Front Page of the Times Today. Story Below...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/wo...hp&oref=slogin

I dunno about this, this idea seems fraught with risk. The people we are arming are terrorists who have targeted US troops in the past. While I understand the need to combat al-qaeda this could blow up in our faces as once al-qaeda is defeated they will go back to targeting us or the Shiites. -In fact I would absolutely count on it.

This is exactly what happed in the '80s with the Taliban. We armed and Trained them and once the Soviets were gone they pointed our own weapons back at us. This has all the potential of turning into a huge s***storm.

I think the only way to do it is to severely limit arms supply so that they only have enough for present short-term needs. Also we should give them nothing too sophisticated. Lets not repeat the mistake we did of giving them weapons like Stinger Missiles to the Afgans and then have to worry for decades about some nut with a MANPORT hanging around the airport.

That way if they double-cross (which is as common as sand in the ME) us they would quickly run out. Of course the risk of this is we can never be certain who much weapons they get from other sources , and I fully expect them to lie about their supply situation.

Bush is playing with fire...

Good post again mm.

All I can say is something not very consructive at this stage, but is probably the truest adage known to mankind.

NEVER GET INVOLVED IN ARAB POLITICS.

I have warned about and tested this over so many years. Even among their own leaders and champions, who can't help getting involved! They always face destruction or elimination. From Lawrence to Feisel to Sadat, Terry Waite, to a degree. There is a slow queue and at the moment we are in it.

Just an observation.

NEVER GET INVOLVED IN ARAB POLITICS.

Sage advice, but of course people never actually bother to listen. The British in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Ottomans in the entire Middle East, the US in Lebanon and in Iraq...so on and so forth.

MOAB the only way

This is more of a security issue however this kind of selective choice is creating the rift and will further the sectarian violence in Iraq. Remember the US still has obligations to construct, fund, and maintain the new struggling Iraqi National Army, at the expense of either US taxpayers or Iraq's meager treasury. Poor Internal controls, lack of supervision, and destruction of Audit trails resulted in rampant corruption turning a worthy goal into a money grabbing event.

Never get into Arab Politics? Word of advice, when dealing with foreign governments, maintain the status quo in politics and never align with one country like the US does with Israel.

Ahhh,... we fall for it again, forming alliances of convenience which will bite us on the bum in the future.

Personally, i would let them go at it hammer and tongs, but stay right away from providing weapons which they will use against us once they have settled their differences.

Don't politicians bother to read history, much of it recent enough to be remembered. by anyone over the age of 10 years.

Can anyone remember a previous "arms trade" where the plan actually worked? Only one word comes to mind: short-term.... If they don't shooting at you tomorrow it will be the day after. Just to refresh the collective memory: wasn't Saddam (yes, the same one) a US friend some 20 odd years ago?

Originally Posted by senojekips

Ahhh,... we fall for it again, forming alliances of convenience which will bite us on the bum in the future.

Personally, i would let them go at it hammer and tongs, but stay right away from providing weapons which they will use against us once they have settled their differences.

Don't politicians bother to read history, much of it recent enough to be remembered. by anyone over the age of 10 years.

Couldn't agree more Sir.

The US in Iraq are just grasping at straws now! Very sad!

Can anyone remember a previous "arms trade" where the plan actually worked? Only one word comes to mind: short-term.... If they don't shooting at you tomorrow it will be the day after. Just to refresh the collective memory: wasn't Saddam (yes, the same one) a US friend some 20 odd years ago?

Well Ted the Red I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Arming the Afghanis was the right thing to do, the pay off was well worth it, the defeat of the soviets in Afghanistan was a big victory and helped to expedite the demise of the "evil empire". I believe an Al-queda like group would of formed eventually anyway, with or without Afghanistan.