surada hangs out with Muslims.Any other ones you'd like to call peaceful and prosperous?ExamplesThe whole arena is a mess. This does not mean of course we can look the other way and hope for the best. These groups have been bombing for a long time and due to great unrest a regime change might happen. We are now looking at the people doing the bombing (through funding) trying to take power.Well for one, the current regime despite their actions has been pro-American. Over the past several decade's groups hell-bent on changing Saudi Arabia into a state like Iran. While I understand the notion we must let religion be, the religion supports "the last living religion", meaning they will exist long after everyone else is exterminated, they have been brilliantly pushing that agenda with terrorist groups in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine. The goal like many have assumed isn't to destroy the governments as many think, this can really extend to blowing up other enemies to instigate and fume warfare as we see when the unjust attacks on Israel occur. Terror isn't a religion nor is it culture and while it would be nice to remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern theatre at this point in time it could be detrimental, especially if Iran openly supports the destruction of several nations until they join under them, will potentially take over.I could've put this in the political forum however I believe this has several ethical points to which validate this being its location.
The Kirkpatrick Thesis has brought to my attention the several interesting support transitions the United States has been repeating. The US pulled support from the dictator of Cuba and so Fidel Castro took over. The same things have happened in Nicaragua with the Sandinista. The idea is that the US may like they did before, pull support from Saudi Arabia's current dictatorship allowing for those seeking a regime change to take over.
This could have several conflicting factors. One of which being that an Islamic theocratic state will be born potentially ruining ties with the United States and creating a coalition of very strong Islamic states most of which do not support the US. Other possibilities form too, a worse regime taking over which could potentially eliminate the human rights of all citizens with a corrupt and terrible religious police. ( I am aware some of these things exist but they can be worse)
My ethical Inquiries are involving what should we do? Does the United States have a right to get involved in the transition? Should the US pull support? How would we deal with the repercussions of a worse regime? Do we need to fear the next Islamic surge? Does US interest matter here; should we remove that from the decisions for ethical purposes?
Why should we interfere with Saudi. culture and religion? They have always been staunch allies and pro-American.
Yemen is a horrible mess and its always been so poor....and lawless outside Sa'na. In 1998 AQ moved in from Afghanistan followed by Boko Haram, Al Shaabaz, Somali Pirates...
The Saudis moved all their border villages back 20 kilometers and built a fence. They have been plagued by suicide bombers. KSA has invested in Yemen for 40 years.. hospitals and clinics, trade schools and colleges, clean water, medicine, food and gasoline. The Al Houthis overthrew the government.. Even the Monarchists are still fighting the Communists. The Houthis are trying to control the Bab al Mandab and all the Red Sea ports from the Indian Ocean to Suez.
I'm not optimistic.
KSA has taken in a million Yemeni refugees .. and that's not even a dent in the problem.
The whole area is NOT a mess.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Emirates aren't a mess. They are quite nice.. peaceful and prosperous. Arabs value a civil society.
Nope.. I hang out with Jews.