Qatar

Qatar's a terrible choice for many reasons, but I really don't see how it and Russia are worse choices from a political standpoint than the US in '94.

 

Qatar is just playing geo political games with Iran... It's all part of this twisted Sunni vs. Shia madness that the West totally underestimated and misunderstood.

The US is in so deep on all sides there we don't even know anymore who we're supposed to be allied with. On the one hand we hand Iraq on a platter to the Shiites. On the other hand we support the Sunnis in Syria and to lesser extent in Lebanon which is a direct contradiction to our Iraq policy. Then in Egypt we support a secular dictatorship which is in contradiction to our other Sunni alliances. And to top it off we finance Israel which pisses everyone off equally.

 

What was wrong with the US politically speaking in 94? And lets be honest, you really can't compare qater and the US in 94 as hosts given the difference in size of each nation and the fact that we already had stadiums ready to be used for the WC. And the 94 Cup was hugely successful.

As for Russia, I still say England was the better choice. But FIFA got paid what they wanted the corrupt bastards and russia and qater have the cup.

 

The OP is objecting to Qatar hosting based on a German politician saying that Qatar "funds terrorism". If that is the standard for host selection, then just one example is the US's actual funding and support of the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua for a good chunk of the '80's prior to the US being selected as host in '88.

 

You're probably right ... but not on the basis of who they do and who they don't fund. The US is one of the biggest arms dealers on the planet and we fund all sorts of twisted groups that serve our interests but millions of people have died as consequence.

Where the US distinguishes itself is that it treats its own citizens with a modicum of dignity where Gulf Arab states basically thrive on absolute dictatorships, institutionalized slavery, women kept down as a permanent underclass in society and legal systems that make the European dark ages seem like a hippie commune in comparison.

 

Exactly. On this basis the US would be pretty much the last country you'd want as a host.

 

LOL you throw out a random rhetorical bomb but when you're asked to elaborate and defend your point you deflect with meaningless one liners.

This whole supporting shady groups argument is nonsense ... For one Qatar has been pretty much working in concert with the West as far as Syria is concerned from the very beginning. Second of all the West has a pretty solid track record of funding all sorts of unsavory groups ... I mean the original Afghan Al Qaeda of the 80's was bankrolled by the West as was Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran ... If this is the line of criticism that you want to take it's totally fair for you to have to explain why bankrolling Bin Laden and Saddam was OK then but Qatar bankrolling Hamas and Al Nusra is not OK today ...

Bottom line is that the West will not bruise Qatar's ego. Anyone that thinks they would is fooling themselves. As far as foreign policy is concerned Qatar is a massive ally of the West in that region. Sure Qatar may cross the line occasionally into territory that the West might disagree with like funding Hamas and Al Nusra ... but in general the benefits to the West outweigh the harms. Or at least that's the status quo ... not necessarily saying that I agree with any of it.

 

Well the slaves are not Qatari citizens, but other than that I agree.

Also the Shiia minority, they are not really citizens (some are) but are not day laborers, but they are still oppressed by the sunni ruling class.


Buy hey who sells the weapons to the Qatari ruling class to help them oppress their people? We do (and the Europeans).

 

Well we have funded some shitty people and causes in the past, shit we still do sometimes.

Qatar may be shit, but that does not stop us (USA) from doing business with them and looking the other way when they use force to put down protesters.

There are many reasons why Qatar should not host the World Cup, but support fo fvcked up organizations is not top of the list.

 

OP let's not forget we gave weapons to the Taliban in the 80's, the Taliban does not have a great record in terms of women’s rights or religious minority rights.

Our support of the Taliban should have disqualified us from hosting the World cup if we go by your logic.

 

A couple of points ...

Who buys Qatari oil and natural gas? Everyone including the West ... Japan, UK and Spain are all big clients. The US is the biggest foreign investor in Qatari energy ... especially Exxon Mobil.

Who accepts Qatari money? Everyone ... Qatar uses their surplus money to invest all over the West ... even in the US. They're a preferred client of several American companies like Boeing. They're a good military client as well getting most of their weapons and training from the West. The US maintains an air base in Qatar. Qatar has a defense pact with UK and the US.

Bottom line is the West loves Qatari oil/gas, Qatari money and Qatari political/military/economic partnerships. If Qatar is so evil by the groups they fund doesn't that make the West guilty by association?

 

Well we got the WC in what 88? So any statue of limitations (arming the Taliban) would still apply by then I would imagine.

 

He's talking about when the '94 WC was rewarded which may have been before '88.

 

Pretty much. If we had a realpolitik reason for all of this I could understand it, but I can see none.

 

You are distorting things. The Taliban emerged following the Soviet-Afghan war. It became operationally relevant during the mid-90's. Saying that the funding of the Mujahideen by the CIA during the 80's is the same thing is misleading.

 

The original Taliban core were mostly people too young to fight in the Soviet war and generally were the young people who were raised in the refugee camps. They attended Qur'anic schools that were funded by the Saudis mostly hence the name of their movement.

One of the ironies though is that in the aftermath of the Soviet War, as the various mujahideen factions began to fight amongst themselves, the state department in the mid 1990s did provide some support to the Taliban as a force of stabilization in the country -- though the actual amount of support provided is still controversial.

 

I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but it was my understanding that the funding went to the anti-communist Islamic Party, a dubious group no doubt. But have yet to read any connection with them and the Taliban party that would later emerge.