Having launched a disastrous war to destroy non-existent weapons in the Middle East, Bush and Rice have now decided that the best solution is to deluge the Middle East in over $60billion dollars worth of weapons.
The distribution is to be done in such a way as especially to reward those countries with very bad human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt.
The biggest recipient will be Israel, who will be further encouraged in their perpetual grabs of Palestinian land. The USA can thus guarantee the continuation of the basic motivator for Islamic terrorists. Saudi Arabia gets the next biggest slice, presumably for helping the CIA spawn Al-Qaida and for providing the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers.
Rice has brilliantly identified that it is Shia Muslims who are the problem, so any Sunni regime can have loads of arms, particularly if it actively persecutes its Shia minority, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt do. As Al-Qaeda have been completely forgotten, the fact they are Sunni is irrelevant. We are on to the next big target of oil now, which is in Shia Iran. So obviously they are the bad guys who need invading.
I bet Bush is surprised by how simple this international relations stuff is turning out to be. Meanwhile Gordon Brown grandstands around the States not cautioning a word against this, bleating out his (I am sure genuine) concern about Africa, trying to raise less money to help there than the US has just decided to spend on more means of death for the Middle East.
Craig
I can go along with most of that. The rank hypocricy (and that includes our own governments behaviour over the Saudi/BAE bribes inquiry) simply defies adequate description. It is beyond parody too.
But really "…Having launched a disastrous war to destroy non-existent weapons in the Middle East" ?? You surely don't believe that was the real reason do you? Just a good literary juxtaposion surely?
The alleged weapons were simply the EXCUSE, for public consumption, and a barefaced deception. I would have thought that was beyond debate by intelligent free-thinking people by now. In fact a classic of the genre of 'barefaced deception' so often employed in justifying matters of high foreign policy to the Proles, as I'm sure you must be all too well aware.
We are joined at the hip with the PNAC as is most of Western Europe despite noises of nominal dissent. They can see what's coming. It isn't pretty and to seriously spike US guns so-to-speak is judged counterproductive (not to mention potentially dangerous – though maybe a bit less so by France with their high proportion of nuclear power generation already in place and a genuinly independant nuclear arsenal). That is the over-arching reality and Gordon Brown is in for one very uncomfortable time if he is judged by the US to be wobbly on matters Middle-Eastern, that's for sure. My guess is they are happy for him to make as much noise as he wants about Darfur etc – to distract attention so to speak; but judged on his performance in the US this past week – and despite some attempts to present him as distancing himself – I rate the chances of him REALLY wobbling to be non-existent
No. I know that was not really the motive. Just exercising irony.
It appears the Americans are gearing up for a confrontation with Iran, and they are intent on supplying their allies with all the weapons they need to fight Iran at some time in the future. Do the Americans really understand the dangers of starting a 'religious' war between the Sunni and Shia? How long might it last? Fifty years, a century? Surely our European experience of wars between Protestants and Catholics, should make us feel cautious about going down such a road, without a great deal of thought? Things could go very badly wrong.
The Americans want to topple the Iranian regime, but at what cost? Is it really worth it? What of the terrible risks involved in such a reckless strategy?
It seems as if the Americans are adopting policies designed not to bring 'stability' to the region, but, on the contrary, instability, conflict, chaos and seemingly, endless war. Is this a sensible or even rational way to deal with Iran?
It's as if the Americans want to somehow magically remove Iran from the Middle East. The Americans have a 'plan' for the region, and Iran is simply in the way. But Iran is an integral part of the Middle East and has perfectly ligitimate interests in the region. If one was an Iranian how would one react to the current American strategy?
There are so many questions and so few answers.
Finally, are the Americans just plain crazy, or do they have a 'rational' hidden plan for the Middle East, which is just too terrible to drag out into the daylight?
Please check out the following link:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4300
oh well, you might have to copy and paste it, if the link thing doesn't seem to work.
It's an interview (in a Washington-based US web-mag, 'Foreign Policy in Focus' a publication of the Institute for Policy Studies', whatever that is; at any rate it seems like a website/ think-tank critical of US foreign policy) with a colleague of mine, the Iranian poet, Farideh Hassanzadeh. It's not directly related to this posting about arms deals – yet really, it is very deeply pertinent – the human effects of the serial wars determined and commanded from on high.
Best wishes,
Suhayl
writeon
>Finally, are the Americans just plain crazy, or do they have a 'rational' hidden plan for the Middle East, which is just too terrible to drag out into the daylight?
Gark Sick, ex National Security Advisor and Middle East expert, much to his own surprise, finds coherence in the current US Mid-East policy:
http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/07/iran-and-us-jiu-…
Dear Johnf,
I've now read Gary Sick's article, thanks. What strikes me is how mind-numbingly complicated and full of potential pitfalls this whole 'strategy' seems to be! It's also based on supporting the current pro-western arab regimes to the hilt.
The problem is, these regimes have only minimal support among their own populations and are very unstable over the longterm. It's the Iranian strategy all over again. Support the local dictator for as long as possible until the whole place explodes!
I doubt this is a viable strategy in the long run. We support a tiny and unpopular, corrupt, elite; against the wishes and interests of the great mass of the population. This would appear to be a recipe for disaster.
What I find most unerving is that American politicians are openly discussing, almost blithely, the use of nuclear weapons in the region! It seems that the use of nuclear weapons by the United States is slowly becoming something that can be brought onto the table, rather than our entry into barbarism and hell!
The United States is now openly an important player in the wider Middle East. It's almost bizarre. The United States is now the most important and most powerful actor in the Middle East!
Writeon
"It's the Iranian strategy all over again. Support the local dictator for as long as possible until the whole place explodes!"
It is indeed – and it's called 'bringing democracy to the Middle East'. It started formally in Iran when the UK/US engineered the overthrow of the very first democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 and has continued unabated ever since. To anyone with half a brain, it is as clear as the nose on your face that 'democracy' in the ME means diddly-squat to the Western powers other than as smokescreen for the real agenda.
As for nuclear weapons – I agree there IS a concerted effort to blurr any remaining distinction between modern high-explosive ordnance and so call 'battlefield nuclear weapons. We are being prepared for their inevitable use.
Even more disturbing is the massive ongoing use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. Do a Google search on the term if you fancy a real horror story that doesn't even appear on the radar of the MSM.
The US is doing its best to build an anti-Iranian front amongst the Sunnis but the Saudis basically aren't playing.
The Saudi deal is a pure business decision. The Americans are taking a lot of money to sell the Saudis a load of toys they don't need.
The Egyptian deal is because they want to give more arms to Israel, but under Camp David agreements they must give the equivalent sum to the Egyptians.
And it is not true that the Saudi government "actively persecutes" its Shia minority. They are not normally given positions in the armed forces or the ministry of the Interior but are well represented in private and state industry.
I teach in what is considered the top university in Saudi Arabia, and Shias are around half the student body (though I've never bothered to work out the exact numbers).
Fuck U Bush
death to america nuclear