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.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by blaise

Maybe the White House should edit Eisenhower's Presidential biography page to include a note about it.

Cross thread humor.

Originally Posted by blaise

I just wish there were something he could do.

There is, to a degree. He's just unwilling.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

If a Republican knowingly appointed a pro choice judge to the SCOTUS, I sure as shit wouldn't vote for him again.

There is a difference between disagreeing on issues that are only tertiary in my mind versus those that strike at my core. If this isn't an issue that strikes at your core, then so be it. If it does yet you choose to support the letter "D" over your core values, then screw you for having low character.

I have a wealth of core values, and how I respond to them and how I manage them politically doesn't have to mirror yours.

Interesting that you target abortion, though. It just so happens that Mitt Romney was pro choice not that long ago, but I'm willing to bet you'll happily cast a vote for him in November.

Why? Because Obama's worse, you'll no doubt rationalize.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I did state it -- it's common knowledge.

The department of defense is married to a very large, very wealthy chunk of the private sector creating an unholy marriage of government politicking and shareholder dictating. You know this.

This department and its private sector marriage partner have been incredibly effective at lobbying Congress and both political parties into its pocket. you know this.

Think of the NRA, or the AARP. That's the degree of pull the MIC has, perhaps even more severe. Neither party can challenge the core fundamentals of any of these groups without getting sacrificed at the next election. You know this.

This applies to Obama as much as it does anybody in DC. And you know that.

Oh, so Obama's balls ARE in a vise, but he himself tightened the jaws and is unwilling to loosen them.

Gotcha.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Oh, so Obama's balls ARE in a vise, but he himself tightened the jaws and is unwilling to loosen them.

Gotcha.

That's the short and long of it.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I have a wealth of core values, and how I respond to them and how I manage them politically doesn't have to mirror yours.

Interesting that you target abortion, though. It just so happens that Mitt Romney was pro choice not that long ago, but I'm willing to bet you'll happily cast a vote for him in November.

Why? Because Obama's worse, you'll no doubt rationalize.

I'm banking on Romney appointing pro life justices. I don't know for sure that he will, but I know that Obama won't...just like you know for sure that Obama arms brutal regimes.

If Romney wins and appoints pro choice justices, I will not vote for him again just because he is better on some minor policy issues.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I'm banking on Romney appointing pro life justices. I don't know for sure that he will, but I know that Obama won't...just like you know for sure that Obama arms brutal regimes.

If Romney wins and appoints pro choice justices, I will not vote for him again just because he is better on some minor policy issues.

What about if he's better on a whole host of critical policy issues?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What about if he's better on a whole host of critical policy issues?

So I take it writing in Ron Paul isn't an option you're considering.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's the short and long of it.

So what would happen if he vetoed the sale of these weapons?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

So I take it writing in Ron Paul isn't an option you're considering.

Heh. That would be an accurate assumption.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

So what would happen if he vetoed the sale of these weapons?

Good question -- for one, we would be resisting the legitimization and further enrichment of a brutal regime killing its own peaceful protesters.

Politically, he'd risk getting hammered in a way that would jeopardize his chances at winning reelection.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What about if he's better on a whole host of critical policy issues?

If I can't trust him not to supply Planned Parenthood with spine rippers, I can't trust him with anything.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I should also mention that going from autocracy to democracy is insanely difficult to do, even if you've managed to overthrow your rulers.

The United States sucked at it, initially. We earned our democracy and then suppressed the majority of the population from voting because they either had vaginas or dark skin. We continued enslaving an entire race. And I'm not even including the Articles of Confederation disaster that almost tore the country apart from the inside.

It's very, very possible that, if any of these populations were hypothetically able to overthrow their rulers, the result would be messy, disasterous, and with an oppressive new ruling class. We shouldn't snuff out democracies or in this case, aid the suppression of democratic protesters, simply because we think we know best. What's best is going to unfold over decades, and it will be messy for a while. But the first step must be the homegrown overthrow of the current regimes.

We have a homegrown overthrow, a patriotic part of our history we regard as near-sacred. A couple centuries later, we're working against other people doing the same.

**** that.

One thing to realize from your post is that our population was far more conditioned for the constitutional republic than those in the Middle East. We were founded and settled primarily by those from England who has had a representative government as per the Magna Carta signed in 1215. This restricted the power of the monarch. Granted there were times when English monarchs had more power than at other times, but he never had absolute power like the Shahs and Caliphs of the Middle East. These situations are totally different.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Good question -- for one, we would be resisting the legitimization and further enrichment of a brutal regime killing its own peaceful protesters.

Politically, he'd risk getting hammered in a way that would jeopardize his chances at winning reelection.

You mean he would lose the opportunity to do the bidding of the military industrial complex for four more years?

[ForeverChiefs58]

You have no problem that these protesters you are so upset over being supported by iran? Because you know the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism are good people with great intentions

You are the only idiot that gives two shits, bitter blood. Just like no one gives two shits about the poor palestinian suicide bomber with so much love in his heart as he targets and blows up innocent women and children, and cheers in the street passing out candy when an infidel is killed.

Bitter blood red for palestine!

You sure know how to pick a great cause.

Imagine if you put that energy into something that was worth a shit.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

You have no problem that these protesters you are so upset over being supported by iran? Because you know the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism are good people with great intentions

You are the only idiot that gives two shits, bitter blood. Just like no one gives two shits about the poor palestinian suicide bomber with so much love in his heart as he targets and blows up innocent women and children, and cheers in the street passing out candy when an infidel is killed.

Bitter blood red for palestine!

You sure know how to pick a great cause.

Imagine if you put that energy into something that was worth a shit.

What energy? He doesn't do shit. Liberals don't have to because their intentions are so mother ****ing pure.