What I said was that American hasn't helped the women. Obviously they have helped the Saudi govt. That doesn't make them responsible for it.
It is very easy to argue that the US would be worse off if a rebel govt made Saudi Arabia unstable. It is not the US's fault that the govt that helps our goals also does bad things.
Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with you arguing we should do something about the oppression, and that we shouldn't be helping the current government. I'm not ok with saying it is our fault they are being oppressed. Just because we could do something about it, doesn't make it our fault.
If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe? No. It's Joe's fault. He's the murderer. The Saudi govt are oppressing the women, and it's the Saudi govt's fault that the women are oppressed. By all means argue for doing something about it, but don't shift the blame where it isn't due.
> If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe?
If you're a friend and supporter of Joe's, you testify that he's a good man in the court (or United Nations), if you elected a government that gave Joe the weapon, if you profited from Tim being killed, then yes, you're also guilty. You've basically delegated the dirty job of "finding cheap oil by any means necessary so I can have an easier life" to Joe.
I'm not saying you should be the world's police; what I'm saying is if you profit from others being oppressed (so the oppressor can sell you oil cheaper so you can have a better life), it's your duty as a human being to try to change things for your brother.
Of course, if you're not profiting from that oppression, or aren't supporting the oppressor, then it's NOT your duty but still it would be nice to intervene.
> ... don't shift the blame where it isn't due.
Not at all. Those dictators are guilty of all those crimes. No one's arguing against that.
I don't think we are that far off here, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't we are profiting from them being oppressive. We are profiting from a stable govt. I'm not convinced that random rebels (who are also Muslim) are going to be a huge improvement for women.
Maybe we should ask the current govt to improve themselves as part of our sales and aid, but I don't think that makes us responsible. The point is that the act of them oppressing women does not in any way shape or form help us. Stable govt helps us, and the current govt happens to be oppressive. That's where your argument breaks down. Killing Tim is not helping us profit. It's just happening, and we aren't stopping it. That's very different from that act helping us. We'd be perfectly fine with the current stable govt not being oppressive.
It is very easy to argue that the US would be worse off if a rebel govt made Saudi Arabia unstable. It is not the US's fault that the govt that helps our goals also does bad things.
Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with you arguing we should do something about the oppression, and that we shouldn't be helping the current government. I'm not ok with saying it is our fault they are being oppressed. Just because we could do something about it, doesn't make it our fault.
If Joe shoots Tim, is it your fault because you didn't stop Joe? No. It's Joe's fault. He's the murderer. The Saudi govt are oppressing the women, and it's the Saudi govt's fault that the women are oppressed. By all means argue for doing something about it, but don't shift the blame where it isn't due.