It's disgraceful that Saudi Arabia is a close ally of the UK

The KSA is like the Bible belt of America, but on crack, and run by people who are actually worse than Nazis. It is extremely capitalist...

The KSA is like the Bible belt of America, but on crack, and run by people who are actually worse than Nazis. It is extremely capitalist (it has the biggest shopping malls in the world), the rich often use slave labour, it has one of the biggest sex slave industries in the world, it's incredibly corrupt, the Saudi Royal family are above the law and have massive, drug fueled sex parties (all while women can be lashed and imprisoned for being the victims of rape, and adultery is punished by stoning), huge amounts of money is spent on massive buildings to display power and authority, and it's pretty much unheard for Saudis to criticize their own culture, so there is no-way it's ever going to progress out of the pit its in.

Here is a video showing a moment of every day Saudi life. A foreign worker is beaten simply because he looked at his masters wife. [video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=850_1382853964[/video]

This is a country where you can be stoned to death for sorcery. This is a country which segregates men and women like South Africa used to segregate blacks and whites. Here an Englishman is beaten for joining a woman's queue.
No, all cultures are not equal. This country shows you what happens when Islam is allowed entirely free reign. It would not be this way if it wasn't closely allied with America and the UK. It disgusts me that this country continues to be allies with a regime no better than the Nazis. It's a total disgrace.

This country shows you what happens when Islam is allowed entirely free reign.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most reprehensible regimes on the planet. Iran's theocracy has nothing on the Saudis.

Its all about the oil. That is why when western governments say "we are here to free the people" we don't believe a word of it.

If the West tried to liberate places which gave nothing in return, it would be harming its own interests, and as such, the future interests of democrats worldwide. Why not celebrate the few liberations which do occur?

Which liberations are those? Iraq, currently embroiled in a conflict with IS. Did you know the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds were all living fine under Saddam? Yes of course the Kurds wanted to separate and the Sunni and Shi'a were like protestants and catholics, but they were not fighting. After the US came to liberate, all it did was stir up tensions that resulted in a civil war.

Afghanistan, while under the new government, is by no means safe, thousands are still being killed by landmines, and there is still fighting going on.

The west can't actually name a single liberation story. Its because America doesn't want to liberate, thats what they tell the masses to keep them quiet. Of course they will pay lip service, by building a few roads and a dam or too. But none of them are repaired, and they fall into decay very quickly. The reality is its all about oil, maintaining power, or not losing face.

Would any of you allow someone to murder just so they wouldn't lose face? I'm pretty sure we'd all want that person in jail immediately, except that is what the US does on a daily basis. They didn't leave Afghanistan because they didn't want to have another Vietnam or be like the Soviets, and retreat. Simple as that.

Libya honestly is the only "success" story in the past 20 or so years and even then there is a civil war going on.

Then look at how Tunisia did it, no weapons, no war. Its a war of ideas not of guns and bullets. Guns and bullets aren't even as efficient as ideas.

So if you seriously want to liberate countries, you wouldn't invade them. Simple as that. You invade them because there is an ulterior motive involved.

The failure of Iraq wasn't the West's fault. OK, the West made mistakes. Big mistakes. But the blame lies on jihadists primarily for the current state of the country. It also lies in the West to some degree in that it abandoned the country in 2011 to those said jihadists. But the actual liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein can only be called a good thing; who would disagree? Nobody was living "fine" under Saddam Hussein; that is a disgustingly ignorant thing to say. He murdered possibly millions of people in the most brutal and sadistic ways possible. Did you know that Abu Ghraib prison was a torture camp for years and years under Saddam Hussein, committing crimes far worse than what the Americans did there? (And by the way, what the Americans did there was a scandal.) And then there were of course the chemical attacks, e.g. the Halabja massacre which killed a few thousand innocent Kurds (yeah, living "fine" they were!). Saddam had to go, sorry.

Essentially, what you are saying is that Iraqis need a dictator to keep them from murdering each other. But what good is that if the dictator murders them instead?

True, Afghanistan isn't won yet. Possibly it will never be won. But what is your solution? Leave it to be ruled by the Taliban?

What do you mean the West can't name a single liberation story? What about the fact that it defeated both Fascism and Communism? Surely those are liberations worth celebrating? And yet they both involved the sacrifice of many lives - innocent lives, in war crimes.

The West does not murder people. Its enemies are always totalitarians. Fighting and killing totalitarian enemies is not a crime. It is noble. How can you call this murder? You think that killing Taliban is wrong? Do you realise who these people are?

You can't fight bad ideas using only good ideas. You also need guns and soldiers. See World War Two. See the Cold war and its proxies. See the war on Islamism.

By the way, Libya is not a success story by any means.

If the West tried to liberate places which gave nothing in return, it would be harming its own interests, and as such, the future interests of democrats worldwide. Why not celebrate the few liberations which do occur?