Why does America always pick the worst, most brutal friends in the third world?

Honestly muslims are shit at wars, all they know how to do is run and blow themselves up.
In the west jews are seen as effeminate nerds who are bad at sports and even the jews blew them the fuck out

>easy to manipulate
>cheap
>common interests

>Saudi Arabia
>3rd World

they're from Afghanistan dipshit

The secular leftists the US would rather overthrow

here´s another for you

...

Well that doesn't make them based like you claimed

>friend of the soviet union
>destroyed his country by not letting the british drill oil
>replaced with benevolent dictator

They were radical Islamists whose main motivation was reestablishing traditional hierarchy

they're based because they btfo the soviet army with sticks and rocks. why the fuck are you tryina argue with me about nothing you retard

No they are not based. Soviet Afghanistan was better than Taliban Afghanistan, human rights wise.

the mujahideen aren't the taliban idiot. also fuck off commie. also "human rights" psh whatever

Is it just a coincidence the USA supported Talibans in Afghanistan, Albanian muslims in Kosovo, and Islamists in the Arab Spring?

>also "human rights" psh whatever

kek

He didn't destroy his country at all you dipshit.

Britain refused to purchase Iranian oil and threatened to sanction any other country that did. This hamstrung his promised social reforms, but Mossadegh remained incredibly popular because he had already brought huge amounts of people out of extreme poverty.

>human rights are a spook

They are. If a certain behavior is a "right", we purport that it is, for some reason, inalienable. Truth is, there's nothing innately sacred about a free press or elections. They're just good things to have. Human rights are a nice framework to protect life and happiness, but they don't hold up philosophically.

>doesn't believe in the value of human rights whilst being blanketed his entire life in the thickest most comfy protection of the highest quality of human rights in the history of mankind.

Cognitive dissonance must also be a spook now.

Yeah that didn't backfire at all, did it

i jus tsaid they were based, i didnt say the US supporting them was a good idea (even though it was pretty reasonable at the time)

>social reforms
>seizing property of foreign investors
>unverified claims

To be fair the mujahedins were a loose group. Some were based and stayed based, others weren't and got worse with time.

Perfect examples being this top lad
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud

And then there's this faggot
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam

>Is it just a coincidence the USA-
no

Taliban and the Syrian Jihadists were supported to oust secular governments. Because most Middle Eastern secular governments have been socialists or aligned toward the former socialist bloc, the US generally wants to destroy them. Usually, far-right religious nuts are the only people willing to help America do this.

Kosovo was an authentic humanitarian operation egged on by the UN, but Saudi Arabia noticeably influenced the US, as they had in the other two interventions.

>the Shah
>benevolent
Only in the sense that he wasn't as bad as the fundamentalists.

better than mossadegh too.

Not in the slightest, poverty went back up under his corrupt regime

source?

this, I'd like this to be true tbqh
Mossadegh was a memelord who wanted big commie cock and rusky bennies and who then got btfo before he could implement 95% of his policies -therefore he's held as a symbol even though he actually delivered on nothing. He is celebrated for what he could have been, not who he was.

Because America is the most brutal of the first world and the whole world for that matter.

Hezbollah, despite their limitations, fought very well against Israel. They won that war on a strategic level, which is the only level that matters.

>asking for sources but all your other bullshit claims aren't source either
No, he and like many in the West are not protected by the notion of human rights in its entirety but by US supreme hegemony. See the Hegemony Stability Theory.

Without it, Europeans would be at each others throats again for example.

>highest quality of human rights in the history of mankind.
This so so nonsensical. Not only is it an appeal to novelty but it's also very eurocentric.

These are contradictory statements. Radical Islamist have no interest in the traditional hierarchy, only establishing their own.

>dae read chomsky

are you 17?

this

>Taliban
The Taliban wasn't formed until the 90s.

It is true that some of the Muj turned against us, but anyone with a brain will tell you it was worth it. The Soviet failure in Afghanistan badly fucked up their military and failing economy. Trading the USSR for some angry tribals in the mountains was a pretty good deal overall.

Not op, but everyone else, really.
They are the only ones to have supported radical islamic groups.

>They are the only ones to have supported radical islamic groups.
no

Shoutout to Allende

remember this dude? lol

>take over biggest country in Africa
>keep it cool with the US "fuck communism XD"
>use state apparatus to make yourself modern-day emperor
>last through 6 presidential administrations
>contribute to American culture by hosting The Rumble in the Jungle

...

the US policy in the Middle East has to be the worst thing for the 21st century so far

>back the creation of Israel - maintain support for it throughout
>support Wahhabi-Salafi (puritan Sunni) absolute theomonarchies over secular, democratic governments
>keep choosing a side in wars that don't concern it/overthrowing popular governments

is a little domestic national-socialism in far-off country THAT bad?

...

>>back the creation of Israel
What are you on about

What a cringey cover all around

Because they are the not ones who will entertain them basically.

Yes, Saudi is a third world nation.

Your point is?

>Trading the USSR for some angry tribals in the mountains was a pretty good deal overall.

It really wasn't.

>>destroyed his country by not letting the british drill oil
>unironically thinking Iranians gains from anglos stealing their resources
Gee i wonder who could be behind this post

He's wrong in the sense that it was mainly Britain who was responsible for the creation of Israel, but it's thanks to US support that that shitfest of a country has survived and become so powerful since the 70s.

Savages gravitate to each other naturally

Stimulates the gray matter

GET OUT ARYAN SAVAGE

Oil and keeping control and cooperation with the EU.

>Implying the US and Europe haven't been pushing a liberal agenda of international human rights since the end of WWII
Realist scum must leave.

Those guys aren't Arabs

lol they din du

Bump

All the ignorance in this thread is revolting.

The US supports people that support the intersts of the people deciding the foreign policy. Usually this means it supports people who do what the United States wants them to do. Often Nations either don't like the US or their goals don't align with ours. So we need to find andm authoritarian who will support our goals.