Should we be sending F16 fighter planes to Egypt?

It's not because we cant trust them, and it's even because we cannot afford it, its because we cannot be the world police, this is how enemies are made.

jamesrage said:

I could care less if it economic suicide,besides that our elected officials do not seem to care about our finances except for when its politically convenient. It will be politacal suicide anyways when those people we sold that equipment to are using them against our troops.

Click to expand...

Who is using our equipment against us? A list please.

Dittohead not! said:

In the context of the uprising in Egypt, and of how things actually are worse in that country, given the history of totalitarian regimes around the world, the priorities that include... what? supporting dictatorships? considering that things have changed in Egypt, no, USA not baaaaad, just doing stupid things as a foreign policy.

Did you parrot the slogan "my country right or wrong" during the Vietnam era as well?

Click to expand...

Ok, I misunderstood... USA stooooopid.

AreteCourage said:

I don't think its about Egypt at all.

It is about ourselves.

Why are we giving money to other countries while ours is in a lot of debt? Anyone wanna venture a guess into that?

Foreign aid should be drastically cut (if not completely) until we get out of this deficit. We cannot continue to do this for very long, but people don't seem to understand. We have to cut back on expenses. It is a matter of economic survival, but nobody wants to tighten the belt and get serious about the issue.

We have a lot to deal with here at home....we should not be catering to any other country for any other purpose until we fix our own home.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with SELLING to another country?

joko104 said:

What does that have to do with SELLING to another country?

Click to expand...

They weren't sold to Egypt...they were GIVEN to them

ecofarm said:

Ok, I misunderstood... USA stooooopid.

Click to expand...

You're getting closer.

Not USA stoooopid, but specifically the foreign policy of the federal government.

and criticizing foreign policy is not putting down the country, nor is supporting that policy somehow patriotic.

Remember "my country right or wrong?"

Dittohead not! said:

You're getting closer.

Not USA stoooopid, but specifically the foreign policy of the federal government.

and criticizing foreign policy is not putting down the country, nor is supporting that policy somehow patriotic.

Remember "my country right or wrong?"

Click to expand...

Do you have anything besides "USA baaaaaad" and "USA stoooopid" to add to this thread?

ecofarm said:

Do you have anyhting besides "USA baaaaaad" and "USA stoooopid" to add to this thread?

Click to expand...

What's the point? You aren't reading my posts anyway, or at least, your responses don't address them in any way whatsoever.

I disagree. I believe it reveals your angle and level of knowledge.

AreteCourage said:

They weren't sold to Egypt...they were GIVEN to them

Click to expand...

Yup. It looks like they were "given" to Egypt.

Egypt was the first Arab country to purchaseF-16s through a Foreign Military Sales program called Peace Vector. The Egyptian Air Force received a total of 42 F-16s in its first order in 1980 and since then has purchased five more lots of aircraft, for a total of 240 F-16 Fighting Falcons.

The recent deal has caused concern in the United States amid reports that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is cracking down on protestors and changing the constitution. The F-16 deal was made when US ally Hosni Mubarak was still in power.

Egypt receives about $1.3 billion annually in military aid financing, per the terms of the 1976 Camp David Accords that resulted in a peace agreement with Israel. Having received close to $40 billion in military aid, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid.

Click to expand...

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.p...eliveries-begin&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

ecofarm said:

I disagree. I believe it reveals your angle and level of knowledge.

Click to expand...

Disagreement with your position puts me in some pretty good company.

Do you have any further points to make, or are we to conclude that you're finished? I can see how supporting the giving away of war planes to the likes of Hosni Mubaric is difficult to argue, so, if you're unable to do so, it is totally understandable.

Maybe next time you'll pick a subject that can actually be supported with real facts.

In good company (ad hom)... restate the OP question... "facts".

Yeah, that's what I expected.

ecofarm said:

In good company (ad hom)... restate the OP question... "facts".

Yeah, that's what I expected.

Click to expand...

There is nothing "ad hom" in my post. Actually, I'm excusing your failure to support the position you've chosen, as it is an unsupportable position. Given something that could be supported, you would no doubt be more successful. As it is, you've run out of real arguments and are now grasping at straws. That's what happens when you try to argue a point that is impossible to support.

Dittohead not! said:

There is nothing "ad hom" in my post.

Click to expand...

Oh, please let's not get silly. Claiming that being against someone/their position puts one in "good company" is an ad hom.

ecofarm said:

Oh, please let's not get silly. Claiming that being against someone/their position puts one in "good company" is an ad hom.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between being "against someone" and being against their position.

You see, had I called you a stupid head, then that would have been an ad hom. It would have been quite childish, as are most ad hom attacks. Saying I'm in good company is simply stating that I have a lot of company in my position that giving away warplanes and tanks to Hosni Mubaric, or any other dictator, is a bad idea is simply stating the facts.

Now, you have taken the position that it was a good idea to have given away said planes and tanks to the government of Egypt. Please, if you have any more points to make on that subject, tell us why you think it was a good idea to do so.

Oh, and criticizing the policy of the United States is not saying that the USA is bad. We citizens of this great nation have a right, no, an obligation to criticize actions of the government with which we disagree.

Navy Pride said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think 1-liner OPs should earn you points.

How about a link & quote from supporting news story? Maybe toss in some of your own original content to spur the discussion. A coloring section would be nice too.

Well, if you are going to argue sending arms to Mubarak vs. the Muslim Brotherhood, the question shouldn't be "are they nice chaps? but "what are they likely to do with such weapons and are they trustworthy?". In the case of Mubarak, he certainly cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood and other political enemies. The Muslim Brotherhood cracks down on pretty much everybody, especially women. There are no good guys there, even if the M.B. craps on the lives of more people.

It's what they have done or might do with the weapons that is the issue here, and Mubarak did not use them to attack others. He honored peace agreements and his rhetoric was never such to indicate he wouldn't. THe M.B., on the other hand, is offering COPIOUS rhetoric that indicates belligerence, and so the sending of any potential arms should take this into account. That it isn't is cause for concern to me, and seems short sighted.

Seems to me that the social dynamic of the Arab world can only produce these two potential outcomes - -a strong armed leader or an ultra-conservative religiously inclined government. They are a clannish societies based upon blood ties, not ideology, after all. We are not going to see western style democracies in countries where half the population is married to close family relatives, and so I think the sooner we acknowledge this, the better. I think our only really viable approach is to achieve absolute total energy independence so we don't HAVE to make these sorts of decisions. Egypt's strategic location complicates matters immensely, and that is what makes these decisions so difficult.

Dittohead not! said:

Now, you have taken the position that it was a good idea to have given away said planes and tanks to the government of Egypt. Please, if you have any more points to make on that subject, tell us why you think it was a good idea to do so.

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. My position is that your position is based on a loss of context, history, critical consideration and the modern era, and constitutes nothing more than dragging old stuff about the US into a discussion of modern times - typical, senseless, US bashing based purely on a twisted view of the past and pessimistic, self serving, US (foreign policy) bashing view of the present.

Dittohead not! said:

or, use them to put down that pesky uprising against a totalitarian regime.

Click to expand...

1. Egypt is not totalitarian.
2. We already deposed one, what makes him think we will not do it again?

Dittohead not! said:

...given the history of totalitarian regimes around the world, the priorities that include... what? supporting dictatorships? considering that things have changed in Egypt, no, USA not baaaaad, just doing stupid things as a foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah... Obama has NO idea what he's doing. There is NO justification. Everyone without your opinion is CRAZY!!

And USA stooopid.

Dittohead not! said:

Not USA stoooopid, but specifically the foreign policy of the federal government.

Click to expand...

USA stooopid (on foreign policy). Whew, glad you clarified that!

Dittohead not! said:

Maybe next time you'll pick a subject that can actually be supported with real facts.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the "facts". Like, Egypt is totalitarian and will use the f16s against a democratic uprising?

Dittohead not! said:

That's what happens when you try to argue a point that is impossible to support.

Click to expand...

If it's so impossible to support, why does Obama support it? I guess you know more than he, and he doesn't have the "facts".

ecofarm said:

That's incorrect. My position is that your position is based on a loss of context, history, critical consideration and the modern era, and constitutes nothing more than dragging old stuff about the US into a discussion of modern times - typical, senseless, US bashing based purely on a twisted view of the past and pessimistic, self serving, US (foreign policy) bashing view of the present.

Click to expand...

So, your position is not that giving away warplanes and tanks to Egypt is a good idea?
No wonder we're not communicating. All this time, I thought you were attempting to argue that it was. My position, on the other hand, is quite clear: Giving away warplanes and tanks to Egypt is not a good idea.

So, let's see if I can begin to understand where you're coming from.

dragging old stuff about the US into a discussion of modern times

Click to expand...

Just what "old stuff" are we talking about here?

- typical, senseless, US bashing based purely on a twisted view of the past and pessimistic, self serving, US (foreign policy) bashing view of the present.

Click to expand...

Typical of whom?
Is disagreement with US foreign policy "senseless US bashing"? How so?
Twisted view of the past? I thought we were talking about a present and future. Giving away military hardware is something being done now and contemplated in the future, is it not?
"US foreign policy bashing?" Well, of course, I, as a citizen of a free country, am criticizing US foreign policy. Do you think that is wrong?

If they pay for them, sure. If we're just giving them away, hell no, but we shouldn't be giving anything away to anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

We shouldn't sell arms to any middle eastern country, including Israel.

Luna Tick said:

We shouldn't sell arms to any middle eastern country, including Israel.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't arm Israel, the only liberal western democracy in the mideast? That's a death sentence. There's no way Russian or Chinese gear could hold their lines. As this is not the mideast forum, I will not continue but your desire for the end of Israel is noted.

Navy Pride said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. However with oil's dangerous oligopoly power over personal transportation in the US, without which our economy would grind to a screeching halt over night, much of our foreign policy for over half a century has been to ensure stabilization to the best extent possible in regions of the world where vital oil reserves are located. This has and continues to include military support of various forms to regimes that do not share our values for the sake of our own economy. As long as petroleum holds practically the exclusive power over American personal transportation and by extension an important aspect of our economy's ability to function, unfortunately we're going to have to be in bed with dictators from barbaric to benign while the people they rule over often with an iron fist blame us for their lot in life or don't think we're good enough to even be involved in their part of the world, some of whom are willing commit suicide if it means they get to take some of us out in the process.

Good news! I was at a car dealership over the weekend and the sales guy was saying at the most recent big national car convention, North Western University's new electric car battery was discussed as a possible next big game changer. It basically will let an electric car drive up to 1000 miles before it needs to be recharged depending on the size of the vehicle and the battery can recharge in just 15 minutes. It looks like the US Department of Energy is now involved making it tougher this time for the petroleum industry to buy out new technology patents and then refuse to allow it to be used.

Cobasys' problems with other potential customers also raised questions about the company's sales policies. In October 2007, International Acquisitions Services, Inc. and Innovative Transportation Systems AG filed suit against Cobasys and its parents for refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon, order for large-format NiMH batteries to be used in the Innovan electric vehicle.[12] In August 2008, Mercedes-Benz sued Cobasys for again refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon order for NiMH batteries.[17][18]

Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advancing next generation battery and energy storage technologies for electric and hybrid cars and the electricity grid, as the center will do, are a critical part of President Barack Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and lower energy costs for U.S. consumers.

Northwestern Joins $120 Million Battery, Energy Center: Northwestern University News

Beats the heck out of having highjacked jets flying into our skyscrapers because terrorists don't want us involved in their part of the world and are trying to drive out the infidels nor do they apparently want our money either. In fairness, most of our money actually goes to the dictators to build gold laced palaces and not the average person living there but still, its high time to pick up our marbles and leave if ask me.

Realistically we lose little by continuing to sell and supply arms to Egypt, and we risk much be ceasing our long-standing military support. Egypt already has amassed a preponderance of Western arms, munitions, and equipment, what more is scheduled for 2013 is not going to alter or heavily impact the balance of power in Egypt or in the region. We do not know what the end game for Egypt is, and we still have reason to hope that Egypt will emerge into greater stability and democratic firmness. I don't think the benefits of undercutting the Egyptian state is worth the benefits at the moment.

Sherman123 said:

Realistically we lose little by continuing to sell and supply arms to Egypt, and we risk much be ceasing our long-standing military support. Egypt already has amassed a preponderance of Western arms, munitions, and equipment, what more is scheduled for 2013 is not going to alter or heavily impact the balance of power in Egypt or in the region. We do not know what the end game for Egypt is, and we still have reason to hope that Egypt will emerge into greater stability and democratic firmness. I don't think the benefits of undercutting the Egyptian state is worth the benefits at the moment.

Click to expand...

Well yes, Israel could probably knock all 20 out of the sky in short order if they were used against Israel. But what does it say to other countries if we provide weapons to a nation with a leader who represents the Muslim Brotherhood? Doesn't it appear like tacit acceptance of the MB?