Friday, February 01, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul Is 100% Right On Failure To Ban Transfer Of F-16s From U.S. To Egypt
The more I see of Senator Paul, the more I like. And his remarks on pro-Israel leadership on Capitol Hill are spot on, as I can personally testify.
Money quote: "We don't have to pay Eng;and to be our friend...why do we have to pay Egypt?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
england is our friend???????????
this dovetails with your previous posting about the gun grab.
it wasn't that anon was welcoming you to the left wing.
that was like molotov saying they were dropping bread on the finns in '39.
what anon was doing was welcoming you to tyranny. that's how it works. disarm you own populace and give f-16s to al quieda/muslim brotherhood. and just when anon says, "bush did it", that covers two stones.
bush didn't give anything to al quieda except time. he was giving stuff to mubarak.
and that makes this bush's fourth term in office.
i think i'll change my name to morsi, put some laundry on my head, and get me an f-16 from hussein. the guys at the range won't know what hit 'em. :)
"The more I see of Senator Paul, the more I like."
You must not have seen this, then.
http://tinyurl.com/aaeh3nu
No evidence, no facts. Just weird conspiracy theories. Welcome to today's republican party.
Hi Louie,
Actually, President Obama has give quite a bit of weaponry to our enemies, and so did President Bush, who built three Muslim armies (Iraq, 'Palestine' and Afghanistan) where those arms could be used against us, and already have been in AfPak. He also continued giving military aid Lebanon even after Hezbollah was fully integrated into the Lebanese army.
President Obama, aside from continuing military aid and sales to Iraq, 'Palestine', Afghanistan and Pakistan also took out Moamar Khaddaffi, who was actually helping us fight al-Qaeda in the Maghreb ( AQIM). Khaddaffi's arsenals fell into th ehands of Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda forces, and are what was used to attack our consulate in Benghazi, attempt to take over Mali for al-Qaeda, and kill Americans in Algeria.
We've also were shipping arms to jihadist rebels in Syria like the Syrian Free Army..who we now have decided months later really are jihadis who maybe we shouldn't have been arming.
As for England..yeah, I know. But I understand the sentiment. He could have said Australia, but...
-Rob-
Although I do not like the idea of any of our money going to other countries for any reason, I was under the impression that what we give to Egypt is part of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. If I am wrong please let me know. Also, the Egyptians are protesting against Morsi. For the years of our alliance with Mubarek we have had an excellent relationship with the Egyptian military. I am not sure at this point if Morsi will be able to retain power or if the military will side with the protesters and eliminate him. It is a possibility. Although, like I said, I hate that our tax money is going to Egypt so that they can use it to buy jet fighters and our money goes into the pockets of the military industrial complex.
Kook,
There's been a great deal of speculation ( and not just from WND) about the U.S. shipping arms from Khaddaffi's arsenals to Syrian rebels.
A lot of people have wondered exactly what Ambassador Stevens was doing in a dangerous place like Benghazi without any adequate security, and one story that's repeatedly comes up is that he was overseeing arms transfers to the Syrian Free Army, among other things.I haven't been able to independently verify it, but it's hardly a wild, unlikely conspiracy theory
Since the Obama Administration hasn't answered the question, has everyone who survived the Benghazi debacle under wraps and has all phone recording, surveillance videos and paper records classified top secret where no one can see them, the question remains: what was Ambassador Stevens doing in a dangerous place like that without anything near adequate security?
Far from being a conspiracy theory,Sen. Paul asked Sec Clinton a legitimate question, G-d forbid. Which of course, she refused to answer adequately.
It's a fact ( if not much reported on) that we have troops ('military observers', if you like) in Jordan who were training members of the Syrian Free Army and affiliated groups and supplying them with weapons.I reported on it here.
In view of all the other numerous lies Mrs. Clinton, the president and others have tried to foist on the American people about what happened in Benghazi, Senator Paul is a 'conspiracy theorist' for asking a question?
Perhaps in your world, Rachel Maddow's world and that of Leftist loon Steve Benen, a proud member of the Soros media whom wrote what you linked to.
The rest of us aren't drinking the Kool-ade, thanks.
Hi Laura,
Thanks for dropping by.
It's important to understand that the Egyptian military operates more like the Pakistani army, Iran's Revolutionary Guards or the PLA rather than ours.
By that, I mean that they are huge institutions that are quasi-independent and own private businesses and investments, even farmland on their own. In both Pakistan and Egypt, private businesses in some sectors are at a disadvantage because the military can 'deploy' recruits to work in these businesses for military wages that can be less than what a private business can pay.
That's where a chunk of the $1.5 billion we give to Egypt annually in military aid goes...it's sheer baksheesh.
The Abrams tanks and the F-16s are different.These toys are extra, and Egypt isn't buying them, the American taxpayer is footing the bill.
The question remains, since Egypt has no nation nearby that's a military threat: why do they need the tanks and F-16s except to attack Israel at some point when they might feel ready to do so?
If the argument is that ' we always make sure Israel has a qualitative edge', Senator Paul's question makes infinite sense - why not just not ship the weapons in the first place, especially since Egypt is unstable at the moment?
It's being done because President Obama wants to bolster Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. And it's also a signal to the army that the U.S. has Morsi's back. Obama has an investment in the Islamists staying in power.
Morsi did a purge of the military last year. He forced every member of the military junta that was ruling Egypt before the election into early 'retirement' along with a number of other officers and replaced most of them with reliable Islamists.
The army isn't going to turn on him IMO and jeopardize that nice $1.5 billion they have coming.
Regards,
Rob
"Morsi did a purge of the military last year." The only way that could happen would be if the officers voluntarily stepped down or were forced out by their subordinates. Either possibility could be correct, however, being forced out by the subordinates seems unlikely, as they could have used their substantial business interests to buy any loyalty they needed.
Once the military chose to back Mr. Morsi for whatever reason, there was nothing the US could do. How things will go there depends upon the military. Has Mr. Morsi fallen out of favor with the military? If so, he won't survive.
The American government is probably thinking the sales are to the military and not to Mr. Morsi since it all depends on the military. The military aid likely comes regardless who is in power. In the current situation, the US needs Egyptian cooperation much more than Egypt needs to cooperate with the US.
With that said Mr. Paul's sentiment is spot on even though England is NOT a friend of America and Australia probably is not either as you seem to suggest it is. The US is bankrupt. Its military is broken and is a mess. If anything these F-16s are needed for the US Airforce. Why send them to an enemy in vain hopes of getting cooperation? Perhaps Mr. Obama is an enemy of the US or perhaps he recognizes how weak his position is and is acting the way desparate people sometimes act.
In any event, observe the military. However it decides is what will determine the outcome, not any thing a US leader does or says. If any thing, having a US president "have your back" would be a net liability at this point. Besides, if need be, Egypt can secure weapons comparable to F-16 and Abrams tanks elsewhere in the world, if they feel they need them.
The best course of action for the US would be to redeploy to positions that give it a fighting chance to defend itself and its citizens. This means a complete and total withdrawl from the Middle East. Perhaps our economic sitution would suffer for a time but at least it gives us a fighting chance to defend ourselves.
Finally a good place for our leaders and our people to start would be thoroughly study the actions of the Russian and Chinese leadership. How would they handle a situation like the US faces with Egpyt? While I'm not exactly sure what they would do, I think it can be said with pretty near 100% certainty that their response would not be to send their top of the line weapons to such a country in this type of situation. If one wants to be the best, one should study the best!! Studying these countries does not mean we would necessarily implement every thing they do nor would it be desirable for our situation but it would be a good place to start.
Its not just Israel that is threatened by these weapons. America is as well. These weapons in the hands of Egyptina forces who are better led and better trained than their American counterparts could be devestating. Sending these wapons to Egypt is a bad idea all the way around. Kudos to Senator Paul for having the courage to point this out.
The United Staes and its leaders have lost their bearings to the point that they seem to longer be able to distinguish friend from foe. It would be one thing, if only Mr. Obama and his team wanted these weapons to go to Egypt. This would be somewhat understandable, given their track record.
What is puzzling is why the House and Senate would go along with this enough to make things like this happen. Additionally, it seems VERY unlikely that ANY pro-Israel group would come out in support of weapons transfers to Eghpt.
Combine the fact that the US has lost its bearings to this degree with the facts that its economy is in the toilet, it faces a massive national debt, and its military is worn down, poorly led, poorly trained, and suffers huge morale problems all relative to the other major powers US survival in its current form seems unlikely beyond the next two years.
The most likely prospects would seem to be the country implodes from within enabling foreign enemies to destroy it or perhaps foreign enemies simply don't wait for that scenario to work its way out and simply beat the internal implosion to the proverbial punch.
Even if the US were to regain its bearings and perhaps learn something as basic as distinguishing friend from foe, its likely to late to reverse the process at this stage. The eqivelant is being behind 42-0 with 2 minutes to go in the 4th quarter and your opponent has the ball with 1st and 10 and you have no timeouts!!
Perhaps if the US had saner leadership that is capable of acknowledging that the US is finished as a major world power with no real prospects for any type of change in this situation for at least 50 years we might be able to act accordingly and good outcomes may still be possible. Unfortunately this requires sane leadership which we don't seem to have in either party.
Maybe I'm wrong about all of this. Also, God has worked miracles in the affairs of men, as well as our nation, in the past. He can do so again. We can only pray that he will do so again. With the proper seeking of Him by the American people He just may show us mercy.
Post a Comment