Middle East Experience

[zoony]

Actually that's not right. What allowed us to become a global super power was WWII and the Marshal Plan. WWII because it destroyed the European infrastructure which competed against us, while it mandated massive capital into our own industrial base to produce weapons and also funnelled global investment dollars into our economy. The Marshal plan because it offered cheap credit to the Europeans to rebuild their infrastructure; with the caveat that they spend most of the money in the United States further accelerating and fueling our industries.

Selling sophisticated weapons to Japan is not why we are a global super power. Japan makes most of their own weapons and purchases far less weapons from the United States than the US Military does. Israel doesn't buy much of anything from the United States. We give them most of their weapons gratis (FREE!!) . Even so, we also pay for them to develop their own weapons, many of which are inferior to the weapons we supply them. Some of the weapons we pay Israel to develop and build, Israel sells to other countries like China. Like the Lavi fighter jet developed with a Billion dollar gift from the United States government. The Lavi is now produced in China which purchased the plans and rights from Israel at American Tax payer expense. It's credited from advancing China's airforce from the 1950's to the 1970's American technology. Israel still flys American planes, and is lobbying hard to get the new F-22 raptor. ( gratis of coarse!! )

Either way, arms sales are not what made this country a supper power and never have been. They are a relatively new development. Used to be we didn't sell our best equipment to very many other countries. Used to be we pursued a balance of power doctrine in order to diminish the likelihood of war. That was the case in the Middle east until the early 1970's.

I think you would do well to think in terms of the protection of established trading partners, and the securing of economic interest for this country thru those means.

The military protection and arms sales/donations we made to Western Europe, Japan, Israel, Australia, etc. allowed for those economies to flourish and become the valuable economic and political allies that they are for us today.

If you're looking at a specific weapon and trying to track the $$'s we made from the sale, well... that's just dumb.

.....

[Funkyalligator]

Zoony you really need to learn more about stuff before you start spouting off at the mouth you have no idea about the conflict in Afghanistan. By saying we just gave money to Pakistan is completely obscuring the truth.....to begin with we provided training and money to the ISS(Pakistani Secret Police) who in turn trained the mujahadeen...and we did have CIA advisors over there directly training them...while liasing with the ISS. Additionally, the mujahadeen that were over there were allowed there because of influence that we had with Egypt....a great deal of the mujahadeen were memders of the Muslim Brotherhood that had been imprisoned in Egypt and we pressured Egypt to release them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan....please learn a little about a topic before trying to come out and say other people are wrong....additionally we knew about the madrasas that the Saudi's were establishing over there and we did nothing to temper the militant religious views that they were preaching because we were worried that by trying to obstruct these views would lead to less fighting of the soviets

[National Defense]

Which weapons did Osama use against us? He carries a Kalishnakov which he claims to have taken from a dead soviet soldier. There have always been rumors of 8 missing Stinger missiles, but they've never surfaced. The RPG's that the Taliban/Al Queada fighters are famous for are of Soviet/Chinese origin.

After gulf war 1, the US shipped significant amounts of captured equipment (including tanks and other mechanized units) through pakistan to the taliban elements in the south to help them overthrow the puppet govt that the soviets had installed when they withdrew.

[alexey]

And yes, like I said earlier, there is blowback. And I'm not gonna sit here and say we have a perfect track record. But what I AM going to be very clear about, is that YOU, MJ, enjoy the standard of living you do in this country because of the pro-active role that the U.S. Government has taken in protecting its economic and political interests abroad.

Geopolitical factors may have had something to do with it as well...

[JMS]

Which weapons did Osama use against us? He carries a Kalishnakov which he claims to have taken from a dead soviet soldier. There have always been rumors of 8 missing Stinger missiles, but they've never surfaced. The RPG's that the Taliban/Al Queada fighters are famous for are of Soviet/Chinese origin.

America did supply and train Mujaheddin fighters during the soviet/Afghan war in the 1980's. We specifically had ties to Bin Laudin at that time and supported his anti soviet policy.

As for Hussein, when we invaded, his entire mechanized division was Soviet leftovers. His planes were MiGs. His troops carried AK's. Where were the American weapons?

Correct. we helped Saddam line up financing with our allies during his troubles with Iran but we didn't sell him a single American weapons system. He was a soviet client, not an American client during the cold war.

And yes, like I said earlier, there is blowback. And I'm not gonna sit here and say we have a perfect track record. But what I AM going to be very clear about, is that YOU, MJ, enjoy the standard of living you do in this country because of the pro-active role that the U.S. Government has taken in protecting its economic and political interests abroad. What other country is so wealthy that someone can get a 4 year degree in music, and enjoy the standard of living you have?

That's not totally clear. It can be argued we enjoy our standard of living in spite of the American governments "pro-active" policies.

Vietnam for example cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and pushed our economy into the malaise of the Nixon/Carter doldrums of 1970's. The governments policies were a total fiasco as Vietnam righted itself only after we withdrew in defeat.

Iran problems can be directly linked to CIA actions in the 1950's when we overthrew the democratically elected government there and installed the Shah. We paid for the radicalization of that country.

Israel likewise has not been a success for America politically or economically. Militarily it has, so far. But our actions there have lead to decades of OPEC oil cartel controlling oil process. Lead to the oil embargo of the mid 1970's and lead to the 911 terrorist attacks as well as many other lessor terrorists attacks on this country. One can also link America's Israeli policies to Iraq and eventually perhaps a war with Iran. Say nothing about America's tarnished name across the free world. ( Europe and the Middle east mainly )...

There is definitely room for improvement in American foreign policy. Our results do not justify blanket vindication against second guessing as you propose.

I think you should bear that in mind if you're gonna be the first to criticize the mistakes that have been made.

It's not like the Bush administration can use previous administrations foreign policies as precedence and justifications. Bush's foreign policy has been a dramatic departure from America's traditional foreign policy which has become continuously more militant and less peace inspiring in the last few decades.

Originally we justified the militarization of foreign policy because of the cold war. Now we have no justification other than staying the course. It's true arms sales are brisk, although we foot the bill for many of the sales and are required to underwrite huge domestic military expenditures to keep this model in check. Something we are increasingly unable to do even with outspending the rest of the world in military procurements.

[JMS]

I think you would do well to think in terms of the protection of established trading partners, and the securing of economic interest for this country thru those means.

The military protection and arms sales/donations we made to Western Europe, Japan, Israel, Australia, etc. allowed for those economies to flourish and become the valuable economic and political allies that they are for us today.

That's a fair point. I would disagree with that point. I would argue that the development of Japan, Western Europe, and Australia were more dependent on American troops and the security that those troops provided than on any weapons systems we supplied the domestic forces.

I would ague that Western Europe is even today only a poor shadow militarily of the American forces still deployed there and the implied threat accompanied by those forces by America. Same with Korea, and Australia. Japan has been modernizing at our behest for the last decade although our forces there provided the security for their economic development post WWII, not weapons we sold them. Japan is becoming their own creditable force. But as I've said, they have a domestic arms industry and are not dependent upon America rather are a partner in their own defense.

I think we can agree Israel is a different animal than Western Europe, Australia, Korea and Japan. Different strategies with different results.

Israel is the only example you give were we provided exclusively weapons and those weapons were the major component the security which they have. It's also one of the most tenuous and controversial policies.

What we are talking about today in the Middle east ( and on the Daily show) is tens of billions of dollars of weapons transfers/sales to the locals. Locals who are neigbors. Locals who do not recognize each other. Locals who have waged wars against each other in the near past. Locals who sabor raddle against each other. This is not compariable to historic US policy. This is not comparable to Western Europe, Japan, Australia, or Korea.

If you're looking at a specific weapon and trying to track the $$'s we made from the sale, well... that's just dumb.

.....

We agree here too. I thought that was the point you were making. My mistake.

[zoony]

America did supply and train Mujaheddin fighters during the soviet/Afghan war in the 1980's. We specifically had ties to Bin Laudin at that time and supported his anti soviet policy.

"This defies common sense. American officials did not venture into Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets for fear of handing the cfommunists a propaganda victory if they were captured. Bin Laden, meanwhile, had espoused anti-American positions since 1982, and thansk to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction business had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding.

A source familiar with bin Laden's organization explains that bin Laden 'never had any relations with America or American officials. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans.' A senior U.S. official unequivocally says that 'bin Laden never met with the CIA.'

.... the US wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled throug hPakistan's miliatry intelligence agency, ISI. ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan."

-Peter L. Bergen

That's not totally clear. It can be argued we enjoy our standard of living in spite of the American governments "pro-active" policies.

What we're doing is nothing new. Every empire throughout history has sought to secure interests abroad. We're just the latest in a long line.

Those countries who DO NOT act to secure interests are left far behind. I'll refer you to those European/Asian countries who did not act to colonize/conquer the New World when it was discovered. Just as an example.

Vietnam for example cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and pushed our economy into the malaise of the Nixon/Carter doldrums of 1970's. The governments policies were a total fiasco as Vietnam righted itself only after we withdrew in defeat.

Again, for the 3rd time, I'm not going to sit here and defend everything we've done. Because we've certainly made our fair share of mistakes.

But the good far outweighs the bad. How can you look around this country and not see that? Honest question.

Israel likewise has not been a success for America politically or economically. Militarily it has, so far. But our actions there have lead to decades of OPEC oil cartel controlling oil process. Lead to the oil embargo of the mid 1970's and lead to the 911 terrorist attacks as well as many other lessor terrorists attacks on this country. One can also link America's Israeli policies to Iraq and eventually perhaps a war with Iran. Say nothing about America's tarnished name across the free world. ( Europe and the Middle east mainly )...

Israel has a $195 billion economy. We are their largest trading partner, estimated at $12.6 billion annualy.

There is definitely room for improvement in American foreign policy. Our results do not justify blanket vindication against second guessing as you propose.

Quite the contrary, I originally posted in this thread AGAINST blanket vindication. Ironic that you now accuse me of it.

[zoony]

That's a fair point. I would disagree with that point. I would argue that the development of Japan, Western Europe, and Australia were more dependent on American troops and the security that those troops provided than on any weapons systems we supplied the domestic forces.

Well it is the American presence in Saudi Arabia that has led bin Laden to declare jihad, not the sale of weapons to the Saudi Royal Family.

Oh yah... and I forgot about Korea. Another success story.

....

[Midnight Judges]

Which weapons did Osama use against us? He carries a Kalishnakov which he claims to have taken from a dead soviet soldier. There have always been rumors of 8 missing Stinger missiles, but they've never surfaced. The RPG's that the Taliban/Al Queada fighters are famous for are of Soviet/Chinese origin.

Ah, so you are making the assumption that since the weapons were not American made, we could not have had a hand in delivering them. I specifically said "send weapons" regarding Afghanistan. And we did. The CIA coordinated the shipments of Chinese weapons as well as the funding from Saudi Arabia. The weapons went through Pakistani Intelligence, were heavily skimmed, and then delivered to Islamic extremists, possibly UBL.

As for Hussein, when we invaded, his entire mechanized division was Soviet leftovers. His planes were MiGs. His troops carried AK's. Where were the American weapons?

This is what was referring to:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

And yes, like I said earlier, there is blowback. And I'm not gonna sit here and say we have a perfect track record.

I think you should bear that in mind if you're gonna be the first to criticize the mistakes that have been made

You still haven't answered the question. Do you or do you not think it was wise for Reagan to send hundreds of TOW and HAWK anti-aircraft missiles in order to appease hostage-takers and fund the contras?

But what I AM going to be very clear about, is that YOU, MJ, enjoy the standard of living you do in this country because of the pro-active role that the U.S. Government has taken in protecting its economic and political interests abroad.

I'm pretty sure my standard of living would have been just as well without us funding OBL, providing intelligence and biological samples to Saddam Hussein, appeasing terrorist hostage takers, and sending anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.

What other country is so wealthy that someone can get a 4 year degree in music, and enjoy the standard of living you have?

Uh, plenty of countries. Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Spain...the list goes on.

FYI, I have a masters degree thank you very much but I think you knew that.

[JMS]

Well it is the American presence in Saudi Arabia that has led bin Laden to declare jihad, not the sale of weapons to the Saudi Royal Family.

Oh yah... and I forgot about Korea. Another success story.

....

What John Stewart was speaking of in his comedy editorial was our new 20 billion dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia coupled with 30 billion arms gift for Israel. ( both over the coming decade, coupled with 20 billion for Egypt not discussed by Stewart. ) Arms sales in the ME, is specifically what is being discussed.

You said that such Arms transfers is what has made us a super power, and is a large factor in America's global security. Siting Japan, Western Europe, Korea, Australia and Israel.

My point was all of these examples you site have less to do with Arms transfers than American troops stationed inside these countries except for Israel. I further said Israel's situation is not comparable to the other examples you reference as they aren't nearly the same models for stability seen in these other examples.

As for Saudi Arabia, again Saudi's major deterrent has always been America's stated policy of direct intervention if the kingdom has ever been threatened. Including preemptive Nuclear strikes against the Soviet union if it came to that. The Saudi military isn't a creditable deterrent with or without our Billions of weapons transfers. Not against Saddam's Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Soviets or any number of potential enemies.

That's why we put troops in there when Iraq was knocking on the door. That's why America had pre positioned equipment in the Kindom for decades before the first gulf war.

[zoony]

Uh, plenty of countries. Australia, France, Germany, Japan, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Spain...the list goes on.

.

Hey look at that... all countries that were able to flourish/survive because of American foreign policy since WWII.

As for the rest of your post, read above. I think I answer your questions.

....

[zoony]

What John Stewart was speaking of in his comedy editorial was our new 20 billion dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia coupled with 30 billion arms gift for Israel.

Arms sales in the ME, is specifically what is being discussed.

You said that such Arms transfers is what has made us a super power, and is a large factor in America's global security. Siting Japan, Western Europe, Korea, Australia and Israel.

Arms sales as just one part of a pro-active U.S. foreign policy.

My point was all of these examples you site have less to do with Arms transfers than American troops stationed inside these countries except for Israel. I further said Israel's situation is not comparable to the other examples you reference as they aren't nearly the same models for stability seen in these other examples.

Well I think that is where the disconnect is. I'm not saying it is (x)... I'm saying that (x) is an important part of the overall strategy. I probably mis-spoke.

As for Saudi Arabia, again Saudi's major deterrent has always been America's stated policy of direct intervention if the kingdom has ever been threatened. Including preemptive Nuclear strikes against the Soviet union if it came to that. The Saudi military isn't a creditable deterrent with or without our Billions of weapons transfers.

That's why we put troops in there when Iraq was knocking on the door.

A good example of 'blowback' when this country was acting to secure its economic and political interests abroad.

Midnight Judges would have us do nothing. He would install this guy as our Secretary of State:

For a "happier" foreign policy.

[Midnight Judges]

Right, because the only alternative to arming terrorists is to "do nothing."

And how dare you bring Bob Ross into this! :mad:

[zoony]

And how dare you bring Bob Ross into this! :mad:

admit it... you lol'd.

[JMS]

Arms sales as just one part of a pro-active U.S. foreign policy.

I would disagree. I would argue that gifts of free weapons, or American taxpayers under writing weapons transfers, and even the sales of weapons in the middle east are not a stabilizing policy and are unrelated to the success stories you referenced.

Since America made the decision to escalate individual nations to regional super power status in the late 1970's it hasn't meant stability for the region rather it's meant continue instability. Precluding the necessity for negotiation, furthermore it's meant increased unilateral escalation of hostilities as our proxies have attempted to transform asymmetrical fighting to major conflicts where our weapons give them the advantage. This failure of American foreign policy is not tied to the successful foreign policy examples you reference where weapon transfers were not the model. ( Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc ). In these example we put troops into the countries and left them there for decades. Not the same model at all for the middle east with regard to Stewarts editorial. Israel, Saudi, and Egypt.

Tens of Billions of dollars of weapon transfers is not the model of stability we use around the world. Likewise it is not a model which has historically lead to stability. It is not a net positive policy for American Taxpayers who see their most sophisticated weapons being used against civilians or worse being sold outright to our potential enemies.. ( soviets purchased F-15's from Iran in the early 1980's, and China/soviets purchases AWACS, drone technology, Lavi fighter jets, Submarine and Missile technology from Israel from the 1980's through the present )...

Well I think that is where the disconnect is. I'm not saying it is (x)... I'm saying that (x) is an important part of the overall strategy. I probably mis-spoke.

I'm saying they are unrelated. Security where we have provided it sucessfully, is not based or dependent upon domestic deterrents rather is based solely on the threat of US intervention.

Worse American weapons transfers have inflamed problems in the Middle east and given our nation a black eye around the world as our policies have lead to the countless needless deaths of innocents killed by those weapons.

A good example of 'blowback' when this country was acting to secure its economic and political interests abroad.

We are specifically talking about weapons transfers on a massive scale to a region where those receiving the weapons hate each other.

In the last December war between Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah was able to hold off and ultimately defeat the Israeli's in part because of American TOW missiles Hezbollah was able to procure. Israel in that war lost more than 9 tanks outside a single town, more tanks America lost in both Iraqi wars.

Midnight Judges would have us do nothing. He would install this guy as our Secretary of State:

For a "happier" foreign policy.

What Midnight Judges is advocating is we take a critical look at American foreign policy. Something that is always reasonable. We certainly have had successes in the passed as you have stated. But those successes do not shelter our notable failures; specifically with regard to weapons transfers and specifically with regard to the Middle East.

[Air Force Cane]

I know you John Stewart true believers see no irony- in the fact that you are taking history lessons on the Middle East from a guy who is a COMEDIAN...

how many of you:

speak Arabic

have lived in the Middle East

studied history for four years in college

have served in the military

thanks, but I think General Petraeus probably knows just a bit more about the war in Iraq than John Stewart does living in Hollywood :doh:

[Destino]

thanks, but I think General Petraeus probably knows just a bit more about the war in Iraq than John Stewart does living in Hollywood :doh:

What exactly does General Petraeus have to say about what John Stewart just said?

[JMS]

I know you John Stewart true believers see no irony- in the fact that you are taking history lessons on the Middle East from a guy who is a COMEDIAN...

how many of you:

speak Arabic

have lived in the Middle East

studied history for four years in college

have served in the military

thanks, but I think General Petraeus probably knows just a bit more about the war in Iraq than John Stewart does living in Hollywood :doh:

Patraeus also has a PHD from Princeton ( history 1987) and wrote his dissertation on lessons learned in Vietnam.

Irrelevant here however because we are discussing the administrations arms gifts and sales to the middle east were Patraeus was not mentioned or consulted.

[Mad Mike]

I'm curious then Zoony, if you had to do it all over again, would you sell weapons to Saddam Hussein? Allow him to obtain Anthrax from the USA? Missiles to Iran to fund contras in South America after it was forbidden by congress? Send weapons to Usama Bin Laden (Albeit through a known con artist via Pakistan). Here I was thinking these were all clear-cut mistakes.

UBL Did not take american funding or weapons. That is one of the things that built his image among other radicals. Even then there were many factions fighting the soviets. We supplied Massud (sp) and others but not bin Laden.

[Mad Mike]

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:

It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports.

To deny these occupiers from the enormous revenues of their trading with our country is a very important help for our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of ) cleansing our sanctities from the crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated.

Osama bin Laden

[JMS]

"This defies common sense. ( US supported Bin Laudin against Soviets in Afghanistan )

The CIA did support the Soviet resistance in Afghanistan and Bin Laudin directly. Bin Laudin meet with the Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar and thanked him for lining up United States support for the Muhammadan which Bin Laudin was a part.

No. That is not true. Bin Laden used to come to us when America -- underline, America -- through the CIA and Saudi Arabia were helping our brother mujahedeen in Afghanistan to get rid of the communist, secularist Soviet Union forces, to liberate them. ... Osama bin Laden came and said, "Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Americans to help us to get rid of the secularist, atheist Soviets."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/terrorism/interviews/bandar.html

What we're doing is nothing new. Every empire throughout history has sought to secure interests abroad. We're just the latest in a long line.

Name another "empire" which retained control in this fashion?

Actually there isn't another "empire" in history which unilaterally transferred tens of billions of dollars of sophisticated top of the line weapons to neighboring countries who hated each other in order to create stability.

Those countries who DO NOT act to secure interests are left far behind. I'll refer you to those European/Asian countries who did not act to colonize/conquer the New World when it was discovered. Just as an example.

I'm not arguing we should not be involved in securing our interests. I'm arguing that tens of billions in weapons transfers are not a successful strategy for obtaining stability and securing American interests.

Not in the recent passed when we started this folly, and not in the coming decades as Bush is proposing continuing this policy.

Again, for the 3rd time, I'm not going to sit here and defend everything we've done. Because we've certainly made our fair share of mistakes.

But the good far outweighs the bad. How can you look around this country and not see that? Honest question.

I agree with that. We have been very successful. But not in the middle east; and not with regard to massive weapons transfers to belligerent nations there.

Which is what this thread is discussing.

Israel has a $195 billion economy. We are their largest trading partner, estimated at $12.6 billion annually.

Israel Import Partners.. (2006)

US 12.4%,

Belgium 8.2%,

Germany 6.7%,

Switzerland 5.9%,

UK 5.1%,

China 5.1%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

You can't justify America's involvement with Israel on economic grounds.

Over fifty years we've invested 96.8 billion dollars, which comes out roughly to more than a trillion dollars in 2007 dollars. 12.6 Billion in trade doesn't even justify the 3 billion in gifts we give them yearly now much less the 4 billion annually Bush has pledged in the coming decade.

How much does Belgium, UK and China pay Israel for their comparable trade? Not much....

America's support for Israel transcends our economic interest.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

Quite the contrary, I originally posted in this thread AGAINST blanket vindication. Ironic that you now accuse me of it.

You are defending these arms transfers/sales based on historic successful United States foreign policy efforts which are not related to them. So would you agree that the ME is not a success story for America with regard for security in the region? Would you further agree that the 70 billions in weapons transfers which Bush announced for the region for the coming decade deserves to be discussed and examined critically based on our failures in that region since the fall of the soviet union?

[zoony]

JMs... I think I've been pretty clear about my stance.

I think you're trying to make this argument about something it is not.

I'm going to say this, and then I'm done. Ready? Pay attention.

1. Our pro-Active foreign policy that includes parts diplomacy, economics, and military is vital to this nation's well-being. If you disagree, that is fine. But I'd encourage you to take a look around and focus on the positives just as much as you do the negatives.

2. We don't always get it right, I'm not pretending we do.

3. I'd rather get a root canal than to multi-quote your posts all day and swap internet links.

Just don't pretend you have all the answers because you're the one willing to spend all his free time scouring the internet for info to support your forgone conclusion. It might prove you derive more enjoyment from it, but it certainly doesn't prove you have the answers, or are correct.

Same goes for me. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it... and it is an informed opinion shared by many people. Most of them much smarter than I am.

You disagree... fine.... I'm glad you live in a country where you CAN disagree, and sit in front of a computer all day yet still have the economic freedom to feed/house yourself and your family. Most of that is due to our foreign policy.

Ironic, imho. :2cents:

See ya.

....

[Midnight Judges]

I know you John Stewart true believers see no irony- in the fact that you are taking history lessons on the Middle East from a guy who is a COMEDIAN...

how many of you:

speak Arabic

have lived in the Middle East

studied history for four years in college

have served in the military

thanks, but I think General Petraeus probably knows just a bit more about the war in Iraq than John Stewart does living in Hollywood :doh:

as usual there is so much wrong with this post I don't know why I'm bothering to respond.

1. Nobody is taking a lesson from Stewert. Everybody already knows the history here, we're merely laughing at his jokes. At most agreeing with the point that arming people you can't trust is short-sighted to put it charitably.

2. You don't have to speak Arabic to know our history of arming people with questionable motives and loyalties.

3. You don't have to live in the middle East to know our history of arming people with questionable motives and loyalties.

4. You don't have to study history in 4 years of college to know our history of arming people with questionable motives and loyalties.

5. You don't have to be in the military to know our history of arming people with questionable motives and loyalties.

6. Stewert lives in NYC, not Hollywood.

7. Petraeus presided over a hastily planned arms distribution that can't account for 190,000 AK-47s and small arms in Iraq.

8. Only the simple-minded think complex issues break down to "this guy knows more than that guy." In a debate like this you can easily find qualified people on both sides of the issue.

BTW, this is all wide spread surface level information. It's hilarious that you think only experts know about our failed policies. Now go on and post 50 unrelated articles in your usual attempt to try and cover up for getting owned once again.

[JMS]

JMs... I think I've been pretty clear about my stance.

You have been running from every opinion you've stated every time I call you on it.

I think you're trying to make this argument about something it is not.

I would like to hear your argument then because what you've written so far you seem dis-inclined to stand by or defend or even discuss.

I'm going to say this, and then I'm done. Ready? Pay attention.

I've been waiting..

1. Our pro-Active foreign policy that includes parts diplomacy, economics, and military is vital to this nation's well-being. If you disagree, that is fine. But I'd encourage you to take a look around and focus on the positives just as much as you do the negatives.

So in order to find a ledge to stand on you've broadened the topic from Arms transfers to the middle east which is what the Stewart editorial was about; to "pro-Active foreign policy". Which isn't what the thread or conversation was about.

I know right? Sending weapons and advanced technologies to volatile parts of the world has always served us well in the past. :doh:

to which you responded.....

Worked pretty well in Japan, Israel, and all of Western Europe. :whoknows:

You realize it's this policy that has allowed us to become the global superpower that we are today, right?

Now you are totally running from your claim.. MJ was correct. massive arms transfers have not worked well in the passed and you are incorrect in claiming massive arms transfers were the key elements to successes in Japan, Western Europe, Korea, Australia or Saudi Arabia.

Of course there is gonna be blowback... not defending that... but your viewpoint is extremely myopic.

Correction, my viewpoint is focused. Focused on the post which you made.

Just don't pretend you have all the answers because you're the one willing to spend all his free time scouring the Internet for info to support your forgone conclusion. It might prove you derive more enjoyment from it, but it certainly doesn't prove you have the answers, or are correct.

I agree I don't have all the answers. Cold fusion for example... totally stymied....Something we agree on.

Same goes for me. That's my opinion, I'm entitled to it... and it is an informed opinion shared by many people. Most of them much smarter than I am.

You disagree... fine.... I'm glad you live in a country where you CAN disagree,

....

So basically you are saying broadly that you support American foreign policy, not because it is always right; but rather because it's proven to be mostly correct and in America's interest when averaged over the last 70 years or so.

An interesting broad position but not on topic. What we have been discussing here, including yourself, for about the 15th time is specifically America's (Bush's) proposed $80 billion plus arms packages for Saudi, UAE, Israel, and Egypt(not discussed) over the coming decade.

Anyway it sounds like we agree on more than we disagree on and that your posted response to MJ was just not representative of the point you were trying to make.

[JMS]

7. Petraeus presided over a hastily planned arms distribution that can't account for 190,000 AK-47s and small arms in Iraq.

The Unites States can not account for...

200,000 weapons ( riffles, handguns and machine guns)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html

400 tons of explosives

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

12 billion in United States taxpayer cash

* Not just money, but cash money....

I wonder why the Bush administration decided to distribute 12 billion in funds in cash, with no records. Makes me want to vomit in my own mouth..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRfRyhT0yHzU&refer=us

:doh:

Don't know of Petraeus's specific involvement or blaime for this fiasco... Although this isn't Petraeus first tour of duty.