If you drive a car, fly on a plane, have trucks in your supply chain, use plastic anywhere in your life- you support that engagement. Sucks but they're built in now.

The US, due to fracking, is now a net exporter of oil most years. Hopefully with more electric cars in the fleet each year oil use will also decline dramatically. We should use that opportunity to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately I think one factor driving US engagement that is not often discussed is the tens of billions Saudi Arabia spends on US weapon systems each year, not just oil interest.

> is now a net exporter of oil most years

There are different kinds of oil and they aren't equivalent.

We seem to be able to be hostile to Russia and China while depending om them for oil and manufacturing.

Extending the same courtesy to Saudi Arabia should be straightforward. Except, of course, Saudis align with NATO, Russia and China don't.

They also contribute a lot to VC funds iirc

Bunch of that is our money coming back under their ownership, though.

There is no hypocrisy there, like everything in life, including startup life, everything comes down to money. And money is power. The US created the Saudi Arabian powerhouse we see today. We need them to keep our economic inertia moving forward at a pace acceptable for the populace. Is it a travesty? 100% But we made this bed.

Political independence is desirable. Absolute independence is unlikely and possibly unwise as well in a multi party system. However more choices means less power consolidated by any small number of potentially disagreeable actors.

Say Yes to all sorts of energy. Solar, Wind, even modern Nuclear designed to be safe and with 'waste reduction' steps in mind for partly spent fuel that needs to be processed again at carefully controlled military guarded sites (since these processes can also make weapons).

Americans like to pretend that we fight for higher ideals than naked self interest or national interest.

Americans fight for ideals all the time. Individual Americans do, and this includes individuals in government.

It is true to say that much that is represented as being about ideals is really something else in disguise. And there is rampant corruption and so forth.

But it takes cynicism too far to say that ideals never factor in. There are many principled people with ideals having impact in the world every day, and there is nothing enlightened about deriding their efforts or pretending they don't exist.

I like to think of it as, collectively our ideals are a compass. We keep heading North but it doesn't mean we don't get lost walking in circles. It also doesn't preclude that sometimes when we think we're heading North we're actually heading South. Making a mockery of our ideals is like making fun of someone for carrying a compass or dating to shoot an azimuth. Unfortunately a good amount of people inside the US and out like to do that.

I believe the thread was about the behaviour of governments, not individuals. Principled and idealistic individuals exist everywhere, including Saudi Arabia as the article shows.

> Americans fight for ideals all the time

The US government, post ww2, fights for Corporations in the NATO axis that benefit from a particular regime being in power in a particular country.

Sometimes these regimes are democratic, other times they are not. The ideals are kool aid to sell to the public to garner support for war.

For eg, US has toppled democracies in Haiti and Iran to support corporate interests. It supported dictatorship in Haiti, Saudi, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran etc to promote the interests of NATO corporations.

It's neither all "freedom and democracy" nor all "ruthless greed". Your post feels like kool aid in "ruthless greed" direction.

Government decisions are made by human beings in positions of power. Being in a position of power, such as the president of the United States, is a balancing of owns personal beliefs/morality and the interests of the United States. The composition of those components and the position of the pendulum in that balance varies depending on who you are.

Your position supposes nobody with ideals becomes members of government or that members of government somehow compartmentalize American cultural ideals/identity. Plenty of hypocrisy abounds, no doubt, but your take is overly cynical.

> Your post feels like kool aid in "ruthless greed" direction.

I have cited several examples, you cant call it kool aid because it disagrees with your beliefs. Feel free to offer counter examples.

Counter examples I am looking for

1. American support for a democracy that is not conditioned on alignment with NATO.

2. Or equivalently displacement of a dictatorial regime that is aligned with NATO, with a democratic regime that is less or equally aligned with NATO.

I can easily predict with 100% accuracy which faction the US government and media will support from this simple principle of NATO alignment.

The most hilarious example of this was when US fought against ISIS in Iraq, while supporting ISIS in Syria - because they were fighting against Assad(who aligned with Russia). To prevent Americans from cognitive dissonance, ISIS factions in Syria were referred to in US media as "rebels". With US media highlighting and magnifying tweets from Syrian ISIS accounts, when Assad wrested control of Aleppo from ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated "rebels"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_offensive_(October%E2%8...

Check out the composition and history of the "rebel" groups.

Army of Conquest

Fatah Halab

Ansar al-Islam

Jabhat Ansar al-Din

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-alep...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/world/middleeast/aleppo-t...

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/powerless-people-aleppo-tweeti...

Here US media amplifies and propagates evidence free ISIS propaganda in Syria. If these "rebels" were such great humanitarians, why weren't they welcome in Iraq?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/12/last-rebel...

However, when civilians fled the fled to "regime" (read Assad) controlled areas.

"Yesterday, some residents who couldn’t take the bombardment anymore fled toward regime controlled areas, according to Othman."

Amnesty internationals report directly contradicts US media reporting which blamed civilian casualties on Assad.

"Amnesty International stated that the "armed opposition groups have displayed a shocking disregard for civilian lives", deploying weapons "whose use in the vicinity of densely populated civilian areas flagrantly violates international humanitarian law". The organization called the rebel groups to "end all attacks that fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians"."

More honest reporting outside US media, where Obama and Kerry squirm at the optics of supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against Assad.

https://www.mei.edu/publications/under-pressure-syrias-rebel...

Non US media reports that Kerry acknowledged that US has been supporting "terrorists"

"As the unthinkable was becoming a reality in Aleppo, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry held a day of talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow and agreed to a series of undetermined terms for bilateral cooperation against terrorism in Syria"

All I meant to say is that it is not an either/or situation. I acknowledge the United States engages in plenty of realpolitik that is hypocritical and runs counter to its supposed ideals. I think we should acknowledge that it is a topic whose breadth and complexity cannot be captured by a couple of forum posts.

I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I feel that it is a disservice to them and those ideals to write them off or discount their existence because of instances of hypocrisy in US policy. That is all I wished to communicate.

Like I said, I don't know of a single instance where US lent support to a faction that would not increase alignment with NATO corporations, post FDR. I am all ears, if there are any counter examples. My tool of choice is Occams razor and it has served me well so far.

I, personally, am not aware of a single counter example. FDR had started to deviate by establishing friendly relations with Stalin's Russia. The possibility of a president deviating from the agenda was put firmly to death by making it illegal for a president to have more than 2 terms, after FDRs death.

As much as I hate Trump and Putin, Trump was the only President to deviate from the NATO consensus on various issues. It was a bad idea and grift by Trump and I didn't support it.

> I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals.

I 100% believe that. I believe Obama was well intentioned as well. For example, he tried to reduce tensions with non NATO countries like Cuba and Iran. However, when push came to shove- he supported ISIS in Syria.

Even Bidens price cap on insulin was written so that insurance Corporations profits are completely unaffected, the costs will simply be spread out to all insurance customers.

As for the folks you know, they could be working with the US Government on providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians and Syrian refugees, while another arm of the government is fucking them over.

The point is - the overall structure of the US government is built to primarily advance the objectives of NATO corporations. There will be thousands of individuals doing good work within the government. I know several of them myself. However, these are secondary- not primary objectives of the state

Another example, George Bush removing democracy in Haiti and installing a dictator

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrol...

If it was Obama, he probably would have left Haiti alone. Haiti is strategically meaningless to USA. But Bush had to execute a coup.So, yes, the people in the government matter. But the singular thrust of US Foreign policy is alignment with NATO. It's as clear as daylight.

Based on your criteria I would consider the US support for a post-Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt perhaps counter-productive for US interests for the sake of democracy.

https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian...

I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, broadly speaking. EDIT: As compared with the continued occupation of the country.

https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28...

Double edit: Also as far as know European members of NATO hated the backtracking of American policy on Iran due to business interests. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-busin...

Funnily enough, Morsi is now dead. And the United states was active against Morsi, irrespective of the public posture. The optics of being seen as reversing the Arab spring was not good, as was supporting Al Qaeda in Syria.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-ba...

As for humanitarian support, I have already stated with examples of Syria and Palestine that these secondary activities happen- however, they do not change the primary thrust of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is no different. When I say that primary objective of the United states is supporting the goals of NATO corporations it does not mean that secondary goals such as social security, unemployment reduction and Medicare don't exist.

As for Iran, I already stated that Obama moved to normalize relationship with non NATO Iran and Cuba by allowing other countries to trade with them etc.

I also explained how Trump is the only president who went off-script by engaging with Russia, ruining the TPP and also harming French/NATO business interests that were developing in Iran. Your edit refers to actions by Trump.

The previous president to do that was FDR. This led to the 2 term limit on presidency as he 1. Introduced social security 2. Normalized relationships with Russia 3. Raised taxes

There was a plot to assassinate fdr as soon as he was elected. Surprisingly enough, nobody was prosecuted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

"Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending "

> The US government, post ww2, fights for Corporations in the NATO axis that benefit from a particular regime being in power in a particular country.

And before WW2, it was for it's own corporations. "I was a gangster for capitalism" is an interesting read.

Good platform. https://www.prestigecity.gen.in/

Hypocrisy or realpolitik, depending on how nuanced your worldview is.

It is realpolitik. Absolutely.

We ruthlessly engage in it, but whenever anyone else on Earth tries it, we whip out the "freedom, democracy, human rights" rhetoric.

We shouldn't be surprised when that rings hollow elsewhere in the world.

We don't throw people in prison for 3 decades over social media posts.

Austria nearly does. Mr. Bond. I see little difference between tweets and political parody songs.

It does appear to me that America and the rest of the West are diverging on this issue. We do not criminally prosecute people for political speech. Even speech most of us find abhorrent. We draw the line at inciting violence.

And look where that’s gotten you.

We don't put 93 year old women in prison for saying Auschwitz was a work camp, so wherever "we" are is at least not that bad.

Didn’t think I’d have to spell it out, but you’ve got Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and endless funding from the Koch brothers who were literally raised by a Nazi nanny, all abusing “free speech” to purposefully—and successfully!—destroy your nation.

Free speech absolutism or a functional society: you can pick only one, not both.

I don’t think chitowneats message deserved flagging, nor deletion.

Mr. Bond was a notorious neo-nazi rapper, calling it "political parody songs" is pretty misleading. For context: he was convicted of "Wiederbetätigung" (= glorification of national-socialism) which is a distinct criminal offence in Germany and Austria

So what? It's an abhorrent and dystopian law along with Saudi Arabia's speech laws. He has never done a violent thing to a person, has not defrauded anyone, and is in jail for 10 years due to writing political parodies.

Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous. Also, I don't know why you keep calling his songs "political parodies", they are outright neo-nazi propaganda...

They are parodies of songs and national socialism is a set of politics and philosophies - just because you don't like it doesn't make it not political.

> they are outright neo-nazi propaganda...

Yet again, so what? Are you insinuating that people are being assaulted by a song?

> Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous.

No, it isn't, and if you're going to claim that it is, you need to explain why.

Hmm, sure. Perhaps Austria and Germany are a bit culturally traumatized by the horrors they inflicted upon the world under an ideology, and they wish (based on historical data) to prevent such an occurrence again?

I don’t feel qualified to say whether this is effective, but it’s pretty obvious why this is characteristically different from “ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.”

> prevent such an occurrence again?

By imprisoning geriatrics and a guy who made some songs people didn't like the messaging of?

> ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.

I don't see the difference at all. These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

If you're thinking so hard that you can't see the difference between someone resurrecting the ideology responsible in real, actual, recent history for 20-30 million deaths, versus someone who is criticizing a brutal dictator, then you are thinking too hard.

This doesn't need to break down to some formally correct logical statement. Simply look at the facts of each case, the goals of each party involved, the systems each party uses to legitimize its actions, and the resulting effects of each party pursuing their goals.

Edit: Did you delete your very nasty message accusing me and “my ilk” of being “beyond repair?” I guess that language really fits with the whole “defending neo-Nazis” schtick.

> Edit: Did you delete your very nasty message accusing me and “my ilk” of being “beyond repair?”

The comment has been flagged, so it's hidden unless you enable "show dead".

That’s cute. No interest in being “repaired” by someone who can’t see the obvious difference between a democracy and a dictatorship, and the clear fact that even identical actions done by the two are not equally legitimate.

Democracy? So the people of these countries had some say in these laws? They did not. I'm not aware of a democracy on Earth that isn't just a dictatorship with fancy clothes, at least at the federal level.

My man, you're OK with throwing nonviolent offenders in jail for speech. This is not a good look.

A sensible person can think something is not okay and also think it's not equivalent to a theocratic dictatorship.

A sensible person can also see that "being on the losing side of an election" is not equivalent to "not having anything resembling an election."

I wouldn't even chalk these up to nuanced or detailed or subtle distinctions. These are basic, substantial differences that only a disgruntled WEIRD-worlder could struggle to detect.

> These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

There is quite a difference between critizing the "Verbotsgesetz" and literally spreading neo-nazi hate speech.

We do if they would contain magic words that make them run afoul of the plainly unconstitutional Espionage Act

It does seem difficult balancing an open and free society with mechanisms for protecting and maintaining government secrets, and punishing those who betray those secrets.

Do you believe it is plainly unconstitutional simply because it posting to twitter involves words?

Democratic governments where the premise is "of the people by the people" I believe it is be highly undemocratic and corrupting to allow government to hold secrets from the very people that granted them power and are suppose to hold them to account via the ballot box

Democracy can only work when the citizens are informed about what their government is doing

The 1st amendment clearly states the Congress can not pass any law abridging speech. The espionage act clearly prevents whistleblowers and others from coming forward with information the government does not desire to be public which today is more often to be documents and evidence of crimes and embarrassing actions by government

I do understand the dangers of a government that can arbitrarily declare something a "state secret" and subsequently stifle speech on some arbitrary grounds.. but at the same time, can you recognize that there may be legitimate grounds to forbid dissemination of particular information on the grounds that it is advantageous to hostile entities, and thus a detriment to the US as a whole?

While conceptually I can see such information can exist, I take it the same way I do free speech as a concept, over all I believe the negatives of allowing governments to hold secrets to be more damaging than any positives

Just like I do not believe tech companies, or governments to censor "misinformation" or "disinformation" because the negatives of controlled speech far far far out weigh any net positives that would come from censorship

Back to state secrets, I think the clear and obvious abuse of the practice should make it more than clear we should cease giving government agencies the "benefit of the doubt" and massively shift the Overton window back in the direction of total transparency

State secrets, if they exist at all, should be EXTREMELY abnormal, rare, and continually in need of justification. Today however state secrets are the default, standard procedure, and we need justification to open records which is a complete inversion of how it should be

We can just refer to the social media posts as "material support to a terrorist organization."

Equating the US to Saudi Arabia is beyond divorced from reality. No, you can't "just" do that and get anywhere close to similar outcomes as what's happened here.

Turn on your TV anywhere in America, walk into a coffee shop, talk to a friend. Conversations freely and frequently come to vigorous criticisms of those in power. Now go try to do that almost anywhere in the Middle East. You'll struggle to find someone willing to even remotely entertain that conversation with you.

That's what oppression looks like. Not hypotheticals like the one you're proposing here.

Any examples of this happening?

Every country on earth has diplomatic relations with Saudia Arabia except Belize, the Holy See, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nepal, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Taiwan, Western Sahara, and a few Pacific micronations. Obviously the House of Saud is evil, but it's largely impossible to have a modern society without their oil.

"It's largely impossible to have a modern society without their oil."

Not true. They produce less oil than the US and Russia and were only responsible for 12% of global oil production in 2021.

So? I didn't say there were any good countries on earth.

We can buy their oil without fist-bumping their overlord.