A great idea with a proven track record of working out well...
5 Comments Published by Tom Gara on Tuesday, July 31 at Tuesday, July 31, 2007.
It's not easy being the Great Satan. Thirty years of influence peddling in the Middle East and those damn hotblooded folk still haven't learned to embrace democracy and nonviolence like they were supposed to. But hey, heres an awesome strategy for helping to solve the myriad of conflicts and repression in the Middle East: Arm the fuckers to the teeth.
Yep, its the old sell-them-sixty-billion-dollars-worth-of-weapons method of world peace. Because as we all know, there's no problem in the world that arming the Saudis doesn't fix. And just to keep things chilled out in the Holy Land, thirty billion bucks worth of boom going straight into Israeli hands is sure to make an end to the conflict much more likely.
Name two countries in the world that you really don't want to see armed to the teeth with the world's most powerful weapons. Israel and Saudi Arabia? At the very least, it demonstrates a keen, well developed sense of evil among US weapon mongers — if they chose ambiguously evil yet still somehow respectable countries like Bahrain and Tunisia, you'd just slap your forehead in frustration. This way it's a much more vigorous kind of wide eyed 'thanks for bringing forward the armageddon' feeling, which is far more authentic and intense — two qualities that audiences really search for in the days of reality TV.
The joint Zimbabwe-North Korea weapons deal is progressing nicely...
Yep, its the old sell-them-sixty-billion-dollars-worth-of-weapons method of world peace. Because as we all know, there's no problem in the world that arming the Saudis doesn't fix. And just to keep things chilled out in the Holy Land, thirty billion bucks worth of boom going straight into Israeli hands is sure to make an end to the conflict much more likely.
Name two countries in the world that you really don't want to see armed to the teeth with the world's most powerful weapons. Israel and Saudi Arabia? At the very least, it demonstrates a keen, well developed sense of evil among US weapon mongers — if they chose ambiguously evil yet still somehow respectable countries like Bahrain and Tunisia, you'd just slap your forehead in frustration. This way it's a much more vigorous kind of wide eyed 'thanks for bringing forward the armageddon' feeling, which is far more authentic and intense — two qualities that audiences really search for in the days of reality TV.
The joint Zimbabwe-North Korea weapons deal is progressing nicely...
hello, interesting posts you got here.....
just one thing though about this one. Why blame America? Saudi wants to buy the weapons. Blaming America for selling weapons to rogue nations is like blaming a liquor store for the number of drunks. Selling weapons is not illegal and those countries are not children-. America is free to sell and rogue nations are free to buy, just as drunks are free to go and buy from a liquor store. I think it is admirable when countries like the US/UK do arms deals responsibly but unfortunately that is not the case. There is some kind of international agreement not to sell directly to rogue states like Iran (forget saudi) which I think the UK are signed up to but I think the operative word there is directly. I believe selling to Russia is kosher and the Iran- Russia relationship is doing well.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that it's easy to go on about how world governments are evil so and sos when you'll find that we on a smaller scale operate in similar ways.
a few reasons why America is particularly on the stupid side of the fence here:
1) This is being done explicitly to strengthen "allies" of the US against Iran. Remember when Osama Bin Laden was an ally of the US against the Soviet Union? This is another in a long line of stupid Kissengerian moves by the US to bolster an asshole ally against an even greater asshole enemy. They typically don't work out well.
2) In Australia at least, and I think in many countries, it is against the law to sell alcohol to a drunk. And it is certainly illegal in most countries to sell weapons to a convicted criminal.
3) I pretty much do blame liquor stores and booze marketers for the number of drunks - but I'm not that concerned about the number of drunks, and I don't mind the stores, and the manufacturers, and the drunks, going about their business.
In the case of arming the hell out of countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, it is more like selling liquid Rohypnol to a serial rapist, over the counter in a nightclub full of pretty women. It is going to end up having a really bad effect on other people who weren't party to the transaction, and whom the product is explicitly designed to harm.
4) Your whole argument is about absolving individual and collective responsibility for your actions because they took place in a "market" (and the weapons game isnt really a market at all).
I call bullshit on that too - you are responsible for what you sell, and who you sell it to. If you choose to manufacture a product that is used by rapists to drug women, and you go out and find where the rapists hang out and market it to them, then you need to accept responsibility for what happens next, rather than just cry out "i'm free to sell! they're free to buy!"
Yes, "America is free to sell," but that doesnt mean they aren't being complete assholes when they sell weapon to warmongers and primitive religious fundamentalists.
no need to get arsey
Who decides whether a state is 'rogue' or not? you? the mighty US/UK? Iraq was put forth as an evil evil rogue state with horrid WMDs.
"but that doesnt mean they aren't being complete assholes when they sell weapon to warmongers and primitive religious fundamentalists. "
And the UK and the US aren't warmongers for perpetrating crimes against humanity in Iraq, for going against the world in waging a criminal war? The civilised west that until recently had more than 20% of the world under forced occupation- who decides who is rogue and who isn't? Does past rogue behaviour count for anything ?
After deciding who is rogue and who is not, unless you have conclusive proof that these weapons are going to be used against innocents then it's noone's business. Every state has the right to defend itself, not all weapons are pointed in the direction of the West you know. You may blame liquor stores but the law doesn't recognising that it's a legal transaction and that not everyone is going to use alcohol to get drunk and do something silly.
Flunitrazepam or Rohypnol is not a 'rape' drug, it wasn't made for this purpose as you say. It's a perfectly legit hypnotic when prescribed on a Rx. IF I chose to sell flunitrazepam in a market place I would be committing an illegal act (which I did not advocate), unlike arms dealing which is not illegal so.....
My argument was that it's easy to be an armchair critic and to criticise attitudes on government level when they exist on a personal level-wrongly or rightly
"You may blame liquor stores but the law doesn't"
here is the core of the argument. I don't want the law to blame liquor stores. I'm not concerned with making things illegal or regulated by a government. I am saying that in my opinion, they are doing something both a) legal and b) stupid.
There are lots of cases where people do something that I disagree with and think lower of the person for doing. Being a racist is a good example. But I don't want it to be against the law - I just want smart people to look at racists and say "what an asshole"
equally, given their recent recent track record, selling weapons to israel, is, in my opinion, like supporting apartheid-era south africa. not illegal, but something worthy of criticism from people who are concerned about how those weapons will be used.
on the armchair critic thing, its a fair point, but can really be applied to anybody who is less perfect than god who criticizes anything, ever.
Well said Tom.