"US removes Patriot missile defenses from Saudi Arabia" Topic
43 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleMeet the Zombie Resistance Family!
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
SBminisguy | 13 Sep 2021 11:18 a.m. PST |
I don't understand the strategic logic of this move -- if a brighter mind than mine can comment?? Following on the heels of a chaotic and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan, the Biden team has removed US anti-missile systems from Saudi Arabia, which were helping defend them from Scud missile attacks coming from Yemen. This seems to signal diminished support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States as Iran's power once again begins to rise in the region due to US actions, and could also destabilize the Abraham Accords -- the growing rapprochement between Arab states in the region and Israel. According to the AP:
US pulls missile defenses in Saudi Arabia amid Yemen attacksDUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The U.S. has removed its most advanced missile defense system and Patriot batteries from Saudi Arabia in recent weeks, even as the kingdom faced continued air attacks from Yemen's Houthi rebels, satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press show. The redeployment of the defenses from Prince Sultan Air Base outside of Riyadh came as America's Gulf Arab allies nervously watched the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including their last-minute evacuations from Kabul's besieged international airport. While tens of thousands of American forces remain across the Arabian Peninsula as a counterweight to Iran, Gulf Arab nations worry about the U.S.'s future plans as its military perceives a growing threat in Asia that requires those missile defenses. Tensions remain high as negotiations appear stalled in Vienna over Iran's collapsed nuclear deal with world powers, raising the danger of future confrontations in the region. link |
Editor in Chief Bill | 13 Sep 2021 11:35 a.m. PST |
Apparently, the idea is that we can only cooperate with governments that are at our same level of advanced democracy. |
BattlerBritain | 13 Sep 2021 11:51 a.m. PST |
Haven't the Saudis just bought SAMs from the Russians? Or did I mis-interpret some other news report? |
SBminisguy | 13 Sep 2021 12:26 p.m. PST |
I'm not aware of the Saudis buying Russian SAMs (Turkey has), but maybe that's the next thing that will happen since they have recently signed a defense agreement with Russia: Saudi Arabia And Russia Sign New Military Agreement By RFE/RL staff – Aug 25, 2021, 11:30 AM CDTSaudi Arabia and Russia have signed a military cooperation agreement at an arms expo outside Moscow. Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman announced on Twitter on August 24 that he signed the agreement with Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin "aimed at developing joint military cooperation between the two countries." link |
SBminisguy | 13 Sep 2021 12:27 p.m. PST |
Apparently, the idea is that we can only cooperate with governments that are at our same level of advanced democracy. Or is the idea to completely dismantle the last Admin's security arrangements no matter the cost, and that by so doing it will somehow lead to more better peace?? |
John the OFM | 13 Sep 2021 12:36 p.m. PST |
When the policy of an Administration is to despise and reverse everything the previous administration did, thus is what you get. But the Former Guy did the exact same thing. How long before Israel gets thrown under the bus? In future years to come, what foreign government will trust us to any degree, seeing how everything gets reversed every 4 years? American foreign policy has always been chaotic, but it's gotten worse. |
rustymusket | 13 Sep 2021 1:18 p.m. PST |
I am not good enough at chess to anticipate too far in advance. The one thing I always regretted about my eventual death was that I would not know what happened after. Silly me, I read history. I already know. It just keeps going on as it has. |
StoneMtnMinis | 13 Sep 2021 2:28 p.m. PST |
> But the Former Guy did the exact same thing.< You mean canceling the scam that resulted in pallet loads of cash being delivered in the dead of night and approval to continue developing nuclear weapons to attack Israel? Seems to me a big difference there unless a person is trying to confuse the situation. |
HMS Exeter | 13 Sep 2021 2:58 p.m. PST |
I remember hearing once… History does not repeat itself, but it does often rhyme. |
Legion 4 | 13 Sep 2021 3:24 p.m. PST |
When the policy of an Administration is to despise and reverse everything the previous administration did, thus is what you get. Bingo ! But the Former Guy did the exact same thing. But much of those decisions were to the USA's plus side, IMO. How long before Israel gets thrown under the bus? As long This may be the case … IMO. In future years to come, what foreign government will trust us to any degree, seeing how everything gets reversed every 4 years? Bingo ! Hope this trend will end. But with the hatred from, for & to each side. As we see that is not going to happen anything. In the near future it will be the same. If one admin painted it white the other one will American foreign policy has always been chaotic, but it's gotten worse. Bingo !!!! Much, much worse … You mean canceling the scam that resulted in pallet loads of cash being delivered in the dead of night and approval to continue developing nuclear weapons to attack Israel? Spot on ! This pallet loads of cash to Iran certainly seems like a bad idea. |
aegiscg47 | 13 Sep 2021 3:47 p.m. PST |
Not trying to get political here, but this administration does have a lot of holdovers, former employees, and consultants from the Obama administration. At that time (according to a few analysts), it was thought what was needed is a strongman in the area; i.e., Iran that could get all the Arab nations in line, present a united front against Israel (sort of a useful foil), and make it easy for the U.S. to just have to deal with one leader who controlled all the rest. A very interesting idea and I can see why it would be attractive. I have a feeling that the current administration is thinking the same way. |
arealdeadone | 13 Sep 2021 4:15 p.m. PST |
Why subsidise KSA's defence? They have an air defence system that's far more advanced, far more dense than anything in western Europe and the USA. Literally most of Europe is at subsharan African levels compared to Saudi AD. Saudi Air Defence is its own service branch with 40,000 men and is equipped with advanced systems like Patriot and THAAD as well as older but upgraded I-HAWKS!
Indeed they spent $15 USD billion on the THAAD purchase alone. All backed up by an ultra advanced strike fighter fleet complete with AWACS and tanking. Indeed Saudi Arabian F-15SAs are more advanced than American F-15Es and Saudi Arabia has nearly as many F-15S/SAs are US has F-15Es (152 v 221-ish) alongside 60+ F-15C/D, 70 Eurofighter Typhoons and 80 upgraded Tornados! That's nearly 400 advanced combat aircraft (compared to say 225 for France and Germany or 160-ish for RAF). And before someone goes "but Saudis are bad soldiers" most advanced Saudi systems are often operated by western "advisers" And personally I think leave China's little Islamo-fascist oil supplier to their own devices.
|
arealdeadone | 13 Sep 2021 4:24 p.m. PST |
I'm not aware of the Saudis buying Russian SAMs (Turkey has), but maybe that's the next thing that will happen since they have recently signed a defense agreement with Russia: Saudis and UAE have both dealt extensively with Russia over the years. UAE even commissioned Russia to develop the (failed) Pantsir air defence system that has been chewed up in Syria and Libya. UAE also uses Russian Wagner group in Libya. |
SBminisguy | 14 Sep 2021 7:37 a.m. PST |
Why subsidise KSA's defence?They have an air defence system that's far more advanced, far more dense than anything in western Europe and the USA. Literally most of Europe is at subsharan African levels compared to Saudi AD. It's a matter of demonstrating commitment to an ally, one that's currently at war with the Iranian-backed Houthi faction that controls much of Yemen. Our actions signal our priorities, will and intent. *The US has told Iran it wants a nuke deal without any preconditions *The US has dropped sanctions on the Saudi's foes in Yemen *The US has chaotically retreated from a major commitment in Afghanistan to the celebration of its foes *The US has also told the Taliban, which are celebrating their victory over a US proxy ally, that it will send the Taliban almost $70 USD Million in aid money *The US pulls units out of Saudi Arabia That's why China's pressuring Taiwan -- you seeing this? You think America has your back? HAH! You're alone, better cut a deal with us before we just stomp you and take over while the US looks on impotently. This is how serious wars get started…I hope we're not in for a test of Hegemonic Stability Theory… link |
Thresher01 | 14 Sep 2021 1:49 p.m. PST |
Makes perfect sense to those that want to appease our enemies like the Iranians, Taliban and other jihadis, Chinese (personal, traitorous phone call from a sitting US general [at least temporarily] ), North Koreans, Central and South American drug cartels, and Russians (Putin got that EU pipeline approval he wanted, while the US one was canceled). I wonder what we'll do to appease the Norks next? |
Legion 4 | 14 Sep 2021 3:41 p.m. PST |
want to appease our enemies The Norks … If not Un will feel left out and do something more to get attention. Like the new thing about missiles that can reach Jap … 🗾🎌⛩ |
arealdeadone | 14 Sep 2021 3:52 p.m. PST |
It's a matter of demonstrating commitment to an ally An ally that is barbaric and only 1 step away from ISIS/Taliban in its attitudes. An ally whose citizens committed many terror attacks against US including 9-11. An ally that is single handily responsible for most of the world's Sunni terrorism thanks to its endemic funding of fundamentalist mosques and madrassas on a global scale etc. An ally that is involved in war crimes in Yemen. An ally that is so far beyond normal international behaviour, it has people hacked up in its embassies, chops people's heads off for witchcraft and adultery. Iran's not much better but Saudi Arab regime should have been destroyed decades ago, not supported.
By being an ally with such a regime, the US stance on human rights becomes a comedic joke not worth the paper the Bill of Rights is written on. And that takes out a lot of the soft power capability – you can't promote Russia, Iran and China as EVIL if your own allies are on par or worse (Russia and China are far closer to US values than Saudi Arabia). |
Thresher01 | 15 Sep 2021 1:39 a.m. PST |
The Iranians ARE evil too, ardo. They're the one stirring up the majority of the problems in the Middle East. Yes, the Saudis should be held to account too, especially for 9/11. I want to see the full intel, and ALL Americans deserve to see that. There shouldn't be a coverup in a free society, no matter how embarrassing to the Saudis and the Bush family, who should be held to account too for permitting so many of the Saudi royal family(ies) from fleeing the country right after 9/11. They should have been detained until we got the truth. Iran is NOT "any" better than the Saudis. China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, the Saudis, Norks, and others should be ostracized both economically, and socially, until they change their ways. The UN should be disbanded, and/or remade, and only those countries that offer free and democratic societies to their citizens should be permitted to join. Of course, of late, that may knock out many, many countries from membership, especially given some of their police-state lockdown policies. America needs to restart its energy economy, using yes, fossil fuels, in order to weaken the above countries, and we should boycott the countries listed above and encourage others to do so as well. |
Cerdic | 15 Sep 2021 2:16 p.m. PST |
Be a bit hard to ostracise China economically. EVERYTHING is made there. Even the stuff that doesn't say 'made in China' on it has bits from China in it… |
Thresher01 | 16 Sep 2021 11:41 p.m. PST |
Everything could be made in other places, and in a lot of them, it used to be. Perhaps not for the same low price, though in some cases, with a little investment and time in some new markets, perhaps for comparable prices, and yes, for even less in a few, since China has been raising prices significantly on a lot of items, like Star Wars figures. |
Cerdic | 17 Sep 2021 11:31 a.m. PST |
Could be. All you've got to do is persuade companies like Apple to spend the money. Best of luck… |
arealdeadone | 20 Sep 2021 6:35 p.m. PST |
Cedric, Thresher, I think you're underestimating the price of shifting production. Eg producing iPhones in USA would increase price from $650 USD-$850 to $2,000 USD based on 2018 prices. link Personally as a pro-environmental socialist I am all for it as it would reduce demands for polluting consumerism whilst creating demand for local employees wh0 can then push for better conditions and wages. Personally I think it's a shame COVID didn't result in massive systemic change and the destruction of neo-liberal capitalism.
If a cold war with China is what it takes to destroy international capitalism, then I am all for it! |
SBminisguy | 22 Sep 2021 8:57 a.m. PST |
If a cold war with China is what it takes to destroy international capitalism, then I am all for it! And then it gets replaced by International Fascism! Good choice, eh??? |
jamemurp | 22 Sep 2021 10:36 a.m. PST |
And then it gets replaced by International Fascism! Good choice, eh??? What does that even mean? Fascism gets thrown around alot, but as a historical phenomena, it seems to have occurred predominately in struggling western nations and subsumed the capitalist models into itself while attacking socialism/communist/bolshevism/etc. In fascist states like Spain, Italy, and Germany, it was intense nationalism, not internationalism, that drove fascistic rhetoric in direct opposition to leftist internationalism. Fascism at the time tended to attack immigrants, foreigners, and anyone who did not represent the fascist ideal. Likewise, international cooperation was seen as weakness if not used as a ploy for military expansionism. Personally I think it's a shame COVID didn't result in massive systemic change and the destruction of neo-liberal capitalism.If a cold war with China is what it takes to destroy international capitalism, then I am all for it! Neo-liberal capitalism did see massive shocks from COVID, but western governments have shown no hesitancy about throwing money at the top to keep it going. Interestingly, in the US there was no real backlash for the trillions used for propping up banks and investors, but expansion of unemployment benefits has been consistently under attack, despite it showing real economic benefits and places where it was cut showing little or even negative economic growth. It is certainly increasing pressure on a working class that has shown no wage growth since the 1970s. Unfortunately, most methods of worker organization and mobilization have largely been stripped away and alot of hostility seems to be misdirected. SBminisguy is correct, I think, when he posits that a more fascistic model *could* replace the capitalist one in the US. Indeed, the shifting of a majority of the Republican party to a cult of personality and grievance the is outright rejecting democratic institutions certainly and anyone who questions their bombastic leader certainly looks that could be a possibility. Since the only political opposition they face is a largely capitalist captured Democratic party that seems intent on ignoring (and in some case attacking) their more progressive wing, it unlikely they will produce the positive changes in material conditions that are necessary. Likewise, they seem institutionally ineffective on many levels when not actively embracing the positions of their political opponents (for example, see how their national leadership continued to support expansive surveillance and military power under Trump even as the proclaimed he should be impeached or how Biden has continued border actions under orders of the previous administration). I would posit, however, that given the monumental failure of the January 6 insurrection, a direct grab seems unlikely. More likely is something akin to Bush v. Gore where institutional systems are used to subvert democratic goals, most likely through manipulation of electoral votes on the state level through restrictive voting laws combined with judicial challenges of losses (though this avenue is much less likely to produce the desired result in all but the closest cases- again Bush v. Gore). The US has a long history of rule such anti-democratic patterns and such methods do not threaten the stability of the economic systems like an outright coup or revolt. It is also not clear how a cold war with China would destroy international capitalism when China itself has embraced a hybridized capital model and has made itself essential to global capitalism. It is the largest trading nation and also the largest recipient of foreign direct investment, surpassing the United States in 2020. Consider that China is looking at around a 10% GDP growth from 2019 to 2022, whereas the US is struggling to get back to 2019 levels. In November of 2020 China's trade surplus with the U.S. was 70% greater than it had been in January 2017, when Donald Trump took office. Meanwhile, American consumers have paid for the higher tariffs, because the average prices of Chinese exports haven't decreased. China's GDP is forecast to grow 7% to 8% this year. And like any growing capitalist nation, this is producing huge inequality. China is still in the process of building a social safety net that is largely undefined and underfunded, and it has no tax on personal capital gains. In 2020 China had more billionaires than the U.S. did, and it outpaces the U.S. three to one in producing them. China also has a tremendous poverty problem, with about a quarter of their population in poverty. That is higher than Brazil. For comparison, the US poverty rate is just under 12%. The Chinese/US relationship is complex and often contradictory. However, there is no way to decouple their economies without massive instability and fallout. Short sighted "trade wars" have not produced meaningful gains for the US. What does this gave to do with Saudi Arabia? Funny you should ask. China is Saudi Arabia's top economic trading partner because China is the biggest importer of Saudi oil. In 2019, the KSU and China announced a $10 USD billion deal for a petro complex in China. We also know that KSA has been buying Chinese ballistic missiles sin 2007 (they openly displayed them in 2014). We also know that KSA used Chinese howitzers and drones against the Houthi in Yemen and were granted a licenses to produce CASC Rainbow drones in 2017. In 2019, China and KSA held their first joint naval drills. Finally, we know China has a nuclear deal with KSA "for peaceful purposes". |
Steve Wilcox | 22 Sep 2021 11:37 a.m. PST |
Finally, we know China has a nuclear deal with KSA "for peaceful purposes". YouTube link:) |
SBminisguy | 22 Sep 2021 12:19 p.m. PST |
What does that even mean? Fascism gets thrown around alot, but as a historical phenomena, it seems to have occurred predominately in struggling western nations and subsumed the capitalist models into itself while attacking socialism/communist/bolshevism/etc. Fascism is a particular thing. All Communist movements also resorted to heavy nationalist appeals (For the Motherland! Por la Patria!), despite the utopian appeal to the International. And yes, Fascist movements fought Communist movements for the same Socialist-leaning audience base. Little different from how Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyites vied for control as the "true" path to Communism. And as a particular thing, Fascism is clearly a socialist ideology, as expressed by and developed by Marxist thinkers like Giovanni Gentile. Their model of getting to the Worker's Paradise was to control the economy not through direct appropriation and management like Marxists and Communists advocated, but by co-opting and controlling the industrial class through Corporatism -- in which the all the interests of the economy were represented by the Labor Unions (the workers) and State-approved industrialists (those who managed the means of production), all controlled by the State. Mussolini himself had been an avid Marxist, editor of the socialist worker's daily, "Avanti!" (Forwards), but also came to feel that the International (global socialism) could not work – but that socialism for Italians, a type of National Socialism could work. So he created a *national* Socialist movement he called "Fascism" -- named after the baton of power wielded by an ancient Roman field general or consul, the Fasces. This was a rod fashioned of small sticks, bound together to be strong -- representing the different interests of Rome working as one. Fascism's "sticks" were comprised of Socialist groups and Labor Unions. The controlling core economic principle of Fascism is Corporatism -- the control of the economy and thus the nation via control over industrial leaders and the Unions. Rather than sieze corporations and run them from the State, as in Communism, Fascism controlled industry by co-opting and forcing industrial leaders to bend to the will of the Socialist State and become part of the ruling party structure. The working class was led and controlled by the State through the Unions. So under Corporatism, companies and labor Unions become part of the State's power apparatus -- those Unions and companies that did not bend to the will of the State were crushed. The same with other traditional social structures, like the Church -- those who supported were ok, those who did not were crushed. Property was also allowed so long as it didn't conflict with the needs of the State, and the Individual was subordinate to the needs of the State -- true freedom, according to Mussolini, came from surrender of the Individual to the State. What we call today "Crony Capitalism" is in effect a form of neo-Fascism, in which Corporate interests and Big Labor unions marry the State to control society and get their needs met. Take a look at how American companies virtue signal to show alliance with the party that advocates a strong central State -- like Nike's choosing political sides and adopting leftist activism to promote its brand image. Since Nike adopted Kaepernick as a brand ambassador, protesting the US and the American flag, the Betsy Ross flag ban last year or so, Nike has not been the subject of organized political protests against its continued sweatshop abuses. So basically the Left intimidated Nike until it caved and adopted its positions – and now it is an "approved" company that spouts the Leftist party line and is no longer attacked. We see this kind of tactic being used across the economy. Google, Facebook, Twitter and their censorship in support of the State, the list is lengthy. They get their rent-seeking needs met -- no more heat on bad behavior (like Apple using slaves in China), defacto monopoly market status upheld, tax breaks and bail outs, sole source contracts and a revolving door between the Boardroom and the Cabinet room in the White House. Classic Fascism. And China is 10x worse, far far far down the road of Fascism it embarked on in the 1990s despite still calling itself Communist. SBminisguy is correct, I think, when he posits that a more fascistic model *could* replace the capitalist one in the US. Indeed, the shifting of a majority of the Republican party to a cult of personality and grievance the is outright rejecting democratic institutions certainly and anyone who questions their bombastic leader certainly looks that could be a possibility. I think you're getting that wrong. Just liking a charismatic or bombastic leader doesn't = Fascism. Teddy Roosevelt was certainly charismatic and bombastic and had quite the following -- not a Facsist. And it's rather odd for a Fascist movement to call for full and open audits of elections, deregulation and less State control of the economy, lower taxes and spending, more local control and advocating class/gender/race-neutral merit-based policies. More likely is something akin to Bush v. Gore where institutional systems are used to subvert democratic goals, that's what's been going on for years. Trump was a push back to this Institutional "Establishment" – imperfect to be sure, but only he could withstand the withering fire of the Establishment's media and social media/big tech allies. Interestingly, in the US there was no real backlash for the trillions used for propping up banks and investors, See the above. Trump was as outsider, threatened the gravy train -- and those riding the train didn't like that. To paraphrase a song – Trump fought the Establishment, and the Establishment won. |
jamemurp | 22 Sep 2021 12:25 p.m. PST |
It amazes me how worked up people get about Iran, to the point of encouraging war and assassinations but completely ignore KSA, who funded terrorists that attacked the US and is the world's largest state sponsor of Salafist jihadism (IE Al Quaeda, ISIL, Al-Nusra Front, etc), who is almost certainly closer to a nuclear weapon. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers as well as bin Laden were Saudi and it was Iran and Iraq we decided were the bad guys. |
jamemurp | 22 Sep 2021 1:10 p.m. PST |
What we call today "Crony Capitalism" is in effect a form of neo-Fascism, in which Corporate interests and Big Labor unions marry the State to control society and get their needs met. Wholly agree, even if I disagree with the example you give. Crony capitalism = capitalism (there is no other kind- capitalism encourages accumulation of wealth and power into a few hands if left to its own devices. Ada Smith recognized this!). Nike did not "cave to leftists", it responded to what it saw as it biggest market. That's what capitalism does- it rewards profit over any sort of ideology. If more customers had tilted the other way, so would they (see business in the 1950's). Google, Facebook, Twitter and their censorship in support of the State, the list is lengthy. I agree, but again, I think your reasoning is a bit off. Facebook and Twitter, for example have openly favored right wing view points to avoid criticism and Facebook especially has been a hotbed of disinformation and facilitated actual genocide. Again, this is a function of seeking personal benefits as you point out, not a consistent ideology. And China is absolutely closer to a fascist state than any sort of ideological communism. But, again, thoroughly capitalist. The problem is actors under capitalism act for profit and lead to increasing consolidation of wealth and power. Corporatism is the very definition of modern capitalism. Capitalism as an economic system is perfectly fine with authoritarian governance. China is a perfect example. See the above. Trump was as outsider, threatened the gravy train -- and those riding the train didn't like that. To paraphrase a song – Trump fought the Establishment, and the Establishment won. A millionaire real estate snake oil salesman who rose to new prominence through media promotion (The Apprentice) is hardly an outsider. He is a grifter riding a tide of resentment. Trump had no intent to dismantle the existing power structure- he just wanted to benefit him. He was savvy enough to recognize that the superficial corporate mass media we have in this country will give you free coverage so long as you are outrageous enough and bold enough to push the boundaries on a rickety political system designed in the 1700s. He spout irrational and contradictory positions and his supporters continue to eat it up because it superficially seems to attack "the Deep State". It is a redirection of angers from a failing empire into blame of others. He used the classic calling cards of fascist propaganda rallying against elites, liberals, foreigners and found boogeymen is supposed socialist/Communist infiltrators. I am not saying Trump is a fascist. I am saying he showed how easily one could seize power. He is just a boor that longs to be accepted by the elite and rallies against anyone who shows him insufficient deference/platitudes. He is a symptom of a larger dysfunction that traces it's roots the the entrenchment of anti-democratic principles in our founding and a populace that values celebrity far too highly. Pretty much the same stuff that has plagued any attempt at democratic governance. Despite your lengthy attempts to use Mussolini as an example yoking Socialism and Fascism, I think you should really take into account how populism is an essential tool of fascist movements and each are particularized to their time and location. Fascists in Germany and Italy certainly did coopt some of the socialist and communist messaging to appeal to the working classes, but it was largely superficial. Hitler opposed adding Socialist in the name of the party and it was done to draw support away from those groups. Those fascist movements rose largely as cults of personality and socialist empowerment of the masses has no place in the authoritarian power structures they implement. Regardless, what happened in early 20th century Italy or Germany will not directly map to 2021 USA (if a group with as many veterans and street fighters as Germany had been present Jan 6, for example, that would have been game over for what passes for liberal democracy in the USA). It is why trying to apply 1 for 1 to modern politics doesn't work any better than 1930's observers trying to apply 1880s politics. What you can see as a continuing trend, however , is the wealthy and powerful continually attempting to preserve their positions by manipulating the working classes. Common tactics include tying themselves to cultural identities, appealing to historical mythology that venerates "traditional values", and trying to blame others, especially the poor, foreigners, and social outgroups. Also common are revolutionaries who garner popular support dissatisfied with previous regimes who, if successful, then proceed to install themselves as the new oppressive regime. |
SBminisguy | 22 Sep 2021 1:35 p.m. PST |
The difference is that Iran officially and overtly funds terrorism, the Saudis unofficially and covertly encouraged it. And while the Saudis have stopped and become part of western JTFs, Iran continues to openly support terrorism. And we have a chance to mitigate the Saudis (or did until recently), none with Iran. |
arealdeadone | 22 Sep 2021 1:50 p.m. PST |
KSA hasn't changed one bit. They continue to fund madrassas and mosques that promote wahhabism or other extreme Sunni ideologies. They continue to fund jihad and terrorists where it suits them eg Syria. |
Legion 4 | 22 Sep 2021 3:26 p.m. PST |
It amazes me how worked up people get about Iran, to the point of encouraging war It amazes me that some cannot see that Iran can be a threat. More to Israel than anyone else. Again a fundamentalist theocracy, that among other things, chat "Death to America", daily I've heard. They Don't need nukes. who is almost certainly closer to a nuclear weapon Then the Paks give the KSA nukes and you have to 2 supporters [Iran & KSA] of terrorism worldwide now with nukes. What is not to understand ? Al Quaeda, ISIL, Al-Nusra Front, etc) Yes and if one notices we have killed a lot of those types. I.e. the GWoT. Which is still not over … or will be for a very long time. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers as well as bin Laden were Saudi Old news… did the Leadership of KSA have anything to do with supporting those terrorists ? I think they might have but that secret will never be released anytime soon. was Iran and Iraq we decided were the bad guys. Iranians did overrun our embassy in '79 IIRC. Took our people hostages. I do remember as a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101, going on Alert when the US rescue mission failed. That makes Iran our enemy … Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90. The Coalition of many NATO and other forces. Were tasked to get the Iraqi's out of Kuwait … That made Iraq our enemy… Yes … the Sunni KSA are not good guys either. But at least they pose a threat to Shia Iran. We had no need for their KSA oil. And that can happen again. I just don't think the US leadership is now or ever before willing to give up support for the KSA. For a number of reasons. However, GWII was a bad move … |
arealdeadone | 22 Sep 2021 4:29 p.m. PST |
Yep and Saudis smashed airliners into your buildings in New York and Washington. This fact is universally forgotten by all Americans. As for Iraq being your enemy post 1991, it didn't have to be that way. You didn't have to bear a grudge. Iraq could have been reintegrated – Saddam was not a lunatic.
Instead the US blew up the whole middle east and completely destabilised it because it had a grudge again Saddam. Oh and this little Iraqi adventure empowered Iran as you took out their main rival. Much like the little Libyan adventure empowered dozens of jihadis and terrorist groups and destabilised large parts of Africa that were already barely keeping their heads above water and opened yet more refugee flood gates into Europe. Meanwhile the Americans just let the Chinese takeover the SC Sea. US high level foreign policy and defence types are about as rational and intelligent as a heavily inbred junkie high school drop out tripping on acid.
|
Tortorella | 22 Sep 2021 6:18 p.m. PST |
It is hard for me not to see Facism as nationalistic and regressive, headed by a cult-like figure obsessed with himself, authoritarian with perhaps some left over sham democratic institutions, love of the military, expert at propaganda and misdirection. there are various degrees of this, but that's it for me. Marxism, socialism, etc, have been used as fronts by autocratic leaders, as in communism, or made into bogeymen for Facists to blame. Either way, they don't work as they were intended or in any other version. |
arealdeadone | 22 Sep 2021 7:01 p.m. PST |
Social democracy is where it's at in my opinion. And that doesn't mean no free market, merely regulated free market and focus on natural benefits to not just the shareholders. Also believe in government control of key industries eg petrochemicals, utilities, education, health. This is what the Europeans and to lesser degree Australia had up to the 1980s.
|
SBminisguy | 23 Sep 2021 6:59 a.m. PST |
Crony capitalism = capitalism (there is no other kind- capitalism encourages accumulation of wealth and power into a few hands if left to its own devices. Yes and no. Crony capitalism can only exist when the government has enough power to pick winners and losers, rather than the government serving as referee. Crony Capitalism is not the same thing as Free Market Capitalism. Capitalism is essentially an evolution of the ancient Barter system and it works *with* human nature, not against it. It is based on free association and choice. And yes, part of human nature is to want to have their needs met by getting stuff, which can be tempered by the proper exercise of checks and balances – enough government power to reign in anti-competitive companies and practices, but not so much to be in charge -- and then let the Free Market decide. And the Economy, btw, is just a shorthand for the aggregate activities of hundreds of millions of people making their own decisions on what to buy, what not to buy, how to spend their time -- whatever they choose to do. And the key word is *choice." In a free market, aka "capitalism," the basis is your freedom to choose what you do and do not want to do. It is this core right to choose that fuels competition -- I like this restaurant's food or service over the other one, so I choose to go there. This triggers the other place to try and win my business, win *my choice* by offering better service, or pricing, etc. With the proper legal checks and balances in place you end up with the most opportunity and the most choice for the most people possible. Yes, some folks will make bad choices or have bad luck, so the free citizen should *choose* how to help those people -- like in Sweden where people choose to have a big social safety net funded by high taxes on relatively free market activity. That is, Sweden is not Socialist, it just does a lot of social welfare spending. But Capitalism can really only function in a society with respect for private property, individual liberty, limitations on government interference and transparency. As you move away from that you morph into Cronyism/Corporatism, Fascism, and Mercantilism. Eventually you end up with China. So free market Capitalism is all based on individual choice, and this drives invention and innovation and has lifted billions of people out of poverty around the world, led to reduced childhood mortality and longer lived people. By every quantitative and qualitative measure Capitalism is a net positive for humanity. Despite your lengthy attempts to use Mussolini as an example yoking Socialism and Fascism, I think you should really take into account how populism is an essential tool of fascist movements and each are particularized to their time and location. There is zero difference between Mussolini's populism and Stalin's populism -- or Castro, or Mao, or any other charismatic totalitarian-minded leader. And what kind of populism matters -- is your populist demagogue preaching that he's gonna reduce taxes and government power for the good of all, or that the rich must pay and the government should have more power to make it all better now for the good of all?? Remy says it better than I can – YouTube link |
SBminisguy | 23 Sep 2021 7:50 a.m. PST |
Despite your lengthy attempts to use Mussolini as an example yoking Socialism and Fascism, Attempts?? Read up on Benny the Lampost Decoration: 1. His mom & dad were committed Marxists. 2. Benny was a Marxist for much of his life 3. He became a leader in the Italian Socialist Party 4. He was the editor of Avanti!, the Italian Socialist Party newspaper So he was a big believer in the International Socialist movement…until WW1. See, according to Marxist/Socialist thinkers WW1 shouldn't have happened. The Workers of the World should have united and torn down the Bourgeoise. But the didn't. Instead Italian Socialists fought for Italy, Austrian Socialists fought for Austria, etc. So the International was discredited. The 'ol fashioned Socialism he idealized didn't work. So Global Socialism was a failure, but Benny came to believe that Italian socialism could work -- that National Socialism was the way to go, and he consumed the works of Socialist thinkers who advocated this path. So when you see Benny saying he's an enemy of Socialism, he means the International -- that other form of Socialism, 'cause in his mind it was a failure. Only *his* Socialism was the true path -- just like Maoists would kill Stalinists over whose Communism was the true path. There are only semantic differences between much of Fascism and Communism, and differences in how you arrive at total control of society -- not in the control itself, or in the socialist control of the economy. They are two sides of the same coin. |
jamemurp | 23 Sep 2021 9:51 a.m. PST |
Crony capitalism can only exist when the government has enough power to pick winners and losers, rather than the government serving as referee. Crony Capitalism is not the same thing as Free Market Capitalism. So capitalism can never fail- it can only be failed? Free Market Capitalism absolutely does not work- read some basic Adam Smith. Capitalism require intervention or you just end up with a few big monopoly players. Moreover, we have seen what unregulated capital markets do- child labor, market crashes, etc. Laissez Faire economics have repeatedly failed and modern capitalism only exists because of generous injections of public funds. Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect no government interference, especially in a model like the US where money buys government influence. Corporations blast any illusion of free markets and small business to ashes. Modern capitalism *is* corporatism no matter what some theoretical ideal capitalism might have produced. But Capitalism can really only function in a society with respect for private property, individual liberty, limitations on government interference and transparency. As you move away from that you morph into Cronyism/Corporatism, Fascism, and Mercantilism. Eventually you end up with China. Capitalism will inevitably erode respect for private property, individual liberty, limitations on government interference and transparency as wealth concentrates into the hands of the few. Mercantilism was the precursor to Capitalism, not a variant of it. So free market Capitalism is all based on individual choice, and this drives invention and innovation and has lifted billions of people out of poverty around the world, led to reduced childhood mortality and longer lived people. By every quantitative and qualitative measure Capitalism is a net positive for humanity. Source? This ignores the tremendous costs of capitalism including famines, horrific oppression throughout the developing world, etc. Even if we assume that the post WW2 boom of the west was because of capitalism (and not in spite of it), by the 1970s, the model is struggling and currently is collapsing except in authoritarian areas like China. Economics is not religion and better models can be developed. We generally except that an authoritarian/autocrat/dictator ruling over an impoverished mass is an undesirable power model, yet unrestrained capitalism creates exactly that in the form of the billionaire who then in turn exercise undue influence on governance. We have seen that from the industrial robber barons to their current tech equivalents. The solution is not to further erode the few checks on their power, but further democratize power structures and wealth. It is also notable that in your defense of capitalism ignoring its costs that you do not apply the same standard to say the USSR or China. The USSR went from being a feudal monarchy to a world industrial power and the same is true of China to an even larger degree. It also ignores that the largest mobilization that propelled the US into it's post WW2 mode required an enormous nationalization of labor and switch to wartime command economy and pretty much abandonment of capitalistic market principles. The US military remain a fountain of centralized power and socialized benefits not extended to the general population. How does one reconcile this with a defense of unregulated capitalism? There is zero difference between Mussolini's populism and Stalin's populism -- or Castro, or Mao, or any other charismatic totalitarian-minded leader. This shows a staggering level of historical ignorance and simplification. I can't begin to explain how facile it is to equate the rise of Italian fascism to Castro's overthrow of the Bautista regime or how either is like Mao's rise in anything but the most superficial of ways. Appropriate that your best support is an entertainer who seems to not understand South and Central American history very well and how the US has actively targeted anything that might remotely empower workers and supported murderous right wing dictatorships to protect "US interests" (IE cheap labor and resource exploitation- so much for free markets). Pretty typical of propaganda that mocks Guevara but is silent on Pinochet, Batista, etc. And what kind of populism matters -- is your populist demagogue preaching that he's gonna reduce taxes and government power for the good of all, or that the rich must pay and the government should have more power to make it all better now for the good of all?? This directly contradicts your previous statement! You can't say they are all the same and then turn around and say the kind of populism matters. Populism, by definition, is the framing of a stance "for the people" and generally in opposition to a perceived elite. Now, I would certainly agree that their are different kinds of populism (right wing and left wing populism for example)and that undercuts your earlier statement. Your example is a poor one, however, as it is an extremely narrow statement that seems roughly aligned with current US political parties. The reason it is a poor example is that neither party is particularly populist, but both do have individuals and factions that lean into populism and it would be more meaningful to look at how those actors specifically employ it vs some broad oversimplification. James Waterman Wise Jr., seeing the rise of fascism observed in 1936 that fascism would not come with a "shirt" or "insignia" but "wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution." As you said earlier, fascism is a specific thing. Trying to conflate it with other ideologies (as opposed to pointing out similarities or difference) is not productive. Political ideology is also very much a function of circumstance (including time period), which is why I think trying to directly apply labels between eras is not great. Rather, I think it is far better to draw comparisons and show development of ideas. That is why I think calling any 21st century American president a fascist is so meaningless and ultimately inaccurate. It's like calling him a Confederate (and only slightly less silly than calling him a Socialist or Communist)- even if shares many of the same reprehensible views, the context and situation is different. America's relationship with fascism is complicated. Hitler was greatly inspired by American segregation laws, for example. In many ways we have always had things that mirror elements of fascism- white supremacy, veneration of patriotic myth and national identity, extensive propaganda, but we also have had things that don't fit so well such as (more or less) democratic elections, greater protections of free speech, checks on government power, etc. Sometimes we have veered closer (persecution of Communists/leftists, racial minorities, internment of citizens) sometimes we veer away (Civil Rights Act, greater tolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, Medicare/Medicaid). What is troubling is the post 9/11 expansion of powers of the presidency combined with a veneration of celebrity for it's own sake creates an unprecedented situation for a demagogue to gain power and do enormous damage. Trump was an illustration of that possibility (though didn't due near the damage of his two predecessors) and the erosion of safeguards and norms. It is baffling to me that Americans are not more troubled both by Trump's authoritarian and erratic actions as well as those taken by his subordinates, such as generals providing false information to the sitting president and apparently disregarding lawful orders. Both of these are enormous problems and show a discouraging lack of concern for the integrity of American governance so long as it is "my side" that wins. GWB post 9/11 is probably an even better example of how an fascist could easily seize power as he was initially unpopular, won only because of actions of the Supreme Court, but ended up with broad support across parties leading to massive expansion of executive power (Just to be clear GWB was very, very bad, but still not a fascist- elections continued and he did leave office after his second term). So when you see Benny saying he's an enemy of Socialism, he means the International -- that other form of Socialism, 'cause in his mind it was a failure. So he wasn't a socialist anymore because he saw it fail. Yes, former ideologues can turn on their ideology. Weird point. There are only semantic differences between much of Fascism and Communism, and differences in how you arrive at total control of society -- not in the control itself, or in the socialist control of the economy. They are two sides of the same coin. This is garbage. There is no way you can legitimately argue Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were the same. They both may have been terrible in different ways, but this is absurd. At best you can say they were both dictators and unlimited consolidation of power is generally horrible, but Germany's and the USSR's history, power structure, and economy were not even remotely the same and this further ignores post WW2/ Cold War USSR. Absolutely terrible historical analysis. |
Legion 4 | 23 Sep 2021 4:56 p.m. PST |
This fact is universally forgotten by all Americans. You obviously did not see what when on in the USA on 9/11. Even in the media it was very heavily covered. The kid may not remember, they could care less. But you are very wrong to think everyone in the USA forgot about 9/11.
As for Iraq being your enemy post 1991, it didn't have to be that way. You didn't have to bear a grudge. Iraq could have been reintegrated – Saddam was not a lunatic.Instead the US blew up the whole middle east and completely destabilised it because it had a grudge again Saddam. Oh and this little Iraqi adventure empowered Iran as you took out their main rival. Much like the little Libyan adventure empowered dozens of jihadis and terrorist groups and destabilised large parts of Africa that were already barely keeping their heads above water and opened yet more refugee flood gates into Europe. I totally agree that GW II was a grave error, in retrospect… As was many other things that occurred in Mid East & of course A'stan. I have said this many times. Again we should have let the what the CIA first though. Don't arm the Muj. Let both sides bleed each other out. Something some don't get … the Russians are more like the West than the Muj, Taliban, AQ, etc. Meanwhile the Americans just let the Chinese takeover the SC Sea. The USA would not engage too strongly with the PRC/CCP with all the economic ties, etc. Another error to get so dependent on the CCP. US high level foreign policy and defence types are about as rational and intelligent as a heavily inbred junkie high school drop out tripping on acid. A bit harsh, but colorful. As we know you have a predilection to bash the USA. So much of what you say is biased. As am I BTW … |
SBminisguy | 23 Sep 2021 5:26 p.m. PST |
This is garbage. There is no way you can legitimately argue Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany were the same. They both may have been terrible in different ways, but this is absurd. At best you can say they were both dictators and unlimited consolidation of power is generally horrible, but Germany's and the USSR's history, power structure, and economy were not even remotely the same and this further ignores post WW2/ Cold War USSR. Absolutely terrible historical analysis. Ahhh…but those are your words, not mine. I was comparing Fascism to Communism, both were murderously bloody and oppressive. But let's see how they were comparable in their economic policies. They both exercised State control of the economy USSR – direct seizure of industry. the State decided what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to source materials, at what prices and to whom to sell. It also assigned every worker to his job and fixed his wages. All unions were banned except for the State-controlled All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Germany – indirect seizure of industry via the National Ministry of the Economy. The State told businesses and shops what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It also assigned every worker to his job and fixed his wages. It also co-opted business owners into the Party via threats of punishment. There was only a veneer of an actual market left. All unions were banned except for the State-controlled German Labour Front. Here's a quote from the mustachio'd maniac that, unless you knew who said it, could have come from a modern street protest… "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" |
arealdeadone | 23 Sep 2021 5:43 p.m. PST |
[QUOTE]The State told businesses and shops what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It also assigned every worker to his job and fixed his wages.[/QUOTE] You do realise most western countries did this and still do a lot of it? Most western countries industrialised because governments organised it through plans, allocation of land, funding grants, invested in relevant infrastructure etc etc. Prices were regulated through subsidies and actual pricing boards, especially for essentials like food. Most western wages are limited at the bottom level (though bottom limits are also often top limits eg here in Australia). I would argue it's the only sane way to run an economy and keep it from falling prey to the worst excesses of capitalism.
All unions were banned except for the State-controlled All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. Again not that dissimilar to the west whereby unions were regulated by government. Here in Australia they did a sly thing in the 1980s whereby the supposed centre left (really neoliberal right wingers) completely destroyed the power of the unions. Most industrial action in Australia is now illegal and what is left is highly regulated. Incidentally wages growth has been stagnant for 15 years now, with per capita recessions common. "A deliberate part of the economic infrastructure" as our ex-Finance minister, Matthias Corman, once said. |
Steve Wilcox | 24 Sep 2021 8:04 a.m. PST |
Here's a quote from the mustachio'd maniac that, unless you knew who said it, could have come from a modern street protest…"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" That's Gregor Strasser, not Hitler: "Did Adolf Hitler Say That Nazis Are ‘Mortal Enemies of the Present Capitalist Economic System'? While attributed to Hitler, this "leftist" quote actually came from one of Hitler's political rivals. link I can't remember where I read it, but someone once said, the Socialism part of National Socialism died on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. |
Legion 4 | 25 Sep 2021 11:15 a.m. PST |
|
|