What's with the Western world and their extremely positive

1. Its the oil
2. Its their money in general [see: Hillary Clinton]
3. Its because the Democratic Coalition isn't a massed group with shared values, its a disparate alliance against an imaginary phantom [the dreaded straight white male]. Muslims can be absolutely medieval and nobody on the Left will care because muh progress muh culture muh religion of peace.

>>2127638
>an imaginary phantom [the dreaded straight white male].

I would guess a decent portion of this website is made up of straight white males, we're hardly imaginary

They keep a pretty good lid on both sand niggers and petroleum deposits.

Or at least, they do a good enough job that we fear that whatever would replace them would be even worse.

KSA, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE in mass syria style civil war by 2020

screencap this post

>>2127617
Extremely positive is an exaggeration. It's just an interest in securing their financial investment power in Western finance, military spending, and of course energy and global trade. The reason they can get away with a lot of shit is because these monarchies - if they're not propping up a substantial percentage of Western debt or military contracts - wouldn't sit idle and move to make friends with Russia, China, and Iran instead, opening up the military and economic blockade the US has been setting up around them for the past several decades and effectively handing them influence over one of the major energy and financial trade hubs of the planet.

File: the Hand of God destroys communism.jpg (136KB, 942x1200px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 942x1200px

>>2127617
>Yet we can't stop loving them.

Like the fascists, we need the jihadis as cheap, disposable anti-socialist shock troops.

>>2127617
The geopolitical story of the middle east is the story of the Sunni Gulf states and Arabia competing with Iran and its Shi'ite allies. Any major power who does political business there either has to take a side or remain neutral.

And of course it's not like the "western world" you speak of (primarily the US, Britain, and France) to remain geopolitically neutral, especially in a world that was shaped during times where everyone who's anyone picked a side and stuck to it (World War I, World War II, then the Cold War).

So in short, there's an arbitrary sectarian and ethnic feud between the Gulf Monarchies/Saud and the Shia/Alawites/Iran. There was also a big feud going on between two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. Both superpowers picked a side in order to more effectively project their power in the region. They remain on those opposing sides today, and almost all middle eastern conflicts are either directly related to this feud, or to Israel's existence. The Syrian civil war (between Alawaites/Hezbollah/Iran and Saudi/Gulf-backed Sunni jihadist militias, with Kurds doing their own thing) and how it's devolved into a Russian-American proxy war is a perfect example.

>>2127638
For a group that is so anti-identity politics you rightycuck trumples sure like to scream about muh leftists and muh white genocide a lot :^)

>>2127617
The petro dollar

>>2128306
That's a gross oversimplification. Especially the partnership between Shi'a and Russia is a really new thing.
Iran called USSR "the lesser Satan" and claimed equal distance to both eastern and western blocs. Hezbollah kidnapped a few Soviet diplomats in Beirut in 80s.
Assad got support from the Soviets, but that's because all Ba'athist politicians did, not because he's an Alawi.

>>2127617
>If any part of the world was more anti-enlightenment, it's here.

And? Why does it matter for the foreign policy?