BF2S Forums Project for a New Middle Eastern Century

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-07-30 13:47:41)

DesertFox- wrote:

I don't see why we should keep supplying the Middle East while very little progress is being made towards peace, and at the same time we're selling them weapons . That whole region has needed a time-out for some time now.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-07-30 14:08:57)

JahManRed wrote:

So weapons promote peace and stability? Don't make me laugh. It promotes healthy profits for Bush Co's cronies and keeps California bigger than France economically.

Think they are arming everyone.........then let them kill each other.............then moving in for the spoils. Win Win situation.

Such a contradiction of all the drivel spewed by the propaganda machine............................and the Republican Die harders will argue that flushing an area of the planet which is all ready at each other throats with more means to kill each other is a good thing.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Keynesian Militarism, its everywhere you want to be...as was saying yesterday in a thread somewheres, we cannot have prolonged peace, our economy depends on it now more than ever.  Sorry world.

The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.
Major Ralph Peters, US Military

So does anyone actually think this will help stabilize the region?  Write your local politician, tell them what you think.  If you want, I will post the letter I sent to a few here in Cali and you can edit to your liking.  It may not do anything, but at least it lets them know people are watching, and caring.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-31 17:18:01)

Bush's plan to increase arms to the region is an admission of failure on several fronts. The first, and most obvious, is the failure of the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein to have any positive effect in the region. No one denies that Saddam was a brutal ruler (he certainly was one when he enjoyed U.S. support) but it's clear now that a military invasion and occupation was not the appropriate way to deal with the potential (at worst) threat that he represented. During Iran's massively destructive eight year war with Iraq, Iran's ruling mullahs could not in their wildest dreams have imagined a victory over Iraq as complete as that which was provided them by the U.S. in 2003, paid in the treasure of U.S. taxpayers, and the blood and limbs of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. It was always a fantasy that a democratic, Shia-dominated, Iraq would tilt toward the Sunni Arab world and Israel, rather than Shia Iran. Yet this was the imagined outcome for the neoconservative planners of Bush's Iraq policy. Reality has proved otherwise.

The militarization of the region through the proposed sales represents, to some extent, a repudiation of the principle of nuclear deterrence, specifically in regard to Israel. Though it has never officially admitted having nuclear weapons, it is understood that Israel does, in fact, have nuclear capability. This policy of "strategic ambiguity" is justified by Israel on the grounds that it is surrounded by enemies, such as Iran, who want to destroy Israel. It's unclear how providing $30 billion of sophisticated new weaponry would enhance Israel's security in a way that a nuclear arsenal could not. As Zbigniew Brzezinski asked at a security conference this June, "If the Israeli nuclear arsenal — some 200 weapons capable of destroying Iran if Iran were to attack Israel — is not a sufficient and credible deterrent, than what is it for?"

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-08-07 13:25:55)