Saudi Arms Deal
Comments
-
yosi wrote:I'm agreeing with you. They are in a state of armed conflict. Where I disagree is that Israel has stated explicitly and repeatedly that the blockade is in place because of the rocket fire (which preceded it), so as a practical matter, if Hamas would like the blockade to be lifted they might want to think about stopping the rockets.
The blockade and the occupation have nothing to do with rocket attacks. You haven't been stealing their land for the past 60 years because of rocket attacks.0 -
yosi wrote:B, that list of "attacks" is absurd.
Firstly, Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 as a response to Egypt's nationalisation of the Suez canal. No dispute about that.
As for blocking the the Straits of Tiran, they were in fact open, and Egypt wasn't even searching ships anymore after a week of the "closure". We know this because the commander of U.N.E.F. at the time, General Indar Jit Rikhy, wrote it in his book The Sinai Blunder. So, one of the main propaganda points for justifying the Israeli war on Egypt is factually false. Ships were going through the Straits, and supporters of Israel are liars if they claim they weren't.
In fact, Israel's Eilat port had not seen an Israeli flagged vessel in the previous two and a half years, according to the UN secratariat. Eilat received only 5% of Israeli imports, and the only essential commodity, oil, certainly could have gone to the Haifa port. And this is all assuming the Straits were closed at all, which, they weren't. Thereby, again, destroying one of the main arguments favoring the Israeli war on Egypt.
Secondly, any honest person who looks at the historical record - including statements from the Israeli leadership - can see that Israel attacked first in 1967.
1967:
'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
Whilst we're on the subject, maybe you can explain why Israel attacked the U.S.S Liberty?yosi wrote:As for the 2006 Lebanon War, it was started, you will remember, by Hezbollah crossing the border into Israeli territory to attack a routine Israeli border patrol, and kidnapping two soldiers from inside Israel and taking them back across the border into Lebanon. So again, not an instance where conflict was initiated by an Israeli "attack."
The kidnapping of those soldiers wasn't a legitimate reason to start a war, just as the kidnapping of two Palestinians the day before wasn't a legitimate reason to start a war with Israel. It was just a pretext, and the invasion of Lebanon had been planned for months in advance.
But then there's always some convenient excuse to justify Israels crimes, right?yosi wrote:I'm actually surprised you didn't include the 1973 Yom Kippur war on your list. What was the problem? Was that so obviously a case of aggression AGAINST Israel that even you couldn't convince yourself of the opposite? Cause really, I expect better of you B. Reality has never been a hindrance to you before.
Sure:
'After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286).
When these overtures were ignored by Washington and Tel Aviv, Egypt and Syria launched an coordinated action in October 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan Heights. The devastating defeat of 1967 left Israel in control of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Israel rapidly moved to incorporate these occupied territories into its domain. Israel illegally annexed Jerusalem and began establishing colonial settlements in all the occupied territories.
It was clear that the Arab World could not go on indefinitely watching Israel expel Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians while installing Jewish settlers in their thousands. By 1973 nearly 100 settlements had been established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been displaced, expelled, imprisoned or deported.
On 6 October 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights in an attempt to liberate their territory occupied by Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League explained the Arab action: "In a final analysis, Arab action is justifiable, moral and valid under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. There is no aggression, no attempt to acquire new territories. But to restore and liberate all the occupied territories is a duty for all able self-respecting peoples" (Sunday Times, 14 October 1973).'0 -
yosi wrote:B, that list of "attacks" is absurd. In both '56 and '67 Israel went to war only after they had legitimate cause due to the closing of the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping by Egypt (blockade being an act of war).
You ever heard of something called The Protocol of Sèvres?
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20P ... 0Plot.html
'The documentary evidence does not leave any room for doubt that at Sèvres, during the three days in late October 1956, an elaborate war plot was hatched against Egypt by the representatives of France, Britain and Israel. The Protocol of Sèvres is the most conclusive piece of evidence for it lays out in precise detail and with a precise time-table how the joint war against Egypt was intended to proceed and shows foreknowledge of each other’s intentions. The central aim of the plot was the overthrow of Gamal Abdel Nasser.'0 -
Byrnzie wrote:yosi wrote:Just about every intelligence agency in the world has come out and said that they are running a secret arms program. I really don't think there is any debate about that.
What are your thoughts on Israel's secret arms program Yosi?
its not really a secret if more than 1 person knows. loose lips and all that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
catefrances wrote:Byrnzie wrote:yosi wrote:Just about every intelligence agency in the world has come out and said that they are running a secret arms program. I really don't think there is any debate about that.
What are your thoughts on Israel's secret arms program Yosi?
its not really a secret if more than 1 person knows. loose lips and all that.
Which begs the question as to why mordechai vanunu is still a political prisoner under house arrest in Israel.0 -
Byrnzie wrote:catefrances wrote:Byrnzie wrote:
What are your thoughts on Israel's secret arms program Yosi?
its not really a secret if more than 1 person knows. loose lips and all that.
Which begs the question as to why mordechai vanunu is still a political prisoner.
indeed... and lets not even go into how that came about. :shh:hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say0 -
looks like there is a new arms race going on in the middle east...of course it is the US supplying the weapons and profitting heavily from their sale. it is interesting that the article says that since there is pressure at home to reduce defence spending, they have to sell overseas instead....fucking money whores :twisted: :twisted: ...like i said in a different thread, "have money, we'll do business..."
US-Saudi arms deal ripples from Iran to Israel
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_ ... acing_iran
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – As American and Saudi officials spent months quietly hammering out a wish list for a mammoth sale of American warplanes and other weapons to the oil-rich kingdom, leaders in Iran were busy publicly displaying their advances in missiles, naval craft and air power.
In one memorable bit of political theater, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood under a cascade of glitter in August to unveil a drone bomber — dubbed the "ambassador of death" — that he claimed would keep foes in the region "paralyzed" on their bases.
The response by Washington and its cornerstone Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, moved a step ahead Wednesday. The Obama administration notified Congress of plans to sell as many as 84 new F-15 fighter jets, helicopters and other gear with an estimated $60 billion price tag.
The proposed deal — one of the biggest single U.S. arms sales — is clearly aimed at countering Iran's rising military might and efforts to expand its influence.
But it ties together other significant narratives in the region, including an apparent retooling of Israeli policies to tacitly support a stronger, American-armed Saudi Arabia because of common worries about Iran.
It also reinforces the Gulf as the Pentagon's front-line military network against Iran even as the U.S. sandwiches the Islamic republic with troops and bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In this way, Saudi Arabia does become some sort of buffer between Israel and Iran," said Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a Swedish think tank that tracks arms sales.
Israel has made no diplomatic rumblings over the proposed Saudi deal — a marked contrast to almost automatic objections decades ago to Pentagon pacts with Arab nations. It's widely seen as an acknowledgment that Israel's worries over Iran and its nuclear program far outweigh any small shifts in the Israel-Arab balance of power.
Israel is moving toward a policy of "pick your fights," said Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.
"After all," he added, "Saudi Arabia is not such a big threat to us."
And Israel does not come out of the current American arms bazaar empty handed. Earlier this month, it signed a deal to purchase 20 F-35 stealth fighters that could possibly reach Iran undetected by radar. Israel has an option for 75 more.
"This equipment is primarily to give (Israel) a better feeling facing the Iranian threat. It is not related to Israeli-Arab relations," said Inbar. "Ironically, in the current situation, Saudi Arabia is in the same strategic boat as Israel is in facing the Iranian threat."
Besides the new fighters for Saudi Arabia, the U.S. plans to upgrade an additional 70 of the kingdom's existing F-15s. State Department and Pentagon officials told lawmakers the sales also will include 190 helicopters, including Apaches and Black Hawks, as well as an array of missiles, bombs, delivery systems and accessories such as night-vision goggles and radar warning systems.
Congress has 30 days to block the deal, which was first revealed in September but has been in negotiations for months. U.S. officials say they aren't expecting significant opposition.
Iran, meanwhile, has concentrated on its missile arsenal overseen by the powerful Revolutionary Guard. Its solid-fuel Sajjil missile has a reported range of more than 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) — within range of Israel and all main U.S. bases in the region.
Iran's navy has staged war games in the Gulf and announced major additions to its fleet, including three Iranian-built submarines designed to operate in the Gulf's shallow waters.
It marks the Gulf as a buyer's market for arms, led by the U.S. as the dominant Western military power from Kuwait to Oman. Throughout the Gulf, Washington counts on access to Arab allies' air bases, logistics hubs and the Bahrain headquarters of America's naval powerhouse in the region — the U.S. 5th Fleet.
A report last month by the U.S. General Accountability Office said Washington approved $22 billion worth of military equipment transfers to the six Gulf Arab states between fiscal 2005 and 2009 through a Pentagon-managed program.
More than half was earmarked for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, including a $6.5 billion deal in 2009 for the UAE to buy the Patriot missile defense system.
The UAE agreement was the largest single arms approval during the five-year period — but is dwarfed by the proposed Saudi deal.
The researcher Wezeman said Iran is clearly the top perceived threat for the Gulf Arabs, but there are background concerns about Iraq's stability and the unrest in neighboring Yemen that includes Shiite Hawthi rebels and Islamic extremists linked to al-Qaida. The Saudi military was drawn into rare fighting in northern Yemen starting late last year, using airstrikes and artillery to battle a Hawthi rebellion that was spilling across the border.
"Of course it's against Iran. Of course it's against Yemen," said Wezeman. "You can read between the lines ... but there are not any official statements about it."
Wezeman's group issued a report this month that estimates the eight nations ringing the Gulf — including rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia — accounted for 10 percent of all conventional weapons imports between 2005-2009.
The appetite was on display earlier this month when envoys from more than 50 U.S. defense and aerospace firms held talks in Abu Dhabi, where they were welcomed by the UAE's minister of foreign trade at an opulent hotel on the shores of the Gulf.
As the American defense budget tightens, the Gulf's deep pockets beckon.
"This is a critical time for our companies abroad as the U.S. defense budget continues to face pressures at home," said a statement from Lawrence Farrell, head of the National Defense Industrial Association based outside Washington.
Jane Kinninmont, a Middle East and Africa specialist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said concerns over Iran are the primary motivation for the Saudi arms expansion. But she wonders how much the untested Gulf forces rattle Iranian commanders who are almost all veterans of the 1980-88 war with Iraq.
"I would not be surprised if the Iranians are pretty cynical about the armies here," she said during an interview in Dubai. "To put it bluntly, they've fought a war.""You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Ambassador of deathgimmesometruth27 wrote:In one memorable bit of political theater, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood under a cascade of glitter in August to unveil a drone bomber — dubbed the "ambassador of death" — that he claimed would keep foes in the region "paralyzed" on their bases.
"
More like the ambassador of shitty props to pump your nation up
Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
so iran has those drone rockets...i still do not see why the US feels it is necessary to arm every other country in the region on an amazing scale to prevent attack from those. just watch. this is the prelude to the beating of war drums against iran. the media dupe has already begun here in the US, with them quoting iran's leader with partial and out of context quotes...Jason P wrote:
Ambassador of deathgimmesometruth27 wrote:In one memorable bit of political theater, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood under a cascade of glitter in August to unveil a drone bomber — dubbed the "ambassador of death" — that he claimed would keep foes in the region "paralyzed" on their bases.
"
More like the ambassador of shitty props to pump your nation up
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149.1K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 282 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help


