mgcolby

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was sick over the weekend (but it allowed me to watch the draft from start to finish without the wife saying a word )

I think we are decades if not a century away from a "true" democracy in the middle east. Religion is going to always play a prevalent role in their society which is always going to favor the men as long as the religion is not changed, look at Afghanistan. We can't change their culture. But by using a widestroking brush and labeling a country and its people terrorists based on geography or the fact that terrorists come from those countries is not a wise choice in battling terrorism, when the government is cooperating with us. That should be limited to the biggest offenders Iran and Syria (I would love to say Saudi but that is a huge mess and wouldn't be 100% true), we have had home grown terrorists in our country who have joined the Jihad morons. But we need the cooperation of the moderate countries to defeat the radical elements within their religion, that is a fact. I am not saying we should do that by rewarding them with US Military contracts, but we have to have a fair process (maybe a more stringent process then some countries but fair nonetheless) that allows our "allies" equal opportunities to bid on contracts. Personally I would prefer to limit military contracts to US companies, but that is a different argument. I am not for middle east companies winning military contracts, nor am I for non-US companies winning contracts. I was simply pointing out that this is not something new and I thought I would let people in on how the contract world is. I am also against labelling a country who has been one of our biggest allies thus far on the war on terrorism a terrorist country.

__________________
Hey, Bill you're wasting Brady's prime years......oh wait....
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.