Russia Sells Weapons to... SYRIA!! Yay!

[Trent 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_re_eu/russia_syria

Well, looks like we've got ourselves another few decades of conflict ahead. Regardless of how you see the US, selling weapons to countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... is a stupid move. Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm volatile regimes like this? ESPECIALLY with the current situation between Syria, Iran and Lebanon. As much as people say our support for Afghanistan against the Russians and Iraq against the Iranians has bit us in the ass... do you think that this kind of arms deal will eventually bite Russia and China in the ass? Or will it be just the first few steps in the Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic war agains the US and Israel?

EDIT: Add the brilliant Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to that list: http://www.latinamericanpost.com/index.php?mod=seccion&secc=38&conn=3805

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,085]

>Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm
>volatile regimes like this?

We armed Saddam Hussein, the terrorists of the Mujahideen, and the Contras in Nicaragua. Russia may now be making the same mistakes we made years ago.

>do you think that this kind of arms deal will eventually bite Russia
>and China in the ass?

Yep!

>Or will it be just the first few steps in the Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic
>war agains the US and Israel?

I doubt it. Remember who invaded Afghanistan first?

[Kennedy 0]

Well, I wouldn't rule out the "Sino" or the "Islamic" parts to match with the "attack" part, but I don't see them working together.

Other than that, yeah, what Bill said.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm
>volatile regimes like this?

We armed Saddam Hussein, the terrorists of the Mujahideen, and the Contras in Nicaragua. Russia may now be making the same mistakes we made years ago.

>do you think that this kind of arms deal will eventually bite Russia
>and China in the ass?

Yep!

>Or will it be just the first few steps in the Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic
>war agains the US and Israel?

I doubt it. Remember who invaded Afghanistan first?

Alternatively we didn't arm the terrorists of the Mujahideen, we gave Afghan Rebels fighting the Soviet superpower (the guys occupying Eastern Europe with ICBM's pointed at our cities and Tanks lined up to roll across Western Europe) stinger missiles to shoot down Russian Hinds etc. If we hadn't the Berlin Wall may still be standing and Northern Pakistan would be in an even worse state than it is today. It's east to mischaracterize history and paint it black without considering the alternatives.


w.r.t. arming SH, depends when you look but at various times it has been in our interests to court him, especially when fighting the spread of Soviet influence. The USA pretty much lost out there, that's why SH was burrying MiGs and not F-16s and the US was blowing up T-72 tanks not Abrams. Last I checked those weren't made in the USA.

[billvon 3,085]

>Alternatively we didn't arm the terrorists of the Mujahideen, we gave
>Afghan Rebels fighting the Soviet superpower. . . stinger missiles to
>shoot down Russian Hinds etc.

You could certainly see it that way. Russia could also claim they are selling weapons to the Syrians so they can repel a possible invasion by Israel and keep the fragile peace in the region. It's all in your spin.

>depends when you look but at various times it has been in our interests
>to court him, especially when fighting the spread of Soviet influence . . .

Oh, I agree. Often, though, our short term interests are not the same as what's a good idea long term. Here we have Russia making a deal that they may think is a good idea in the short term - but may well bite them in the ass long term.

BTW during the time we were giving WMD ingredients, helicopters and military intelligence to Iraq, they were fighting the Iranians, not the USSR. We wanted Iran defeated by Iraq, who was our ally at the time.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Alternatively we didn't arm the terrorists of the Mujahideen, we gave
>Afghan Rebels fighting the Soviet superpower. . . stinger missiles to
>shoot down Russian Hinds etc.

You could certainly see it that way. Russia could also claim they are selling weapons to the Syrians so they can repel a possible invasion by Israel and keep the fragile peace in the region. It's all in your spin.

>depends when you look but at various times it has been in our interests
>to court him, especially when fighting the spread of Soviet influence . . .

Oh, I agree. Often, though, our short term interests are not the same as what's a good idea long term. Here we have Russia making a deal that they may think is a good idea in the short term - but may well bite them in the ass long term.

BTW during the time we were giving WMD ingredients, helicopters and military intelligence to Iraq, they were fighting the Iranians, not the USSR. We wanted Iran defeated by Iraq, who was our ally at the time.

I do see it that way, FWIW I have absolutely no objection to Russia selling Syria surface to air defense missiles as long as they're not man portable.

I never said Iraq was fighting the USSR, there's a backstory to all of this, these dictators often played East against West back then selling arms was used to gain political influence. Of course it could easily be argued that saving Iraq from being absorbed into a fanatical pan-Arabian anti-American theocracy was a worthy objective at the time. What the USA sold Iraq was frankly a drop in the bucket, dual use never became an issue until the supergun fiasco hit the headlines. It was still of course Soviet tanks aircraft and balistic missiles Iraq was armed with right to the end, not their US counterparts.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I doubt it. Remember who invaded Afghanistan first?

England? Oh, wait, no, it was the Mongols, wasn't it? Errrrr, was Alexander there?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Gralala 0]

I guess the current leaders were thinking a bit further out than the general public with the whole Iraq issue. I know I'll probably stir things up, but they've known for some time that we would remain in that part of the world for some time to come. Yes to stabilize the country for the Iraqi's but it also provides a closer proximity to other issues.

Personally, I've worried more about Syria being a greater evil than Iran or NOrth Korea... At least those two aren't playing "neutral"...

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." -- Helen Keller

[Tonto 1]

Quote

selling weapons to countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... is a stupid move. Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm volatile regimes like this?

This coming from a citizen of the country that sold and equipped the 2 countries it currently occupies, being Afganistan and Iraq?



C'mon. You have to see the humour in that.

"Here's some poison gas." Kaching!$$$

"Hey, thanks!"

Later....

"Dude! You used that poison gas we sold you!"

"Um.. WTF dude? Why do you think I bought it?"

It's the year of the Pig.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Hey Trent, are there any arms embargoes in place against Syria, Iran, NK etc? Its an honest question, I'm not being rhetorical, you know me....

Motive is short term profit, no other reason IMHO.

"Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic war agains the US and Israel"

Thats a wee bit gloomy is it not?

[Cynic mode]
You guys can easily neuter Chavez, stop buying oil from him, and remove his status as strategic reserve holder.
Ah but that would probably push up oil prices at home...
[/cynic mode]

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

To the best of my knowledge, we sold arms to the resistance, and later gave food, medicine, etc to humanitarian groups there, but I'm not aware of the US government ever arming or supplying any so called government in Afghanistan. Am I wrong?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Who said the US equipped an Afghan Government?

Anyway, they had no government at the time beyond the Soviet controlled puppet govt... and they were equipped/backed by Soviet Military in any case.

What the US did do was equip and train the Afghan Muhjadeen... ie the guys who took over as the Government when the soviets left. What’s so controversial about that? It seemed like a good idea at the time... well, kind of.

[Tonto 1]

Did I say government? I don't think I said government.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[EricTheRed 0]

I have brought this possibility up before but consider for a moment the situation from teh Russian perspective.

The Russians are very proud, very resilient, and damn tough. They lost the cold war, their previous empire has fallen and yet they are sitting on some of the most abundant resources on the planet.

Their former enemy, who for years and years, snipped and snipped at them until they just flat out bankrupted their economy mostly with huge defense expenditures (at the neglect of the country's social and physical infrastructure) is now seen by many of the world as making a bold attempt at global empire.

I think it would be stratigecally advantageous for the Russians to keep our resources tied up in the Mideast, (and make a small profit at the same time).

We are so pre-occupied with this struggle, mother Russia might see is as a grand oppurtunity to regain their lost prominance in the world. After all, isn't that what we did to them?

illegible usually

[Snowflake 0]

Quote

We are so pre-occupied with this struggle, mother Russia might see is as a grand oppurtunity to regain their lost prominance in the world. After all, isn't that what we did to them?

Russia you have got to be joking.......One word for ya CHINA!!!!!!!!..........Theres gonna be some very serious competition for resources coming up.

[Trent 0]

Quote

This coming from a citizen of the country that sold and equipped the 2 countries it currently occupies, being Afganistan and Iraq?

Hmmm, yeah... we definitely sold them all of the M4's, M16's, and Abrams tanks they've been using against us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, no... they've been using RUSSIAN arms for the last 2 decades. Wonder how we sold them those? I also wonder how many of our aircraft they've shot down in Afghanistan with the Stingers we sold them while they were occupied by Russia? How many of the terrorists in Iraq are using the chemical weapons that the former government OBTAINED [edit: so SkyDekker can focus on the issue of the thread] from the US? Come on.

It only takes having one eye open to see where most of these countries really get equipped. But hey, if you're okay with that... cool. Your perceived irony in the situation does not make it okay TODAY for Russia to do it again, does it?

Oh, hello again!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

may have gotten from the US? Come on.

MAY have gotten from the US? Come on indeed.

[Trent 0]

I'm not 100% sure if there are any EU/UN embargoes agains Syria, but I did find some interesting stuff while looking for it....

http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/cat_syria.html
The guy has his references on each article

Why would anyone sell arms to a country that has avoided any non-proliferation treaties and has evidence against it for supplying Saddam with more than just pea-shooters? Who else are these fuckbags going to sell things to? It appears through some of the returns on google, (search: arms embargo syria) that the EU, China, and Russia seem to like Syria since it is a nice black hole for their weapons. They sell them to Syria, and don't give a rat's ass where they go from there... but they're pretty sure they don't stay in Syria.

As far as the "Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic" front... might be giving too much credit on the organizational scale... but from recent news and past actions... it would seem that each element has a hard on for fucking over the US for one reason or the other. The Russians would never work with the Chinese, most likely.

And for the "Jimmy Carter Certified" president of Venezuela... stopping our oil purchases from him would probably bankrupt the entire country... and with the situation as it is now, it'd probably go into a civil war. I guess if we can start drilling Alaska, we might be able to. All the Venezuelans I know are great, and they HATE Chavez. I'd be glad to have them come over here while their civil war goes on.

Oh, hello again!

[EricTheRed 0]

China.

Yea, maybe. But don't you think Russia see's that threat on the southern border as well? China is big, lot's of resources and people a-plenty that's for sure. The people though may actuall be a bit of an impediment for them.

Russia has vast reserves of oil, ore and timber, few environmental laws and a pertty good history of being able to exploit what's available. China is going to be needing oil, ore and timber. It's surely possible that China will end up on top based solely on their manufacturing capacity but I wouldn't count out the old soviets just yet.

After all, with global warming opening up all that pristine, undeveloped land up north, the Russian empire just might be eyeing another shot at the title.

I certainly don't expect them to just roll over and play nice - it just isn't in them. Getting the US out of the title bout by bankrupting our ecomony would just make it a little easier for them to focus on the real threat they have to the South.

One thing is clear. The US will not be the only big dog on the porch for much longer.

illegible usually

[Trent 0]

Quote

MAY have gotten from the US? Come on indeed.

Want me to edit that so you can make a valuable argument, or do you want to just snipe from the bushes? Losing sight of the forest here, pal.

Oh, hello again!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Getting the US out of the title bout by bankrupting our ecomony would just make it a little easier for them to focus on the real threat they have to the South.

What is this "title bout" stuff??? It makes no sense. you seem to assume that for one country to prosper, another country must suffer. Usually the reverse is true in a global economy. Prosperity is not a zero-sum game.

You haven't explained why the Russians would profit more from the USA's suffering.

We certainly don't prosper if the Russians suffer. In fact, if other countries are having troubles, it affects us negatively as well, because they won't buy as much.

The Russians would probably be more interested in getting their probs. with their oil industry solved so they could sell to us.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Want me to edit that so you can make a valuable argument, or do you want to just snipe from the bushes? Losing sight of the forest here, pal.

Just an interesting choice of words. The spin on this forum is more entertaining to watch than flipping between CNN and Fox News.

[Trent 0]

And you're every bit as guilty... but since you can't stay on topic, I've gone back to edit the 1 sentence that distracted you. Now can you contribute?

Oh, hello again!

[EricTheRed 0]

It really has nothing to do with the people. Just the "leaders" of the people. Do you actually think, for a moment, that the individuals that manage to get to the pinnacle of power lack egos?

History is full of people who let their need for personal aggrandizement lead them into battle when everyone involved would have been much better off just staying at home.

The people calling the shots -sometimes- do so just because they can.

Who's to know their true motivations? You and I are just pawns anyway, let's just enjoy our selves and go jump...

illegible usually

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I doubt it. Remember who invaded Afghanistan first?

England? Oh, wait, no, it was the Mongols, wasn't it? Errrrr, was Alexander there?

Just what I thought when I read that but I kinda figured he meant Russia & let it go.

• Quote