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.

[mlyonsd]

I understand Direckshun's position here. I didn't agree with Bush's deficit spending during a time of war. I'll even admit I wasn't vocal enough and didn't start a thread about it. I still voted for Bush and would again under the same circumstances of 2004.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I understand Direckshun's position here. I didn't agree with Bush's deficit spending during a time of war. I'll even admit I wasn't vocal enough and didn't start a thread about it. I still voted for Bush and would again under the same circumstances of 2004.

Right, and I think most people probably understand my position. Certain folks just troll to troll (Donger) and others abide by one issue purism (Saul Good) but for the most part, I think these kinds of calculations we make are extremely common. Especially in a two party system.

[Donger]

You know, isn't the threat title very non-specific? Shouldn't it be: "Obama to Arab Spring: **** You?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Right, and I think most people probably understand my position. Certain folks just troll to troll (Donger) and others abide by one issue purism (Saul Good) but for the most part, I think these kinds of calculations we make are extremely common. Especially in a two party system.

That is right. While you struggle with the position Obama has taken you also are unwilling to accept that for the most part Arab Spring has turned into the opportunity for Muslim extremists to gain control of a large part of the middle east and impose a horrible regime on the people.

The bottom line for those like you is Arab Spring has gone horribly wrong and your faith in Obama has been challenged.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

That is right. While you struggle with the position Obama has taken you also are unwilling to accept that for the most part Arab Spring has turned into the opportunity for Muslim extremists to gain control of a large part of the middle east and impose a horrible regime on the people.

The bottom line for those like you is Arab Spring has gone horribly wrong and your faith in Obama has been challenged.

This is a whole post of fail.

Create a coherent argument. For once in your damn life.

Dumbass.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This is a whole post of fail.

Create a coherent argument. For once in your damn life.

Dumbass.

You are normally better than this. You must be very disappointed and that is understandable. But don't lash out at others. Your guy has disappointed many of us.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

You are normally better than this. You must be very disappointed and that is understandable. But don't lash out at others. Your guy has disappointed many of us.

k

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Right, and I think most people probably understand my position. Certain folks just troll to troll (Donger) and others abide by one issue purism (Saul Good) but for the most part, I think these kinds of calculations we make are extremely common. Especially in a two party system.

There are more than enough pro life politicians that using it as a litmus test doesn't make me a single-issue voter. It's simple enough to find the best pro life candidate, especially given that I'm generally conservative. 90% of the candidates that I would like on the other issues are pro life already.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

There are more than enough pro life politicians that using it as a litmus test doesn't make me a single-issue voter. It's simple enough to find the best pro life candidate, especially given that I'm generally conservative. 90% of the candidates that I would like on the other issues are pro life already.

That's fair, in certain races where all the candidiates are pro-life.

That hasn't been the case, however, in modern Presidential politics. Nor, unless you're from a blood-red state, has it been the case in your Senate and House races. In those races, you are admittedly a one-issue voter.

Which is your right. I wouldn't endorse it, but I'm not you.

And you're not me -- so it's a bit unfair to shit on someone like me who doesn't limit his electoral options to one issue like you.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Heh.

One-issue voters wrap their vote around one issue -- as you do.

The only plausible way you can deny you're a one-issue voter is to claim there is virtually no such thing as a one-issue voter, as you did right there, by incorporating either unrealistic or grossly outdated issues as an additional issue. Because I'm willing to bet 99.99% of one-issue voters would probably agree with you on that score.

Unlike yourself, I base my decisions on a multitude of issues. Not just one.

So I can understand how you can look at my condemning of the Obama administration's actions in Bahrain as puzzling, considering I'm virtually guaranteed to vote for his reelection. But to people who aren't one-issue voters, that's just the world we live in. It's a lot more difficult to sort issues out.

He didn't describe himself as a one issue voter. Where are you coming up with this?

Would you vote for a President who completely eliminated medicaid without putting anything in place to provide for medical care for the poor? I'm assuming that your answer is no. That doesn't make you a one issue voter. In fact, there may be several issues that would be a no-go for you (or for Saul Good).

If you don't have any single issues that are important enough for you to make you decide not to vote for Obama, you probably don't really have any guiding principles other than party loyalty. But I don't think that's really where you are. I think you're starting from a premise that Obama won't cross you on any of your fundamentally non-negotiable positions, whatever they are.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

He didn't describe himself as a one issue voter. Where are you coming up with this?

Would you vote for a President who completely eliminated medicaid without putting anything in place to provide for medical care for the poor? I'm assuming that your answer is no. That doesn't make you a one issue voter. In fact, there may be several issues that would be a no-go for you (or for Saul Good).

Again, the only way to escape the label of being a one-issue voter in Saul's case is to invent either unrealistic issues or hopelessly outdated issues as if they are feasible "other" issues to be attentive towards. Saul Good invented slavery, you're inventing the eradication of Medicaid. Both are about as likely to be an issue in 2012 as setting up a moon colony.

He's admitted to being a one-issue voter. It's not how I do it, but it's fine if that's what makes him a content voter.

Where he's out of line is shitting on other voters who don't share his simplistic perspective.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Again, the only way to escape the label of being a one-issue voter in Saul's case is to invent either unrealistic issues or hopelessly outdated issues as if they are feasible "other" issues to be attentive towards. Saul Good invented slavery, you're inventing the eradication of Medicaid. Both are about as likely to be an issue in 2012 as setting up a moon colony.

He's admitted to being a one-issue voter. It's not how I do it, but it's fine if that's what makes him a content voter.

Where he's out of line is shitting on other voters who don't share his simplistic perspective.

You're wrong about all of this. It doesn't have to be eradication of medicaid. I just used that as an example to get you to look at it from your own point of view. A person could refuse to vote against any POTUS who nominated a pro-abortion justice to the SCOTUS (as Saul said he would) while also refusing to vote for a POTUS who supported a gun control measure like the Brady Bill, who supported a campaign finance reform intended to reverse the Citizen's United ruling, who vetoed an effort to repeal Obamacare and/or who refused to defend DOMA, etc. etc. In other words, Saul may have several issues that would cause him to withhold support from a POTUS. That would mean he wasn't a single issue voter.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If you don't have any single issues that are important enough for you to make you decide not to vote for Obama, you probably don't really have any guiding principles other than party loyalty. But I don't think that's really where you are. I think you're starting from a premise that Obama won't cross you on any of your fundamentally non-negotiable positions, whatever they are.

Just saw this gem that you edited in.

If I'm not a single issue voter, I don't have any guiding principles.

That's the argument you just floated, pat.

You're just making shit up, now. Pull your head out of your ass.

I'm still waiting on you to take my bet -- if Obama wins, I get your signature for a lifetime.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You're wrong about all of this. It doesn't have to be eradication of medicaid.

Then name a realistic issue, and we'll see if Saul Good would vote for the pro-choice candidate.

So far, all you guys have named are ridiculous issues that aren't real.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Then name a realistic issue, and we'll see if Saul Good would vote for the pro-choice candidate.

So far, all you guys have named are ridiculous issues that aren't real.

I just named four of them. Did you stop reading before you got to them?