- 13,960
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Nah, he did a curtsy too.. Right now, from the the conservative side, we seem just happy he didn't bow like Obama did.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,707 comments
- 1,594,576 views
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
There is your problem, the US wouldn't admit it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia
Joey D
Premium
- 47,161
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
My issue is with selling weapons to any Middle Eastern country in the first place because I'm not sure how much they can be trusted not to either lose track of them, have them take over by opposing forces, or just flat out use them against the US and its allies. It goes back to, what, the 1970's when we started equipping rebels with weapons to take on the Soviets? We all know how that one turned out with Al-Qaeda. Keep our weapons here at home, lord knows that the US government spends enough on defense that none of these companies are hurting for sales.
One could even make the argument that it's been going on since the 1940's with Israel. While they don't do any terrorist actions against the US, they aren't exactly guilt free when it comes to warring with other Middle Eastern nations and prolonging the conflict that exists there.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Is this a conspiracy theory?
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
IBM was around in the '30s?
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I agree this is my same logic in why I don't believe any countries other than those currently (bar N. Korea) should have nuclear weapons. However, Saudia Arabia has been using are hardware for quite some time, I don't think this makes it right but it hasn't had something like this occur. My point is your posts reads as if this is something new the U.S. is doing (obviously you and I know it isn't).
On Afghanistan
Eh, that's not really correct, yes we gave Afghan mujaheddin support and later for the time sophisticated ground weapons to combat the Soviets. What happened after this was what hurt the United States. Simply leaving a war torn country that we used as a pawn to entice the Soviets, in a fight that would be seen as their Vietnam and was. That was the goal from the onset and it worked for us. However, since they were simply a pawn our country left them and soon after a civil war embarked and from the original Mujaheddin, you had members we supported against leaders we did not, those we did not would become Al Qaeda. Had we simply tried to support and help do what we'd been doing every other time (gov't rebuilding) perhaps the many events that followed in later years may have not happened. Who knows, but to pigeonhole a complex history of foreign policy is a disservice to the history. Especially since we actually embarked to set them up, they didn't really ask us.
Also the weapons are built, the companies aren't really making money off these weapons at this point, as I've understood it, it's either selling surplus stock or older equipment, or allowing manufacturing rights. All of which is owned by the American gov't at that point. It's not like General Dynamics or Lockheed come to the U.S. and say "we need you to broker a deal because our bottom line is suffer".
Gov't puts in an order at a price for a certain duration and after that they either use them for themselves or sell it to allies, the manufacture/contractors have long been paid.
Yes this is true to an extent as well. In reality I feel your either for arms deals by the gov't or you're completely against them. I don't care for them on any level.
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
The companies might not be suffering but the US government might. For something like the F35 where the R&D costs have been astronomical it's critical to someone that the sales numbers go through. You're probably right that Lockheed get their money either way, but someone has to ultimately foot the bill and it's probably the American taxpayer.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Well yes and no, the problem with the F35 is gov't in the first place. When sequestration happens, the gov't will then come back and say "we can't pay you what you're asking because of cuts, but we expect the number we ordered all the same."
This then causes problems for the manufacture, and extends the deadline further. Every time the gov't asks for another element they didn't originally ask for, like being able to have a single air frame for all branches of the military, even though there is a reason they've had their own set of aircraft. So on and so on.
So yes the American tax payer is the one providing payment, but the idea is to get some return profits that could be used elsewhere and not stress the tax payers. I have no idea if this actually works in reality. I doubt the U.S. gov't is suffering at the end of the day.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Your point is perfectly correct but sometimes a purely logical argument can exclude the ethics of a situation.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
What are the ethics of the Saudis aligning themselves with Russia and what might the consequences of that be for the Middle East and the balance of power in the world as a whole?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I think you miss my point - Americans would feel more aggrieved if American-sold weapons found their way into the hands of terrorists or anti-American forces than if Russian made weapons did the same.
On the topic of the fallout from a Saudi realignment I really haven't a clue, and it's probably way out of the scope of this thread.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,161
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Ok, the Saudi's are going to buy weapons regardless, not sure why it has to be the US though other than we want their oil.
In the 70's and 80's, I would have rathered the US just not get involved. The Cold War with the Soviets was asinine and even after taking several classes on the matter, I still don't get why the US thought it was so important to destroy Communism other than they were "godless" and not a "democracy".
And honestly, I don't care what happens to Israel's population, it's up to them to defend their country and their citizens as they see fit. I'd rather the US not supply them weapons though since I really do think one of the biggest reasons terrorism against the US exists is due to our continued support of Israel. Stop supporting them and you've just axed one of the main reasons terrorist groups have against the US. This is not to say terrorism would stop though, the US is still pretty ingrained in Middle Eastern affairs because oil I'd imagine.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I agree I never fully understood, it seems that the fear was because of WWII and not wanting to see a group worse than Nazism take hold of large portions of the world and plummet us into another global fight. The other fear was they were a nuclear power that could rival the U.S. and its allies and thus this philosophy seemed very dangerous and a direct threat to democracy which for the time the politicians held as a central reason to defend nations in duress. Another shift due to the enemies faced in WWII.
However, somewhere along that it seems we became no better than our enemy and it was more of who can become the more deadly super giant. We seemed to have kept a hold on that ideal for a couple decades now but at what cost is the obvious question.
Eh our oil exports from the middle east in the public eye are great exaggerated we get 11% from Saudia Arabia, compare that to what we get from our own region 38% from Canada and 20% from Central and South America. So I don't think the stop of supporting Israel will help and our oil addiction is sustained by our own supply and other nations neighboring us, with smaller supplies from other nations some in the Middle East. I think Terrorism at this point is one that is more based on history then any immediate solutions. So we'll probably be hated for many years to come no matter what we do.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Trump gave one of the most remarkable speeches I have ever heard by an American president. Not since Reagan called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", have I heard a president speak like this.
I will start this video at a point in the middle, you may want to rewind and watch the whole thing.
I will start this video at a point in the middle, you may want to rewind and watch the whole thing.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I fail to see how a speech designed to address the issue in the Middle East can be called great when he doesn't make a single mention of freedom, democracy or human rights.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Not that I agree with @Chrunch Houston but how do those words or phrasing being implicitly used directly make a good speech?
See this is the part of my rant/post the other day that allows me to have some sliver or defense for Trump and it's the illogical hate he has received before ever being given an opportunity at an attempt to try and run a nation.
To be fair I thought the speech did a decent job of conveying that the U.S. is willing to work and dissolve terrorism to progress the world, and in doing so America wont have a reason to feel fear of those who come to also better their lives from said region. While I agree that the Islamic world could do more to actually help rid terror, I also think @Joey D made a very well measure statement that we'd have to actually try to keep our nose out of others business and have some trust if we hope to change the format.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
As he says in the speech, we are not here to preach or impose our will, but to build partnerships. They are free to live their lives.
We tried to impose our way of life in Iraq, how did that turn out?
This is a new kind of president. He is seeking an end to radical Islam, the problem that affects America and it's citizens. That is what the speech was all about.
I think a bigger statement was made by Ivanka, and Melania strutting around, and sitting in the audience, of the speech without their heads covered.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Because it's like trying to talk about Formula One rule changes without using the words "downforce", "airflow" or "grip".
Coming from the President of a country with a history of meddling in the affairs of other nations. The message until now has been "you are free to live your lives (on our terms)". Until Trump actually backs the words up with meaningful action, they will only ever be words. His words (or, more likely, his speech writer's words) might have had a poetic quality, but as Auden said, poetry makes nothing happen.
But the biggest statement of all was made by Trump when he criticised Michelle Obama for not covering her head.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,196
- Texas
The only Formula 1 rule change you're interested in is if it includes Hamilton.
- 22,550
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No it's not, those are inherent, the words you decided were mainstay are not, never have been and in a number of cases have actually gotten us in trouble around the world due to their personal definition between President to President, or rather vision of implementation.
So once again, good talk but doesn't mean anything, mean while when he actually does do something it will be demonized by you for whatever reason you find. See I'd be fine with your take if it wasn't so partisan to begin with, it's highly nonintellectual.
You mean Palmer
