"U.S. Should Strengthen Gulf State Partners, Vital to" Topic

…Stability in the Middle East

"Last Wednesday, the Senate voted down legislation aimed at stopping the sale of advanced offensive weapons to the United Arab Emirates. Washington can and should do more. As Iran proliferates advanced long-range weaponry and its proxies launch short-range attacks, the incoming Biden administration should also emphasize strengthening the defenses of America's partners in the Gulf.

The Trump administration reportedly promised the Emirates the F-35 aircraft as part of the historic Abraham Accords to normalize relations with the Israelis. In addition to supplying the UAE with fifty of America's premier fighter jet, the $23 USD billion agreement includes 18 MQ-9B armed drones and air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

US should not support for horrible dictatorships whose values are anathema to western values, who support terrorism, commit atrocities in Yemen and help destabilise Libya and Syria.

So the US shouldn't have allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany?

Different circumstances and nature of alliance.

Yes I agree Striker. Let's remember in WWI, Italy & Japan were with the "Allied Powers" vs the Central Powers.

Then in WWII Italy & Japan were part of the Axis.

Now they both are, along with Germany, NATO/US allies[FYI – Japan is not in NATO].

And as we saw in WWII, Russia and China were with the Allies.

Now very much not friends of the US, etc.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

It's hypocrisy at its finest. The US talks a good game about maintaining our core values and democracy around the world because Idealpolitik makes for good sound bites, but when it comes to arms sales Realpolitik and enriching the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Think Tank Complex trump all else.

Given how the last 75 years have turned out, since the end of WWII, I think it is safe to say, probably not.

We should have let Germany crush Russia and Stalin, and then done the same to Hitler and Germany, afterwards.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and we didn't know what would happen over the last 3/4ths of a century.

If we had even suspected, things might have been done a lot differently.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik … no one should not be surprised it's been going on forever. And the US is not the only one in the game.

Thresher +1

BTW … IMO using the words "stability in the Middle East" is wishful thinking at best. Again religious, tribal, etc., relationships has kept them in the 15th Century in most cases.

And again A'stan and Pakistan are in the same stalled failing state, situations, IMO …

We should have let Germany crush Russia and Stalin, and then done the same to Hitler and Germany, afterwards.

Except after Kursk the Germans were on the defensive and it was only a matter of time before the Russians overrun Berlin. The US would have to actively aid the Nazis to turn back the red tide.

I wonder.
Say Britain had decided on neutrality.
USA probably wouldn't have needed much persuasion not to join in if there were no u boats sinking their ships.
Russia has no lend lease.
Could that have swung things a bit more in nazi germany's favour.
Sufficient to see 1944 arrive with both germany and russia weakened.
I wouldn't think that's totally ridiculous.

Then Churchill and Roosevelt reveal their secret plans for destroying both?
Dunno about that one.

No Lend-Lease early on, and Germany might have been able to win against Russia and Stalin.

I don't think that Germany ever had the resources to beat the Soviets. Their only hope was that the Soviets would decide to go for a negotiated peace. And given the whole 'battle of ideologies' thing, that was unlikely to happen.

Without Britain and the US in the war, and no lend-lease, I can imagine Germany and Russia slogging it out for years until it ended in an exhausted draw with a new border somewhere in Eastern Europe…

That's right the US was actively providing aide to the Soviet Union and the opening of a second front by America drained German resources which could have been thrown at the Soviets.

The earlier you change things the more substantial the effect.
For example.
No battle of britain would mean the planes and pilots lost there would be available to fight on the eastern front.
No desert campaign frees up more resources.

There's the potential for a number of other substantial changes.
No ultra, as there's no bletchley park.
No industrial secrets handed over to the usa.

Bear in mind it wasn't just the usa giving lend lease aid to russia. Britain did so from 1941.

Yes the UK did and the USSR was quite happy with IIRC, the Valentine and Churchill.

Bill, save enriching Lockheed Martin and Raytheon shareholders, the US gains nothing from alliances with KSA, UAE. Indeed all the US is doing is defending Chinese oil supplies for free.

Iran is not the threat the US makes ot out to be. It is certainly not Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire.

Iran is not the threat the US makes ot out to be. It is certainly not Nazi Germany or the Japanese empire.

Yes but a theocracy that many daily dance in the streets singing "Death to America and Israel". Is a big supporter of terrorism, and does have some USA's blood on it's hands. Is not someone you want to get nukes/WMDs.

Legion, so the 9-11 attackers were Iranians/Shias? Osama Bin Ladin and his AQ mates and all of ISIS – all Iranian/Shias
Arab saying goes "a dog may bark but the caravan moves on". Iran is a barking dog and one that is eadily restrained. The real danger are the terrorist/fundamentalist supporting Arab oil states who have caused more American deaths than Iran could dream of.

But feel free to drink your government's Kool-Aide.

Don't start that with me … 9/11 was mostly Saudis, everybody knows that. As well as AQ, ISIS, etc., are all Sunni … Albeit both AQ and ISIS are enemies. Again that is known to all.

Iran also took over our Embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. When I was in the 101, as a Rifle PL, we went on alert when our rescue team failed. We/I have no "love" for the IRGC and their fundamentalist leadership. Nor any islamo-fascist jihadi, radical, fundamentalist, fanatical, terrorists. Regardless of national, religious, ethnic, tribal, warlord, mullah affiliations, etc.

They all are the enemy at this time, IMO …

To be clear not all followers of islam are terrorists. I/we have no beef with them. Only the ones that want to kill us, e.g. IRGC, AQ, ISIS, etc., etc.

And e.g. the Kurds don't want to kill us … or the Turks(yet?), etc. So again we have no beef with them in this regard.

Funny you don't hear anything from these terrorist groups about the genocide of moslems minorities including Uighurs, Kazakhs, and others in China ? Hmmm ?

The PRC would treat an ISIS or AQ, etc., threat with very draconian methods. The PRC has no problem with concerns about humanity, PC, etc. They ID a threat and make it go away. And have no concern about CD. In this case when it comes to terrorists I see that as a strength.

But feel free to drink your government's Kool-Aide.

I get Kool-aide and put Stevia in it because I have to watch my weight.