US to Arab Spring: **** You

[Direckshun]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/38eb21ee-9...#axzz1uzn9UKsN

US arms sales to Bahrain to resume
By Geoff Dyer in Washington
May 12, 2012 12:09 am

The US is to resume selling arms to Bahrain a little more than a year after a harsh crackdown on anti-government protesters and despite continued claims of human rights abuses in the Gulf kingdom, which is a key US ally.

The Obama administration said that the arms sales, which Congress has been notified about, would include upgrades for Bahrain’s defence force, but would not involve weapons that could be used against demonstrators.

The decision to restart arms sales was the result of “national security interests”, said Victoria Nuland, state department spokeswoman. It follows a visit to Washington this week by Sheikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s crown prince, who met with Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, and Leon Panetta, defence secretary.

Home to the US 5th fleet, Bahrain has been a key partner of the US in the Gulf for more than 60 years and the military facilities in the country are a central plank in the Pentagon’s efforts to deter Iran.

Other US allies in the region, notably Saudi Arabia, have also put pressure on Washington to maintain its support for Bahrain’s ruling Sunni Muslim royal family, which has faced widespread unrest among the majority Shia Muslim population.

However, the administration came under heavy pressure to scale back its ties last March after Manama declared a state of emergency in response to protests following the entry of Saudi and Emirati troops. In October, $53m in planned arms sales were put on hold pending an investigation of alleged human rights abuses.

A senior state department official said that the new arms sales would help boost the country’s external defences and would include air-to-air missiles, components for F-16 fighter jets and potentially a naval frigate. However, they would not include Humvees, stun grenades or tear gas.

“We are mindful of the continued human rights issues,” said a senior official. “Right now they are at an impasse and the violence is a result of that.”

In a speech last November, Hillary Clinton reflected on the conflicts of interest thrown up by the Arab Spring, particularly in Bahrain. It was fair for people to ask “why does America promote democracy one way in some countries and another way in others?” But she said that each country in the region was different and the administration needed to weigh the risk to US forces, the potential threat from al-Qaeda and the need to keep oil supplies flowing. “It would be foolish to take a one-size-fits-all approach and barrel forward regardless of circumstances on the ground,” she said.

As tensions with Iran have escalated in recent years, the US has been keen to use arms sales to boost the military capabilities of its allies in the region, most notably the $60bn deal with Saudi Arabia which was announced in 2010.

[LiveSteam]

Booooooooom chug a lug a lug a
Booooooooom chug a lug a lug a




Thats the fact Jack

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

We're not taking sides. They wanted to buy weapons, and we sold them weapons. If they wanted donuts, we'd sell them donuts. If the other side wants to buy weapons or donuts, sell them weapons or donuts...then let them sort it out.

Oh you can bet your ass we're taking sides. The Kingdom gives us all kinds of shit in return for us turning the other way when they beat the shit out of their protesters.

We are actively empowering them. We are giving them riches, weapons, and legitimacy. In return, they can essentially do whatever they want, and if they can kill enough democratic protesters, they retain power. To absolutely nobody's disadvantage in our or their government.

We are an active player in this. A lot of this can't happen without American support.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Oh you can bet your ass we're taking sides. The Kingdom gives us all kinds of shit in return for us turning the other way when they beat the shit out of their protesters.

We are actively empowering them. We are giving them riches, weapons, and legitimacy. In return, they can essentially do whatever they want, and if they can kill enough democratic protesters, they retain power.

We are an active player in this. A lot of this can't happen without American support.

So, you aren't going to vote to re-elect Obama? Or are you?

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Donger

So, you aren't going to vote to re-elect Obama? Or are you?

Hes



on it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

So, you aren't going to vote to re-elect Obama? Or are you?

Non sequitor.

We can do the dance where I say I will be, and you say I have no values for it, and I can point to any number of administration's you've supported in your life despite the things you've disagreed with, but I'd rather confine that to a separate thread, since so little of that has to do with the OP.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Non sequitor.

We can do the dance where I say I will be, and you say I have no values for it, and I can point to any number of administration's you've supported in your life despite the things you've disagreed with, but I'd rather confine that to a separate thread, since so little of that has to do with the OP.

That's okay. I didn't expect you have the courage to answer that, despite your alleged horror at this Obama-approved sale of horrible weaponry.

I suppose your support of the heroic Bahrainis only goes so far, eh?

Your tagline should be changed to "Blood red for Obama!"

[Direckshun]

There's actually a very clear distinction between how Republicans and Democrats handle things like the Arab Spring, and I ally myself largely with how the Democrats have handled it, with reservations.

The Republican Party advocates a much heavier-handed approach to the Middle East. They constantly chided Obama, for instance, to publicly lacerate the Iranian regime for killing their own people in the streets.

The problem is that this is what these regimes always, always want. They want the propaganda help of countries like the United States to say their uprisings are not democratic uprisings, but instead the meddlings of the West trying to overturn their societies. For decades, this was an effective PR ploy to turn their people against their own democratic uprisings.

The current approach, to stand down almost completely with our rhetoric, helped fuel enthusiasm in some countries like Iran, who got to desperate to pin the Green Revolution on somebody foreign, they had to feign it was the British, a failing ploy from the start.

The same problems still persist, though, and our decisions to continue doing deals with oppressive regimes we can make money off of -- Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan -- is only adding fuel to the regime's fire, rather than peaceful democratic protesters.

Standing idly by, something Saul Good suggested earlier, is not an option for us. We're too entrenched in that part of the world. We either continue doing business as usual, and empower those in power, or we start bringing some ****ing consequences into the mixture, and stop acting like a small Middle East nation has our nuts in a vice.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's actually a very clear distinction between how Republicans and Democrats handle things like the Arab Spring, and I ally myself largely with how the Democrats have handled it, with reservations.

The Republican Party advocates a much heavier-handed approach to the Middle East. They constantly chided Obama, for instance, to publicly lacerate the Iranian regime for killing their own people in the streets.

The problem is that this is what these regimes always, always want. They want the propaganda help of countries like the United States to say their uprisings are not democratic uprisings, but instead the meddlings of the West trying to overturn their societies. For decades, this was an effective PR ploy to turn their people against their own democratic uprisings.

The current approach, to stand down almost completely with our rhetoric, helped fuel enthusiasm in some countries like Iran, who got to desperate to pin the Green Revolution on somebody foreign, they had to feign it was the British, a failing ploy from the start.

The same problems still persist, though, and our decisions to continue doing deals with oppressive regimes we can make money off of -- Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan -- is only adding fuel to the regime's fire, rather than peaceful democratic protesters.

Standing idly by, something Saul Good suggested earlier, is not an option for us. We're too entrenched in that part of the world. We either continue doing business as usual, and empower those in power, or we start bringing some ****ing consequences into the mixture, and stop acting like a small Middle East nation has our nuts in a vice.

And this is why Direckshun will vote for Obama again. You can't spell Direckshun without (D).

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

And this is why Direckshun will vote for Obama again. You can't spell Direckshun without (D).

I think the Democratic pill is less sour than the Republican one.

I think that's pretty common sense. That's why you have a vote on your record for Sarah Palin.

[Donger]

Those poor Bahrainis. Why does Direckshun enable their oppression with her vote!? I guess as long as they aren't "Palestinians" it's okay.

[Brock]

We should always act in self interest, if that means **** Arab Spring, then **** Arab Spring.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Donger

Those poor Bahrainis. Why does Direckshun enable their oppression with her vote!? I guess as long as they aren't "Palestinians" it's okay.

It's nice to know that, no matter how horrible a mob may be, you can put the word "spring" behind it's description, and it's suddenly something to be nurtured.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

We should always act in self interest, if that means **** Arab Spring, then **** Arab Spring.

If we can make a buck by selling weapons to a King murdering his democratic protestors?

With our history?

Does the phrase "no taxation without representation" ring a bell? Or are you perfectly fine with funding King George.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

It's nice to know that, no matter how horrible a mob may be, you can put the word "spring" behind it's description, and it's suddenly something to be nurtured.

I don't think you have a remote understanding of the popular uprisings in the Middle East over the past few years.

Call it a hunch.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't think you have a remote understanding of the popular uprisings in the Middle East over the past few years.

Call it a hunch.

On the contrary, I understand it all too well. That's why I don't blindly jump for joy when a regime, deeply flawed though it may be, is ousted.