|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 14, 2008 15:50:32 GMT -5
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-01-14_D8U5QHDG0&show_article=1&cat=breakingBush is proposing to sell 20 billion dollars worth of American weapons to Saudi Arabia. Apparently he hasn't learned the lesson taught in the 80's and 90's, that when you arm people who hate you, you eventually have to go to war with them. Do we have to remind him that all of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi? Do we have to remind him that Osama Bin Laden is a member of the Saudi Royal family? Please someone come up with some kind of justification that makes this make sense. STOP ARMING PEOPLE WHO HATE US. STOP BUYING OIL FROM PEOPLE WHO HATE US! BUSH, YOU F*CKING IDIOT!
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Jan 14, 2008 19:15:01 GMT -5
I agree. We should be using those weapons, not selling them. I gotta give Bush credit though, if a liberal was in power, they'de just be giving the weapons away for free. Atleast Bush is getting something for selling out the American populus. Clinton only got a few million for the DNC when he sold them American nuke secrets.
Giving weapons to people that hate you is just as dangerous as voting for people that hate you. This is why voting for the guy that offers you free healthcare/welfare/housing/food/transit/etc, when the goverment is going broke and could never provide this, is after his/her own interest.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 14, 2008 20:47:21 GMT -5
Don't forget the aftermarket.
Oh, you need a new light bulb for that F-16. that will be $5,396.39.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Jan 14, 2008 20:56:28 GMT -5
1 f-22 is worth all the f-16s you can scramble.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 14, 2008 21:32:09 GMT -5
We aren't selling the top of the line, are we?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Jan 14, 2008 21:44:49 GMT -5
I bet we do. I just hope we're getting money for it. I'de rather be sold out by a greedy republican working to enrich American corperations, then givin away by a democrat for political contributions.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 15, 2008 21:21:59 GMT -5
Well, interesting, to say the least that TGS is in favor of this, as he spends so much time railing against radical islam.. so, lets examine this a little deeper. Bush has made it clear that the US is going to be promoting the spread of democracy worldwide, something I agree with. However, this all runs out the window when someone gets elected that we don't like, such as Hamas in Palestine or that Iranian guy whose name I cant spell. Lets also be perfectly clear here, Saudi Arabia is most definitely not a democracy. They have been ruled by one family since the 18th century. The Saud family practices an extreme brand of Islam called "Wahhabism", named for Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, a Muslim cleric of the 18th century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd-al-WahhabThe mindset of this particular branch of Islam is radical. Abd-al-Wahhab was considered extreme even among his contemporaries. His teachings of extreme interpretation of the Quran and intolerance of western culture were dismissed by most of the rest of the Islamic world, as being fundamentally unsound, except the Saud family. Wahhab himself might be nothing more than a footnote in a history book if not for the fact that the Saud family took him in, supported him, and became indoctrinated in his teachings. A massive influx of oil money in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries to the Saud family has given them nearly unlimited wealth, and they have funded Wahhabi mosques throughout the world, including right here in the United States. The Saud family has been the primary supporter of Wahhabism throughout the world, and given more money and support to the spread of Wahhabism than any other cause. This radical brand of Islam is the same one that wants to see America destroyed. This is the same brand of Islam that wants the purification of the middle east from all outside influences. This is the same brand of Islam that gave us Osama Bin Laden, and all his cronies. Remember, Bin Laden's primary reasoning behind attacking America was that we "soiled" the Arabian peninsula with our "infidelity" by assisting to defend Saudi Arabia in 1991. Such a gracious way to say thanks for preventing them from being over-run. Remember, Bin Laden is Prince in the Saud family. Saudi Arabia is the heart of the problem. They are not a country ruled by the people, they are ruled by one family that thinks we dont deserve to live. And you think its ok to arm this family with $20B worth of US weaponry? Why give arms to your potential murderer? You think its ok to give them weapons, knowing that they are likely to be our enemies in a few years, because its profitable? We've spent nearly 2 trillion dollars so far fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trying to prevent them from falling into complete disarray after. What makes you think fighting in Saudi Arabia will be any cheaper? Bush calls the Saud Family "Our Friends" and supports them with weapons and foreign policy breaks, and they, in turn, indoctrinate people in a hatred for all that we are. Reminds me of one of those Aesop's fables that I heard as a kid where someones nice to a snake, and nurses it to health. As soon as the snakes healthy, it turns and bites its nurse.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Jan 16, 2008 0:20:51 GMT -5
and the boy ask the snake, "After all that I've done for you, why would you bite me?"
and the snake replied, "I'm a snake, its my nature."
I don't think you quite understood my reply TBS. I'm in total agreement with you. Giving/selling them the weapons we should be using on them is not a good idea even if it enriches American companys. All I'm saying is that liberals would just give the weapons away to appease the islams. Don't think for a second that if Hilary was president, these kinda deals wouldn't happon. They would happen, only less Americans would benifit. Atleast Bush is makin us a little cash outa this. Liberals didnt care at all when Clinton sold nuke tech to china for campain contibutions. When Clinton sold us out, he's the only one that benifited. When Bush sells us out, atleast I have a chance of benifiting if I own the right stocks.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 16, 2008 4:29:23 GMT -5
Not quite sure how Clinton got into this, but I think you'll have to refresh my memory when you talk about him selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for political donations. I know there was quite a flap over Chinese scientists spying and stealing nuclear secrets in the late 90's, and I know that Clinton (among many, many other politicians) accepted campaign contributions from Chinese companies, but I really don't have any idea what you're talking about when you say he sold them nuclear secrets for campaign contributions. Until I see something to support your assertion there, I'm going to have to dismiss that. What is a matter of public record, though, is the four generation relationship between the Bush family and the Saud family, starting with the current President's grandfather. www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htmThis relationship, and the dealings with the Saud family is the basis of the Bush families wealth, and to a degree, vice versa. The elder president Bush made many deals, while he was head of the CIA, to provide security to the Saudi regime in exchange for lucrative oil deals, many of which went to the Bush family's oil business in Texas. The Bush's and the Sauds have been so close as to be nearly kin to eachother. So, I guess, if you own the right stock, you do have a chance to make a profit from negotiating the lives of American citizens. Helps when you're in the position to do the negotiating, and you know ahead of time which stocks are going to be affected.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2008 7:20:18 GMT -5
Not quite sure how Clinton got into this, but I think you'll have to refresh my memory when you talk about him selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for political donations. Until I see something to support your assertion there, I'm going to have to dismiss that. I think he's talking about this: www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14497
|
|
|
Post by gitbliss on Jan 16, 2008 8:41:46 GMT -5
There is a voice over in a game called Zero hour (expansion of Generals).
In this game one of the factions to pick is the Chinese and when you click on their infantry you hear...
"China will Expand!"
This is exactly what will happen in the real world and obviously the developers at EA though so as well.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 16, 2008 11:22:15 GMT -5
Not quite sure how Clinton got into this, but I think you'll have to refresh my memory when you talk about him selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for political donations. Until I see something to support your assertion there, I'm going to have to dismiss that. I think he's talking about this: www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14497I read the article, it says nothing about nuclear secrets going to the chinese. It does talk about a US business man who exported commercial satellites and cell phones to the Chinese. It also says he used Chinese rockets to launch a satellite, as it was much cheaper than doing it in the US. (I think its called capitalism.) The author goes on to speculate that the "sensitive technical data" shared with the Chinese in the form of cell phone technology could make Chinese nuclear missiles more reliable. Please note, this article was written in 1998. If we hadn't sold them cell phone technology then, you think they wouldnt have gotten it from somewhere by now? Still dismissed. You gotta do better.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2008 11:38:05 GMT -5
The nuclear connection is that the technology transfer allowed the Chinese to install better guidance systems, hence improved target accuracy, in their missels that carry nuke warheads.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 16, 2008 11:43:10 GMT -5
The nuclear connection is that the technology transfer allowed the Chinese to install better guidance systems, hence improved target accuracy, in their missels that carry nuke warheads. Yes, Whip, in the form of cellular technology, and this article was written in 1998. You think they wouldnt have gotten cellular technology from somewhere by now? Come on guys, you're not even trying.
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Jan 16, 2008 11:50:31 GMT -5
www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/43954-20-billion-dollars-worth-arms-repeating-history.htmlArticle Says: "Engaging Iran Analysts say there are growing signs that America's Arab allies prefer to engage Iran. Last year, Saudi Arabia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to undertake the Hajj, making him the first Iranian president to receive an official invitation to the annual Muslim pilgrimage. Also in the region on Monday, was Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who visited Qatar and was later to travel to the UAE. At the start of his regional tour, Sarkozy also met kind Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, where he offered Saudi Arabia help in developing peaceful nuclear energy. The French president expects to sign a a nuclear co-operation agreement in with the UAE on Tuesday." I also recal reading somewhere that Saudi Arabia still hasn't recognized Isreal, is there any truth to this? Also, I recal reading somewhere, probably the same article as I just posted maybe, that America has made or is making a 30 billion dollar arms deal with Isreal. Any truth to this? Also, who is in the UAE, United Arab Emirates? www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14495091.htmThe Article Says: "The Saudi arms deal stems from Bush's proposal last year to offer Gulf Arab states some $20 billion in weapons, including Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bomb kits for the Saudis. The plan angered Israel's backers in Washington, but Israeli security sources said this week that the United States would provide the Jewish state with better "smart bombs" than those it plans to sell Saudi Arabia. This made me laugh, I mean seriously laugh. Anyone else see the irony in all this? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one year left in power and it appears, the iranian people are pretty sick of him and his allies. This and the rhetoric from Bush is good to sell weapons and arms, but I don't think it means anything to the future of Iran. Iran is on the brink of change, it will come and it will happen. Its good to make money I guess until then. Reasons for selling weapons to the Middle East / Saudi Arabia. It excerts some power or control of the countries you sell arms to. One other thing not being talked about or mentioned that I am very curious of, Russia being Chinas and Indias chief military supplier, Iran probably coming in third, what does Russia think of this?
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Jan 16, 2008 11:56:06 GMT -5
Today at 10:38am, whiplash wrote:The nuclear connection is that the technology transfer allowed the Chinese to install better guidance systems, hence improved target accuracy, in their missels that carry nuke warheads.
Yes, Whip, in the form of cellular technology, and this article was written in 1998. You think they wouldnt have gotten cellular technology from somewhere by now?
Come on guys, you're not even trying.
The word for a general statement that cannot be backed is generaly called 'Assinine.'
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2008 13:13:16 GMT -5
www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/43954-20-billion-dollars-worth-arms-repeating-history.htmlArticle Says: "Engaging Iran Analysts say there are growing signs that America's Arab allies prefer to engage Iran. Last year, Saudi Arabia invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to undertake the Hajj, making him the first Iranian president to receive an official invitation to the annual Muslim pilgrimage. Also in the region on Monday, was Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, who visited Qatar and was later to travel to the UAE. At the start of his regional tour, Sarkozy also met kind Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, where he offered Saudi Arabia help in developing peaceful nuclear energy. I assume this is supposed to read King Abdullah. Egypt and Jordan are the only Mid-east countries who recognize Isreal. Probably Yes I don't understand why you bring Iran into this discussion. There are no plans for arms sales to Iran. As far as Ahmadinejad goes, it doesn't matter if the people are sick of him. He just needs to stay in the good graces of the Ayatollah. The president is elected by the people but the candidates are all nominated by the religious leaders.They probably don't like it much as their junk is inferior to our stuff.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 16, 2008 13:16:13 GMT -5
Today at 10:38am, whiplash wrote:The nuclear connection is that the technology transfer allowed the Chinese to install better guidance systems, hence improved target accuracy, in their missels that carry nuke warheads.
Yes, Whip, in the form of cellular technology, and this article was written in 1998. You think they wouldnt have gotten cellular technology from somewhere by now?
Come on guys, you're not even trying.
The word for a general statement that cannot be backed is generaly called 'Assinine.' Are you sure you know what you're talking about when you say "cellular"? How many cell towers are needed to guide an intercontinental missile? Whatever the specific technology was, the fact is that one technology advance leads to another. So an earlier discovery advances the whole program. Apparently you think this deal was ok. Why do you suppose Loral was fined $14 million for doing it?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Jan 16, 2008 14:24:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry TBS, I get my asian, commie, dictatorships mixed up from time to time Clinton gave away nuke plants to North Korea as long as Kim Shong Ill "tripple dog promised" not to make them into weapons. We came, built the plants, and what do you think happened after we left? Well, now they got all kinds of nuke weapons, run by a third world, loony toon, dictator. Clinton gave away/sold for contributions, the tech China needed to launch long range missles and accualy hit the target they are after. This was a big deal at the time. There was even people getting fined for it. Its just like selling our port security out to Dubi I said "american nuke secrets" That tech was originaly devloped for weapons. What came first? The ICBM, or the cell phone. I got a face in research back in the day, but I remember hearing all kinds of crap about this.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Jan 16, 2008 19:16:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry TBS, I get my asian, commie, dictatorships mixed up from time to time Clinton gave away nuke plants to North Korea as long as Kim Shong Ill "tripple dog promised" not to make them into weapons. We came, built the plants, and what do you think happened after we left? Well, now they got all kinds of nuke weapons, run by a third world, loony toon, dictator. A little more research is needed, TGS. You see, the nature of the deal struck by the Clinton administration was a bit more complicated than that. We struck a deal with North Korea to assist them in setting up light water nuclear reactors, in exchange for them dismantling their existing heavy water nuclear reactors that were set up in North Korea in the 80's nad 90's by the Soviet Union and China. You see, heavy water reactors are necessary to create weapons grade plutionium. While it is not impossible to do with a light water nuclear reactor, it is significantly more difficult. So, the deal was, get rid of the heavy water nuclear reactors, let us inspect, and we'll help you set up light water reactors. Donald Rumsfeld was the director of the company that eventually secured the contract to build the light water nuclear reactors in 2000, after Bush had taken office. Bush then suspended the agreement. In 2002, Bush threw North Korea into the "Axis of Evil" speech, and North Korea withdrew from the agreements reached under the Clinton administration, and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Then, using their existing heavy-water nuclear reactors, they weaponized uranium and made a couple bombs. After that, the Bush administration struck almost the exact same deal with Kim Jong Il that the Clinton administration did. Dismantle your heavy water nuclear reactors, and we'll help you build light water reactors. The big difference this time was the price tag. Under Clinton, it was about 200 million to American taxpayers, under Bush, it was about 4 billion. Looking a little further into that, Loral sold more than they disclosed to either congress or the White House to China in their dealings, whether by design or accidentally, therefore, they were fined a hefty sum by congress. This was a deal approved by a republican congress, and the business went further than they disclosed. Was Clinton supposed to take personal resposibility for a a private company doing what its not supposed to do, or is the company responsible? I'm gonna go out on a limb and join congress in this one in finding the company responsible. Please, also, explain this to me.. Why is it that when someone criticizes Bush's policies, your knee-jerk reaction is to point fingers at Clinton? I'm getting a little bored with this tactic. It's simply diversionary. This method of arguing is designed to keep focus away from the question at hand. In this case, the question is about Bush's policy of weapons proliferation to people who incite terrorism worldwide, and breed the mindset that brought us 9/11, the USS Cole, and a hundred other attacks on the US and its Western allies worldwide.
|
|