LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Kubra]

"Realpolitik" is what gets the US in PR problems in the first place.

Such is the nature of the game. No matter who we support in regions like that they're gonna be awful and it's gonna be bad for PR.

Not necessarily. We could have, say, upheld the nuclear deal as-is and warmed relations with Iran. Most of the gulf states aren't particularly hostile to the place, insofar as they're not friendlier than is necessary for safety with the Saudi's, who are an actual potential threat to their independence. With the sunni revival petering out in the few contested areas (save turkey), such a pivot would give the US footing with a different ally with much better potential PR, without compromising US influence in the gulf.
I mean, it'd be a problem for turkey and israel, but an ally generating more problems than their worth is a shit ally.

[Kubra]

A Nazi backed President is currently in office, clearly it's the peaceful reformist socialists who are the problem.

It's a bit disingenuous to call Trump a Nazi-backed president given that Nazis do not comprise the majority of his supporters. Even the broader category of white supremacist only covers a relatively small number of people.

Yemen is not a Salafi country.

The Houthis are not Salafis, but they are Islamists. The Saudis are both Salafis and Islamists - at least when they're not drinking expensive booze behind closed doors.

And that's the big problem in the houthi conflict: the houthi's are a hard folk to root for. Imagine being a liberal democrat taking sides in the vietnamese invasion of cambodia: one side is getting bombed and the other is not, but damn, I mean it's pol pot on the defensive, and it's hard to just say "well, they're not necessarily the aggressor..."

[Democratic Communist Federation]

The Houthis are not Salafis, but they are Islamists. The Saudis are both Salafis and Islamists - at least when they're not drinking expensive booze behind closed doors.

In a broad sense, yes. However, the term Islamism (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة, ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ) is more commonly used for Sunnis, not Shi'ihs. The Houthis are Shi'ihs.

[Kubra]

The Houthis are not Salafis, but they are Islamists. The Saudis are both Salafis and Islamists - at least when they're not drinking expensive booze behind closed doors.

In a broad sense, yes. However, the term Islamism (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة, ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ) is more commonly used for Sunnis, not Shi'ihs. The Houthis are Shi'ihs.

Yes, and they are the progeny of the shia groups that earlier fought against joint egyptian and soviet influence in Yemen, closely cooperating with the Saudi's. The saudi's are who they are, but the houthi's aren't exactly receptive to secularism and such.

[Fahran]

Not necessarily. We could have, say, upheld the nuclear deal as-is and warmed relations with Iran. Most of the gulf states aren't particularly hostile to the place, insofar as they're not friendlier than is necessary for safety with the Saudi's, who are an actual potential threat to their independence. With the sunni revival petering out in the few contested areas (save turkey), such a pivot would give the US footing with a different ally with much better potential PR, without compromising US influence in the gulf.
I mean, it'd be a problem for turkey and israel, but an ally generating more problems than their worth is a shit ally.

Aligning ourselves with Iran would not only be terrible for our public relations and impossible for all intents and purposes, but would be a geopolitical disaster that would cost us several key allies in the region who are strategically important to us. Turkey and Israel have been exceedingly useful in the past and the vast majority of the people who advocate breaking those alliances do not genuinely understand why we have them.

In a broad sense, yes. However, the term Islamism (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة, ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ) is more commonly used for Sunnis, not Shi'ihs. The Houthis are Shi'ihs.

It's somewhat strange given how radical many Shiite groups have been throughout history.

[Kubra]

Not necessarily. We could have, say, upheld the nuclear deal as-is and warmed relations with Iran. Most of the gulf states aren't particularly hostile to the place, insofar as they're not friendlier than is necessary for safety with the Saudi's, who are an actual potential threat to their independence. With the sunni revival petering out in the few contested areas (save turkey), such a pivot would give the US footing with a different ally with much better potential PR, without compromising US influence in the gulf.
I mean, it'd be a problem for turkey and israel, but an ally generating more problems than their worth is a shit ally.

Aligning ourselves with Iran would not only be terrible for our public relations and impossible for all intents and purposes, but would be a geopolitical disaster that would cost us several key allies in the region who are strategically important to us. Turkey and Israel have been exceedingly useful in the past and the vast majority of the people who advocate breaking those alliances do not genuinely understand why we have them.

The right wing press hems and haws, but when it comes to criticising iran it must either be vague or point to domestic policies that are practiced in some form by our allies anyways. Meanwhile, when it comes to criticising the Saudi's, it's a mere matter of pointing a gun at a crowd and shooting.
"Several key allies"? Who, apart from Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? Iraq wouldn't mind, quite the opposite. Europe wouldn't mind, quite the opposite. Most of the other gulf-states wouldn't mind much.
Why do we have them? They were invaluable allies in the cold war who backed a lot of moves to keep the soviets in check, when there was a very real problem of the middle east going pinko (Israel especially, as the largest US aircraft carrier in the region). That necessity has lessened, while their PR has declined in tandem. History is history, what of the present necessitates sticking with the lot unwaveringly? I mean, ain't that what we treated Iraq?

[Ostroeuropa]

Not necessarily. We could have, say, upheld the nuclear deal as-is and warmed relations with Iran. Most of the gulf states aren't particularly hostile to the place, insofar as they're not friendlier than is necessary for safety with the Saudi's, who are an actual potential threat to their independence. With the sunni revival petering out in the few contested areas (save turkey), such a pivot would give the US footing with a different ally with much better potential PR, without compromising US influence in the gulf.
I mean, it'd be a problem for turkey and israel, but an ally generating more problems than their worth is a shit ally.

Aligning ourselves with Iran would not only be terrible for our public relations and impossible for all intents and purposes, but would be a geopolitical disaster that would cost us several key allies in the region who are strategically important to us. Turkey and Israel have been exceedingly useful in the past and the vast majority of the people who advocate breaking those alliances do not genuinely understand why we have them.

In a broad sense, yes. However, the term Islamism (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّة, ⫰Is°lāmiyyaẗ) is more commonly used for Sunnis, not Shi'ihs. The Houthis are Shi'ihs.

It's somewhat strange given how radical many Shiite groups have been throughout history.

We don't have to align ourselves with Iran to disentangle ourselves from the Sauds.

[Kubra]

Aligning ourselves with Iran would not only be terrible for our public relations and impossible for all intents and purposes, but would be a geopolitical disaster that would cost us several key allies in the region who are strategically important to us. Turkey and Israel have been exceedingly useful in the past and the vast majority of the people who advocate breaking those alliances do not genuinely understand why we have them.


It's somewhat strange given how radical many Shiite groups have been throughout history.

We don't have to align ourselves with Iran to disentangle ourselves from the Sauds.

I mean, sure, but then who do you align with? An ideal trade environment and good trade relations must be maintained with someone or other.

[Ostroeuropa]

We don't have to align ourselves with Iran to disentangle ourselves from the Sauds.

I mean, sure, but then who do you align with? An ideal trade environment and good trade relations must be maintained with someone or other.

Israel, Turkey. The Democracies in the region. Playing wind up merchant against the Sauds by egging on the other Islamic states, along with pushing for Pakistan and Indonesia to continue their antipathy with them, could lead to Islamic states resolving the matter themselves. The Sauds are not exactly beloved custodians, and regularly do shit like bulldoze the house where mohammeds father lived to build a hotel. The US involvement prevents in house solutions. We might be able to get a UN run custodianship, or council of Islamic states run, while splitting off the rest of arabia.

[Pasong Tirad]

We don't have to align ourselves with Iran to disentangle ourselves from the Sauds.

I mean, sure, but then who do you align with? An ideal trade environment and good trade relations must be maintained with someone or other.

Kurdistan - or Rojava, more realistically. Their revolution is still ongoing, and they can use all the help they can get.

[Greate Boston]

We don't have to align ourselves with Iran to disentangle ourselves from the Sauds.

I mean, sure, but then who do you align with? An ideal trade environment and good trade relations must be maintained with someone or other.

Israel, Rojava, Turkey, hell even Iraq or Lebanon (provided the Iranian influence is destroyed there) could do better than fucking Saudi Arabia. Even now, the primary use of Arabia in the region is containing Iran.

[Asherahan]

Any Militant Atheists here?

[Kowani]

Any Militant Atheists here?

Waves. Did someone call me?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It's somewhat strange given how radical many Shiite groups have been throughout history.

Well, there are radical groups in many religions and religious sects. However, that does not mean that terms should not be used precisely.

[Asherahan]

Any Militant Atheists here?

Waves. Did someone call me?

Hey Comrade how are we gonna suppress all religions today?

[Mardla]

I'm supposed believe America was Hitlerite until the 1960's?

You're supposed to believe that America still has to wrestle with the fact that it has a history of supporting white nationalist policies, and it still to this day continues to aid white nationalist policies. Moreso in the past two years due to prominent white nationalists actually having been part of the current administration.

I believe it. I don't equate that with Hitlerism, however.

[Mardla]

Should we send weapons to the yellow vests?

Again, I have problems with the use of the word we. That implies there is a them, too. I don't see the world in that sort of dualistic way.

Class struggle isn't dualistic?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Again, I have problems with the use of the word we. That implies there is a them, too. I don't see the world in that sort of dualistic way.

Class struggle isn't dualistic?

Class struggle is pointless. Period.

[Mardla]

Class struggle isn't dualistic?

Class struggle is pointless. Period.

I don't know what you mean by "pointless", since it has causes and a point.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Class struggle is pointless. Period.

I don't know what you mean by "pointless", since it has causes and a point.

Class cooperation paired with fluid social mobility seems far more enticing and pragmatic to me than some struggle that will most likely end in terrifying amounts of blood spilled from innocents.

[Mardla]

I don't know what you mean by "pointless", since it has causes and a point.

Class cooperation paired with fluid social mobility seems far more enticing and pragmatic to me than some struggle that will most likely end in terrifying amounts of blood spilled from innocents.

Fluid social mobility is not something I think particularly good, it is better if a rise in class in something attained through generations, that you work your whole life for your children or their children to have.

[Reikoku]

You're supposed to believe that America still has to wrestle with the fact that it has a history of supporting white nationalist policies, and it still to this day continues to aid white nationalist policies. Moreso in the past two years due to prominent white nationalists actually having been part of the current administration.

I believe it. I don't equate that with Hitlerism, however.

Wow. You're not even hiding it anymore.

[Mardla]

I believe it. I don't equate that with Hitlerism, however.

Wow. You're not even hiding it anymore.

I don't hide any of my views. That America was founded on white nationalism and has been white nationalist for most of its history, I will concede. To say it's been Hitlerite for most of its history, I will not concede.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is kind of ironic because Greg Johnson, a homosexual, is the biggest Hitlerite in America next to David Duke.

You're telling me that you know who Greg Johnson is, but are expecting me to believe you can honestly think that white nationalism and Neo Nazism aren't identical? Whew boy, you're sure taking me for a fool.

White Nationalism and Neo-Naziism aren't identical. For one thing, White Nationalism does not harbor globally genocidal ambitions. It may harbor global empire and segregation ambitions, but that is qualitatively different.

America invaded the Phillipines and turned it into a vassal and exploited its workers for being non-whites while not wanting them to immigrate to the states and wanted them segregated in that sense away from the White Nation.
It didn't turn up and decide to industrially kill all of them and replace them with white people because they were genetically undesirable.

[Pasong Tirad]

You're telling me that you know who Greg Johnson is, but are expecting me to believe you can honestly think that white nationalism and Neo Nazism aren't identical? Whew boy, you're sure taking me for a fool.

White Nationalism and Neo-Naziism aren't identical. For one thing, White Nationalism does not harbor globally genocidal ambitions. It may harbor global empire and segregation ambitions, but that is qualitatively different.

America invaded the Phillipines and turned it into a vassal and exploited its workers for being non-whites while not wanting them to immigrate to the states and wanted them segregated in that sense away from the White Nation.
It didn't turn up and decide to industrially kill all of them and replace them with white people because they were genetically undesirable.

The paternalistic racism of the "little brown brother" aspect of White Man's Burden.

Look how you deal with Puerto Rico, Guam, and Samoa.