http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mideast
2007-07-30 05:53:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Stability in terms of stable profits for the military weapons sector.
We give billion$ in aid to Israel to by U.S. weapons, then the other Mideast countries buy U.S. military equipment to keep up with Israel. The MIC (military industrial complex) is creating arms races between countries to reap the profits from arms sales. The ridiculous missile shield that Bush wants to place on the Russian border is yet another attempt to renew the old profitable U.S./Russian arms race. The MIC would sell nukes to Al Qaeda to make a buck. Americans need to grow up and recognize that corporations are not patriotic. They don't care about America. They care about profits and nothing more.
2007-07-30 06:30:01 · answer #1 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
We armed both Iran and Iraq during the war they fought against one another. I think we're looking forward to testing our technology on middle eastern soil. Allah will be so pleased, and think of the money we can make off dead jew and arab babies!
One thing about it, though--15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were saudis. Think of how much fun they could have had with an F15 Strike Eagle over New York and/or the Pentagon. Of course, we would see one of those coming. Maybe.
Dedarkain makes a good point, although bilateral armament didn't protect Iraq from american imperialism.
2007-07-30 13:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Cold War much? Bi-lateral armament can actually be one of the most effective deterrents to armed conflict. If both sides realize that to go to war would mean an unacceptable level of casualties to their own people, then they will at least give it a second thought before rushing across the border.
Frankly, I don't know why all the people who complain we 'pick on those poor defenseless Middle Eastern countries' are mad about this. Shouldn't you be happy they can defend themselves against 'American Imperialism'? You can't have it both ways man.
2007-07-30 13:00:40 · answer #3 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
abu#2 : I have to disagree with you about them not reading the quran making for a better world.. extremists are extremists and would still be manipulated to do the will of others.. the quran is just an excuse.. but there would be another one used if it didn't exist.. it's the person.. not the religion.. how else would you explain that Christians don't stone people to death anymore?
2007-07-30 13:02:34 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, considering that throughout the history of the world, stability has only been brought about by military strength, not weakness, then yes, it obviously promotes stability.
2007-07-30 13:09:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
and should we just leave them to the dogs of Iran and Syria?? you people want the US to keep their military out of the region... what better way than to provide the means for our allies to protect themselves so that we don't HAVE to be a military presence in the Mid-East. make up your minds.
2007-07-30 13:05:13 · answer #6 · answered by jasonsluck13 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who cares anymore? Let all the muslims kill each other. How great would this world be if terrorists had never read the quran?
2007-07-30 12:58:30 · answer #7 · answered by Abu#2 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
if we inject all these new arms into the area but do not leave ourselves many of them will end up being used against us
unless unending conflict is the plan
2007-07-30 12:57:52 · answer #8 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋