
In Middle East arms bazaar, we’re always thinking ahead
“More weapons to Israel,” says A, as the waiter refills the coffee cups. “And that’s a good idea … why?”
“It’s obvious,” says B.
The coffee is fresh, the morning is young. There’s nothing else on A’s schedule for hours. He can afford to be patient.
“Completely obvious,” says B, punctuating his pronouncement with a long, slow swallow.
“Help me,” says A.
“You give more weapons to Israel,” B explains, as if to a large melon, “or they’ll object to you giving more weapons to Egypt.”
A brief silence, as A considers this new information. There’s still something not quite right about it.
So we’re giving arms to one country so it can keep at bay the second country to whom we’ve also given arms to keep the first country at bay. Got it. We’re in the business of exporting arms races to the rest of the world!
U.S. Arms Sales Preserve Israel’s Edge
When the United States sells state-of-the-art weapons systems to Arab nations, it invariably provides even more lethal and sophisticated arms to its steadfast ally, Israel, in order to help counter the firepower of its neighbors.
So, when Egypt gets the M60A3 and M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, Israel gets the TOW-2A and Hellfire anti-tank missiles to blow up the Egyptian vehicles — in the event of a military confrontation between the two countries currently wedded to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.
Likewise, when the United States grudgingly provides McDonnell Douglas F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, Israel is armed either with Sidewinder and Sparrow air-to-air missiles or Hawk and Stinger surface-to-air missiles to bring down the U.S.-supplied Saudi aircraft.
Every U.S. government has ensured that no weapons sales to Arab nations would undermine Israel’s traditional “qualitative (military) advantage” over its perceived rivals.












You compared the number of Saudis to Iraqis and Afghanis. The US is currently at war with the other two, so I think that’s the implications of your post.
Trying not to be obnoxious about this (and somewhat failing), you are aware that W W W W W W W W W W W\
You missed my point. No offense taken.
I was merely pointing out that a neocon cheerleader made a post but forgot to use the mandatory word “clinton”.
“Global warming”…………… CLINTON!
9/11……………….. CLINTON
warrantless wiretaps……….. CLINTON
blah blah blah.
#21 – MikeN,
If you’re referring to my post, as it seems you are, my implications are:
1. The Saudis are not our friends.
(So, let’s keep them at arms length, rather than keeping them armed.)
2. We did not go to war with Iraq over 9/11.
(Perhaps, just perhaps, it was for oil. Perhaps, this was first suggested by Kissinger in 1973 as a means of control, rather than for profit. Perhaps this was supported by every single presidential administration since then, repugnican and democrap alike. Just perhaps.)
Does that clear up my sentiments?
More on the whole issue of why we went to war and the possibility that this was planned for more than 30 years, but only W actually did it. Just in case my prior post sounds a bit far-fetched to anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/6e5kt
Scotts right – it’s all W’s fault. Hell look at the retroactive Internet conspiracy: Algore invented the thing but websites all start with “WWW”…..
#25 – iGW,
Thanks for taking the time to actually read my post. No wait. You didn’t read any of it. You just saw my string of W’s in response to a string of Clintons. Perhaps you should actually take the time to read a post before mocking it. Perhaps you should take the time to actually read something, anything, before you post the same old drivel every time you turn your computer on.
You mean drivel like we’re all gonna die from global warming?
(BTW, I did read the article.)
#27 – iGW,
(BTW, I did read the article.)
Really? But your post did not indicate anything about it and made statements about my post that had no relevance to my post. So, I thought it was natural to assume that you looked at my post and just saw W.
You mean drivel like we’re all gonna die from global warming?
I don’t say that in every post. In fact, I haven’t mentioned the topic on this thread yet, other than to quote you here.
I’m too tired to respond to the article as it doesn’t stir me up enough. Your W’s just gave me an idea to toss off a response to the reflexive “everything W does is bad” tone of the thread. ( speaking of same old, same old – Bush bashing is a great example.)
more guns. woot