslims.

I thought in was 20% but no matter … By US allies you mean the Saudis ? The Sunni ?

What the west really needs from the US is leadership. It is the largest western democracy. It is the most powerful.

The USA is having a problem with a lot of internal strife. Much of it is because of weak leadership at both the state and local level. And many refuse Federal help … Our military is the most powerful, while many of our allies are downsizing. That is not helping any. However, recently strong US leadership was not very well accepted by our allies.

And it has not provided leadership – look at the South China Sea. The US literally let the Chinese take it over – Obama even prevented his generals from criticising China.

I agree with you totally … But I won't get started on this as I will surely end up in the Dog House …

The message to allies was clear – this is now China's playground. So Thailand, Malaysia and especially Philippines figure out the wind has changed and get more friendly with China.

And it looks like now that will start again … And a 10% cutback in the Military and Veteran's programs supposed to occur. You think the USA has problems now geopolitically ? Wait …

What crusade against Islam? The west actively supports Sunni fundamentalism be its support for KSA, UAE, Qatar and Pakistan, immigration programs or turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Islamic parts of the world. It turns a blind eye to endemic pseudo slavery in the Gulf states (millions of third worlders effectively enslaved to build Doha, Dubai etc).

Well as I said, until they become less wedded to their religious, tribal and ethnic differences there is nothing the West, i.e. USA can do. Short of cutting off all aid of all types to all of those supporters. But to be realistic, they will get support from the outside from some players with or without the US.

It's like occasionally popping a bunch of Wehrmacht troopers in foxhole whilst ignoring the whole Nazi regime.

Again islam is not one unified entity. And they generally make very poor allies.

It turns a blind eye to endemic pseudo slavery in the Gulf states (millions of third worlders effectively enslaved

Yes, and many things like this happens throughout many places in the islamic world. Including slave markets in North Africa, etc., etc. Only a very blind idealist could think the USA could do anything about this. As this didn't start yesterday … it has been going on for a very long time. Many in the UN are guilty of this and worst. They have to want to change and they have no reason to. Along with many becoming less secular and more fundamentalist this won't happen any time soon if ever.

The USA will not let that happen here.

Are you sure? You yourself say the US is "is having a problem with a lot of internal strife. Much of it is because of weak leadership at both the state and local level."

By US allies you mean the Saudis ?

Yes that's what the whole conversation is about, And not just KSA, but Qatar, Bahrain and UAE!

Yes, and many things like this happens throughout many places in the islamic world. Including slave markets in North Africa, etc., etc. Only a very blind idealist could think the USA could do anything about this.

Sure you could. Indeed the Royal Navy smashed the slave trade back in the day.

The US could literally conquer all those countries in a few short weeks if it could. Given most of the local populations are tiny (Eg only 19% of UAE are Emiri), you could literally install democratically elected governments and ensure success.

You've bombed other countries for less.

And it could impose sanctions, freeze financial assets, stop weapon sales etc etc.

Our military is the most powerful,

Yet in your own words, it can't do anything to stop evil slavers etc.

In fact all the poor US can do is sell weapons to these nasty types.

The truth is the modern USA no longer stands for freedom or anything save the all mighty dollar.

Are you sure? You yourself say the US is "is having a problem with a lot of internal strife. Much of it is because of weak leadership at both the state and local level."

Yes I am sure, just like the ACW made the US a stronger nation. And this internal strife will pass as well …

Yes that's what the whole conversation is about, And not just KSA, but Qatar, Bahrain and UAE!

I know what we are talking about. Just wanted to make sure where the fingers are being pointed.

Sure you could. Indeed the Royal Navy smashed the slave trade back in the day.

But it still continued only not as much in the open. And the slave trade pretty much never left some place in Africa and the Mid East. Ask a Yazidi if you can find one.

The US could literally conquer all those countries in a few short weeks if it could. Given most of the local populations are tiny (Eg only 19% of UAE are Emiri), you could literally install democratically elected governments and ensure success.

You are kidding me right ? After all we are going thru in A'stan, Iraq and Syria. They will never have a real democracy. As we see in much of the moslem world. As I posted before on other threads, until they become less wedded to their religious, tribal and ethnic differences there is nothing the West, i.e. USA can do. Again islam is not one unified entity.

You've bombed other countries for less.

Yes we have, and in some cases not enough, IMO.

And it could impose sanctions, freeze financial assets, stop weapon sales etc etc.

And they will get what they need from someone else, as many do now.

Yet in your own words, it can't do anything to stop evil slavers etc.

You are again using hyperbole? We have no reason to go on a "Crusade" to stomp out slavery in many places in the moslem world, etc.. Or again try to bring them our version of democracy. They have to do both on their own when they decide to move into the 20th century, not even the 21st.

In fact all the poor US can do is sell weapons to these nasty types.

Again as do others and they can always get some from someone else, e.g. China, Russia, etc. But I'm sure you know that, we all do …

The truth is the modern USA no longer stands for freedom or anything save the all mighty dollar.

Much too biased, IMO, the USA is a Capitalist nation. And still stands for freedom in many places in the world. However, as we see in A'stan, Iraq, and many places in the moslem world, e.g. Libya, for one. They can only have "freedom" if they want it. No one can convince them otherwise, that has to be pretty clear. But in your own words:

What the west really needs from the US is leadership. It is the largest western democracy. It is the most powerful.

Hmmm ? Seems the USA still stand for freedom … Yes ?

America still leads the free world and advances western liberal values such as individual freedoms and democracy, but she is also war weary and loath to embark on costly military adventurism abroad. That's certainly understandable considering that two decades in the ME had achieved only a "modicum" of success from even the most optimistic of viewpoints.

I expect soft power and other non-military means like sanctions will be the primary vector of US foreign policy, with all their limitations.

Legion, if your attitudes and responses were used by US in 1941, the Pacific would be run by the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich would be celebrating its 87th anniversary. SS stormtroopers would be marching in anniversary parades equipped with US weapons whilst Hitler's successors would own swanky mansions in the US.

Fanatik, those soft power measures do not work especially these days where the US is scared to place a actual serous sanctions eg Russian sanctions were extremely limited and did nothing to stop Putin.

Under new US presidency, the US interns to go back to how it was pre-2017 yet that clearly wasn't working in the first place.

That the US eagerly supports Arabs commit massive atrocities over Yemen is proof of how little the US values freedom or human rights.

That the new U.S. regime promises to tone down action against China also tells you how much economics (ie $$$) matters more than everything else.

That the US tried or did topple secular regimes on Libya or Syria by supporting kojadis also tells you how screwed the US foreign policy mindset is.

Legion, if your attitudes and responses were used by US in 1941, the Pacific would be run by the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich would be celebrating its 87th anniversary. SS stormtroopers would be marching in anniversary parades equipped with US weapons whilst Hitler's successors would own swanky mansions in the US.

The situation in 1941 is not the situation today … And with nukes no one wants to start WWIII. That is a key difference between then and now. Until 1945 where the USA ended WWII.

I expect soft power and other non-military means like sanctions will be the primary vector of US foreign policy, with all their limitations.

We do this to a certain extent, and it is the safer move. But as we see it takes time and does not always workout as we would like or hope …

soft power measures do not work especially these days

I agree that sanctions are of limited utility as targeted nations have become quite adept at bypassing them and minimizing their effectiveness. Indeed, sanctioned nations like China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, etc. also find common ground to band together and help each other out in defiance of bullying from the West.

Nonetheless, wars for the sake of regime change to topple dictators in the names of democracy and freedom have failed in A'stan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, so you'll have to excuse the US for its reluctance in throwing its military weight around.

Nonetheless, wars for the sake of regime change to topple dictators in the names of democracy and freedom have failed in A'stan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, so you'll have to excuse the US for its reluctance in throwing its military weight around.

Amen ! +1

Interesting discussion.

What are we talking about when we say 'soft power'?

I don't believe economic sanctions are generally included. They are more semi-hard, as it were.

Soft power certainly DOES work. In fact, in the modern world it is the preeminent way for one state to influence another. The great thing about it is that it gets people on your side, thinking positive thoughts about you. This is why it is better than bombing people. That just pisses people off, including those you haven't bombed!

Don't believe me? Just look at China. Their power and influence is being felt all over the world these days, and they haven't had to bomb anybody…

AFAIK "soft-power" includes sanctions, embargos, tariffs, etc., anything that can influence a situation without warfare of any type. I am all for it in 99% of the situations. E.g. after 9/11 soft power would not be appropriate, IMO, and many others.

China has been expanding their influences pretty much around the world for decades and even longer. They are the 2d largest economy behind the USA. In the top 10. Russia does not make the list, even Italy and the state of TX has bigger economies that Russia.

The PRC/CCP uses all forms of espionage, subterfuge, etc., etc. to steal US tech, information, try to influence members of the US gov't, military, universities, etc. Many of the Chinese students in US universities whose tuitions are paid by the PRC gov't are in fact from their military and intel assets.

Watching the TV the DNI just reinforced what I just posted, even paraphrasing his comments. Now as we see it appears some in the US gov't in very high places has "ties" to the PRC/CCP, [and other foreign nations and entities] i.e. , and with the advent of them being in charge. They will not play hardball with the PRC/CCP. But go back to the older ways of only a few short (4)years ago. Which will put the US even more behind the 8 ball with China.

We will have to wait and see, but I think this is the situation that will occur. And it is not in the USA's favor obviously.

According to Joseph Nye, the guy who invented the term 'soft power', it is the ability to influence without the use of coercion.

Sanctions, embargoes etc are all coercive behaviour.

Soft power is the rest of the world watching Hollywood movies. It is attracting foreign students to your universities because they think it is a cool place to be. It is a rich country building basic sanitation in a poor country that has none, for free.

Soft power is making other people in other countries think "hey, those guys are really cool. I wish we could be more like them."

link

Cerdic,

Excellent stuff and thank you for correcting our incorrect usage of the term "soft power."

I will rephrase – weak coercive measures such as "targeted" sanctions are extremely weak. It's tokenistic behaviour. Eg Russia annexes Crimea and starts a war in Ukraine and the US puts sanctions on some businesses.

Other measures such as talking about alliances are also pointless when alliance members don't actually have any meaningful weight and aren't interested in investing in capabilities or making those capabilities available to the alliance.

So no doubt the US will talk up some big measures in SE Asia and everyone will agree. The SE Asians will then continue to expand deals and relations with China whilst continuing to not invest in their militaries except for jobs creation and crony capitalist programs. They still won't be able to track an errant airliner ala Flight MH370 let alone put up decent enough air and naval defence capabilities to deter the Chinese.

Same for Europe – they'll all meet at some swish resort, gorge on caviar and champagne, harp on about unified defence and then most of the member states will continue degrading their defence capability either by direct cuts or by creative accounting such as including veteran benefits and domestic policing costs into their NATO requirements or by pumping money into some domestic jobs creation scheme that doesn't really deliver anything (like the entire Polish naval ship building industry).

The situation in 1941 is not the situation today … And with nukes no one wants to start WWIII. That is a key difference between then and now. Until 1945 where the USA ended WWII.

Most of those horrible Arab dictatorships you Americans love so much don't have nukes.

Your excuses for American chumming it up with horrible brutal dictatorships that violate pretty much any moral values known to humanity are very, very weak.

You actually rewarded Pakistan and KSA for creating the jihadis that crashed airliners into your buildings. It's beyond insane and beyond corrupt.

Clearly Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon share values are worth a few thousand dead mangled Americans.

And as the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc etc keep proving – you can act aggressively without starting WWIII!

Most of those horrible Arab dictatorships you Americans love so much don't have nukes.

Some could get them, e.g. the Saudis from Pakistan. Or are trying to get them. Again that is now not WWII.

Your excuses for American chumming it up with horrible brutal dictatorships that violate pretty much any moral values known to humanity are very, very weak.

Again the USA is not alone. Does not make it right, but it is somehow is the way it works out, again Realpolitik, I'd think. And in may places in the world like the Mid East morality generally is not a consideration by the locals and those in charge.

Clearly Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon share values are worth a few thousand dead mangled Americans.

Sadly that sometimes seems the case. However, those companies build equipment for our troops to use. I still believe the USA does not send it's forces into harms way, just for the profit. But I know some here have some very skewed ideas and perceptions of the USA. And that is made clear almost daily but some here.

You actually rewarded Pakistan and KSA for creating the jihadis that crashed airliners into your buildings. It's beyond insane and beyond corrupt.

OMG let me find my tinfoil hat ! Beyond insane is a good description of that conspiracy theory …

And as the Chinese, Russians, Iranians etc etc keep proving – you can act aggressively without starting WWIII!

That is only because they know we won't start WWIII. We know how horrible it would be. But again they use our humanity against us. They are far more corrupt, immoral, etc., than the USA on any given day …

But as usual the USA is the Great Satan … by many here … So sometimes I think I am wasting my time posting. Some keeping saying the same things and I keep responding with the same thing. Isn't that something like the definition of insanity?

I also looked up the definition of "soft power" … so we all are on the same page. Seems I was a bit off … but I am old and forget somethings. But it is as Cedric said …

Soft Power
In politics (and particularly in international politics), soft power is the ability to attract and co-opt, rather than coerce (contrast hard power). In other words, soft power involves shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. A defining feature of soft power is that it is non-coercive; the currency of soft power includes culture, political values, and foreign policies. In 2012 Joseph Nye of Harvard University explained that with soft power, "the best propaganda is not propaganda", further explaining that during the Information Age, "credibility is the scarcest resource".

What are examples of soft and hard power?
• Concept of hard Power and Soft Power • In Hard Power the theme is coercion; use force, or provide payment as a means of persuasion. • In Soft Power, it is attracting and co-opting; indirectly convincing. • Examples of Hard Power and Soft Power: • Hard Power include military intervention or protection , economic sanctions , or reduction of trade barriers .

An example of soft power in foreign policy is cultural exchange programs that are run through NGO's that foster western democratic values.

The various (mostly failed) Arab Spring protests in the ME during the turn of the last decade resulted from soft power influence.

OMG let me find my tinfoil hat ! tinfoilhat Beyond insane is a good description of that conspiracy theory

What tinfoil hat conspiracy?

Al Qaeda was supported by both elements in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence. Both supported the Taliban (in fact ISI and the Pakistani Interior Ministry helped create the Taliban).

After 9-11, Pakistan was awarded billions in US defence aid including F-16s, AH-1 Cobras, P-3 maritime patrol aircraft etc. Saudi Arabia was offered full US support in terms of weapons, supporting jihadis in Syria and then launching a war in Yemen.

All of this is common knowledge.

Indeed here's some evidence showing links between members of Saudi royal family and AL Qaeda.

link

That is only because they know we won't start WWIII. We know how horrible it would be. But again they use our humanity against us.

Humanity? Seriously they use your greed against you like they use Australian greed against Australia.

They are far more corrupt, immoral, etc., than the USA on any given day …
But as usual the USA is the Great Satan … by many here … So sometimes I think I am wasting my time posting. Some keeping saying the same things and I keep responding with the same thing. Isn't that something like the definition of insanity?

For all its faults the US' global leadership is rather benign and preferable to the Chinese and Russians.

It is just the US has been doing a terrible job of it. The bad guys are gaining power and the US is losing it.

And I still prefer Russia and China to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar who are only one step removed from ISIS.

Al Qaeda was supported by both elements in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence. Both supported the Taliban (in fact ISI and the Pakistani Interior Ministry helped create the Taliban).

Yes, elements in those nations. Like elements[American Irish] in the USA supported the IRA. So should the UK have bombed places like Boston, NYC, etc. Because some, not all only a small percentage of the US population supported the IRA ? I'm sure some in the UK would have liked that. But as we know they wouldn't have got far with the USN, USAF and US Army ADA units.

And it is well known that the Pakistani ISI created the Taliban for their own geopolitical reasons/goals. So should the USA bomb Saudi Arabia and Pakistan because some there support terrorism? IIRC the US was surgically using drones to go after terrorists in Pakistan. But since they hide among the population there was complaints about collateral damage.

After 9-11, Pakistan was awarded billions in US defence aid including F-16s, AH-1 Cobras, P-3 maritime patrol aircraft etc. Saudi Arabia was offered full US support in terms of weapons, supporting jihadis in Syria and then launching a war in Yemen.

So the jihadis were using that equipment ? Or some in those counties, say e.g. 1/3 were supporting the jihadis, but not all…

To blame both of those entire countries could be considered a bit xeno/islamo-phobic … Yes ?

To quote … All of this is common knowledge.

Indeed here's some evidence showing links between members of Saudi royal family and AL Qaeda.

You mean the Saudi Royal family including extended about 1600 people. So who should we attack ? Or Heck just attack'm all ! Frakk it !

Humanity? Seriously they use your greed against you like they use Australian greed against Australia.

That is bit much and overstating the situation, IMO. But your suggestion is to sell no equipment to nations where some of their population supports terrorists/jihadis ? But again they will get what they want from Russia, China, etc., instead …

For all its faults the US' global leadership is rather benign and preferable to the Chinese and Russians.

From what I see some post here I'm not so sure … Good Heavens ! How did the USA make this far ?

It is just the US has been doing a terrible job of it. The bad guys are gaining power and the US is losing it.

Does the US gov't know all about this ??!? Geez the entire US gov't and military must all be run by idiots !!!

And I still prefer Russia and China to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who are only one step removed from ISIS.

All of Saudi Arabia, or just the royal family? But everyone always says only about 1% of islam are terrorists/jihadis. E.g. ISIS and AQ, etc.

So since the USA does not blame all of islam for what the 1% does. That is incorrect ? Wrong ? Would that be 1% of everybody in Saudis Arabia, or 1% of the royal family or both ? Is that the same Pakistan ?

Or are you going with that old Vietnam saying, "Kill them all and let God sort them out!"?

Holy Cow I'm a US right wing Army vet, old white man, and I don't think that is right !

Interestingly as I review this thread, I seem to be repeating what I had said before. Mostly in response to anti-American posts and comments … I'd say some are not reading my posts, but more likely they would rather just bash the USA. You have to have a bad guy right? Blaming the USA for everything bad that has happened on Earth including the extinction of the dinosaurs, the Great Flood, and income taxes …

Legion,

Your country conquered Iraq, bombed Libya, Syria and Serbia for less.

All I see in your posts are excuses for unethical behaviour and blind belief that the US of A is doing the right thing even if it means helping Saudis commit atrocities against civilians.

Somehow you think it's ok to run dozens of little forever wars to whack terrorists whilst ignoring the countries that fund terrorism and whose citizens have committed atrocities against you.

You believe the US is right to support these horrible regimes and also to let the Chinese and Russians do as they please.

Geez the entire US gov't and military must all be run by idiots !!!

Probably the first correct thing you've said.

Blaming the USA for everything bad that has happened on Earth including the extinction of the dinosaurs, the Great Flood, and income taxes …

For 70 years the US has presented itself as the defender of democracy, freedom, human rights and equality (except when its not).

For 30 years, the US has been the sole superpower and has wielded massive power.

Even with the rise of the Chinese and others, the US still has massive power.

Like all losers in history, there's a lot of agency and choice involved here. The constant dribble of terrible decisions the US has made since they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq are the US' alone.

It doesn't have to chum up with some of the worst countries on the planet to unleash jihadis or bomb weddings and funerals.

It doesn't have to randomly destroy countries like Libya for half baked reasons.

It doesn't have to allow the Chinese to take over the SC Sea.

It doesn't have to be involved in dozens of forever wars.

It doesn't have to embrace George Orwell's 1984 or Alduous Huxley's Brave New World as manuals on how to run anything.

But it choses to do all this.

Thus the fault is with the Americans. And if the Americans continue to mess up and go backwards, whilst China, Russia et al increase their power, then the west and western civilisation is doomed.

Well you have again said it all. As I said I keep repeating myself but it matters little … You and others can continue bash the USA, our military, et al. As it is clear no one is going to change their opinion regardless … It seems to have gone beyond a useful discussion from my POV.

To continue would be just a bigger waste of time … at least for me …