What do you mean pay for play, here? Please tell me how Turkey, Quatar and Saudi Arabia are "paying" for anything in terms of meaningful value for the US.
This is simple geopolitics, not some corruption scandal.
This is simple geopolitics, not some corruption scandal.
2. Look at the ads and sponsors in the big news channels like CNN, mostly institutions and companies owned by these countries (Qatar airways, Turkish airlines, Dubai, Abu Dhabi...), no wonder on the day of the "coup" against Erdogan, These media outlets labeled his "supporters" as pro-democracy. That never happened for Hosni Mubarak who was labeled as an evil dictator for example, he just didn't pay simply.
3. The west is trying to push the story that the conflict in Syria is just between white "the rebels" (FYI they are actually Sunni islamists) vs black "Assad" (he is a dictator yeah, but not worse then Erdogan), it is the same opninion of these governments.
4. No one is condemning or even talking about the horrific crimes like Turkey against the kurds, Saudi Arabia killing thousands of Shia in Yemen, Qatar funding militant islamists all over the world.
Straight from Saudi Arabia's mouth, a billionaire prince owns a significant portion of AOL Time Warner:
http://www.kingdom.com.sa/investments/media-and-publishing/t...
This is just one example. People need to do their research and wake up to what's happening around them.
To suggest the US wants Saudi investment in its stock market that has the sole impact of pushing up one cable company's stock price is absurd and obtuse.
- Erdogan – terrible as he may be – was until recently legitimately elected. I say until recently because (even some time before the coup) he started undermining democratic institutions, mostly the press. Mubarak was never elected in anything but a sham election.
These governments are not donating "hundreds of millions" to politicians. If you can find evidence for that, make it public. Because it's illegal to take money from foreign governments/nationals. Yes – the Clinton foundation did (because it's not a politician, and in turn spends the money on its causes). But it's nowhere near "hundreds of millions", and it had started years before HC became important. And there's no indication that Clinton's behavior vis-a-vis these government was any different than it had been the 40 years before or the three years since her tenure.
Assad is indeed worse than Erdogan, considering he's killed hundreds of thousands, some with chemical weapons.
Everyone is talking about Turkey. There'll be sanctions, their membership in NATO may be frozen. But the problem is simply that there isn't that much that can be done. If you sweep in and bomb Ankara – well, take a look at Iraq. You'll also create incentives for similar countries to acquire nuclear weapons. And there's a principle of non-involvement: Start bombing people (again), you'll make it even easier for Russia to claim legitimacy when they invade something they'd like to have.
They do invest, though I'd need evidence of hundreds of millions. Regardless, the U.S. has very strong geopolticial reasons to support them:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12870161
> no wonder on the day of the "coup" against Erdogan, These media outlets labeled his "supporters" as pro-democracy. That never happened for Hosni Mubarak who was labeled as an evil dictator for example
Mubarak was a dictator and Erdogan is democratically elected.
> "Assad" (he is a dictator yeah, but not worse then Erdogan)
I very strongly disagree. How many people has Erdogan killed? Did Erdogan use chemical weapons on his own people? Invite the Russian military, Iranian military, and Hezbollah into his country to kill his own people? I strongly dislake Erdogan, but there is no comparison.
> No one is condemning or even talking about the horrific crimes like Turkey against the kurds, Saudi Arabia killing thousands of Shia in Yemen
I've heard plenty of talk about it, but people aren't dying on nearly the same scale as in Syria.