Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

Ba dum tish.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

That's not how diplomacy works, Donnie .

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

That was not the last time.

 Frazzled wrote:
Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

I think you meant to say “Cat people did it!”.

In less than a page a thread about two Middle East countries became a thread about US politics.

CNN is reporting that Russian inserted a fake news story which helped to get this gak show rolling:

The Qatari government has said a May 23 news report on its Qatar News Agency attributed false remarks to the nation's ruler that appeared friendly to Iran and Israel and questioned whether President Donald Trump would last in office.

They're saying the FBI is confirming this.

So, this is seems like an extension of Russia's efforts to undermine the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

wait wtf how did we get here

 Ouze wrote:
CNN is reporting that Russian inserted a fake news story which helped to get this gak show rolling:

The Qatari government has said a May 23 news report on its Qatar News Agency attributed false remarks to the nation's ruler that appeared friendly to Iran and Israel and questioned whether President Donald Trump would last in office.

They're saying the FBI is confirming this.

So, this is seems like an extension of Russia's efforts to undermine the US.

Those dastardly Russkies! They'll never get to navigate for the Enterprise at this rate!

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

wait wtf how did we get here

Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.

edit: fix quote derp

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Saudi Arabia calling out Iran on terrorism never gets old. Iranians are goddamn hyper-liberal SJW compared to Saudi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

Ba dum tish.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

That's not how diplomacy works, Donnie .

1) Who is this Donnie and can I eat his eyes for ju ju bees?
2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

razz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.

Ok that was awesome.

To the topic, how did the Russians get invovled if it was on AJ quoting a government source? AJ IS a government source? Not criticizing, just not understanding.

 feeder wrote:

Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.

Thanks for the new quote. Frazz is 2/2 on my sig list.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

That was not the last time.

That was the last time anyone trusted them. There's a reason the allies had troops there.

 Frazzled wrote:
Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

I think you meant to say “Cat people did it!”.

 d-usa wrote:
In less than a page a thread about two Middle East countries became a thread about US politics.

Maybe we should petition the mods to reinstate it? (or tribute skulls for the Blood God!).

Back to OP...

My read is that countries like Saudi Arabia are at least officially, anti-terrorist-uprising/anti-Islamist-takeover... even though their own citizens are charged with inciting terrorism or funding terrorism externally... right? If nothing else, this is nothing more than crass self-preservation since the lessons of Iraq/Syria/Libya.

These would be Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

And post-Muslim Brotherhood era in Egypt. Probably especially them... as al-Sisi seems to be one of the "reformist" leaders in the region.

As for the US base in Qatar, the UAE has been trying (forever?) to get the US to move their base of operations there... so, if that's still true, moving out of Qatar would be a near-term nuisance rather than some strategic loss.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The last time Germany had an ally they invaded them in Spring 1941.

That was not the last time.

That was the last time anyone trusted them. There's a reason the allies had troops there.

Yeah, it's a great forward staging area for dealing with hot spots around the world.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In less than a page a thread about two Middle East countries became a thread about US politics.

Maybe we should petition the mods to reinstate it? (or tribute skulls for the Blood God!).

I found the perfect example of every US Politics thread we've had, and why it's a good thing they are gone

While I could just post about it in the DCM forums, I'd rather this doesn't get politoxic since it's personal to me.

... Thread lock in 3 then I guess?

Well, this is functionally a political crisis. It has been since minute one.

My understanding is the US politics ban is literally that, a ban on US domestic politics. This is international politics that has (as it turned out) a US foreign policy angle... I don't think it's quite the same. I can't see it inspiring the same vitriol that domestic politics tends to inspire.

though of course I have been wrong before.

Dam you americans. First you invaded us with that pesky rock and roll music, jeans and McDonald, and now you are invading every other country political thread!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

Yeah, but that was a non-binding, non-defense agreement. That stuff hardly matters in Realpolitic. Defense agreements and military bases are a different kettle of fish.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Saudi Arabia is looking to expand its control over the region, through close alliances with states like the Emirates and Egypt but more recently with asserting its control over Yemen and Qatar. During the Arab Spring they took advantage of the civil unrest in Bahrain to cement their control over that region by using military force to crush a pro-democratic movement and shore up a pro-Saudi kingdom. They've had their eye on the immense wealth of Qatar for a long time now and it is likely that they received the permission, if not the approval, of the US during Trump's visit to the region. I wouldn't use that as a reason to put the blame at feet of the US, but having such a powerful ally has certainly emboldened Saudi Arabia in their designs for the minor states in the region.


As for these accusations of terrorism, they are based mainly off three things.
1) The significant payments by Qatar for the release of members of the royal family being held hostage by terrorist organisations, to the sum of over $1 billion.
2) Their support of the Muslim Brotherhood (hence Egypt joining in here). Saudi and Emirati objections to this are not on the grounds of religious extremism, they feel threatened by the anti-monarchy stance of the organisation.
3) The fabricated statements of the Qatari Emir in support of Iran and Israel (a bizarre combo). I can guess that the Saudi government either knew these statements were fabricated when they reacted to them, or didn't care.

As someone who lived in the U.A.E. for 5 years, and Qatar for 1, I can definitely say that they never gave the impression of an ultra-Wahhabist state that Saudi Arabia did. If anything Doha was trying (and failing despite the massive amount of funds) to emulate the international modernistic vibe of Dubai.
Also, the Saudi kids were notorious d***heads at our school.


The cutting off of communications and travel is far too abrupt to be a genuine diplomatic dispute, this is the precursor to military action. Mark my words, we will be seeing Saudi troops in Qatari streets soon enough. A border incident, real or fabricated, will be the likely justification for the occupation of Qatar.

I think your analysis is spot on in the respect that this is KSA trying to build up a case to let them exert more control of Qatar and their oil fields/economy.

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Whembly, this is about strengthening the wahhabist/Salafist sect not weakening it. Roughly 80% of Qatar's muslims are Sunnis and about half of them are Salafist. Using these flimsy excuses to bring the Sunni Salafists in Qatar closer to the Sunni Salafists in KSA by trying to link the 20% or so of muslims in Qatar that are Shia to Iran and Iranian terrorism. KSA the strongest Sunni nation in the region is trying to create a situation where they need to intercede in Qatar to protect the Sunni majority from the dangerous terrorism of the Shia minority and connect that Shia minority to Iran, KSA's rival in the region. I swear I'm not trying to Godwin this thread but there are legit parallels here with the Sudetenland.

If you want to try to force moderation on wahhabists/Salafists that gets back to the US forging a better relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal that the Republicans (the party with strong ties to oil, oil money and KSA) trying to make hay over bashing Obama for it. We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

Some key way? Do you mean “literally every way”? And it would only take a few reforms to turn the Iranian republic into a democracy, mostly reign in the power of the council of guardian (and remove the “being a cleric requirement) and remove the role of supreme leader…
I agree with everything else of course.

Iran had an election that was essentially a referendum on moderation vs returning to more fundamentalism. Instead of praising those reforms we doubled down on the other team.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Whembly, this is about strengthening the wahhabist/Salafist sect not weakening it. Roughly 80% of Qatar's muslims are Sunnis and about half of them are Salafist. Using these flimsy excuses to bring the Sunni Salafists in Qatar closer to the Sunni Salafists in KSA by trying to link the 20% or so of muslims in Qatar that are Shia to Iran and Iranian terrorism. KSA the strongest Sunni nation in the region is trying to create a situation where they need to intercede in Qatar to protect the Sunni majority from the dangerous terrorism of the Shia minority and connect that Shia minority to Iran, KSA's rival in the region. I swear I'm not trying to Godwin this thread but there are legit parallels here with the Sudetenland.

If you want to try to force moderation on wahhabists/Salafists that gets back to the US forging a better relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal that the Republicans (the party with strong ties to oil, oil money and KSA) trying to make hay over bashing Obama for it. We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

I'm not totally convinced that it's wholly on a sunni-shia schism here(meaning religiously)... but more general Arab vs Persian (nationality) Hetfeild/McCoyism here...

My Iranian colleagues believes its more of the latter and not the former.

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

 d-usa wrote:
Iran had an election that was essentially a referendum on moderation vs returning to more fundamentalism. Instead of praising those reforms we doubled down on the other team.

It's because americans did exactly the opposite choice and voted for fundamentalism. Well less than half did but that's a wonderfully democratic system at work here…
Still, Iranians > Americans. You hear this Frazzled ?
Seriously the current president is trying to lick Saudi's behind like they taste like donuts (though more probably the reason is they taste like money). And all his little pawn are still fawning over him because they are too dumb to put 2 and 2 together and understand their precious "anti-PC" hero is 100% supporting Islamism…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Iran had an election that was essentially a referendum on moderation vs returning to more fundamentalism. Instead of praising those reforms we doubled down on the other team.

It's because americans did exactly the opposite choice and voted for fundamentalism. Well less than half did but that's a wonderfully democratic system at work here…
Still, Iranians > Americans. You hear this Frazzled ?
Seriously the current president is trying to lick Saudi's behind like they taste like donuts (though more probably the reason is they taste like money). And all his little pawn are still fawning over him because they are too dumb to put 2 and 2 together and understand their precious "anti-PC" hero is 100% supporting Islamism…

When you push a Anti-Terrorist/Islam propaganda but you need the oil. You can see how Cheeto Jesus is suffering


But to be honest, every country do that. Spain, France, Germany, etc... we all sell them weapons, ships, tanks, etc... for that sweet sweet petroleum.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can we please do the same to Saudi Arabia?

Baby steps...

It's going to take quite some time to reform the wahhabism/salafist sect.. maybe multi-generational.

Whembly, this is about strengthening the wahhabist/Salafist sect not weakening it. Roughly 80% of Qatar's muslims are Sunnis and about half of them are Salafist. Using these flimsy excuses to bring the Sunni Salafists in Qatar closer to the Sunni Salafists in KSA by trying to link the 20% or so of muslims in Qatar that are Shia to Iran and Iranian terrorism. KSA the strongest Sunni nation in the region is trying to create a situation where they need to intercede in Qatar to protect the Sunni majority from the dangerous terrorism of the Shia minority and connect that Shia minority to Iran, KSA's rival in the region. I swear I'm not trying to Godwin this thread but there are legit parallels here with the Sudetenland.

If you want to try to force moderation on wahhabists/Salafists that gets back to the US forging a better relationship with Iran and the Iran nuclear deal that the Republicans (the party with strong ties to oil, oil money and KSA) trying to make hay over bashing Obama for it. We'd be better off creating better relations with Iran and using that partnership to make Iran more tolerant of Western ideals (they're already more westernized than KSA in some key ways) and use that to curtail the power and influence of KSA in the region and do a much better job of forcing KSA to curtail its actions of being the leading supporter and exporting of fundamentalist Islam and consequently fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the world.

I'm not totally convinced that it's wholly on a sunni-shia schism here(meaning religiously)... but more general Arab vs Persian (nationality) Hetfeild/McCoyism here...

My Iranian colleagues believes its more of the latter and not the former.

The KSA vs Iran rivalry definitely goes back a lon way and has many facets to it I agree with you on that. KSA going after Qatar is rooted in KSA wanting to control a wealthy neighboring country that is a Sunni majority with a high percentage of wahabists/salafists and trying to connect Qatar to Shi terrorism as an excuse for their expansionist agenda.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

2) Treaties work when they are passed by the Senate. This one wasn't.

That's the process of ratification, giving effect to the international pledge in domestic law.


A country signing a treaty and then not ratifying or otherwise enforcing it is the equivalent of a roommate promising to do the dishes but spends the rest of the day on the couch playing video games.

As President Obama was, well, The President there can be no more direct representation of the nation in an international forum. Same as any promise or deal made by President Trump is a deal made on behalf of the State of the United States of America. The obligations entailed in international treaties are not at all discarded on the whims of a changing government, at least not without reneging on their promise.

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring.

I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here. Very few countries introduce international treaties as binding on their own domestic environment without their own legislature putting in laws to the same effect. I'm not disputing that Congress (or Parliament across the Pacific pond here) would need to support any treaty signed for it to be enforced (and therefore upheld). However international bodies will never be addressing Congress for these negotiations. International treaties are made on the promise of the representatives of their State. President Obama certainly had the authority to sign that treaty and make that promise on behalf of the US. The fact that Congress did not pass this treaty is in itself a preliminary failure to uphold the promise made to the international community. That the US is so divided internally that it cannot ratify and uphold the promises made on its behalf does not make that less of a failure to abide by that promise. I agree with you that President Trump hasn't broken the promise himself by withdrawing, the promise was already broken when it became clear that it would never be ratified by the Senate (the merits of that promise not withstanding).

To use the roommate anology again, let's assume Roomate 1 is considered a representative of the household when dealing with other people. Roommate 1 makes a promise to a Birthday Friend that he and the household will attend a birthday party and bring a bag of chips. He returns to the household and talks with Roomate 2 and Roomate 3. Roomate 2 is okay with attending a birthday party, but not bringing a bag of chips. Roomate 3 refuses to have any of them attend the party at all. Because no one can come to an agreement, none of them end up going to birthday Friends party.
If Roomate 1 is consider a representative of the household to 'other people' (the international community), he has the authority to make agreements or promises to other people on behalf of the household regardless of whether he thinks or believes that the other roommates will prevent the household from meeting those obligations.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, maybe we will find out if Merkel was right about us being an unreliable ally?

Spoiler alert:
you are. You just pulled out of the Paris agreement for instance.

Paris was an agreement with Obama not the US government. Sorry.

A country that completely reverses international positions without regard to prior positions is the textbook definition of unreliable.

A president is, of course, able to set a new course for his country, but at the same time if changes show no interest in long term national consistency then other countries will start to regard the US as an unreliable long term partner.

To put it another way - no-one gives a feth about internal US processes. What they care about is whether the US as a nation can be counted on as a reliable partner who will stand by commitments made.

 sebster wrote:


To put it another way - no-one gives a feth about internal US processes. What they care about is whether the US as a nation can be counted on as a reliable partner who will stand by commitments made.

Bingo. Well said.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The president doesn't have the authority to commit the US to an international treaty that power resides with Congress. That's the whole point of a representative democracy you don't have one person with the capacity act on behalf of the country unilaterally. The president can't make the country adhere to any treaty only Congress can pass the laws that require the US to be in compliance with the treaty. If the president can't convince congress to support joining a treaty then whatever promises or commitments the president made are worthless. I much prefer Trump withdrawing from the treaty that we're ignoring, that's more honest and straightforward than Obama promising to support a treaty and then having congress and by extension the rest of the country deliberately ignoring it.

Legal details about ratification aside, isn't that the whole basic idea behind a representative democracy?

A small number of people represents the larger body of citizens at various levels of government?

Representatives (in the House) represent their constituents at House level.
Senators represent their states as a whole at Senate level.
The President (of the United States) represents the country (as a whole) at international level (sometimes using a proxy).

Am I getting the pyramidical power structure of one person, or a small number of people, representing a larger number of people in a representative democracy wrong?

 Galas wrote:
But to be honest, every country do that. Spain, France, Germany, etc... we all sell them weapons, ships, tanks, etc... for that sweet sweet petroleum.

Yeah, the hypocrisy is ridiculous there. But Trump really goes the extra mile…
Have you seen his recent absolutely disgusting anti-Iranian comment?

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

 sebster wrote:


To put it another way - no-one gives a feth about internal US processes. What they care about is whether the US as a nation can be counted on as a reliable partner who will stand by commitments made.

Bingo. Well said.

On the flip side, finally no one gives a feth about external non-US processes here. We are at an empass.