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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

I'm not talking about single issue voters. I'm talking about what you mistakenly call a single issue voter. Other than that, yes. There has got to be something that Obama could do to lose your vote. If not, you're just an automatic democrat vote generator (or maybe a guy who can't vote against a black guy).

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I just named four of them.

Fair enough.

Saul's passionately pro-life. I sincerely doubt he'd abandon a pro-life candidate for a pro-choice candidate if the pro-choice candidate had a better record on gun rights, supported Citizen's United, and favored repealing Obamacare.

I'll let Saul speak for himself, and maybe he would abandon his pro-life candidate for a pro-choice candidate with those trappings. If he's anything like the other pro-life one-issue voters I know, I'd say it's very unlikely.

Saul himself said being pro-choice is a "deal killer." If that's not a one-issue voter, I don't know what is.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not talking about single issue voters. I'm talking about what you mistakenly call a single issue voter. Other than that, yes. There has got to be something that Obama could do to lose your vote. If not, you're just an automatic democrat vote generator (or maybe a guy who can't vote against a black guy).

I think the position you're trying to defend is that there's no such thing as single issue voters.

Which, in a strictly existential sense, you're probably right. If Saul Good's preferred pro-life candidate came out tomorrow as being in favor of ethnic cleansing of Puerto Ricans, I'm assuming Saul would probably waver a bit.

But that's not realistic.

If I offer two reasonable candidates, one pro-life and one pro-choice, Saul's mind is made up, barring something absolutely insane.

That's a one-issue voter.

Which is fine if you want to be that way.

What's not fine is shitting on others who wish not to be.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fair enough.

Saul's passionately pro-life. I sincerely doubt he'd abandon a pro-life candidate for a pro-choice candidate if the pro-choice candidate had a better record on gun rights, supported Citizen's United, and favored repealing Obamacare.

I'll let Saul speak for himself, and maybe he would abandon his pro-life candidate for a pro-choice candidate with those trappings. If he's anything like the other pro-life one-issue voters I know, I'd say it's very unlikely.

Saul himself said being pro-choice is a "deal killer." If that's not a one-issue voter, I don't know what is.

He probably wouldn't abandon a pro-life candidate for a pro-choice candidate because of an offensive stand on Citizen's United (or some other issue), but he may choose not to vote for either of them. An issue can be a litmus test without it being the sole issue of importance. You can have several litmus test requirements. Some of the ronpauls are examples of this. That's why neither major candidate can win their votes. Romney isn't isolationist enough and Obama is too communist.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

An issue can be a litmus test without it being the sole issue of importance.

Well, that's what a litmus test is.

There might be other issues of hypothetical importance, but if there's one issue that drives your vote, that's what you are. A single issue voter.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I think the position you're trying to defend is that there's no such thing as single issue voters.

Which, in a strictly existential sense, you're probably right. If Saul Good's preferred pro-life candidate came out tomorrow as being in favor of ethnic cleansing of Puerto Ricans, I'm assuming Saul would probably waver a bit.

But that's not realistic.

If I offer two reasonable candidates, one pro-life and one pro-choice, Saul's mind is made up, barring something absolutely insane.

That's a one-issue voter.

Which is fine if you want to be that way.

What's not fine is shitting on others who wish not to be.

I don't have a problem with you putting up with Obama's support for oppressive dictators who brutalize their own people. I've compromised my strong beliefs by supporting candidates who endorse a progressive income tax.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well, that's what a litmus test is.

There might be other issues of hypothetical importance, but if there's one issue that drives your vote, that's what you are. A single issue voter.

No, there can be two. Or three. Or any number. It might be one in some cases, but you can't automatically conclude that it's one. A litmus test issue just means that it's a necessary condition. It's not necessarily sufficient because you might have other litmus tests or you might have another constellation of issues that must, on balance, go your way.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't have a problem with you putting up with Obama's support for oppressive dictators who brutalize their own people. I've compromised my strong beliefs by supporting candidates who endorse a progressive income tax.

That's all fine and good, but we're not talking about you. Far as I know, you're not a single-issue voter shitting on me for not being the same way.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, there can be two. Or three. Or any number.

There could be. But in Saul's case, there isn't.

[go bo]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I find it amusing that someone who fancies himself as being as nuanced as you do can't distinguish between being a single issue voter and having deal killers.

If selling weapons to those who will use them to kill innocent protesters isn't a deal killer for you, then bang bang.

innocent protesters?

those are shia muslim terrorists!

in other circumstances, some might say that they should all be killed like their iranian brethren - they're all shia shits after all...

or is it because obama is supposedly killing them that makes them worthy of our sympathies?

or not...

[go bo]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Man, you got the U.S. there...Oh, wait, not a single nation had established women's suffrage when this nation was born, though New Zealand did so about 100 years later...




Considering it was mostly Europeans and African tribal chieftains that got slavery well entrenched in the Colonies, it was absolutely unthinkable that the new nation of America did not end the practice overnight. Of course it was still being practiced in much of the world, and slavery was abolished in several individual states in the late 1700s and Jefferson signed an act prohibiting the importation of any more slaves into the country in 1808.




You liberals simply must look at everything about America in the worst possible light. I guess it always helps to tear down someone or something great so your own disgusting lives don't pale quite as badly in comparison. It also seems to give you a sense of sophistication to be contemptuous of your own country since you are so certain that to be patriotic is to be a simpleton.

When you and the Knights of the White Guilt Monkeys unite, you are indeed a force to be reckoned with.

ooh ooh, can i be one of those too?

what a grand and glorious title to have, it's just so literary and well, grand...

and funny...

[go bo]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

Slavery, throughout human history, is relatively commonplace. It's not a unique failing of "religious white males who are more successful than me", which is of course the group liberals in the end will blame for all the things in their life they aren't happy about.

but but, many liberals are religious white males who are successful...

do they blame themselves?

[stevieray]

"my life sucks: the back story"

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by stevieray

"my life sucks: the back story"

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by go bowe

innocent protesters?

those are shia muslim terrorists!

in other circumstances, some might say that they should all be killed like their iranian brethren - they're all shia shits after all...

or is it because obama is supposedly killing them that makes them worthy of our sympathies?

or not...

I don't think of them as simply innocent protesters, but D does.