Egypt unrest: US to go ahead with F-16 jets delivery

reply to post by frazzle


Just because they haven't currently, doesn't mean they haven't in the past. Although we have the Russians in Chechnya, Assad in Syria (just because they're fighting rebels doesn't mean their warplanes aren't hitting civilians) to name two. In the past there was Iraq under Hussein against the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

As for the Army requirement for "non-standard" ammunition, you do realize that the US is helping to supply the Iraqi and Afghani military and police forces right? Both of which are using AK-47s, AK-74s, etc. The US Foreign Military Sales office will buy equipment, and then send it overseas to the military in question.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by frazzle

 

Just because they haven't currently, doesn't mean they haven't in the past. Although we have the Russians in Chechnya, Assad in Syria (just because they're fighting rebels doesn't mean their warplanes aren't hitting civilians) to name two. In the past there was Iraq under Hussein against the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

As for the Army requirement for "non-standard" ammunition, you do realize that the US is helping to supply the Iraqi and Afghani military and police forces right? Both of which are using AK-47s, AK-74s, etc. The US Foreign Military Sales office will buy equipment, and then send it overseas to the military in question.

Wait a minute, I'm still stuck on the business of wondering why the US would think they need to go "head to head" with Russia in the first place. Who have they threatened? There wasn't a real good reason to be particularly afraid of Russia when it was the Soviet Union and it makes a whole lot less sense to be afraid of them now that they're just plain old Russia.

It looks to me like there are just people who just want to go to war with someone all the time and it doesn't matter all that much who it is. The US record of attacks on other countries shows that, in spades.

Like Syria and all the rest of them, not one of them ever threatened the US or anyone else, so who is it that starts these things? (rhetorical question) Or maybe its just because the US has so many swell toys and it would be such a shame to leave them in the toy box.

I suppose it would be radical to suggest that the US put their money to work upgrading the country's infrastructure instead. You're probably a hundred times more likely to die in a bridge collapse than being shot by an AK47. Well, unless you invade another country where you're not wanted. Funny how that works.

reply to post by frazzle


Well I'm glad that you could see that the Soviet Union was incredibly peaceful and there was no reason to fear them. Maybe you should tell that to the people that were brutally repressed under their leadership. Or the people that vanished off Korean 007 after they shot it down to avoid another embarrassment. And now many in Russia want to go back to that. They may not be the threat they once were but they aren't exactly friends either.

Oh wait, get rod of the military and the world will magically be at peace right? Or is it the US?

reply to post by Zaphod58


I didn't say to get rid of the military altogether, but someone clearly needs to learn the difference between defense and offense.

And now the US seems to be very afraid of its own citizens which does not bode at all well for US citizens.

reply to post by frazzle


Ave other than Iraq and Afghanistan show me US troops on the offensive engaged in active combat. Other than some advisors that are there at the request of the legitimate government you can't. How exactly are arms sales "being on the offensive"?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by frazzle

 

Ave other than Iraq and Afghanistan show me US troops on the offensive engaged in active combat. Other than some advisors that are there at the request of the legitimate government you can't. How exactly are arms sales "being on the offensive"?

Legitimate. Another word that needs defining. US funded al quaeda, US funded rebels, US funded CIA operatives, US funded mercenaries, US appointed presidents, US skewed elections. Are these legitimate?

Are the above more legitimate than, say, a democratically elected Egyptian president who is summarily ousted and jailed by a US sponsored Egyptian military who then appoints a US favored "new" president who will do US bidding?

Offensive: preemptive attacks, whether overt or covert. You make the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan sound like petty side issues. I beg to differ.

reply to post by frazzle


Oh my God you're right! The US runs the world!

The Egyptian military is this thing called "friendly"to the US. I know it's a weird concept, but countries can be friends without one controlling the other. I guess the large numbers of Egyptian people that wanted the president gone were American pretenders right?

Jesus what's the point anymore. You're going to find a way to blame the US for you sneezing in the morning at this rate.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by frazzle

 

Oh my God you're right! The US runs the world!

I wish the US did run the world ~ in a fair and even handed "friendly" manner to all of its trading partners. As it is, this country is nothing but the host to the same parasite that created, ruled, killed and then leaped off of the USSR and onto us. The signs are everywhere that the current host (us) has been nearly bled out and is flailing around on its death bed. There are some who claim the next host is already chosen ~ China. With any luck they will have a more powerful insect repellant.