Comments:US to sell precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Another Scam[edit]

The U.S. also supplied arms to Iraq. The U.S. also supplied arms to Iran which resulted in the Iran-Contra scandle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra). Under the guise of "peace talks" between Israeli and Palestinian people, the Bush Administration, then, is about to bolster U.S. corporate interests in oil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCO , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP ) and munitions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed ).

Pipelines Are The Real Reason for Denouncing Iran[edit]

What is at stake is competition from Iran for oil exports and a pipeline as reported in the following article: http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/23857 Greenspan also stated that this was about oil: http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/26166


Anyone else think that America is just going to sell WMDs to every dangerous country until one of them thinks to bomb them? It's not like the Saudis even need to buy from America, it's a very rich country and could easily manufacture them itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.200.31 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Republican party is a Socialist Party[edit]

Like the Nazi Party, the Republican party is actually Socialist; though, the similarities are stronger between the Nazi party than to Socialism. The Republicans believe in federally sponsored industries through government contracts such as Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, and BP. They believe in a strong military that will eventually support a "New World Order" by means of military domination as demonstrated through the Iraq War. And, like the Nazi party, they have no respect for human rights as demonstrated at Guantonimo Bay and the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights through, for instance, the Patriot Act. They also believe in a form of Social Darwinism in that they believe that those who are wealthier are predisposed to it either biologically or through divine right.

What you describe is Facism, not Socialism. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken. It is Socialism in that they believe that the Federal government should control the capital (wealth) of the nation. In this case the Federal government controls capital through huge government contracts with corporations. In return corporations endorse the party and political agenda.
Nazis hated Socialists, and were infact Facists. You are, however, correct in stating that the Bush administration is following paths of the Nazis. He even said "You're either with us, or against us," which is a direct translation of one of Hitler's quotes. It is sad to see what is happening to the US government. With these new elections, we have all these candidates making impossible promises, and when those promises fail to be met, the people who voted for them will become cynics. It is a very dangerous senario. Everyone votes for the canditate who makes the best lies, and when the promises do not come into effect they are disenfranchised with the system and another apathetic generation is created. Rekov 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right, the Nazy party or National Socialist German Workers Party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party , hated anyone who opposed them including other socialist parties.
Both Socialism and Communism espouse a "withering away" of the power of central government. This is significantly different from what is being done today in the United States. Fascism was all about centralising the power into a small elite. Germany's "National Socialism" has nothing to do with the more established principles of the ideology and more to do with how a small group could take over a country that wanted a recount on WWI. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In economic terms, it is still Socialism. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Structurally, however, I'd have to concede that the Republican party is moving toward Globalization. The Nazi party also wished to Globalize the Third Reich. But, yes, there was little organization within the Nazi party. What kept them together had less to do with economic and structural ideology, than with a set of unified beliefs. Like the Republicans, the Nazi party simply believed it was superior to everyone, regardless of law, structure, economics, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.194.176 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we learned anything yet!?[edit]

Why do we still get involved with other countries' conflicts? Haven't we pissed off Iran enough? This is just ridiculous. - Ian Lee 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shame on the USA (again)[edit]

How does the USA justify sales to a country with such poor human rights? Americans always ask why they were attacked on 9/11 so maybe actions like this by their government will provide the answer. The USA's support for Israel and Saudi Arabia and similar attitudes is what has made this world a very dangerous place. Thankfully there are only 10 more months until Americans can boot out Bush and elect someone fit to be 'leader of the world'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.129.26 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the hypocracy of it all![edit]

Mr Bush told ABC's Terry Moran that he was concerned about his image. Most people believe Bush to be a warmonger you see, who has it in for Muslims in particular. Bush insists he is misunderstood and he is a peacemaker pursuing a democratic agenda.

That must be why he's supplying these weapons to one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world. Oh, I forgot. The Saudis are "allies" like the military dictatorship in Pakistan. Their crimes against humanity are acceptable because they are not "evildoers". After all, how could someone who does evil be friends with the USA?

There is a lesson for the late Saddam Hussein here. If he hadn't invaded Kuwait and just got on with using his presents from the USA for gassing Kurds he would have never been labelled an evildoer and he may be still alive in Iraq and getting some new missiles of his very own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.200.96 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)