Saudi Arabia's economy is crashing down hard, and its all their fault..

[in2deep]

The Saudis Are Stumbling. They May Take the Middle East with Them.


http://fpif.org/the-saudis-are-stumbling-they-may-take-the-middle-east-with-them/

America’s leading Sunni ally is proving how easily hubris, delusion, and old-fashioned ineptitude can trump even bottomless wealth.

The kingdom’s first stumble was a strategic decision last fall to undermine competitors by scaling up its oil production and thus lowering the global price. They figured that if the price of a barrel of oil dropped from over $100 to around $80, it would strangle competitors. That, in turn, would allow Riyadh to reclaim its shrinking share of the energy market. There was also the added benefit that lower oil prices would damage oil-reliant countries that the Saudis didn’t like — including Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Iran.

The price of oil dropped from $115 a barrel (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/oil-production-iran-sanctions.html) in June 2014 to around $44 today. The Saudis need a price between $95 and $105 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2fd630a8-2899-11e5-8db8-c033edba8a6e.html#axzz3qedqglQL) to balance their budget. While oil prices will likely rise over the next five years, projections are that the price per barrel won’t top $65 for the foreseeable future. Saudi debt is on schedule to rise from 6.7 percent of GDP this year to 17.3 percent next year, and its 2015 budget deficit is $130 billion.
The country is now spending $10 billion a month in foreign exchange reserves to pay the bills and has been forced to borrow money on the international financial market. Recently the International Monetary Fund’s regional director, Masood Ahmed, warned Riyadh (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-21/saudi-arabia-will-be-broke-5-years-imf-predicts) that the country would deplete its financial reserves in five years unless it drastically cut its budget.


Meanwhile they’re racking up bills with ill-advised foreign interventions. In March, the kingdom intervened in Yemen’s civil conflict, launching an air war, a naval blockade, and partial ground campaign on the pretense that Iran was behind one of the war’s factions — a conclusion not even the Americans agree with.
Again, the Saudis miscalculated, even though one of their major allies, Pakistan, warned (http://mmc-news.com/news-why-saudi-arabia-and-39;s-yemen-war-is-not-producing-victory-153590.dbv) them they were headed for trouble. In part, the kingdom’s hubris was fed by the illusion that U.S. support would make it a short war. The Americans are arming (http://forward.com/news/world/320783/arms-for-all/) the Saudis, supplying them with bombing targets, backing up the naval (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/10/21/midst-war-us-approves-11-billion-combat-ships-saudi-arabia) blockade, and refueling their warplanes in mid-air.
But six months down the line the conflict has turned into a stalemate (http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1874862-Saudi-war-in-Yemen-impossible-to-win). The war has killed 5,000 people (including over 500 children (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/500-children-killed-yemen-conflict-151002112853295.html)), flattened cities, and alienated (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/world/middleeast/bitterness-abounds-in-yemens-north-a-houthi-stronghold.html) much of the local population. It’s also generated a horrendous food and medical crisis (http://fpif.org/yemen-is-starving-and-were-partly-to-blame/) and created opportunities for the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to seize territory in southern Yemen. Efforts by the UN to investigate the possibility of war crimes were blocked (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/07/us-massacre-kunduz-exposes-bankruptcy-obamas-national-security-policy) by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.


Nor is Yemen the only war that the Saudis are involved in. Riyadh, along with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are underwriting many of the groups trying to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. When anti-government demonstrations broke out there in 2011, the Saudis — along with the Americans and the Turks — calculated that Assad could be toppled in a few months.
But that was magical thinking. As bad as Assad is, a lot of Syrians — particularly minorities like Shiites, Christians, and Druze — were far more afraid of the Islamists from al-Qaeda and the Islamic State than they were of their own government. So the war has dragged on for four years and has now killed close to 250,000 people.
Once again, the Saudis miscalculated, though in this case they were hardly alone. The Syrian government turned out to be more resilient than it appeared. And Riyadh’s bottom line that Assad had to go just ended up bringing Iran and Russia into the picture, checkmating any direct intervention by the anti-Assad coalition. Any attempt to establish a no-fly zone against Assad will now have to confront the Russian air force — not something that anyone other thancertain U.S. presidential aspirants (http://fpif.org/hillary-clinton-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-iraq/) are eager to do.


“The expensive social contract between the Royal family and Saudi citizens will get more difficult, and eventually impossible to sustain if oil prices don’t recover,” Meghan L. O’Sullivan, director of the Geopolitics of Energy project at Harvard, told the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/world/from-venezuela-to-iraq-to-russia-oil-price-drops-raise-fears-of-unrest.html).
However, the House of Saud has little choice but to keep pumping oil to pay for its wars and keep the internal peace. Yet more production drives down prices even further. And once the sanctions come off Iran, the oil glut will become worse.
While it’s still immensely wealthy, there are lots of bills coming due. It’s not clear the kingdom has the capital or the ability to meet them.

[in2deep]

671092403797942272

[baseline bum]

Ally? Fuck them, Saudi Arabia is our biggest fucking enemy in the middle east.

[Wild Cobra]

When Qaddifi wanted to get oil off the US dollar, look what we did to him.

[boutons_deux]

Ally? Fuck them, Saudi Arabia is our biggest fucking enemy in the middle east.

BigOil defines our friends and enemies, not Human-Americans

[in2deep]

yeah. People forget Qadaffi's Lybia had very similar welfare system to Saudi. Free education, health, housing and some utilities.

There was not much difference between House of Saud and House of Qadaffi, except Qaddaffi did not have US blessing

[ChumpDumper]

When Qaddifi wanted to get oil off the US dollar, look what we did to him.Man you really miss that guy.

[Wild Cobra]

Man you really miss that guy.

I think what we did is a world crime.

Just look at Libya today. For no justifiable reason. He wasn't a threat to us. He knew how to deal with terrorists.

Problem, the terrorists knew how to use the western media to get first world nations to help their cause, because of all the ignorant voters. Now look at the Middle East.

[ChumpDumper]

I think what we did is a world crime.

Just look at Libya today. For no justifiable reason. He wasn't a threat to us. He knew how to deal with terrorists.

Problem, the terrorists knew how to use the western media to get first world nations to help their cause, because of all the ignorant voters. Now look at the Middle East.Yeah, he was just a great guy.

You basically described Saddam Huddein, but you didn't like that guy because you were told not to.

[in2deep]

Yeah, he was just a great guy.

You basically described Saddam Huddein, but you didn't like that guy because you were told not to.

you don't light a country on fire to punish 1 guy.

[ChumpDumper]

you don't light a country on fire to punish 1 guy.We've done that quite a bit actually.

[in2deep]

We've done that quite a bit actually.

thus my point.

[ChumpDumper]

thus my point.Well, we want to wear the white hat.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, he was just a great guy.

I didn't know you thought that. He was not a "great guy" by any stretch. He changed in his latter years but he was still a man that dealt harshly with violators of his law. Under his rule, Libya enjoyed a constant improvement of life and economy. Now it's in shambles again, and hey now have a worse ruler.

I understand you are too ignorant to see the big picture. that's OK. Libtards like yourself live in a self deluded world. Rather than try to understand and respect those who are opposte to any of your PC beliefs, you are vilely bigoted towards them.



You basically described Saddam Huddein, but you didn't like that guy because you were told not to.

No. There is a world of difference between the two. But then, you think all Middle East dictators should be removed.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't know you thought that. He was not a "great guy" by any stretch. He changed in his latter years but he was still a man that dealt harshly with violators of his law. Under his rule, Libya enjoyed a constant improvement of life and economy. Now it's in shambles again, and hey now have a worse ruler.

I understand you are too ignorant to see the big picture. that's OK. Libtards like yourself live in a self deluded world. Rather than try to understand and respect those who are opposte to any of your PC beliefs, you are vilely bigoted towards them.You understand and respect Qaddafi.



No. There is a world of difference between the two. But then, you think all Middle East dictators should be removed.What's the difference?

Explain yourself.

[hater]

Only a simpleton like chumps would think Gaddafi and Saddam were basically the same :lmao

This explains a lot of his primitive views on the middle east

[ChumpDumper]

Only a simpleton like chumps would think Gaddafi and Saddam were basically the same :lmao

This explains a lot of his primitive views on the middle eastHow are they different?

Go into as much detail as you can.

[hater]

How are they different?

Go into as much detail as you can.

Sorry brag. You just exposed yourself. :lmao

Go ahead and compare Mao to Thatcher in the next thread :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry brag. You just exposed yourself. :lmao

Go ahead and compare Mao to Thatcher in the next thread :lolSorry brag, if you can't say how they're different, you just exposed yourself. :lmao

Go ahead and deflect some more. Make up shit if you have to. :lol

[hater]

Train has left the station. You were left with your cock on your hand brag


:lol comparing Saddam to Gaddafi :lol :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Train has left the station. You were left with your cock on your hand brag


:lol comparing Saddam to Gaddafi :lol :lol


Sorry brag, if you can't say how they're different, you just exposed yourself. :lmao

Go ahead and deflect some more. Make up shit if you have to. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When Qaddifi wanted to get oil off the US dollar, look what we did to him.

Gaddafi tried to get elected leader of the african congress and was rejected repeatedly. How do you expect he was going to manage that?

You are also aware that Sarkozy started the airstrikes? He's the French president btw.

[RandomGuy]

Meanwhile they’re racking up bills with ill-advised foreign interventions. In March, the kingdom intervened in Yemen’s civil conflict, launching an air war, a naval blockade, and partial ground campaign on the pretense that Iran was behind one of the war’s factions — a conclusion not even the Americans agree with.

The Saudi spending on it air campaigns and interventions is a negligible part of their overall budget, far dwarfed by the subsidies on electricity, which is practically free.

[hater]

The Saudi spending on it air campaigns and interventions is a negligible part of their overall budget, far dwarfed by the subsidies on electricity, which is practically free.

Sure.

Saudi seems to have spent about $1.5 billion in their air campaign alone, and that is reported number. The real number could easily be double or triple. So let's say $3 billion. yes still chump change but the truth is Saudi armed forces have proven they are pathetically innefficient. They have basically carpet bombed civilians and still taken heavy loses.

The guy they support, Hadi has more bloon on his hands than Gaddafi did. Yet the west is mute.

The real problem with Saudi war mongering is that they have been terrible at it. They thought Assad was going to be toppled in a matter of months, it's been 4 years and counting. They thought they were going to raze the Houthies, but the Houthies are pounding that ass. They are pathetic. Can you imagine what would happen if Saudi faces a capable army? :lol

To be fair Iran is proving they are shitty and pathetic too. Getting tons of their elite forces killed by a bunch of camel fuckers :lol

Like I said before, the world should just let Saudi and Iran go at it 1 on 1. It would be hilarious to see 2 of the most expensive yet retarded armed forces in the world :lol

[pgardn]

Train has left the station. You were left with your cock on your hand brag


:lol comparing Saddam to Gaddafi :lol :lol

There are some significant similarities.
They both ruled oil rich nations as dictators.
They both, at various times, were aided and vilified by the West.

The above are pretty significant. Saddam had a much larger military and ruled a much larger nation.

Why is it funny?

[pgardn]

Sure.

Saudi seems to have spent about $1.5 billion in their air campaign alone, and that is reported number. The real number could easily be double or triple. So let's say $3 billion. yes still chump change but the truth is Saudi armed forces have proven they are pathetically innefficient. They have basically carpet bombed civilians and still taken heavy loses.

The guy they support, Hadi has more bloon on his hands than Gaddafi did. Yet the west is mute.

The real problem with Saudi war mongering is that they have been terrible at it. They thought Assad was going to be toppled in a matter of months, it's been 4 years and counting. They thought they were going to raze the Houthies, but the Houthies are pounding that ass. They are pathetic. Can you imagine what would happen if Saudi faces a capable army? :lol

To be fair Iran is proving they are shitty and pathetic too. Getting tons of their elite forces killed by a bunch of camel fuckers :lol

Like I said before, the world should just let Saudi and Iran go at it 1 on 1. It would be hilarious to see 2 of the most expensive yet retarded armed forces in the world :lol

The Russians are also bombing large numbers of civilians. They don't have anywhere close to the number of guided accurate missiles the US has and the US has made horrible mistakes. You stated the Russian campaign would be over quickly? What happened?

[hater]

Carter and Bush were both US presidents. Does that make them the same??? :rolleyes

The differences are too many to name, but just to name a few. Gaddafi was an irrational, unpredictable possibly egocentric lunatic. Saddam was very cold headed, predictable and rational man, although ruthless. Gaddafi tended towards socialism and having many relations with other countries and even opened up his country to foreign investors in the latter parts. Saddam did not, but he quietly built one of the most massive oil empires in the world.

again, apples and oranges. But I would not expect Chump's or even yours primitive knowledge of Middle Eastern subjects to realize this.

[hater]

oh and when did I say Russia's air campaign would be over soon? :lol making up shit :lol

[pgardn]

Carter and Bush were both US presidents. Does that make them the same??? :rolleyes

The differences are too many to name, but just to name a few. Gaddafi was an irrational, unpredictable possibly egocentric lunatic. Saddam was very cold headed, predictable and rational man, although ruthless. Gaddafi tended towards socialism and having many relations with other countries and even opened up his country to foreign investors in the latter parts. Saddam did not, but he quietly built one of the most massive oil empires in the world.

again, apples and oranges. But I would not expect Chump's or even yours primitive knowledge of Middle Eastern subjects to realize this.

uhhh... Carter and Bush were both presidents of the same democratic nation...

You don't find it curious that ME strong men with oil power are quite prevalent?

[hater]

Not that I believe this fully but FWIW:

Over 2,000 Saudi Military Personnel Killed in Yemen
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/over-2000-saudi-military-personnel-killed-in-yemen/

In a series of tweets released on Thursday morning, the famous Saudi whistleblower known on Twitter as “@Mujtahidd” leaked more information from the Saudi government’s classified files, revealing the army’s death toll and the total number of lost military equipment during the ongoing Yemeni War.

According to the aforementioned source, the Saudi Army has lost almost 2,000 soldiers (4,850 soldiers reportedly wounded), 450 tanks, 4 U.S. manufactured Apache Helicopters, 15 other military aircrafts, 3 boats (destroyed by P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles), and almost 200 billion Saudi riyals in damage.

The Twitter user is well-known for his accurate information and his government leaks that have time and time again proven to be authentic, despite his unknown identity.

[pgardn]

oh and when did I say Russia's air campaign would be over soon? :lol making up shit :lol

When Russia got into this mess you implied it would end quickly. I'm not gonna go through all your drivel posts again. You portrayed it as some huge change with a possible "shits about to get real" yet again. I said it would take ground forces for a quick end.

The rule is the following by my decree:

The onus is on you to prove yourself correct because you have put up such a large amount of absolute BS on this board in the past and present.

And i I bet you like being given decrees ala Putin. But I implore you to not worship me as you do Putin simply because I nailed your head to the ground. Your affection for Assad and Putin are noted.

[pgardn]

Not that I believe this fully but FWIW:

Over 2,000 Saudi Military Personnel Killed in Yemen
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/over-2000-saudi-military-personnel-killed-in-yemen/

In a series of tweets released on Thursday morning, the famous Saudi whistleblower known on Twitter as “@Mujtahidd” leaked more information from the Saudi government’s classified files, revealing the army’s death toll and the total number of lost military equipment during the ongoing Yemeni War.

According to the aforementioned source, the Saudi Army has lost almost 2,000 soldiers (4,850 soldiers reportedly wounded), 450 tanks, 4 U.S. manufactured Apache Helicopters, 15 other military aircrafts, 3 boats (destroyed by P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles), and almost 200 billion Saudi riyals in damage.

The Twitter user is well-known for his accurate information and his government leaks that have time and time again proven to be authentic, despite his unknown identity.

The Saudis had at least 450 tanks in Yemen? How many total tanks do the Saudis have in Yemen?

Holy shit...

[pgardn]

Not that I believe this fully but FWIW:

Over 2,000 Saudi Military Personnel Killed in Yemen
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/over-2000-saudi-military-personnel-killed-in-yemen/

In a series of tweets released on Thursday morning, the famous Saudi whistleblower known on Twitter as “@Mujtahidd” leaked more information from the Saudi government’s classified files, revealing the army’s death toll and the total number of lost military equipment during the ongoing Yemeni War.

According to the aforementioned source, the Saudi Army has lost almost 2,000 soldiers (4,850 soldiers reportedly wounded), 450 tanks, 4 U.S. manufactured Apache Helicopters, 15 other military aircrafts, 3 boats (destroyed by P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles), and almost 200 billion Saudi riyals in damage.

The Twitter user is well-known for his accurate information and his government leaks that have time and time again proven to be authentic, despite his unknown identity.

While the Emirati and Saudi intervention against Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels and their pro-Saleh supporters has been hailed as a success since Aden and other southern cities and towns have been retaken, the gulf countries have paid a price that is often not seen. The Houthis have destroyed several armored vehicles, including US-supplied M1 Abrams tanks, while battling Saudi and Emirati troops.While the Emirati and Saudi intervention against Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels and their pro-Saleh supporters has been hailed as a success since Aden and other southern cities and towns have been retaken, the gulf countries have paid a price that is often not seen. The Houthis have destroyed several armored vehicles, including US-supplied M1 Abrams tanks, while battling Saudi and Emirati troops.
Houthi rebels, through their official satellite channel Al Masirah TV, have released several videos detailing the destruction of Saudi and Emirati vehicles in Yemen and in southern Saudi Arabia.
The first video, which was taken near the town of Al Khobah in the southern province of Jizan in Saudi Arabia, shows pro-Saleh Yemeni military and Houthi fighters firing anti-tank missiles at a Saudi tank. The video then shifts to showing the fighters on top of a US-supplied M1 Abrams tank. A second video, also from the Jizan region, shows a similar scene.
The Houthis destroy two Abrams with anti-tank missiles. Both tanks can be seen bursting into flames while the Houthi fighters are heard celebrating off-camera. Additionally, a video has been uploaded purporting to show the launching of a SCUD missile into Saudi territory. The Houthis in the video report that the SCUD destroyed a Saudi power station in the Jizan region. The Saudis have denied (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/ap-ml-yemen.html?_r=0) this, however, and said that its military “intercepted and destroyed” the missile.
Houthi rebels, through their official satellite channel Al Masirah TV, have released several videos detailing the destruction of Saudi and Emirati vehicles in Yemen and in southern Saudi Arabia.
The first video, which was taken near the town of Al Khobah in the southern province of Jizan in Saudi Arabia, shows pro-Saleh Yemeni military and Houthi fighters firing anti-tank missiles at a Saudi tank. The video then shifts to showing the fighters on top of a US-supplied M1 Abrams tank. A second video, also from the Jizan region, shows a similar scene.
The Houthis destroy two Abrams with anti-tank missiles. Both tanks can be seen bursting into flames while the Houthi fighters are heard celebrating off-camera. Additionally, a video has been uploaded purporting to show the launching of a SCUD missile into Saudi territory. The Houthis in the video report that the SCUD destroyed a Saudi power station in the Jizan region. The Saudis have denied (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/ap-ml-yemen.html?_r=0) this, however, and said that its military “intercepted and destroyed” the missile.




The above is what the Houtis claim from a large battle.

But in totality its 450...

[hater]

here, now you can stop your meltdown...

672741863627972610

[pgardn]

here, now you can stop your meltdown...

672741863627972610

Thanks.

I was close to killing myself.

Love me some Twitter journalism.

[pgardn]

here, now you can stop your meltdown...

672741863627972610

Oh shit, the mainstream media...

Where people are held accountable for being wrong.

So when Tony Toh's extensive reporting networks lead him to post inaccuracies does he have to leave social media sites? Or does he just fire himself?

You won't hear this in mainstream media...
Fair and Balanced...
And our own, Shits about to get Real...

Jesus.

[Wild Cobra]

Gaddafi tried to get elected leader of the african congress and was rejected repeatedly. How do you expect he was going to manage that?


With water.

[Pelicans78]

Sure.

Saudi seems to have spent about $1.5 billion in their air campaign alone, and that is reported number. The real number could easily be double or triple. So let's say $3 billion. yes still chump change but the truth is Saudi armed forces have proven they are pathetically innefficient. They have basically carpet bombed civilians and still taken heavy loses.

The guy they support, Hadi has more bloon on his hands than Gaddafi did. Yet the west is mute.

The real problem with Saudi war mongering is that they have been terrible at it. They thought Assad was going to be toppled in a matter of months, it's been 4 years and counting. They thought they were going to raze the Houthies, but the Houthies are pounding that ass. They are pathetic. Can you imagine what would happen if Saudi faces a capable army? :lol

To be fair Iran is proving they are shitty and pathetic too. Getting tons of their elite forces killed by a bunch of camel fuckers :lol

Like I said before, the world should just let Saudi and Iran go at it 1 on 1. It would be hilarious to see 2 of the most expensive yet retarded armed forces in the world :lol

Just think how different the Middle East/Muslim world would look if it wasn't for those two governments. Eventually countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia should take the lead in that region if their governments don't become de-stabilized by Western forces.

[pgardn]

Just think how different the Middle East/Muslim world would look if it wasn't for those two governments. Eventually countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia should take the lead in that region if their governments don't become de-stabilized by Western forces.

Turkey has had like 6 wars with Russia in the past and you are worried about the West destabilizing them...

[RandomGuy]

The Saudis had at least 450 tanks in Yemen? How many total tanks do the Saudis have in Yemen?

Holy shit...

Doesn't stand up to basic fact-checking. Saudis have a grand total of 1200 tanks.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=saudi-arabia

More plausible might be "trucks" or personnel carriers, even then I would doubt that.

Haven't been keeping tabs on it though.

[Pelicans78]

Turkey has had like 6 wars with Russia in the past and you are worried about the West destabilizing them...

Well, the West in general has destabilized the Middle East and South Asia since World War I and Turkey was a victim of that with the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire in Arab land and the establishment of the Wahhabi Saudis by Brits. Also, the war in Iraq and preceding Syrian crisis, both perpetrated by the West has been a destablizing force in and around Turkey so anything can happen to other countries that were mentioned. Pakistan was destabilized by the U.S involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s and following 9/11. If the West really cares about stabilizing the Muslim world, they need to stop taking part in destabilization. The Arab countries are too corrupt and too involved in extremism to be active players in stabilizing the region while Iran has ambitions of spreading its influence as well. So in the end, it leaves the other major countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia to be key figures in stabilizing the Muslim world unless Western intervention screws it up.

[hater]

Agree ^

The West has been making mistake after mistake. Just more recently, Lybia. We all knew it was a big mistake and yet the West still fucked it up. And Syria, we actually prevented the bombing 2 years ago, the people prevented the West from making a huge mistake. But the West secretly kept trying to oust Assad and grew ISIS.

History is living proof this fuckup has mostly been the fault of the West.

[pgardn]

Well, the West in general has destabilized the Middle East and South Asia since World War I and Turkey was a victim of that with the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire in Arab land and the establishment of the Wahhabi Saudis by Brits. Also, the war in Iraq and preceding Syrian crisis, both perpetrated by the West has been a destablizing force in and around Turkey so anything can happen to other countries that were mentioned. Pakistan was destabilized by the U.S involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s and following 9/11. If the West really cares about stabilizing the Muslim world, they need to stop taking part in destabilization. The Arab countries are too corrupt and too involved in extremism to be active players in stabilizing the region while Iran has ambitions of spreading its influence as well. So in the end, it leaves the other major countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia to be key figures in stabilizing the Muslim world unless Western intervention screws it up.

Pakistan's major threat is India, not the US. It's been like this since Pakistan was formed. Iraq and Iran had much more trouble with each other. You completely passed over the deep historic struggle between the Sunni and Shiites which is the fuel in all this (along with oil) The West plays with the fuse without understanding it.

Point well taken with the West messing with oil rich nations/dictators in the ME, if you did intend this.

The wars between African tribes and fleeting nation states makes the ME look minor in terms of total deaths. The West played in some parts of Africa and then left them to their own devices upon which many more people died. Now the UN gets called in and the slaughter ebbs and flows. Still much worse than the ME.

[pgardn]

Doesn't stand up to basic fact-checking. Saudis have a grand total of 1200 tanks.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=saudi-arabia

More plausible might be "trucks" or personnel carriers, even then I would doubt that.

Haven't been keeping tabs on it though.

Hater amended the always reliable Twitter sources to 450 = tanks + other military vehicles.

The level of disinformation that comes from some posters is amazing.

[Pelicans78]

Pakistan's major threat is India, not the US. It's been like this since Pakistan was formed. Iraq and Iran had much more trouble with each other. You completely passed over the deep historic struggle between the Sunni and Shiites which is the fuel in all this (along with oil) The West plays with the fuse without understanding it.

Point well taken with the West messing with oil rich nations/dictators in the ME, if you did intend this.

The wars between African tribes and fleeting nation states makes the ME look minor in terms of total deaths. The West played in some parts of Africa and then left them to their own devices upon which many more people died. Now the UN gets called in and the slaughter ebbs and flows. Still much worse than the ME.

Pakistan's old rival is India and is a looming threat, but they've had to deal with a massive influx of extremism since the 1980s with millions of Afghan refugees and foreign fighters running from the wars with the Soviets. The 1990s were all about the development of Al Qaeda and the Taliban which created turmoil in that country. These two groups are not created without Saudi and U.S influence. Terrorism exploded inside Pakistan especially after the country allowed the U.S to use its bases to invade Afghanistan's Talibam. The Jihadists waged a war on Pakistan and accounted for many bombings during the 2000s. Once Musharraf (a puppet of the U.S.) was removed from power and democratic leaders took control of the country, the Paki army waged a massive war on the Taliban and other extremist groups forcing them to run back into Afghanistan. It took a long time, but Pakistan is on its way of removing extremism from its country.

The Shiite/Sunni struggle is greatly overstated and does not even compare historically to what Protestants and Catholics went through against each other. Iran and Iraq were two countries formed after World War I and hardly had any issues until the 1980s. The war between those two countries was a product of Saddam's lust for oil and hatred for Persians, and the U.S and West allowing him to invade due to anger from the hostage crisis. Saddam got their blessing and went full blast and killed many Iranians all in pursuit of their oil. In fact, Pakistan, a Sunni country helped their neighboring Shia Iran against the Sunni Iraqi army during that war since both countries have had friendly relations since the 1940s despite religous differences. The Shias in Pakistan never had trouble until extremism crept into Pakistan in the 1990s. The only reason we're seeing the Sunni/Shia struggle today is due to the extremist governments in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Africa is a different animal but obviously many of those countries were occupied by the West before gaining their independence.

[RandomGuy]

here, now you can stop your meltdown...

672741863627972610

ah, there were go. that seems better. I thought it was a typo or something similar. Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Pakistan's old rival is India and is a looming threat, but they've had to deal with a massive influx of extremism since the 1980s with millions of Afghan refugees and foreign fighters running from the wars with the Soviets. The 1990s were all about the development of Al Qaeda and the Taliban which created turmoil in that country. These two groups are not created without Saudi and U.S influence. Terrorism exploded inside Pakistan especially after the country allowed the U.S to use its bases to invade Afghanistan's Talibam. The Jihadists waged a war on Pakistan and accounted for many bombings during the 2000s. Once Musharraf (a puppet of the U.S.) was removed from power and democratic leaders took control of the country, the Paki army waged a massive war on the Taliban and other extremist groups forcing them to run back into Afghanistan. It took a long time, but Pakistan is on its way of removing extremism from its country.

The Shiite/Sunni struggle is greatly overstated and does not even compare historically to what Protestants and Catholics went through against each other. Iran and Iraq were two countries formed after World War I and hardly had any issues until the 1980s. The war between those two countries was a product of Saddam's lust for oil and hatred for Persians, and the U.S and West allowing him to invade due to anger from the hostage crisis. Saddam got their blessing and went full blast and killed many Iranians all in pursuit of their oil. In fact, Pakistan, a Sunni country helped their neighboring Shia Iran against the Sunni Iraqi army during that war since both countries have had friendly relations since the 1940s despite religous differences. The Shias in Pakistan never had trouble until extremism crept into Pakistan in the 1990s. The only reason we're seeing the Sunni/Shia struggle today is due to the extremist governments in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Africa is a different animal but obviously many of those countries were occupied by the West before gaining their independence.

Holy shit, coherent and accurate. A rarity here., and thanks.

I would add though, that Pakistans problems with extremism will only really be solved when they can improve public education. Hard to wean populations from religious extremism when those religious extremists are doing all the educating.

[ChumpDumper]

Well OPEC didn't move to curb production. They must really be intent on killing shale/sand producers, but it seems those guys invested so much initially that they can't stop now.

[pgardn]

Pakistan's old rival is India and is a looming threat, but they've had to deal with a massive influx of extremism since the 1980s with millions of Afghan refugees and foreign fighters running from the wars with the Soviets. The 1990s were all about the development of Al Qaeda and the Taliban which created turmoil in that country. These two groups are not created without Saudi and U.S influence. Terrorism exploded inside Pakistan especially after the country allowed the U.S to use its bases to invade Afghanistan's Talibam. The Jihadists waged a war on Pakistan and accounted for many bombings during the 2000s. Once Musharraf (a puppet of the U.S.) was removed from power and democratic leaders took control of the country, the Paki army waged a massive war on the Taliban and other extremist groups forcing them to run back into Afghanistan. It took a long time, but Pakistan is on its way of removing extremism from its country.

The Shiite/Sunni struggle is greatly overstated and does not even compare historically to what Protestants and Catholics went through against each other. Iran and Iraq were two countries formed after World War I and hardly had any issues until the 1980s. The war between those two countries was a product of Saddam's lust for oil and hatred for Persians, and the U.S and West allowing him to invade due to anger from the hostage crisis. Saddam got their blessing and went full blast and killed many Iranians all in pursuit of their oil. In fact, Pakistan, a Sunni country helped their neighboring Shia Iran against the Sunni Iraqi army during that war since both countries have had friendly relations since the 1940s despite religous differences. The Shias in Pakistan never had trouble until extremism crept into Pakistan in the 1990s. The only reason we're seeing the Sunni/Shia struggle today is due to the extremist governments in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Africa is a different animal but obviously many of those countries were occupied by the West before gaining their independence.

The Shiite Sunni conflict is hardly overstated as you failed to even mention it. It has a deep history that is much more fundamental than current alignments. This conflict is very important to understand as well as the more local tribal disagreements that were not appreciated by the US and others. And it cost them.

Just because you might be fine with dictators like Saddam murdering in order to rule and possibly quell old vendettas does not mean this should be the status quo.

Also, Pakistan is a player like Saudi Arabia but for a different reason. Pakistan obtained nuclear capability to deal specifically with India. This happened well before the 1990s of course. All Pakistan has to do is relay a sense of fear that destabilization will lead to nuclear conflict and everyone hops. They play a game with funding terrorists and being good guys just like Saudi Arabia.

[Pelicans78]

The Shiite Sunni conflict is hardly overstated as you failed to even mention it. It has a deep history that is much more fundamental than current alignments. This conflict is very important to understand as well as the more local tribal disagreements that were not appreciated by the US and others. And it cost them.

Just because you might be fine with dictators like Saddam murdering in order to rule and possibly quell old vendettas does not mean this should be the status quo.

Also, Pakistan is a player like Saudi Arabia but for a different reason. Pakistan obtained nuclear capability to deal specifically with India. This happened well before the 1990s of course. All Pakistan has to do is relay a sense of fear that destabilization will lead to nuclear conflict and everyone hops. They play a game with funding terrorists and being good guys just like Saudi Arabia.



The Shiite Sunni conflict is hardly overstated as you failed to even mention it. It has a deep history that is much more fundamental than current alignments. This conflict is very important to understand as well as the more local tribal disagreements that were not appreciated by the US and others. And it cost them.


I meant historically it's been overstated. Hasn't been extremely bloody since the divide 1400 years ago especially compared to the Protestant Reformation and even recent history in Northern Ireland. Obviously the Sunni/Shia divide has grown due to two extremist governments in Saudia Arabia and Iran have tried to spread their extreme brand across the region. There is a proxy war going on between both countries which is currently causing wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The civil war in Iraq started with Iranian backed Shias and Sunni Al-Qaeda with the moderate Sunni Kurds sucked in. And ironically this proxy war has sucked in major powers compared to the Cold War where every other country was being sucked in. But I still maintain before these two extremist governments were formed, the Sunni/Shia struggle was not much of struggle throughout history.


Just because you might be fine with dictators like Saddam murdering in order to rule and possibly quell old vendettas does not mean this should be the status quo.


Now where did I say I was fine with dictators ruling the Middle East. I mentioned countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia as potential stabilizing forces in the Muslim world since these are the largest Muslim countries who happen to have democratic principles in this day and age compared to the Arab dictators/monarchies and Iranian clerics. These large democratic countries have the potential to bring stability for one effectively tackling extremism and also providing inspiration to Muslims in other countries who aspire to having their own representative government. However these countries have major powers in their backyard who could cause destabilization.


Also, Pakistan is a player like Saudi Arabia but for a different reason. Pakistan obtained nuclear capability to deal specifically with India. This happened well before the 1990s of course. All Pakistan has to do is relay a sense of fear that destabilization will lead to nuclear conflict and everyone hops. They play a game with funding terrorists and being good guys just like Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons because of the threat from India, but they've dealt with extremist factions for over 20+ years mostly from Saudi influence spreading their extreme brand from the 1980s while supplying money to help fight the Soviets and later creating the Taliban. Yes, Pakistan has sympathized and provided support with the terrorists especially during Musharraf's rule, but that is not the norm since they've had elections since 2008, especially since their recent Prime Minister was elected in 2013. They've had a major military operation against the Taliban which has effectively crippled their operation and forced them to run back into Afghanistan. Also, the economy has improved since the government has given more control to private enterprises, as well as having strong ties with China who has heavily invested into Pakistan. Not only is China investing into Pakistan, but former Cold War enemy Russia has lifted the ban on dealing with Pakistan and have reached oil/natural gas and military agreements. I know the Western media wants to maintain that Pakistan is a dangerous Muslim country with nuclear weapons that invests in terrorism, but that narrative has become false with Pakistan rooting out extremism and maintaining a democratically elected government.

By the way, Pakistan launched their first nuclear missiles in the late 1990s. Recently, the government is having to deal with increased recent Hindu fundamentalism from India who have actively tried to destabilize Pakistan by funding anti-government political parties and expressing views on punishing Muslims in India who eat beef.

[Pelicans78]

Holy shit, coherent and accurate. A rarity here., and thanks.

I would add though, that Pakistans problems with extremism will only really be solved when they can improve public education. Hard to wean populations from religious extremism when those religious extremists are doing all the educating.

Yes that is correct. The Saudis funded the religious schools in the 1980s which bred the Taliban and further extremists. Rooting out extremists will improve the public education long-term where now private schools are the way to go to become successful. Pakistan like other developing countries has problems with establishing a middle class (Unlike our country where politicians pretend that the middle class is in trouble. Give me a fucking break).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With water.

Please tell me your scheme. They are always so awesome!

[boutons_deux]

"politicians pretend that the middle class is in trouble. Give me a fucking break"

which measure(s) tell you the middle class, even the lower 75%, isn't in trouble?

[hater]

Good truth bombs by Pelican :tu

Regarding Paki vs India. India has a vastly superior army so Pakistan is concentrating on tactical nuclear weapons. That is small scale nuclear weapons that would.degrade a possible Indian invasion. As I said before if there is a major war these two will most likely go at it.

[pgardn]

Yes that is correct. The Saudis funded the religious schools in the 1980s which bred the Taliban and further extremists. Rooting out extremists will improve the public education long-term where now private schools are the way to go to become successful. Pakistan like other developing countries has problems with establishing a middle class (Unlike our country where politicians pretend that the middle class is in trouble. Give me a fucking break).

Relatively speaking our middle class is more distressed. We don't look to countries who are trying to establish a middle class for comparison of our current state.

Pakistan still supports Muslim terrorists in disputed regions with India as well, not a one way street here.

And agreed on Turkey as being a possible democratic leader of the ME. That looks very difficult right now with their current leadership. Indonesia should be dealing with its internal own internal problems (overpopulation). given this, and their proximity, not major players in the ME.

BTW

I am perplexed by your very rational posts. I must have confused you with another poster.

[pgardn]

Good truth bombs by Pelican :tu

Regarding Paki vs India. India has a vastly superior army so Pakistan is concentrating on tactical nuclear weapons. That is small scale nuclear weapons that would.degrade a possible Indian invasion. As I said before if there is a major war these two will most likely go at it.

Dont ever type TRUTH in any of your posts.

[RandomGuy]

Please tell me your scheme. They are always so awesome!

Wild Cobra is referring to the massive underground waterway that Libya built to sell water to the subsaharans. It was a rather obvious ploy to win influence by Ghaddafi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River

[RandomGuy]

Well OPEC didn't move to curb production. They must really be intent on killing shale/sand producers, but it seems those guys invested so much initially that they can't stop now.

Well a lot of the stuff has already been drilled so continuing production is fairly cheap, and the shale producers have managed to keep their costs down below the price point where the Saudi's thought possible.

The Saudis are also pinched by their own budget deficits, so the rest of OPEC will have to suck it up, despite how much they wish the Saudis would subsidize them.

OPEC is not only on the ropes... it appears to be down for the count as a cartel, IMO.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wild Cobra is referring to the massive underground waterway that Libya built to sell water to the subsaharans. It was a rather obvious ploy to win influence by Ghaddafi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River

The point is to get him to do it. I was aware, I just also know that he's been using similar bribing policies in the AU for 30 years and they keep rejecting him.

[RandomGuy]

Relatively speaking our middle class is more distressed. We don't look to countries who are trying to establish a middle class for comparison of our current state.

Pakistan still supports Muslim terrorists in disputed regions with India as well, not a one way street here.

And agreed on Turkey as being a possible democratic leader of the ME. That looks very difficult right now with their current leadership. Indonesia should be dealing with its internal own internal problems (overpopulation). given this, and their proximity, not major players in the ME.

BTW

I am perplexed by your very rational posts. I must have confused you with another poster.

I merely note that the only thing that has made Turkey modern, economically viable, and democratic has been a strong secular streak in their society that has always tempered the worst excesses of those that would impose theocracy.

Hopefully the theocrats will experience enough of a backlash when they inevitably mis-handle the economy.

[RandomGuy]

The point is to get him to do it. I was aware, I just also know that he's been using similar bribing policies in the AU for 30 years and they keep rejecting him.

heh, sorry. If you want WC to not be lazy, you have to work hard to goad him. I was merely trying to help a bit. Carry on. :)

[RandomGuy]

I meant historically it's been overstated. Hasn't been extremely bloody since the divide 1400 years ago especially compared to the Protestant Reformation and even recent history in Northern Ireland. Obviously the Sunni/Shia divide has grown due to two extremist governments in Saudia Arabia and Iran have tried to spread their extreme brand across the region. There is a proxy war going on between both countries which is currently causing wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The civil war in Iraq started with Iranian backed Shias and Sunni Al-Qaeda with the moderate Sunni Kurds sucked in. And ironically this proxy war has sucked in major powers compared to the Cold War where every other country was being sucked in. But I still maintain before these two extremist governments were formed, the Sunni/Shia struggle was not much of struggle throughout history.



Now where did I say I was fine with dictators ruling the Middle East. I mentioned countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia as potential stabilizing forces in the Muslim world since these are the largest Muslim countries who happen to have democratic principles in this day and age compared to the Arab dictators/monarchies and Iranian clerics. These large democratic countries have the potential to bring stability for one effectively tackling extremism and also providing inspiration to Muslims in other countries who aspire to having their own representative government. However these countries have major powers in their backyard who could cause destabilization.



Yes, Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons because of the threat from India, but they've dealt with extremist factions for over 20+ years mostly from Saudi influence spreading their extreme brand from the 1980s while supplying money to help fight the Soviets and later creating the Taliban. Yes, Pakistan has sympathized and provided support with the terrorists especially during Musharraf's rule, but that is not the norm since they've had elections since 2008, especially since their recent Prime Minister was elected in 2013. They've had a major military operation against the Taliban which has effectively crippled their operation and forced them to run back into Afghanistan. Also, the economy has improved since the government has given more control to private enterprises, as well as having strong ties with China who has heavily invested into Pakistan. Not only is China investing into Pakistan, but former Cold War enemy Russia has lifted the ban on dealing with Pakistan and have reached oil/natural gas and military agreements. I know the Western media wants to maintain that Pakistan is a dangerous Muslim country with nuclear weapons that invests in terrorism, but that narrative has become false with Pakistan rooting out extremism and maintaining a democratically elected government.

By the way, Pakistan launched their first nuclear missiles in the late 1990s. Recently, the government is having to deal with increased recent Hindu fundamentalism from India who have actively tried to destabilize Pakistan by funding anti-government political parties and expressing views on punishing Muslims in India who eat beef.

Again, props. About what I would write, had I the time to do, pretty much a good assessment all around that I agree with.

Work for the State Dept? or just a foreign policy nerd?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

heh, sorry. If you want WC to not be lazy, you have to work hard to goad him. I was merely trying to help a bit. Carry on. :)

Oh I know. He'd already been told about the Kaddafi and his history with the AU. I was going to walk him through comparing and contrasting the takes.

Now worries.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I meant historically it's been overstated. Hasn't been extremely bloody since the divide 1400 years ago especially compared to the Protestant Reformation and even recent history in Northern Ireland. Obviously the Sunni/Shia divide has grown due to two extremist governments in Saudia Arabia and Iran have tried to spread their extreme brand across the region. There is a proxy war going on between both countries which is currently causing wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The civil war in Iraq started with Iranian backed Shias and Sunni Al-Qaeda with the moderate Sunni Kurds sucked in. And ironically this proxy war has sucked in major powers compared to the Cold War where every other country was being sucked in. But I still maintain before these two extremist governments were formed, the Sunni/Shia struggle was not much of struggle throughout history.



Now where did I say I was fine with dictators ruling the Middle East. I mentioned countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia as potential stabilizing forces in the Muslim world since these are the largest Muslim countries who happen to have democratic principles in this day and age compared to the Arab dictators/monarchies and Iranian clerics. These large democratic countries have the potential to bring stability for one effectively tackling extremism and also providing inspiration to Muslims in other countries who aspire to having their own representative government. However these countries have major powers in their backyard who could cause destabilization.



Yes, Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons because of the threat from India, but they've dealt with extremist factions for over 20+ years mostly from Saudi influence spreading their extreme brand from the 1980s while supplying money to help fight the Soviets and later creating the Taliban. Yes, Pakistan has sympathized and provided support with the terrorists especially during Musharraf's rule, but that is not the norm since they've had elections since 2008, especially since their recent Prime Minister was elected in 2013. They've had a major military operation against the Taliban which has effectively crippled their operation and forced them to run back into Afghanistan. Also, the economy has improved since the government has given more control to private enterprises, as well as having strong ties with China who has heavily invested into Pakistan. Not only is China investing into Pakistan, but former Cold War enemy Russia has lifted the ban on dealing with Pakistan and have reached oil/natural gas and military agreements. I know the Western media wants to maintain that Pakistan is a dangerous Muslim country with nuclear weapons that invests in terrorism, but that narrative has become false with Pakistan rooting out extremism and maintaining a democratically elected government.

By the way, Pakistan launched their first nuclear missiles in the late 1990s. Recently, the government is having to deal with increased recent Hindu fundamentalism from India who have actively tried to destabilize Pakistan by funding anti-government political parties and expressing views on punishing Muslims in India who eat beef.

It being historically insignificant is wrong. The followers of Ali were pushed back and slaughtered by the Ayyubid as well as the Ottoman's since muhammed died. It's only been since the fall of the Ottoman's that they have been able to consolidate and form a local hegemony. Nonetheless, the Turks in particular throughout their centuries long caliphates were especially well known for their pogrom and purges. They were also known for rewriting history. We only care about the christian armenian but the sunni ottoman's were prolific slavers and slaughterers. Heresy laws are what they are and the hadith is very clear what you do to those that lose the faith.

As for Pakistan, it's been a few years since OBL got gibbed but that entire scenario belies your narrative of a monolithic Pakistan. The dictator is ostensibly the power however hoe does not have control of his allegiances in his cabinet. I have a friend in the merchant marine and every time he disboards at Kirachi the scene he describes isn't one where the antiwestern sentiment is pushed back.

The Taliban mullah movement is now Saudi's issue too? Is this some inverted logic because of AQ ties? I disagree as those Mullah's have shown all indication to be able to think and operate autonomously. Disturbingly so frankly. Pakistan has been having 'offenses' against them for 20 years and if you mean 'pushed back into Afghanistan' to mean somewhere in the mountains because they cannot be sure then I agree with you. They've been up in the hills to the west for the most part since the fall of Kandahar as well.

No one is going to argue that the Pakistani military isn't better equipped that the Afghans.

[pgardn]

I merely note that the only thing that has made Turkey modern, economically viable, and democratic has been a strong secular streak in their society that has always tempered the worst excesses of those that would impose theocracy.

Hopefully the theocrats will experience enough of a backlash when they inevitably mis-handle the economy.

It was secular because a secular military had great power. That military is now loaded with more theocratic leaning generals. So it's going to be tough. And the secular military present before was somewhat of an enigma as far as democracy goes.

Turkey is a nation going through some very big changes. Very tough to predict imo. One thing is clear, they have made more enemies than friends compared to when the Big E first gained power. This was a country that was suppose to play a big role in bridging the gap between the West and Islam and economic prosperity. Friends with Israelis and could also talk Israels enemies...

This hope has turned 180... They are now causing problems instead of solving them.

[Pelicans78]

Again, props. About what I would write, had I the time to do, pretty much a good assessment all around that I agree with.

Work for the State Dept? or just a foreign policy nerd?

Nerd.

[Pelicans78]

It being historically insignificant is wrong. The followers of Ali were pushed back and slaughtered by the Ayyubid as well as the Ottoman's since muhammed died. It's only been since the fall of the Ottoman's that they have been able to consolidate and form a local hegemony. Nonetheless, the Turks in particular throughout their centuries long caliphates were especially well known for their pogrom and purges. They were also known for rewriting history. We only care about the christian armenian but the sunni ottoman's were prolific slavers and slaughterers. Heresy laws are what they are and the hadith is very clear what you do to those that lose the faith.

As for Pakistan, it's been a few years since OBL got gibbed but that entire scenario belies your narrative of a monolithic Pakistan. The dictator is ostensibly the power however hoe does not have control of his allegiances in his cabinet. I have a friend in the merchant marine and every time he disboards at Kirachi the scene he describes isn't one where the antiwestern sentiment is pushed back.

The Taliban mullah movement is now Saudi's issue too? Is this some inverted logic because of AQ ties? I disagree as those Mullah's have shown all indication to be able to think and operate autonomously. Disturbingly so frankly. Pakistan has been having 'offenses' against them for 20 years and if you mean 'pushed back into Afghanistan' to mean somewhere in the mountains because they cannot be sure then I agree with you. They've been up in the hills to the west for the most part since the fall of Kandahar as well.

No one is going to argue that the Pakistani military isn't better equipped that the Afghans.

Not saying most of this is false, but there are some incomplete stuff here. The Ottomans weren't perfect, but they weren't as bad as the Wahabbis who took over the Arab land. The Ottoman empire executed the founder of Wahabbism because he was a heretic and very extreme in his beliefs. His followers are the guys who took over Arabia and have been the ruling leaders since.

There is no dictator in Pakistan. Since Musharraf stepped down in 2008, they've had two presidential elections and Prime Ministers from two different ruling parties have won. So the dictator does not exist. Sure Pakistan has a long way to go, but it's in a better state than it was back in 2008. The real struggle has been and always will be between the civilian government and military leaders.

The Saudis were instrumental in creating the Taliban. Their money and ideology was behind the creation of that group. Pakistan's dictator in the 80s was a Wahabbi and took money from the Saudis to build the religious schools which trained the future members of the Taliban. The Taliban has always been a Saudi. The Pakis have been inconsistent in their fight against the Mullahs because they helped create them and they didn't like Karzai at all since he was an Indian sympathizer. But they finally launched a major operation (operation ‘Zarb-e-Azb) last year which has done tremendous damage to the Taliban.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not saying most of this is false, but there are some incomplete stuff here. The Ottomans weren't perfect, but they weren't as bad as the Wahabbis who took over the Arab land. The Ottoman empire executed the founder of Wahabbism because he was a heretic and very extreme in his beliefs. His followers are the guys who took over Arabia and have been the ruling leaders since.

There is no dictator in Pakistan. Since Musharraf stepped down in 2008, they've had two presidential elections and Prime Ministers from two different ruling parties have won. So the dictator does not exist. Sure Pakistan has a long way to go, but it's in a better state than it was back in 2008. The real struggle has been and always will be between the civilian government and military leaders.

The Saudis were instrumental in creating the Taliban. Their money and ideology was behind the creation of that group. Pakistan's dictator in the 80s was a Wahabbi and took money from the Saudis to build the religious schools which trained the future members of the Taliban. The Taliban has always been a Saudi. The Pakis have been inconsistent in their fight against the Mullahs because they helped create them and they didn't like Karzai at all since he was an Indian sympathizer. But they finally launched a major operation (operation ‘Zarb-e-Azb) last year which has done tremendous damage to the Taliban.

The Ottoman's used to enslave their conquered people's using the Hadith and longstanding tradition as justification. They too used Sharia but had more extracurriculars. They are world famous for their genocides and enslavements. They took Constantinople in the 16th century. Over 300 years of that shit.

al-Wahabbi was not killed by the Ottomans. Which one is better would be a matter of Islamic law as the Wahabbists rejected many of the 'innovations' of both caliphates. Those go both ways. They both justified heinous shit. It's a longstanding tradition.

Pakistan no longer having a dictator only underscores my point. It's a pluralism and while the post colonials elites and some other groups don't hate us, hte vast majority does. The military is obviously of divided loyalties.

Mullah Omar was trained in Pakistan and is from the Kandahar region. The rejection of the caliphate's traditions and going back to the traditions of the first muslims was not exclusive to Arabia. The mullah's were not Arabs. Saudis and other arabs became involved in the 1980s as jihadis. Many stayed. Their alliance made what happened possible but it was not the same thing.

The Paki's have been having major operations against the Taliban intermittently for near 20 years. It's typically after they bomb something.

[cheguevara]

Yemeni Houthies have crossed into Saudi and destroyed military base. Killed a few commanders as well.

Last night they also killed scores of Blackwater Mercenaries in Yemen

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/09/australian-mercenary-reportedly-killed-yemen-clashes

Australian mercenary reportedly killed in Yemen clashes
Media reports say the man was fighting with Colombians on behalf of the United Arab Emirates in the brutal civil conflict in Yemen

An Australian mercenary colonel has reportedly been killed in clashes in Yemen, alongside six Colombian troops.

The mercenaries, including the Australian, were fighting with the private military contractor Blackwater, the reports said.

Last month the New York Times reported the UAE had sent hundreds of Colombian mercenaries to fight in the conflict.