The World is Upside Down...

[oldguy]

When President Obama was supporting the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt, there were lots voices saying that we should be very careful of getting in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the American people that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-religious (secular) and non-violent. (They did back away from the secular comment, since it didn't fool anyone, but I never heard of them backing away from the MB eschewing violence.)

It makes me wonder who told Clapper to say this publicly in the first place. As Director of National Intelligence, there is not one doubt in my mind that he knew what he was saying was a flat out lie.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/10/administration-corrects-dni-clapper-claim-muslim-brotherhood-secular/

Immediately after he was elected, new President Mohammed Morsi said, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” Morsi said this in his election speech before Cairo University students.

President Morse then positioned himself to be above the laws of Egypt, which isn't exactly what the people of Egypt were looking for.

www.businessinsider.com/morsi-says-jihad-is-our-path-and-death-in-the-name-of-allah-is-our-goal-2012-6

Does that sound non-religious OR non-violent to you? Wouldn't a reasonable person want to consider backing away from our relationship with that government?

Now the United States is poised to give the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Egypt 200 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks and 20 F-16 fighter jets. These represent some of America’s best, most sophisticated weaponry – used today by our men in women in uniform.

http://aclj.org/middle-east-turmoil/fighter-jets-muslim-brotherhood

Note the term 'give' in that quote. You and I will pick up the tab to arm a government that considers us infidel. (At least you will help pay for it if you are not one of the 47%).

I've written to my Congressmen and asked them to help stop this BS. We don't have the money to be paying to arm our enemies ($200M+). Further, what a stab in the back to Isreal, supposedly our strongest ally in the region. So, let's provide their enemies with some of our best military hardware....for free!

If you think this is insane, this would be a good time to write your Senator and Rep to tell them this is unacceptable.

For the Obama supporters that will no doubt flame me for posting this....yes, I know that this was promised to the Mubarak regime some time ago. My response is the same; President Obama needs to back out of this promise.

Go Blazers

 

[Eastoff]

"Install dictators for life!" - the 80s

 

[MARIS61]

As long as the bulk of our taxes pay to create and continue wars for the world's largest killing organization, this is what we get.

Tell your reps to slash ALL military funding by at least 90%, or just keep banging your head against the wall.

 

[Masbee]

Carter foreign policy = Iran takeover by Islamic Thugs.

Obama foreign policy = Egypt takeover by Islamic Thugs.

Please somebody explain to me how this has been good for the U.S, good for Iran and Egypt, good for the world?

And can we PLEASE stop with the horsepucky that Democracy = Freedom.

It does not. The majority in most places are fucking morons. Majority rule = insanity and tyranny.

 

[julius]

Carter foreign policy = Iran takeover by Islamic Thugs.

Obama foreign policy = Egypt takeover by Islamic Thugs.

Please somebody explain to me how this has been good for the U.S, good for Iran and Egypt, good for the world?

And can we PLEASE stop with the horsepucky that Democracy = Freedom.

It does not. The majority in most places are fucking morons. Majority rule = insanity and tyranny.

Do we need to talk about Reagans Foreign Policy or Bush 1 or 2?

oh, I know..Blame Carter!

 

[oldguy]

Screw blaming Carter. Do you think giving tanks and F16's to the Muslim Brotherhood is a good idea?

Go Blazers

 

[julius]

Screw blaming Carter. Do you think giving tanks and F16's to the Muslim Brotherhood is a good idea?

Go Blazers

Nope, but I think our foreign policy has historically done, or better yet, allowed (? for lack of a better phrase) incredibly stupid things to be done in the name of greed.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Nope, but I think our foreign policy has historically done, or better yet, allowed (? for lack of a better phrase) incredibly stupid things to be done in the name of greed.

Why is prior administrations' stupidity relevant to the current administration's decision? Does W's foreign-policy ineptitude somehow make it more reasonable or worthwhile to keep this "promise" to Egypt?

 

[julius]

Why is prior administrations' stupidity relevant to the current administration's decision? Does W's foreign-policy ineptitude somehow make it more reasonable or worthwhile to keep this "promise" to Egypt?

because when you have a precedence set, you have agreements/contracts/promises etc that you are emboldened too.

 

[julius]

Why is prior administrations' stupidity relevant to the current administration's decision? Does W's foreign-policy ineptitude somehow make it more reasonable or worthwhile to keep this "promise" to Egypt?

btw, I wasn't the one who brought up prior administrations actions first.

 

[oldguy]

US foreign policy has been seriously flawed for a long time, spanning both republican and democratic administrations. That is so not the point.

The issue it that when it is clear that you are directly adding to the army and air force of your enemy, getting nothing in return but their hate, we need to step the fuck back and rescind that decision.

Everyone knows we can't afford our current level of spending. They have supposedly been looking for places to cut the budget for months. Why the hell wouldn't this be a no brainer for cutting spending?

Stupid and dangerous for the US, and doubly so for Isreal.

Where is the press, asking for justification for this kind of nuttiness?

Go Blazers

 

[julius]

because they aren't serious about cutting spending or stopping making themselves $$

 

[jlprk]

I agree with you, Oldguy, that I wish we hadn't given them weapons. But after the Bush era commitment, I don't think Obama could do otherwise.

The reason is, the U.S. never "gives away" anything. There was certainly a secret agreement in which Bush got something (e.g. Egyptian support in Iraq or Afghanistan or in not opposing some Israeli action).

 

[jlprk]

Happy fireworks!

...i hope that's what they are out there.

 

[Denny Crane]

We've given Egypt many $billions in weapons over the years. Specifically weapons. It's part of the deal Carter cut with them for peace with Israel. The price of his Nobel Prize.

 

[MARIS61]

We arm other countries, enemy and foe alike, to profit the military-industrial complex. We either sell the arms or charge the US taxpayer depending on the deal, but we make sure the 1%'ers reap the spoils and hopefully it generates wars to escalate the profits.

 

[Denny Crane]

If it were up to me, a company that sells something to the govt. would be banned from selling anything at all to anyone else.

The big defense contractors didn't spend that much on political campaigns. Combined, maybe 1% of what Obama alone spent.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11257

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If it were up to me, a company that sells something to the govt. would be banned from selling anything at all to anyone else.

 

[Denny Crane]

You don't get it?

The govt. shouldn't be spending money with a defense contractor to design and build advanced weapons systems and then have the company sell them to foreign powers.

The govt. spends such vast sums, the relationship is a special one, worthy of special considerations.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

You don't get it?

The govt. shouldn't be spending money with a defense contractor to design and build advanced weapons systems and then have the company sell them to foreign powers.

The govt. spends such vast sums, the relationship is a special one, worthy of special considerations.

Your original post didn't say just defense contractors. You said anything.

Also GM, Ford, Freightliner, Mack trucks, Boeing, Intel, Cisco all commercial and military products to the government.

 

[oldguy]

We've given Egypt many $billions in weapons over the years. Specifically weapons. It's part of the deal Carter cut with them for peace with Israel. The price of his Nobel Prize.

Issue being that Egypt is no longer at peace with Israel.

Essam al-Erian,the Deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, has predicted that Israel will cease to exist within a decade

We need to stop arming our enemies. It's not that hard. (Not saying you are making it out to be hard, Denny.)

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Your original post didn't say just defense contractors. You said anything.

Also GM, Ford, Freightliner, Mack trucks, Boeing, Intel, Cisco all commercial and military products to the government.

I don't single out the defense industry. Anything built for and sold to the govt. should not be for sale elsewhere.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

we have been aiding, funding, and arming al qaeda since we created them, why stop now?

yet we are locked in a bitter neverending war with them, they are our mortal enemies, and they are endangering our freedom, and worse, our very lives.

id say anyone in favor of our bloated millitary is an idiot, but you cant blame them, fear is a helluva drug

 

[PapaG]

I don't single out the defense industry. Anything built for and sold to the govt. should not be for sale elsewhere.

That makes no sense. GE can't sell light bulbs anywhere else since their distributors are selling on various government contracts? 99.9% of things "sold to the government" are mundane, everyday items.

 

[jlprk]

Any manufacturer or retailer making one dollar from the government will depend 100% upon the government for its existence. The company will be controlled, and in effect owned, by the government.

Even Communist and WW2 Fascist countries didn't go that far. Karl Marx didn't, either.

I have to think about this new system you invented, Denny. This may make you famous, after they kill you.

 

[Denny Crane]

That makes no sense. GE can't sell light bulbs anywhere else since their distributors are selling on various government contracts? 99.9% of things "sold to the government" are mundane, everyday items.

Government shouldn't buy light bulbs from GE. They should buy them from a company that makes light bulbs for the govt. exclusively.

 

[Denny Crane]

Any manufacturer or retailer making one dollar from the government will depend 100% upon the government for its existence. The company will be controlled, and in effect owned, by the government.

Even Communist and WW2 Fascist countries didn't go that far. Karl Marx didn't, either.

I have to think about this new system you invented, Denny. This may make you famous, after they kill you.

Like... the Post Office?

 

[PapaG]

Government shouldn't buy light bulbs from GE. They should buy them from a company that makes light bulbs for the govt. exclusively.

You realize what you're suggesting here, right?

 

[Denny Crane]

You realize what you're suggesting here, right?

I'm suggesting govt. doesn't fund the development of weapons systems that end up being sold to other nations or NGOs. It's already not a free market if the govt. is a customer. Things built with govt. funding should be public domain or owned by the public, not the property of some company. We pay for the R&D with our taxes.

Like in this famous case:

http://www.gesmer.com/insights.php?NewsID=456

 

[PapaG]

]I'm suggesting govt. doesn't fund the development of weapons systems that end up being sold to other nations or NGOs[/B]. It's already not a free market if the govt. is a customer. Things built with govt. funding should be public domain or owned by the public, not the property of some company. We pay for the R&D with our taxes.

Like in this famous case:

http://www.gesmer.com/insights.php?NewsID=456

Well, you suggested a lot more than that, didn't you? You want gov't-only manufacturers of, well, everything. It's a silly idea.