Views On Supplying Arms?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
A perfect example of President Bush, again, talking out both sides of his mouth. We invaded Iraq because of WMD. We’re worried about Iran because of nuclear ambitions. As Bush parroted Kerry in the debates his number one concern was “nuclear proliferation”. Then we reward the country responsible for the most irresponsible nuclear arms giveaway ever! Bush lied about North Korea giving nuclear material to Libya. Fact: North Korea gave nuclear material to Pakistan. Pakistan gave nuclear material to Libya (our ally!) see:

Pakistani scientists gave Iran the centrifuges needed to have a nuclear program.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=568952

Pakistani scientists marketed the engineering capabilities to make a nuclear bomb to both Iran and Libya.

So Bush paints N.Korea with the brush that actually applies to Pakistan and as
a “reward” lifts the arms embargo on Pakistan put in place by Bush’s dad as a reprisal for developing nuclear technology, gives Pakistan, a dictatorship country ACTUALLY harboring Al queda and Osama bin Laden, ACTUALLY has WMD and ACTUALLY is proliferating that technology, gives them the best of the best in fighter jet technology (fighter jets that ACTUALLY can deliver nuclear weapons). Meanwhile the rest of the world is supposed to trust our “concerns” of nuclear proliferation?
Freaking unbelievable.

But other than that, yeah I agree with hedo.

What’s the hypocrisy here?

Pakistan is cooperating with us, and the head of its government, Musharef, is an ally – one we actually need to support. The reports are he has cracked down on areas in which we have asked him to, and he allowed our forces access to their nuclear stocks to make sure they were secured. All transfers of technology that occurred were in the past – and I believe under a previous administration, but I could be wrong on that. They are helpful now, and look to be helpful going forward.

On the other hand, you have North Korea. Intransigent, unstable, and currently looking to export whatever it can. Still a dictatorship, and the one country that seems to have the potential to throw the whole region into chaos. And a country that has attempted to use claims of nuclear technology to raise the stakes in talks and attempt to extort concessions, while denying access of inspectors to its sites.

And that’s just the beginning of the differences.

Two completely different situations – any attempted equation of the two is sorely misguided.[/quote]
The hypocrisy was our stance on Iraq vs. our stance on legitimate concerns to U.S. safety. Pakistan is only one example, N. Korea would be another for the exact reasons you described, again can I point out that I don’t have a problem with the sale of F-16’s to Pakistan, I’d just prefer for the President to present a clearer message instead of talking out both sides of his mouth. The confusion leads to things like:
"…But for Ms. Shabaan and most of her colleagues in the movement, “enough” doesn’t apply to President Mubarak alone. She expects a democratic Egypt would distance itself from the US, a long-time ally, and hit out at what she calls decades of “hypocritical” US policy in the Middle East.

"If things really change here, America’s illusions that its interests in the region would be advanced by democracy will be laid bare,‘’ she says. “A real democratic government in Egypt would be strongly against the US occupation of Iraq and regional US policies, particularly over Palestine. We are strongly against US influence.”

Despite apparently genuine sentiment, Kifaya organizers say there’s also practical reasons to make the distance from the US clear. The government has tried to paint democracy activists as foreign puppets in the past, alleging they take foreign money. “The regime are the ones taking American money. But they always accuse us of having foreign money whenever there are calls for democracy,” says Shabaan.

Attitudes like Shabaan’s point to a frequently overlooked disconnect. America’s conviction that its rhetoric will help secure its interests in the region often clash with the anti-US leanings of many of the Arab world’s democracy activists, who generally belong either to Islamist parties or to left-leaning, anti-US groups.

"We want a transformation against America and all its projects in the region,‘’ says Abdel Halim Qandeel, an editor at the anti-regime Al Arabi newspaper and one of Kifaya’s key activists. “There’s a historical irony here. We have two kinds of resistance in the region - armed resistance as in Iraq and Palestine, and political resistance in the Arab capitals … and all of the opposition movements are staunchly anti-imperialist, whether Islamists” or secular nationalists.

If the people in the middle-east believe it’s hypocisy, then that makes it an issue, as we all know American policy is the leading cause terrorism, one piece of the puzzle…And yes I know it’s a complex puzzle…

22

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
hedo wrote:
Nothing wrong with questioning but come on most of the liberals on this board are best described as “anti’s” or contrarians. They are against everything that Bush does. Because I disagree doesn’t make me wrong.

I agree with all parts of this statement.

When I and many conservatives look at the issue we look at that, the issue. Most liberals don’t care what the issue is. They are against it as long as Bush or the administration initiated or supported the idea.

I disagree with this. It’s been my experience that conservatives have been just as quick to ignore the issue and side with Bush as liberals have been to be contrary to Bush. I have just as many conservative friends that talk out of their ass as I have liberal friends that talk out of their ass. Do you honestly think that liberals don’t say the same thing about you and other conservatives? The fact that each side honestly believes that they, as a whole, understand the issues and the other side doesn’t just kills me. Just…kills…me.

Whose national interest should we be supporting? India’s? IT’s not real world. That type of reasoning not practical and certainly not workable in the real world. I do hope they continue it though, at least until the next election is over. They really can’t help themselves.

You’re still missing the point. The point is that Bush made it clear that the way to best support our national interest is to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world, even if it was unpopular and/or difficult. We were told that there can be no bargaining with dictators. That notion seems to be subverted by our dealing with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Now, I think you and I both know that Bush was just putting on a facade (one that, because of the nature of popular opinion, is necessary), but many conservatives, some of which frequent this board, actually took what Bush was saying at face value. The fact is, even presented with the information in this thread, some of those same people still believe in that fallacy. That seems to subvert the conservatives = logical/ liberals = illogical dichotomy you were trying to establish in your post.[/quote]

23

Don’t you get it? We have to arm Pakistan for Armegeddon…

Do you ever feel like your a passenger in a car with a lunatic drunken driver?

Rice Alarms Reformist Arabs with Stability Remarks
Tue Mar 29, 7:36 AM ET
By Jonathan Wright

CAIRO (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has alarmed many reformist Arabs with comments suggesting a new U.S. approach that promotes rapid political change without regard for internal stability.

Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for “freedom” without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.

“This a very dangerous scheme. Anarchy will be out of control,” said Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University and an advocate of gradual change.

A liberal Arab diplomat, who asked not to be named, said: “They seem to be supporting chaos and instability as a pretext for bringing democracy. But people would rather live under undemocratic rule than in the chaotic atmosphere of Iraq, for example, which the Americans tout as a model.”

U.S. policy in the Middle East has traditionally given priority to the stability of cooperative governments such as those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, while turning a blind eye to the way those governments treat their peoples.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said, a liberal who has challenged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to his face over authoritarian government, said Arab societies were too fragile for the kind of rapid and unchecked change that Rice appears to welcome.

Apart from the danger of extremists coming to power, the Arab world would face the threat that societies and states could collapse completely, he told Reuters.

“We can hardly take the great risks that Dr Rice suggests. We are determined to keep domestic peace as well as external peace as far as we can, but not to the point of stifling change,” added Said, who is deputy director of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

“TOTALLY CAVALIER ATTITUDE”

The Bush administration has argued that political violence and hostility to the United States in the Middle East are the result of internal repression, rather than of U.S. policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main Arab grievance.

That argument is at the core of President Bush’s campaign for domestic political change in Arab countries, which has had a mixed reception even among Arab liberals.

His campaign has stimulated the debate on reform in the Middle East and emboldened some democrats to challenge governments which now appear to be on the defensive.

Rice’s remarks went one step further, suggesting the United States was willing to take a gamble on “democratic institutions” having a “moderating influence” in the region.

“Can we be certain of that? No. But do I think there’s a strong certainty that the Middle East was not going to stay stable anyway? Yes. And when you know that the status quo is no longer defensible, then you have to be willing to move in another direction,” she said.

Helena Cobban, a writer on Middle East affairs based in the United States, said: “She (Rice) reveals a totally cavalier attitude to the whole non-trivial concept of social-political stability in Middle Eastern countries.”

“So it looks as though Arc of Instability may now actually be the goal of U.S. policy, rather than its diagnosis of an existing problem,” she added.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said said Rice’s approach appeared to have links with a trend in right-wing Israeli thinking that favors destabilising Arab governments and societies.

“We see an emphasis on destruction and we see that Israel is willing to push Arab societies to the abyss without caring for stability. We suspect these ideas came from Israel,” he added.

“COMPREHENSIVE REFORM”

Hala Mustafa, editor of the Egyptian quarterly publication Democracy Review, said reformers must have a clear agenda for where they want to go and that instant change would favor the Islamists, who dominate the political culture.

“If we start without any agenda, it will end in confusion … We are talking about comprehensive reform that would lead to the change we need, not to turmoil or chaos,” she added.

Rice, asked about the prospect of Islamist victories through reform, said that would not be desirable.

But she added: “It is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn’t as if the status quo was stable the way that it was … The only thing the United States can do is to speak out for the values that have been absent, liberty and freedom there, and it will have to take its own course.”

Abdel Raouf El Reedy, a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States and chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Relations, said the United States was overlooking its own responsibility to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“If the United States wants to be credible, it has to be serious about ending the military occupation (of Palestinian territories) because this is generating resentment and anger and in this way helping the radical forces in the region,” he said.