U.S. to sell Saudis billions in weapons

It takes like one F-22 to take down ten F-15s. I wouldn't worry about that part.

 

If the F-15s are even allowed to get off the ground.

We don't play fair. Airstrips and planes are one of the first things we take out.

 

If the Saudis want to buy billions in last generation jets from us then let them buy all they want. It means jobs, exports, and increased tax income.

 

I wonder how many jobs were created when we armed the Afghans in the 80's. That turned out real well.

 

When / if these weapons are turned against us, though, I'm sure it'll be Bush's fault for "arming terrorists", donchaknow?

 

I forgot. Just how many American passenger jets were shot down with U.S. supplied Stinger surface to air missiles?

 

Did you forget osama bin-lardin and his cronies who were all mujahadin that we trained and armed in the 80's? Did you forget how they thanked us on 9/11/01?

 

IIRC, Bin Laden and most of his eventual followers were from a rival group of insurgents that received little American military aid and that most of the groups closely tied to the U.S. became the anti Taliban northern alliance.

At any rate, the 9-11 hijackers used no American weapons to hijack four airliners unless you consider box cutters, knives and fake bombs to be "weapons systems of the U.S. military".

 

In the short term, having the Soviets out of Afghanistan did turn out well. It's pretty near impossible to predict the future, obviously, but we should've been seriously working on energy independence, or at least alternate sources of petroleum right then.

That's why all this time wasted not opening up Alaska, dithering on offshore drilling, and endless "analysis" of Canadian sources is actually counter to US national security, as has been said many times before.

 

Its all about the oil dammit!

Someone had to say it!



And the corporations, don't forget the corporations!

 

That's not even remotely true. The US gave the money to Pakistan with the understanding that Pakistan would give the money and weapons to Afghans. Not surprisingly, the Pakistanis mostly gave the money and weapons to their fellow Pashtuns since they're both related. Guess which group formed the Talban and still makes up the majority of the Taliban? Pashtuns. Yes, we do indeed have Reagan and Co (as well as right wing conserva-Dems like Charlie Wilson D-TX) to thank for creating the Taliban.

No amount of spin, lies, or wishful thinking is going to change that fact. Hell, the Reagan administration even asked the Saudis to loosen up on Islamic groups which were sending gun money to Afghanistan and told the Saudis they should allow more Saudi nationals to travel to Afghanistan to take part in a holy war (prior to that the Saudi government arrested radicals who traveled there to fight and they did the same to groups funding the fighting).

 

Oh, and the Saudis can't even keep planes flying or the pumps in the oil fields going without foreign experts to do it for them. They really are one of the least educated people on Earth as even their "educated" class get a degree in Islamic religion; something like 2/3rds of degrees issued in Saudi are in Islamic studies. Worse, everyone one of them wants to be a pilot or a General which leaves no one to do the actual grunt work so the stupid fucks can't even fix easy shit on their own. I have zero fear these planes would ever be used against the west because without western experts the Saudis couldn't keep them flying for even a few months.

 

Evidence please or I'm calling bullshit on this one.

 

My FIL is one of the Saudi weapons runner stammers for the DOD. He laughs at the idea of them being competent enough to use these weapons without us.

 

You can call bullshit all you want but that doesn't change reality or provide evidence for the obviously false BS you've been shoveling ("The US mostly gave to the Northern Alliance" ). Read Charlie Wilson's book or see the movie Charlie Wilson's War. The US used Pakistan as the subject matter experts meaning we gave aid, weapons, and money to Pakistan and then Pakistan gave them to groups it liked. The Pakistanis kept the number of groups they gave money & weapons too very small and told other groups they'd have to reach agreements with those already selected if they wanted a cut. The end result was the ISI gained massive influence over Afghan groups because it was the gateway from which US money and weapons flowed out of. Not surprisingly, the Pakistani ISI chose groups which were friendly to Pakistan, were headed by ethnic groups whose members were found on both sides of the border (like the Pashtuns), and hard line sunni groups connected to Madrasas in Pakistan which the Pakistan dictator at the time was trying to keep happy.

If you're too lazy to read Charlie Wilson's memoir then at least go watch the movie Charlie Wilson's War as it goes into how this is all structured. The money & weapons flowed through Pakistan's government (read the ISI) from the US.

 

First of all the Northern Alliance is made up mainly of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbecks (ethnic groups based in the former Soviet central Asian Republics) along with formerly communist officials backed by the Soviet puppet government installed by the USSR before it left. The idea that the Reagan was some how giving money to those groups is so laughable it is retarded and shows you don't know much about Afghanistan. The US was funneling money through Pakistan which means it was going to groups Pakistan's ISI liked mainly hard line sunni Islamic militants mostly of Pashtun origin; the very same groups which later formed the Taliban and still make up the majority of the Taliban. Those ethnic groups were also based in the south which meant money and military equipment could reach them from Pakistan (where as the Northern Alliance is based, as the name implies, in the north by the former Soviet border).

I can understand how you're desperate to avoid admitting Reagan & Co would fuck up so badly as to not just fund the Taliban but actually help empower the very bastards who would later form the backbone of the Taliban but that doesn't change the fact that he did just that. If you don't believe me read the wiki on Operation Cyclone or read any of the dozen factually based history books on the war. This is very basic level stuff about recent Afghan history so you should at least be getting that much correct given our 10 year long war in that country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

 

The United States is selling weapons to the Iranians? Without looking at a history book, I can honestly say I think this will end well!

 

From the section on the so called "Reagan Doctrine" (which was to flood money, weapons, and arms to any group who said they were anti-communist no matter what type of shit bags they were in other things):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

 

To Saudis not Iranians. Reagan was the last guy in the US to sell arms to the Iranians.

 

People at McDonnell Douglas are probably happy. at least they'll still have their jobs. And besides, if the shit hit the fan over there, will you be DRAFTED to go? Or your kids? Oh, the DRAFT is over huh? And if the DRAFT is re-instated we'll have something to REALLY protest about. Not only NOT DRAFTING equal right women! Now that's something to protest about.

 

You do realize that though based on real events, "Charlie Wilson's War" was still just a movie based on a somewhat self grandizing book. Watch the movie and you'll think that Wilson was the prime mover behind the Afghans defeating the Soviets and forcing their withdrawal.

While often useful, the wikipedia is a poor source for knowledge about a serious subject.

 

Boeing. MD was sucked up into the great Boeing monster years ago.

 

More "Arm the World News"

Lockheed Martin: Merry Christmas, from our family to yours...

Actually, this is better than sending more U.S, troops to this troublesome region of the world.

 

Blah blah blah.

Containing Iran is priority, folks.

 

Apparently. But we can't sell missile defense to the Poles for fear of offending our exceedingly good buddy, Putin.

 

Sadly, yes. Of the five large commercial civilian aircraft companies based in the US (four in California and one in Washington state) in the 60's and 70's they're now all owned and controlled by one company, Boeing. MD was the last hold out and it reasonably could have continued to survive on it's own but Clinton didn't enforce anti-trust laws and more than Bush Sr or Reagan did so Boeing got to kill all the competition other than AirBus.

This lack of competition is the niche the Chinese (they're launching their own state owned commercial aircraft maker), the Arabs (the UAE is launching it's own aircraft maker backed by money from rich gulf oil producing states), and even Russia are now trying to exploit. US commercial interests would have been better served maintaining MD as a seporate competitor for both Boeing and AirBus. Sadly, I doubt Lockheed-Martin or GE-Convair could have continued to survive in the commercial large aircraft business even if they merged together.

 

IMO the only real competition to Boeing and Airbus is coming from Embraer and Bombardier.

While not US American, at least they are Americas American.

 

I was not!

 

I'd like to point out that both Embraer and Bombardier started out as government owned businesses which were supported by government contracts (from Brazil and Canada respectively). Government support of industrial ventures like aircraft manufacturing do indeed help create competitive domestic manufacturing industries. Hell, Saab Aircraft (which is still in business unlike Saab Auto) also started out as a government supported company.

 

No argument there. However, you'd think we might learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes.