Isn't it nice that China is working with them on their Belt and Road initiative?
Hey what large nation is allied with Saudi Arabia again?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia and Iran are sworn enemies with two different theocratic faiths leading each.
Not quite.
You know Crown Prince MBS? Hacks up journalists MBS?
The actual reason he hasn't faced consequences for it is that he's largely doing what the West wants, the secularization of SA. Calling it a theocracy just isn't quite right anymore, even if Islam as a whole tends to dispute the very idea of the separation of church and state.
I think that's one of the things Christians, or former Christians, don't want to admit in this little religious rivalry, that Muslims are every bit as varied in their take on fundamentalism as Christians.
Lol the Saudis used Israeli spy tech to spy on the family of the journalist they murdered, Jamal Khashoggi. They may well have used it on him as well, however his devices were never recovered so that was never proven. The sale of the tech was approved by the Israeli government, and the company that sold it claims they have full oversight over who their customers target.
That's completely beside the point you were making, but I really felt the need to mention it nonetheless. War is a tangled web, the only consistent thread is money.
The faiths are a little different, but Wahhabism isn't far removed from Sunni Islam. In any case, since 7 October the Saudis have been talking with Iran about working with them, instead of Israel.
Iran is Shia. They have a very violent history of conflict across the Middle East. Most recently across Iraq but Sunni vs Shia has been a common conflict duo since Islam split.
Fair play, my mistake. Saudi Arabia is still starting to cosy up to Iran now, though.
Maybe. But I'm referring to the United States.
Pot calling the kettle black and all that.
I know lol.
But tbf the US isn't actually allied with Saudi Arabia, never really has been. They do pay well for US weapons, though.
Did you even read the first two sentences of the wiki you linked?
[...] despite the differences between the two countries—an Islamic absolute monarchy, and a secular constitutional republic—the two countries have been allies ever since.
And then most of the rest of the article lists all the ways in which they're not really allies. It's not your typical allied relationship, they're pretty much allies in name only these days and very begrudgingly.
The USA.
Never look inward, only outward at China.
Yes it is? An infrastructure project like that will help modernise the region.
It's not an infrastructure project, it's a debt trap and power projection tool through bribery of corrupt leaders willing to sell out their countries.
I've apparently been living under a rock and have no idea what this initiative is about, care to share some quick summary?
Basically China is building roads and rail across from China, through India and into the Middle East. Afghanistan also includes something about getting copper from there to send back to China, I imagine other countries will have resources China is after as well.
What makes you say the countries it goes through are going to be in debt because of it?
My understanding is that they won't be, however they will be practically giving away natural resources (eg copper for Afghanistan).
Not all debt can be satisfied with money. A debt that is being paid, whether in money, natural resources, or the blood sweat tears and labor of your countrymen is still a debt.
You're not really making sense. "A debt paid,... is still a debt that has to be paid"? If the debt is paid, it's already been paid.
Assuming Afghanistan owes China for the infrastructure, then that debt would be paid by giving them copper. Bought and paid for. So how are they saddled with debt? Where's the trap?
Obviously the deal will be a lot more complex, it might not be a great deal long term in some respects and I'm sure there'll be a measure of corruption (there almost always is, everywhere), but at the end of the day Afghanistan is getting infrastructure it couldn't build on its own and China is getting resources it otherwise wouldn't have access to.
Because the copper will be worth way more in the long run than the tech it’s funding. Plus China is notorious for putting their own people in charge of mining operations who are abusive to locals.
I’m sure it’ll be a little more complex, but it doesn’t have to be. If China can secure cheap raw materials it helps to ensure that they can make things cheaper than anyone else.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/744071/manufacturing-labor-costs-per-hour-china-vietnam-mexico/
That link shows how China’s unskilled labor is now more expensive than a lot of their competitors. They need a new edge to stay relevant. The raw materials in Afghanistan is just one of many ways they are attempting to stay competitive.
You’re right about my mis-type on the last thing I’m headed there to fix it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah I'm sure China are doing it for their own advantage, but Afghanistan are still getting infrastructure they wouldn't have had - in particular the route is going through the mountains, where there are no easy roads currently. There are significant benefits for thw other countries involved in the scheme, too.
Are you ok? Do you smell toast or something? If you don’t even have a basic understanding of how life works, never mind, the CCP. I can’t help you.
Are you implying that China is doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts? Are you suggesting that the CCP signed off on a project like this because they are such nice guys?
I bet you believed your mom when she said you were special too. Get the fuck out of here. Hehehehehehehe
Are you ok? Suddenly coming unravelled like that could be a sign of dimentia.
Normally, I wouldn’t do this, but I’ve had some time to sleep and I think I may have misinterpreted something you typed. First off though there are a few things that I follow pretty close. Shitty religious stuff, and shitty CCP practices are probably my top things. I’m definitely not saying I’m an expert but I find those things equally interesting and infuriating.
Anyway, last night you called me out for the way I worded my first comment. It was perfectly understandable in its original form. Though I do admit I could have worded it better. So, I fixed it.
But before that comment you had shown a lack of understanding of how basic transactions work. Also, you made it sound like China was the one really helping Afghanistan and China was receiving little in the way of payment for this infrastructure. Now I won’t get into China debt traps because that’s a whole thing unto itself. But I first learned about how China treats African mine workers where similar deals have been made on gore websites. Granted it’s not as bad as what the Belgians did, but they aren’t kind.
Which brings me to what I think I probably misinterpreted. Because of acting like you don’t know how basic transactions work. I just assumed your statement that started with “Yeah, I’m sure…” was sarcastic. Like you were actually saying that you believed the CCP was just doing it to be cool. Which is ridiculous.
Anyway, maybe in the future don’t start off a conversation by critiquing someone’s grammar? Ummm wordage? I don’t know, the proper word escapes me at the moment. But, I feel like we could have had a very constructive conversation.
Also, I should work on my own pettiness. Like, if you insult me by calling me out on something unrelated to the topic. Even if the topic wasn’t my thing. For the next several hours it will be. So, I should also work on that.
I hope you have a good rest of the week.
No hard feelings dude, I appreciate your genuine input.
I didn't mean to be so mocking with my first reply to you, I really couldn't make out what point you were making. My comment before last wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but I can see how it could come off that way.
You weren't the one who said it was a debt trap, so no issue there. However I wasn't saying China was doing this for no reward out of the goodness of their hearts, rather it is something of a mutually beneficial deal for most countries. This is because China is trying to sweet talk them into it - China really wants their resources, and also maybe some strategic advantages, so they're willing to help build the infrastucture to get it. The only people who could make this a bad deal are the ones negotiating the sale of resources, they have what China wants and as such have the upper hand in the negotiation.
In general, China's international practices are terrible, in my opinion. You only have to take a brief glance at the South China Sea to see that, or look at Hong Kong, Taiwan or the Uyghur people, or how they basically admitted to harvesting organs from prisoners (at some point they basically said "we're not doing it anymore", meanwhile their transplant industry continued its exponential growth). However, when it comes to the Belt & Roads Initiative China isn't playing the bad guy, as far as I can tell. Doing so would cost them.
That one example doesn't make them the good guys, of course, but that also doesn't mean building road and rail through these countries isn't a good thing.
All the best to you, friend.
Then maybe they should've fought along with the ANA and ANP against the Taliban during the last twenty fucking years to ensure their rights were secured through violence.
This is how LGBTQIA+ communities are going to slowly lose their rights in the USA to Christofacist Republicans (who have identical ideologies to the fucking Taliban); no one on the Left is using the deterrence of violence to ensure their own existence.
Buy a fucking gun and train with it every month and protest while open-carrying. Cops & Republicans want you gone, and democrats are too scared of guns to actually protect you if push came to shove, also they are more interested in corporate profits over your life and/or lifestyle anyway (notice the rainbow flags disappeared after Pride Month passed by).
I'm pretty confident next to none of them supported the Taliban. It really wouldn't matter if they fought or not because they are a tiny minority in their country, and their contributions wouldn't have changed a thing.
Violence doesn't solve everything yk
No, but when you're fighting the Taliban it's pretty important to use.
When you were born, your beautiful amazing mother had to push you out of her body by force.
If you are hungry, you eat something that was killed for you (plant, animal, fungus), or indirectly responsible for something to die (i.e. a cow eating grass to make milk).
Violence is fundamentally necessary for you to exist. If you don't leverage it as a deterrence, someone else will use it against you for their own benefit.
You mean the ANA that wasn't even getting paid for the last 10 months of its existence? The US allowed corruption to fester in the Afghan government and their own contractors, yet Americans have the gall to blame Afghans for the situation Americans created.
Always funny to see people on social media talking big about how other people should violently overthrow their government. Bunch of tough guy victim blaming bullshit. The US created this situation and failed to resolve it, that's where the responsibility lies.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/