Parašė senasnamas
Rodyti pranešimą
Taigi čia Vakarų draugai 
. Svarbiausia "demokratizuoti" visokias libijas, sirijas, irakus, kurios niekam nekėlė jokio pavojaus. Prie jų prisikabinta vien dėl to, kad buvo silpnos, bet nepaklusnios ir kažkuo svarbios geopolitiškai.
. Svarbiausia "demokratizuoti" visokias libijas, sirijas, irakus, kurios niekam nekėlė jokio pavojaus. Prie jų prisikabinta vien dėl to, kad buvo silpnos, bet nepaklusnios ir kažkuo svarbios geopolitiškai.
Del Saudu karo nusikaltimu ir nusikaltimu pries zmogiskuma vykdomu Jemene, pagaliau JAV uzblokavo ginklu pardavimus Saudams
U.S. Blocks Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia Amid Concerns Over Yemen War
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has deepened its rift with its Gulf allies over the ongoing conflict in Yemen, blocking a transfer of precision munitions to Saudi Arabia because of concerns about civilian casualties that administration officials attribute to poor targeting.
Administration officials said on Tuesday that the White House had made the decision to block the sale by Raytheon of about 16,000 guided munitions kits, which upgrade so-called dumb bombs to smart bombs that can more accurately hit targets. The kits, if purchased over the life of the proposed contract, are valued around $350 million.
But administration officials said that upgrading the bombs would not help targeting if the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen did not choose its targets properly, an ongoing concern since the start of bombing campaign. This year, the United States blocked a sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia because of similar concerns.
The administration’s decision is a setback for Raytheon, which officials say pushed hard for approval of the sale. Administration officials said that Raytheon’s chief executive, Thomas A. Kennedy, personally lobbied Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, and also reached out to Secretary of State John Kerry and Susan Rice, the national security adviser. It was unclear if he connected with Mr. Kerry or Ms. Rice.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that the Obama administration has “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” in the Yemeni conflict. Administration officials pointed to the bombing in October of a funeral hall in Yemen that killed over 100 people and wounded hundreds of others. The Saudi-led military coalition involved in Yemen’s war acknowledged that one of its jets carried out the attack, for which it blamed faulty intelligence.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has deepened its rift with its Gulf allies over the ongoing conflict in Yemen, blocking a transfer of precision munitions to Saudi Arabia because of concerns about civilian casualties that administration officials attribute to poor targeting.
Administration officials said on Tuesday that the White House had made the decision to block the sale by Raytheon of about 16,000 guided munitions kits, which upgrade so-called dumb bombs to smart bombs that can more accurately hit targets. The kits, if purchased over the life of the proposed contract, are valued around $350 million.
But administration officials said that upgrading the bombs would not help targeting if the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen did not choose its targets properly, an ongoing concern since the start of bombing campaign. This year, the United States blocked a sale of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia because of similar concerns.
The administration’s decision is a setback for Raytheon, which officials say pushed hard for approval of the sale. Administration officials said that Raytheon’s chief executive, Thomas A. Kennedy, personally lobbied Tony Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, and also reached out to Secretary of State John Kerry and Susan Rice, the national security adviser. It was unclear if he connected with Mr. Kerry or Ms. Rice.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that the Obama administration has “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” in the Yemeni conflict. Administration officials pointed to the bombing in October of a funeral hall in Yemen that killed over 100 people and wounded hundreds of others. The Saudi-led military coalition involved in Yemen’s war acknowledged that one of its jets carried out the attack, for which it blamed faulty intelligence.
Obama Shouldn’t Trade Cluster Bombs for Saudi Arabia’s Friendship
When President Obama visits Saudi Arabia this week for a meeting with representatives from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, he should avoid doing what he did at Camp David last May, the last time he met with them: promise more arms sales. Since Mr. Obama hosted that meeting, the United States has offered over $33 billion in weaponry to its Persian Gulf allies, with the bulk of it going to Saudi Arabia. The results have been deadly.
The Saudi-American arms deals are a continuation of a booming business that has developed between Washington and Riyadh during the Obama years. In the first six years of the Obama administration, the United States entered into agreements to transfer nearly $50 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, with tens of billions of dollars of additional offers in the pipeline.
The Pentagon claims that these arms transfers to Saudi Arabia “improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” Recent Saudi actions suggest otherwise.
A prime example of what’s wrong with unbridled American weapons transfers to the Saudi government is the Saudi-led war in Yemen. According to the United Nations, more than 3,200 civilians have been killed since Saudi bombing began last March. A majority of these deaths have been a result of airstrikes, many of which have been carried out with aircraft, bombs and missiles supplied by the United States and Britain, including United States-supplied cluster bombs.
The use of cluster bombs is of particular concern. These munitions are banned by an international treaty — a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed. The United States also provides logistical support to the Royal Saudi Air Force for its airstrikes in Yemen.
When President Obama visits Saudi Arabia this week for a meeting with representatives from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, he should avoid doing what he did at Camp David last May, the last time he met with them: promise more arms sales. Since Mr. Obama hosted that meeting, the United States has offered over $33 billion in weaponry to its Persian Gulf allies, with the bulk of it going to Saudi Arabia. The results have been deadly.
The Saudi-American arms deals are a continuation of a booming business that has developed between Washington and Riyadh during the Obama years. In the first six years of the Obama administration, the United States entered into agreements to transfer nearly $50 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, with tens of billions of dollars of additional offers in the pipeline.
The Pentagon claims that these arms transfers to Saudi Arabia “improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” Recent Saudi actions suggest otherwise.
A prime example of what’s wrong with unbridled American weapons transfers to the Saudi government is the Saudi-led war in Yemen. According to the United Nations, more than 3,200 civilians have been killed since Saudi bombing began last March. A majority of these deaths have been a result of airstrikes, many of which have been carried out with aircraft, bombs and missiles supplied by the United States and Britain, including United States-supplied cluster bombs.
The use of cluster bombs is of particular concern. These munitions are banned by an international treaty — a treaty that neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia has signed. The United States also provides logistical support to the Royal Saudi Air Force for its airstrikes in Yemen.
U.S. and U.K. Continue to Actively Participate in Saudi War Crimes, Targeting of Yemeni Civilians
From the start of the hideous Saudi bombing campaign against Yemen 18 months ago, two countries have played active, vital roles in enabling the carnage: the U.S. and U.K. The atrocities committed by the Saudis would have been impossible without their steadfast, aggressive support.
The Obama administration “has offered to sell $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous U.S. administration,” as The Guardian reported this week, and also provides extensive surveillance technology. As The Intercept documented in April, “In his first five years as president, Obama sold $30 billion more in weapons than President Bush did during his entire eight years as commander in chief.”
Most important, according to the Saudi foreign minister, although it is the Saudis who have ultimate authority to choose targets, “British and American military officials are in the command and control center for Saudi airstrikes on Yemen” and “have access to lists of targets.” In sum, while this bombing campaign is invariably described in Western media outlets as “Saudi-led,” the U.S. and U.K. are both central, indispensable participants. As the New York Times editorial page put it in August: “The United States is complicit in this carnage,” while The Guardian editorialized that “Britain bears much responsibility for this suffering.”
From the start, the U.S.- and U.K.-backed Saudis have indiscriminately and at times deliberately bombed civilians, killing thousands of innocent people. From Yemen, Iona Craig and Alex Potter have reported extensively for The Intercept on the widespread civilian deaths caused by this bombing campaign. As the Saudis continued to recklessly and intentionally bomb civilians, the American and British weapons kept pouring into Riyadh, ensuring that the civilian massacres continued. Every once and awhile, when a particularly gruesome mass killing made its way into the news, Obama and various British officials would issue cursory, obligatory statements expressing “concern,” then go right back to fueling the attacks.
From the start of the hideous Saudi bombing campaign against Yemen 18 months ago, two countries have played active, vital roles in enabling the carnage: the U.S. and U.K. The atrocities committed by the Saudis would have been impossible without their steadfast, aggressive support.
The Obama administration “has offered to sell $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous U.S. administration,” as The Guardian reported this week, and also provides extensive surveillance technology. As The Intercept documented in April, “In his first five years as president, Obama sold $30 billion more in weapons than President Bush did during his entire eight years as commander in chief.”
Most important, according to the Saudi foreign minister, although it is the Saudis who have ultimate authority to choose targets, “British and American military officials are in the command and control center for Saudi airstrikes on Yemen” and “have access to lists of targets.” In sum, while this bombing campaign is invariably described in Western media outlets as “Saudi-led,” the U.S. and U.K. are both central, indispensable participants. As the New York Times editorial page put it in August: “The United States is complicit in this carnage,” while The Guardian editorialized that “Britain bears much responsibility for this suffering.”
From the start, the U.S.- and U.K.-backed Saudis have indiscriminately and at times deliberately bombed civilians, killing thousands of innocent people. From Yemen, Iona Craig and Alex Potter have reported extensively for The Intercept on the widespread civilian deaths caused by this bombing campaign. As the Saudis continued to recklessly and intentionally bomb civilians, the American and British weapons kept pouring into Riyadh, ensuring that the civilian massacres continued. Every once and awhile, when a particularly gruesome mass killing made its way into the news, Obama and various British officials would issue cursory, obligatory statements expressing “concern,” then go right back to fueling the attacks.
Comment