Sale of the Century




Sale of the Century

By: Kian Mokhtari

The Saudi rearmament plan seems to have gone well enough to provide the kingdom with new fighter jets, helicopter gunships and utility helicopters. The $60 billion procurement from Washington is the biggest in America's history.

The funds provided by Riyadh will go some way in assisting the beleaguered US defense industry back into the black, not to mention provide the US government with much needed revenues to put its economic house back in order. But sixty billion dollars is a long way off from the roughly sixty trillion-dollar debts incurred by Washington.

The hardware in question has been downgraded to appease Tel Aviv, which has received similar but more capable versions of the aircraft from the US. However the problem for Saudi Arabia remains a lack of local knowledge and ability to service and overhaul the equipment in question. An overreliance on foreign specialists and technicians will remain Riyadh's Achilles heel for the foreseeable future.

Also the much more up to date and stealth air superiority US fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II are strangely missing from the Saudi kingdom's wish list; while Tel Aviv's procurement of the Lightning VTOL fighter has even been funded by Washington.

Riyadh has traditionally received the very latest in weaponry from its American and European defense industry patrons. Raptor –for all intents and purposes- looks like a revamped, stealthy F-15 Eagle. It is a very capable machine designed to operate as a cog in a complex defensive network that include military satellites and ground signal stations. It is odd that the US has limited the production of F-22 Raptors to the US Air Force requirements. Although less capable versions may in time be sold to countries like Canada and Australia, the shift away from the sales of the very latest in the US arsenal even to allies like Arabia finally signals the death nail of the "Magnificent Seven" -let's help the peasants- policy, among the US politicians.

Washington is holding back on the sales of certain hardware in its arsenal even to its closest allies and brothers in arms in the English-speaking world at a time when Raptors could help fill the fiscal void in America's defense industrial complex. This does signal fresh strategic thinking but more importantly a shift away from "let's just keep going" –at any cost- mindset that has dominated the US foreign political thinking since General MacArthur's bash in Korea, back in the early 1950s.

A very strange state of affairs is taking hold within the US war machine's workings. Fighter and bomber squadrons are being disbanded at an unprecedented rate, logistics are being cut down and certain other military projects are being abandoned. Is this a sign of the sheer scale of Washington's economic hardship at the moment or can it be interpreted as an awareness in the US of the shape of things to come in terms of its future strategic abilities?

We are staring at a global economic watershed at present and it appears from the US maneuverings that America does not have the ability to forecast its own financial future and security with a clear enough degree of certainty. We can speculate that there is a financial grand plan in the making but unlike before the idea has not originated in the English-speaking world. So its details and parameters still need to be worked out.

In the meantime a stalemated state of affairs on all fronts will prevail where there are no fully fledged and firm drives in any direction in particular. What could possibly provide an answer is the UN Security Council permanent members-wide drive for alternative and renewable fuel technologies. Money from weapons' industry cutbacks is being channeled to green energies.

In such an environment it is very likely that the Western world's next pounce for global power is likely to arrive when reliance on fossil fuels has been reduced to a bare minimum domestically. But unlike in the past, the US will not be willing to tolerate equal partners in its next grand scheme for things; not even from among the Western ranks. Washington, it appears, has decided to OPENLY declare who will be first among equals.

+ Nader Mokhtari ; ۸:٥٧ ‎ق.ظ ; جمعه ۳٠ مهر ،۱۳۸٩
    پيام هاي ديگران ()   

Openly Racist Oath



Openly Racist Oath

By: Kian Mokhtari

Headlines have recently carried particularly bad news for human rights in the occupied Palestine. It appears that Jewish settlers have been setting fire to Palestinian owned olive groves in the West Bank. The act is called a "scorched earth" policy and we have been taught that it is one of the major crimes committed against human communities.

The siege of Gaza by Israel has been compared to the Nazi siege of the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII on many occasions by human rights observers. And what's worse is that the war on the tiny overcrowded enclave has also been said to have parallels to the brutality witnessed during the Nazi blitz against the residents of Warsaw's Jewish Ghetto.

The latest demand by Tel Aviv for an oath of loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish state" is also believed to be an openly racist act by rights groups. The infamous parallel being the oath of loyalty to the Third Reich imposed on the German rank and file by the Nazis. In the event Germany's Luftwaffe refused to swear an oath and since Hitler needed an air force the Nazi Party's Gestapo secret police turned a blind eye.

So does the term racist only apply when there are atrocities committed against one particular group of people in this world?

Denial of pastures to the "heathen" Native Americans finished them off to make way for Jewish-Christian European settlers. The strange thing is that all monotheist religions preach tolerance and say that a person's beliefs, race, creed and color cannot form the basis for discrimination. As a matter of fact nothing can justify discrimination of any kind because discrimination is a negative act by definition.

And yet we are getting very confused here because we are told that a Caucasian or African racist is wrong but a Jewish racist is right. In the US during the 1970s, it was as a big taboo to be a member of the Pan African "Black Panthers" -because their ideology was essentially racist.

So nobody dares be a racist other than the boys and girls in Tel Aviv and their little helpers abroad.

That is a very odd rule of thumb!

In fact a thumb has to be very crooked indeed to cater for the contradictory rules that have been drummed into us since childhood by our caring Western brothers.

Then there is the "look after number one" rule. It says that no matter what, you have to look after yourself and your own first to be able to do any good in this world. It is also a rule that the Arab governments keep overlooking with regards to Palestine. Now forgive us for attempting to stereotype Palestinians as Arabs but if they are Arabs as we are told, why is it that Arab League meeting after Arab League meeting has failed to do anything to assist the downtrodden population living under Israeli occupation?

So "look after number one" also does not apply to anyone outside of the Zionist theosophy. "ROIIIIGHT" said Doctor Evil to No.2…

There is another rule called the rule of the jungle –not be confused with Disney's "Junglebook" animation. The rule says that basically there are no rules other than the survival of the fittest. Now this latter rule appears to apply most realistically to the world we live in. And if that is the case why should anyone want an expensive, oversized and corrupt world body with a charter full of inspirational words that are completely void of meaning, when it comes to its overpriced actions?

The world on its current course, is heading toward a very unpleasant eventuality. Let us hope that such an eventuality is not essentially called "the reality"

"You may say I'm a dreamer; but I'm not the only one." John Lennon

+ Nader Mokhtari ; ۸:٤۱ ‎ب.ظ ; چهارشنبه ٢۸ مهر ،۱۳۸٩
    پيام هاي ديگران ()