Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Vintage, Aug 1, 2007.
And the beat goes on.
How many times in the past have we propped, supported, funded or given weapons to people in the middle east only for it to wind up biting us in the butt years later?
Will we ever learn?
Nothing sends a positive, affirmative messaage moreso than a $20B weapons deal.
We are about freedom?
Yet, we continue to turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia and their treatment of women. Saudi Arabia is about as Democratic as Iraq was under Hussein.
Nothing counters regional threats (from Iran) like supplying the other side with huge amounts of weaponry. Assuming Iran is a rational actor (which, would be assuming too much), this is going to go over like a Lead Zeppelin.
When we do finally pull out of Iraq, the Middle East is going to be VERY interesting in terms of the subsequent months after. Iran is positioning itself. Saudi Arabia is doing the same. And in the middle of this, Israel stands.
But I am an equal opportunity basher.
I fully believe the Democrats can **** this up more if they try.
Iran, Afganistan, Iraq (possibly in the future).....
I'd say status quo remains.
It's bidness, kid. No offense.
As Gravel would say...follow the money.
I understand. And while your short reply was, well, short, it does have true merit behind it.
However, at some point, you have to look at the business you are doing and realize what the true costs/benefits are.
We armed Afghanistan against the Soviets. Those same arms were used against us.
Yeah, we made a profit back then. But at what cost, today?
Was is truly worth it?
That's all brainpaint and I were getting at.
This is a really bad idea! I don't think Iran is really a big threat. Who have they invaded?
I was being facetious with a mock mafioso voice.
Its not so much what they've done lately in regards to invading.
Its much more disconcerting when Ahmadinejad talks about pushing Israel back into the ocean.
Or Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.
Or that they being overwhelmingly Shiia. And Iran could be interested in arming/interfering with Iraq in trying to prop up the Shiites for control in Iraq. Or given Iraq-Iran's history, an attempted takeover.
My bad. I thought you were being serious.
Though, even in jest, your counterpoint was valid and worthy of a response.
I'm not entirely sure that Ahmadinejad is not just ful of bluster. At any rate, he's becoming increasingly unpopular in Iran not just among young students but with members of Iran's Parliament. I doubt he wins another term in office. A more moderate leader will take power (not too moderate or pro-west, the ayatollahs and mullahs will see to that.)
One thing I would like to add, is that the U.S. is doing this as a counter to Russia selling arms to Iran.
The U.S. is trying to increase the military strength of those who'd resist against Iranian aggression, and as a result, is selling them to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Furthermore, the US has agreed to increase aid to Israel in their defense. Israel has signed off on this (naturally) and as a result is in agreement with the US plans to sell to Saudi Arabia/Egypt.
I still stand with my belief that simply arming people isn't the best way to go about peace. But perhaps I was a bit too hasty in my dismissal of this. Its probably needed seeing as how you can't negotiate with irrational actors, such as Iran.
Either way, this, while probably needed, does cast a foretelling tale of likely conflict in the future.
i think we just need to walk away from that area for awhile. buy our oil and let them do whatever the hell they wanna do to each other.
Well, for starters, you'd have Iran probably invading Iraq. And then Saudi would invade Iraq and fight Iran.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Syria (which is nothing more than a puppet government of Iran) would probably mount something in the form of a terrorist type plot against Israel.
Funded by Iran.
Mass War in the Middle East is something I would not like to witness in my lifetime, preferably.
they've been fighting since someone declared the land "holy" - we won't stop it if that's what they want to do. if a sector of people wish to declare "holy war" on each other why are we world police to stop them? when are we involved enough to protect our own interests (cheap oil) and when are we too involved? depends on who you talk to usually.
in any event, if they wanna have it out among theirselves, why is it up to us to stop them?
An addendum to the original post:
US to ink 30 billion dollar arms deal with Israel
53 minutes ago
The United States will sign a pact this week providing 30 billion dollars in military aid to Israel over a decade, the State Department said Tuesday.
Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who will make a three-day visit to Israel from Wednesday, "will sign the memorandum of understanding on the new 30 billion dollar, 10-year military assistance package," the department said in a statement.
The package was unveiled by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on July 30 as part of a new military pact with US allies in the Middle East in a bid to "counter the negative influences" of militant groups Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah as well as arch enemies Iran and Syria.
They include a 20-billion-dollar weapons package for Saudi Arabia, a 13-billion-dollar package for Egypt, and reportedly arms deals worth at least 20 billion dollars for other Gulf states.
The military aid to Israel reflected an increase of more than 25 percent, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said, describing the package as a considerable improvement and very important element for national security.
"Other than the increase in aid, we received an explicit and detailed commitment to guarantee Israel's qualitative advantage over other Arab states," he had said following recent talks with US President George W. Bush.
With current US defense aid to Israel standing at 2.4 billion dollars a year, the new package will hike the value of assistance to the Jewish state by 600 million dollars a year on average, officials said.
The two countries are increasingly alarmed by Iran's nuclear ambitions, which have already incurred international economic sanctions. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed for peaceful, civilian energy purposes.
Burns will meet with Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and other Israeli officials during the visit in which "discussions on regional security, including the challenge posed by Iran" would be held, the State Department said.
Burns will also meet with Palestinian Authority leaders regarding "the development of a political horizon" and American humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
The United States is striving to forge a deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state ahead of an international meeting called for by Bush in the fall.
Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said last week he had positive talks with Olmert in the West Bank city of Jericho, the first time in seven years that such a high-level meeting has taken place on Palestinian territory.
In the best case scenario, it is concentrated solely in the Middle East, but a region-wide war in the ME would cause the price of oil to skyrocket far beyond what we've experienced in recent years, doing serious damage to our economy and the overall global economy.
In the worst case scenario, various country alliances, ties between us and Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and similar ties for other nations (Russia and China, for example) with Iran and Syria could set events into motion for a global conflict.
I think this last scenario is very unlikely, but that's how World War I started.
while i can see where that would be a valid fear, 8 years of bush has gotten us the highest gas prices of all time. before that it fluxuated, but not to this degree. if we left *some* sector would come to power and it would be status quo all over again - i would think.
i can't put us pulling out to chaos taking over *long term*. then again, i've been wrong before.