Senate votes 63-37 to withdraw US support for Saudi war in Yemen
22 replies, posted
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46376807
Even if the Senate ultimately passes the resolution, it is unlikely to be approved in the current House of Representatives. Republicans hold a majority and have voted down similar measures in the past.
However, this could change in the new year, when Democrats take over the majority.
Mostly symbolic now, but the Senate's giving Trump the finger and if they keep this up in the new year the House will probably be much more receptive.
US support to Saudi Arabia should have been ended in 2001. Hell, the entirety of Saudi Arabia should have been ended in 2001. The fact that the US government is still pawning weapons and missiles to Saudi Arabia demonstrates our government's willingness to engage in open collusion in crimes against humanity in Yemen.
If we're going to spend 17 years sending missiles and arms to the Saudi government so that the regime can indiscriminately murder children, destroy families, execute journalists, oppress women, fund terrorism, and abuse migrant labor without consequence, maybe we should make up for it by expediting the shipping process for our missiles.
Way too late for the damage it's done to the people of Yemen and the Middle East in general. But I am happy that the Senate has the balls to do this. I want to see this get to Trumps desk and see what he does (if he has to sign it or not, I am unsure)
Should have invaded them instead of Iraq lol.
As much as I agree, that would have turned Bush's war on Islam from a symbolic one/pseudo-Crusade into an actual Crusade.
The entire Sunni world would be in Jihad against America if the US ever went to war with Saudi Arabia on account of Saudi Arabia controlling all the holy sites of Islam.
Iran might have been cool with it tho
On the other hand, the Saudis actually aided and abetted the terrorists that got us over there in the first place. Far more justification for steamrolling the Saudis than the Iraqis.
The White House is threatening to veto this, first time Trump's vetoed anything.
Saudi Arabia killed a Washington Post journalist who was critical of him, the last thing he wants is to damage relations. Probably wants to throw in some bombs for free.
Trump threatened to veto other things if the Republican-held Congress didn't do what he wanted. He also has repeatedly threatened to shut the government down to get what he wants. Aside from a shutdown that backfired on him, they've been empty threats.
It was only a few short years ago that Congress decided it wanted to allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia directly, Obama vetoed it after warning Congress he would veto it because it was a terrible idea, the Senate almost unanimously overrode his veto, and then they realized it was a terrible idea and complained that Obama didn't warn them that it was a terrible idea. Trump chapped Obama's ass over the situation, of course. Funny how a whole lot of money can change your views of a backwards shithole country.
To be fair as much as the Saudis are reaponsible for exporting their shitty salafist/wahabi flavour of Islam if they'd allowed the familis of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia it would've set a precedent for people to sue the US where it is responsible in some form.
Oh, it was an absolutely stupid idea. I'm not at all in support of it. Saudi Arabia should be punished, yes, but not that way, because the precedent set would be catastrophic. It'd backfire so hard. And that's what Republicans realized, after they ignored Obama's warnings and overrode his veto.
"I'm going to go stick this fork in that empty light socket."
"No, don't!" [grabs wrist]
"Let go of me, you imbecile! ...wait, hold on, electricity is harmful. WHY DIDN'T YOU WARN ME?!? I GOT THIS FORK TWO INCHES FROM THE SOCKET BEFORE I REALIZED THIS WAS DANGEROUS!"
-US Congress of 2014-2016
Reminder: the country we invaded after 9/11 was Afghanistan. Iraq we invaded because Saddam Hussein was actually using all the chemical weapons we sold him.
Late.
Very late.
Sure, not much would have changed in the end, but all the massacres and shit that happened ( and still happening there ) were done with our weapons ( Spain and Germany collaborated by sending weapons as well, although at least the latter finally cancelled it too ), we are guilty as well.
The very first day that all this shit started, all of us should have stopped selling weapons to them. And it has took ( four already? ) years to finally start stopping the aid, even if it was for an unrelated cause.
I really want to say here "better late than never" but I just I can't.
Kinda reminds me of the dumbasses who voted for Trump then after he proved he was as bad as people were saying turned around and had the balls to go "well why didn't you guys warn me?!?!?!" to the people who'd spent the previous six months trying to get through to them that Trump was a trash choice.
Why is it 63-37 though?
I swear if the senate had a hearing about sacrificing everyone's first born to the demon realm, the vote would still end up like 85-15, best case scenario
It pisses me off how little money it takes to actually sway these clowns votes.
Hm... If only we hadn't made it legal to lobby and bribe politicians. Thanks a lot Citizen's United!
Democrats need to pack the court and overturn it. That's extraordinary but CU was just bad law.
We need a new amendment putting very strict limitations on campaign donations and such. And just in general putting very stringent guidelines on acceptable conduct from politicians in general. They need to be held to a far higher standard than they currently are.
At the very least Super PACs need to be outlawed and so should corporate donations. They should all be private donations and should have a hard cap per individual. Lobbying should also be outlawed. It doesn't always result in bad things but lobbying is abused far more for corporations to make more money than it is to help the American people. And there needs to be some very stringent guidelines on ethics, especially regarding personal business connections and such. I think any politician with a direct connection to some corporation or business that stands to profit from a given law being passed by Congress should be legally obligated to refrain from voting on the bill. (Or limited to either voting against it or abstaining.) This all might seem like a bit much but we really need to do a lot more to curb corruption and conflicts of interest.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
