Should we provide weapons to the Saudis for killing Yemeni people?

Uncategorized 1 Minute

The article is long, but the Eisenhower admonition about the military-industrial complex is very obviously in play here.

We Have sent arms to the Saudis for decades. Around 2015 or so, they started a war against Iranian backed rebels in Yemen, an adjoining country.

Their targeting has been a human rights disaster since thousands of civilians have been killed. Disease and starvation are rampant.

Obama stopped sending bombs, etc. Raytheon was the major supplier. With the new administration it ramped up lobbying power and with Navarro, Pompeo, Esper, and the president, got multi-billion dollar shipments going again. The bombing continues as does the human rights mess.

The philosophy is that bombs are money, money means jobs and it is not our place to worry how they are used.

Are we that crass? Are there any ethics driving whom we sell arms to if we know the slaughter is indiscriminate? Is the argument that “if we don’t, the Russians or others will“ a fair argument?

And why the Saudis? 18 of the hijackers were Saudi. There is good evidence that Royal Family money funded terrorists. They just murdered a legal American resident working for an American company.

Bottom line is that arms dealers make money when there is a shooting conflict. We are the biggest arms dealer in the world…or close to it.

The argument says we can’t be the worlds cop. Maybe so, but do we have to be the world’s executioner supply depot?

BTW I wonder how Mexico would feel if we made bombing runs in an effort to destroy the drug cartels? A few thousand Mexican children, wedding parties, schools, hospitals and other sundry civilian casualties might be worth it to destroy the scourge.

In addition, the Mexicans are raising questions about the US supplying small arms to cartels. What about bombs to kill tens of thousands?

Published by lenrothman

Published

25 thoughts on “Should we provide weapons to the Saudis for killing Yemeni people?”

  1. Why not? We provide them four airliners for killing Americans. Then we killed somewhere around 100,000 Iraqis and Afghanis just to get even… wait…why’d we do that again?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. As far as I’m concerned, the Saudis are the root of the entire radical Muslim movement. Terrorists and all.

      But they bailed out Kushner and Trump, so the deal is sealed for at least another few months.

      Birds of a feather…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. So if an American joins Al Qaeda and blows up an embassy, it’s America’s fault? Suppose they were trained to fly here and were involved in 911, would Clinton or Bush have been responsible?

      Like

      Reply

        1. Yes, I saw that. We knew the Saudis supported terrorism from day one.

          We just needed oil, so we didn’t care.

          Well, now we don’t need the oil so it might be time to tell the Saudis to take a hike.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. Instead of the typical deflection by maybes, possibles or me thinks, just answer the question for once. Would Clinton or Bush be responsible? Yes or no?

          Like

          Reply

          1. The act itself? No. But, accomplices after the fact? Yes.
            Nixon didn’t pick the lock, but he sought to bury the investigation. Not the crime, the cover up, eh?

            Liked by 1 person

      2. We know Bush was responsible because he did have a warning and shrugged it off. Plus as president his job was to provide for the security and he didn’t. And he was in office for 9 months.

        See, there is that “responsibility” word again. You probably haven’t seen it used with reference to the current placeholder for president.

        If you were a Navy captain of a ship that ran aground, you don’t get a pass because your crew sailed with the previous captain.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Bush’s National Security Adviser was not confirmed by the Democrat Senate until 3 weeks before 9/11/01.

          Bush got a ‘warning’ from someone he didn’t know that was on conflict with other intelligence sources.

          Blaming Bush when he had no formal transition and could not get his appointees confirmed by the Senate is irrational.

          Like

          Reply

        2. So then you agree that Obama was completely responsible for the recession during his term. After all, he was president in the hot seat. You know, the captain. Glad you clarified that, thanks.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Your history is a bit off. The recession began during the Bush administration and Obama inherited it. Just like Trump inherited a recovering economy from Obama. So in actuality, Obama took responsibility for getting the economy turned around.

            Your efforts to portray Obama as a filed President are laughable. Almost as laughable as who occupies the WH right ow.

            Like

        3. Good example. The USS Eisenhower, if I recall, received a citation from the VP, who flew aboard by helicopter, for an accident-free cruise. After the VP left, the skipper turned command over to the XO, and went to his quarters to change and pack.
          The carrier struck a ship at anchor in Hampton Roads.
          “The Navy’s investigation cited the Eisenhower’s skipper, Capt. Gary L. Beck, for “negligent hazarding of a Navy vessel.” Beck, who left the bridge shortly before the collision, was relieved of his duties as was the navigator, Cmdr. Peter N. Maxwell.”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  2. The Yemen thing is just a proxy war in the Shia – Suni 1000 years war.

    We should not takes sides, but we should take care that neither side runs out of flamethrowers.

    Like

    Reply

    1. But, we should be careful to supply flamethrowers that break a lot and have a short useful life. Wouldn’t do to get burned by our own match.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. Oh come on. Arms sales have been going on for a really, really long time with numerous different countries that used them for war. Your beef is the current administration and you want to make a negative statement, just admit it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Moi? A beef with the current administration?

      How can you say such…really.

      You had 8 years of whining about Obama. I’ve only had a little over 3 with this regime. I am not nearly as practiced as you.

      Yes, arms dealing is a time honored tradition. Only you, or I suppose other “DJT aficionados, would see what I wrote as a Trump rebuke.

      I was questioning our own national ethics and Trump happens to be the responsible one for now.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Now, why is it that you are a “moderator”? I mean really???? I laugh at your, Paul’s and Jimmy’s incessant far left bias and lack of balance. And then you attempt to label people you know nothing about with phony monikers like “Trump aficionado” and make false assertions about “whining”?

        Bush had no cabinet because of Democrats. Clinton had opportunities to take out the threat and passed on it. Why do Democrats take such great pains to bind and strangle the incoming administration and then claim “well you were in charge”?

        Like

        Reply

  4. “Why do Democrats take such great pains to bind and strangle the incoming administration and then claim “well you were in charge”?

    I would classify that as a “whine” with no basis in fact.

    “Trump aficionado” is merely a variation of Trump supporter.

    I would say your comment is fine, but a bit misdirected and with little substance.

    I’m the liberal “cop on the beat”, so you don’t have to worry.

    Finally, the lack of balance is kind of strange. The whole concept of a debate or blog is to air ideas that may in in conflict with others.

    You have your views, I have mine. You want me to moderate mine so you fell less put out?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. “I’m the liberal “cop on the beat”, so you don’t have to worry.”

      And JTR is the Trumpist cop on the beat. Don did a good job on balancing his chosen moderators. Not sure what Mr. Smith’s beef is, except maybe your too honest. (And more often right.)

      Like

      Reply

      1. Um, the “facts” are Democrats intentionally blocked almost all of Bush’s cabinet nominees for 8 months including his national security advisor. He had no functioning government because of Democrats. That is not a whine but a pure fact. 911 was the fault of Clinton and a Democrat Senate.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Not so sure about that. I can only find that the Senate Democrats held up judicial appointments. Like the Republicans worked to hold up Clintons judges.

          I could find nothing about cabinet appointments. Do you have a cite?

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment