mmarsh
Active member
Front Page of the Times Today. Story Below...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&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...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&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...
Last edited: