Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 13, 2016 Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 So they're not done with HRC http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/11/obamas-final-arms-export-tally-more-doubles-bushs/133014/?oref=DefenseOneTCO Obama/Clinton approved $278 billion in weapons exports, more than double the total under Bush. Most went to Saudi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted November 13, 2016 Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 So they're not done with HRC http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/11/obamas-final-arms-export-tally-more-doubles-bushs/133014/?oref=DefenseOneTCO Obama/Clinton approved $278 billion in weapons exports, more than double the total under Bush. Most went to Saudi "Many of the approved deals — most but hardly all of which have become actual sales — have been to Mideast nations, including key allies in the campaign against Islamic State militants and countries that have been building up their defenses in fear of a nuclear Iran." As it's been established so many times; Saudi is an ally to the US. Now, if you actually were citing something that showed they were actually feeding the weapons to the rebel organizations, as they did in the past, then what you posted would have more weight beyond the US trading arms with allied nations. Otherwise, you're going full click-bait just by dumping "guns" and "middle east" into the same title with no real weight at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 "Many of the approved deals — most but hardly all of which have become actual sales — have been to Mideast nations, including key allies in the campaign against Islamic State militants and countries that have been building up their defenses in fear of a nuclear Iran." As it's been established so many times; Saudi is an ally to the US. Now, if you actually were citing something that showed they were actually feeding the weapons to the rebel organizations, as they did in the past, then what you posted would have more weight beyond the US trading arms with allied nations. Otherwise, you're going full click-bait just by dumping "guns" and "middle east" into the same title with no real weight at all.I mean the wikileaks email has already shown that SA and the other sunni countries are funding ISIS backing rebels Which might be why President Trump is leaning towards offering alliances with Assad, we should not help countries that are helping kill us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VCR_CAT Posted November 13, 2016 Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 I mean the wikileaks email has already shown that SA and the other sunni countries are funding ISIS backing rebels Which might be why President Trump is leaning towards offering alliances with Assad, we should not help countries that are helping kill us And you have undeniable evidence to this that isn't 2.5 years old? Unless you can undeniably prove to me that in this current day SA is still funding ISIS and that the current US government is selling those weapons to SA with the intent of arming ISIS (instead of, y'know, just doing an under-the-table deal) and the full knowledge that these weapons will go in that direction, or proof that SA will do this anyways because the US government didn't know any better, then you're forming a conspiracy theory using outdated evidence and biased speculation. I mean really, even if the weapons unintentionally go to rebel factions, you want me to believe that some rich dude living in suburb USA casually browsing wiki leaks is going to know that before the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted November 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 And you have undeniable evidence to this that isn't 2.5 years old? Unless you can undeniably prove to me that in this current day SA is still funding ISIS and that the current US government is selling those weapons to SA with the intent of arming ISIS (instead of, y'know, just doing an under-the-table deal) and the full knowledge that these weapons will go in that direction, or proof that SA will do this anyways because the US government didn't know any better, then you're forming a conspiracy theory using outdated evidence and biased speculation. I mean really, even if the weapons unintentionally go to rebel factions, you want me to believe that some rich dude living in suburb USA casually browsing wiki leaks is going to know that before the US government?I think the US gov, or atleast the one of the last 2 admins is fine with Americans dying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted November 13, 2016 Report Share Posted November 13, 2016 I think the US gov, or atleast the one of the last 2 admins is fine with Americans dying Of course they're not, are you actually this dense? Not only do you provide an outdated as funk source for your claim, but you refuse to back it up with any sort of evidence that the Saudis are even funding terrorist organisations. Until you can actually get concrete proof of this happening, randomly saying "X is funding terrorists! BOMB THEM!" isn't going to solve anything. You're also forgetting the fact that those terrorist organisations have killed far more Arabs and Muslims than Americans. Like, just recently, Iraqi and Kurdish forces were attempting to retake Mosul. Yeah, they're totally American. How about the 70,000+ Muslim clerics who have declared a Fatwa against them? They're American too, are they? I still don't think America should get involved, it's only going to be a huge propaganda victory for the terrorists, which is what they want, it furthers their cause to expand. Those groups are only religiously charged in an attempt to get support, like every war ever this is about land. An ego-driven dickhead wants to be important and isn't below killing a bunch of innocent people to do it. Going into a country and bombing the sheet out of them for not having American values is exactly the same as what your perception of Islamist terrorism. Going into a country and bombing the sheet out of it for not having Islamic values. If you can prove that the Saudis are undeniably funding the terrorists, then sure, maybe cut financial support for them. The US isn't just dropping guns all over the Middle East, they're going to the actual Arab governments. Just because you disagree with their ideology doesn't mean they're automatically lunatics. The Arab countries bordering the areas controlled by terrorist groups have been fighting them since the start, pretty much. It's only when they actually started killing Americans and Europeans that we thought we should get involved. Can we please attempt to not turn this into a Witch Hunt? Or better yet, support the Arab countries who are fighting against the terrorist organisations and not get personally involved, to prevent a propaganda victory for the terrorists? They want to continue to spin the narrative that the West, America especially, is evil. To the average person living in a warzone, demilitarised or not, they don't have access to information like that, they don't have any sort of opposing ideology, all they see is a country coming in, destroying half their country and then funking off. No wonder those Terrorist groups exist. While there is no excuse for terrorism, it's not hard to see how this situation has sprung up. One greedy jabroni spins a narrative and makes it religiously charged to gain followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.