U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...gton/28weapons.html?hp

The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.




A couple of years ago when the U.S. sold f-16's and other advance weaponary, for the first time ever, to India people on this board thought it was such a wonderful idea. Especially because it would then force Pakistan to buy more weaponary to counter balance India.
They said win-win for the U.S.
Well, turns out that Musharraf was made to look a fool in the eyes of his country since his "allies" the U.S., to whom he sold his soul, was arming Pakistans enemies.
And so there were three attempts on Musharaffs life, and Musharraf had to essentially cede the northeast of his country to Al-Qaeda.
What possible reason, outside of lining the U.S. defense industry pockets, can there be to see this stuf to Saudi Arabia? They already have some of the most sophistacated weapons the U.S. makes. And they are one of the worst tyrannies on the planet. And their despotic rulers are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9-11, insofar as they permitted Al-Qaeda to recruit operatives and money from their country.
And of course for all the purchases made by Saudi Arabia the U.S. taxpayer will pay for equivalent or better arms to go to Israel.

 

[Aimster]

If we don't sell it to them they will buy from Russia which is selling to everyone these days.

There are reports Russia is selling 250 SU-30s to Iran and Mig-31s that are upgraded to "5th" generation technology to Syria which Syria will turn over to Iran.

The days of Russia holding back arms is over. I wonder why.

Better for the U.S to control the Saudi military than the Russian military.

 

[Aimster]

Also I don't know why this hasn't made the Western media..

Saudi Arabia has an extensive nuclear program going on now with the help of Pakistan which has sent over scientists.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Also I don't know why this hasn't made the Western media..

Saudi Arabia has an extensive nuclear program going on now with the help of Pakistan which has sent over scientists.

The Saudis are buddies. Or were. Since they asked us to leave, I'd say fuck 'em.

 

[Blain]

Selling the GE plastics division to a Saudi company is one thing.
But an arms deal like this should be handled in a "back door" method, through a third country. That way Americans get to work to build the equipment, the Saudis get their weapons and some third country gets a "free pass" card to use in the future.
Everybody Wins! :thumbsup::laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

This is somewhat related to the other thread now running. With the common thesis that the Saudis are none too happy with whats happening in Iraq. And to some extent this arms deal throws them something to be happy about.

But face the facts, the Saudis have been very loyal US allies and have kept oil prices from going through the roof. But we are giving the Saudis a real bitter pill to swallow in Iraq. And we are perhaps making a mistake the Brits were smart enough to not make when they created Iraq out of the bits and pieces of old empires after WW1. Namely we are Turning Iraq over to certain Shia control and the Brits were at least aware that if they didn't leave Iraq in Sunni hands, it would totally isolate Saudi Arabia. And worse yet, instead of turning
over Iraq over to the Shia in the promised controlled and peaceful manner, we have a complete Frankenstein monster now running a muck. Not only are the Iraqi Sunnis being butchered and outclassed by the larger Shia majority, the Iraqi Sunni are the group that gets exactly no benefits from the new Iraq. And for them its a lose lose lose proposition.
And now the Iraqi Sunnis are being somewhat asked to sell tickets for their own execution.

And for the Saudis which is almost 100% Sunni, this can't sit well. Of course they will help their fellow Sunnis with at least some money to arm and defend themselves. That if nothing else plays for time while the larger fear is being realized. Namely that a Shia Curtain now
totally isolates Saudi Arabia from the rest the mid-east. And that because Iran is Shia and Iraq is now an entire pig in the poke, that effective leaves the Saudis no reliable land link
to the rest of the mid-east.

And worse yet, the Saudis can't just assume Uncle Sammy will protect me. Because Saudi Arabia, as the fiercely prideful birthplace of Islam, is also the only place where the Wahabi sect has much traction. But the cardinal Wahabi taboo never to be violated is a thou shalt not base foreign troops on Saudi soil. And you guessed it, this is exactly what GHB did in gulf war one, and its exactly what radicalized Ossama Bin Laden. As Ossama was transformed from local hero to openly breaking with the Saudi royal family when the House of Faud allowed US troops to be based on Saudi soil. And lest any underestimate Wahabi support among the vast bulk of the Saudi population, lets just say that the house of Faud
could be skating on deceptively thin ice. Any sudden shock could break that ice and events in Iraq could be that earthquake epicenter.

And like Iran could suddenly become a new and very likely hostile nation very rapidly. And now to pacify the Saudi royal family we bribe them with weapons that will fall into the hands of potential hostile power if the house of Faud falls. When the generic equivalent happened in Iran after the fall of the Shah, the foolish mullahs of Iran let a pretty decent military fall into rust and ruin. And paid dearly for the mistake when Saddam invaded. But Iran has a long tradition of not waging wars of aggression. And so do the Saudis. But the end question is, what happens if the house of Saud falls? Will an isolationist Saudi Arabia let the weapons rust or could they start playing the have gun will travel card like their ancestors did over 1200 years ago?

So cheer up folks---not only did GWB bet his Presidency on Iraq---he bet the entire stability of the mid-east as well. And when you have a potential firestorm brewing, you send more fuel for the fire. So when it blows up, it really blows up.

Thus decides the decider.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
This is somewhat related to the other thread now running. With the common thesis that the Saudis are none too happy with whats happening in Iraq. And to some extent this arms deal throws them something to be happy about.

But face the facts, the Saudis have been very loyal US allies and have kept oil prices from going through the roof. But we are giving the Saudis a real bitter pill to swallow in Iraq. And we are perhaps making a mistake the Brits were smart enough to not make when they created Iraq out of the bits and pieces of old empires after WW1. Namely we are Turning Iraq over to certain Shia control and the Brits were at least aware that if they didn't leave Iraq in Sunni hands, it would totally isolate Saudi Arabia. And worse yet, instead of turning
over Iraq over to the Shia in the promised controlled and peaceful manner, we have a complete Frankenstein monster now running a muck. Not only are the Iraqi Sunnis being butchered and outclassed by the larger Shia majority, the Iraqi Sunni are the group that gets exactly no benefits from the new Iraq. And for them its a lose lose lose proposition.
And now the Iraqi Sunnis are being somewhat asked to sell tickets for their own execution.

And for the Saudis which is almost 100% Sunni, this can't sit well. Of course they will help their fellow Sunnis with at least some money to arm and defend themselves. That if nothing else plays for time while the larger fear is being realized. Namely that a Shia Curtain now
totally isolates Saudi Arabia from the rest the mid-east. And that because Iran is Shia and Iraq is now an entire pig in the poke, that effective leaves the Saudis no reliable land link
to the rest of the mid-east.

And worse yet, the Saudis can't just assume Uncle Sammy will protect me. Because Saudi Arabia, as the fiercely prideful birthplace of Islam, is also the only place where the Wahabi sect has much traction. But the cardinal Wahabi taboo never to be violated is a thou shalt not base foreign troops on Saudi soil. And you guessed it, this is exactly what GHB did in gulf war one, and its exactly what radicalized Ossama Bin Laden. As Ossama was transformed from local hero to openly breaking with the Saudi royal family when the House of Faud allowed US troops to be based on Saudi soil. And lest any underestimate Wahabi support among the vast bulk of the Saudi population, lets just say that the house of Faud
could be skating on deceptively thin ice. Any sudden shock could break that ice and events in Iraq could be that earthquake epicenter.

And like Iran could suddenly become a new and very likely hostile nation very rapidly. And now to pacify the Saudi royal family we bribe them with weapons that will fall into the hands of potential hostile power if the house of Faud falls. When the generic equivalent happened in Iran after the fall of the Shah, the foolish mullahs of Iran let a pretty decent military fall into rust and ruin. And paid dearly for the mistake when Saddam invaded. But Iran has a long tradition of not waging wars of aggression. And so do the Saudis. But the end question is, what happens if the house of Saud falls? Will an isolationist Saudi Arabia let the weapons rust or could they start playing the have gun will travel card like their ancestors did over 1200 years ago?

So cheer up folks---not only did GWB bet his Presidency on Iraq---he bet the entire stability of the mid-east as well. And when you have a potential firestorm brewing, you send more fuel for the fire. So when it blows up, it really blows up.

Thus decides the decider.

Haha, so true.

 

[Dissipate]

No one here has mentioned the fact that Saudi Arabia has essentially dehumanized all of their women.

 

[iamaelephant]

$20 billion
$30.4 billion

That sort of money could do a lot of good in the world. Sigh.

 

[GrGr]

In the mean time the Shiite part of the Iraqi government is extremely pissed off with the US that the US is failing to provide basic arms to the Iraqis (apart from the Sunnis). The Iraqi government has had to buy Chinese arms.

Sami al-Askari, an key aide to al-Maliki and a member of the prime minister?s Dawa Party, said the policy of including one-time Sunni insurgents in the security forces shows Petraeus has a ?real bias and it bothers the Shiites. It is possible that we may demand his removal.?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/ap_petraeusmaliki_070727/
">link</a>

 

[CanOWorms]

And their despotic rulers are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9-11

Sorry, but the Germans and their barbaric laws and domestic policies are more responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks than SA... and I bet you would not object to selling weapons to the German regime.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

And their despotic rulers are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9-11

Sorry, but the Germans and their barbaric laws and domestic policies are more responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks than SA... and I bet you would not object to selling weapons to the German regime.

I don't recall seeing 'Fritz or Gunther' on the list of terrorist hijacking suspects on the 9-11 airplane passenger lists.

I, for one, do not believe that we should be selling ANY of our weaponry to any other country in the world for any purpose . .
too often we end up on the wrong end of things, it's that 'Blow-Back' thing, you know.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

And their despotic rulers are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9-11

Sorry, but the Germans and their barbaric laws and domestic policies are more responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks than SA... and I bet you would not object to selling weapons to the German regime.

What are you talking about - I really am curious.

 

[theeedude]

If Iran really is getting 250 SU-30s and 20 IL-78 tankers, it will be a very serious threat to Saudi Arabia, and others in the region. That is some serious firepower. In fact, the one fighter in our arsenal that is superior to the SU-30s is the F-22, so it may very well be offered to Saudi Arabia at some point in not too distant future.
It wouldn't surprise me if this starts a middle eastern arms race.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If Iran really is getting 250 SU-30s and 20 IL-78 tankers, it will be a very serious threat to Saudi Arabia, and others in the region. That is some serious firepower. In fact, the one fighter in our arsenal that is superior to the SU-30s is the F-22, so it may very well be offered to Saudi Arabia at some point in not too distant future.
It wouldn't surprise me if this starts a middle eastern arms race.

The Su-30's can't do squat without airborne radar and trained pilots. They are really no threat to SA. SA has highly trained pilots and AWACS. The Iranians would lose all their planes in about 5 minutes.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: senseamp
If Iran really is getting 250 SU-30s and 20 IL-78 tankers, it will be a very serious threat to Saudi Arabia, and others in the region. That is some serious firepower. In fact, the one fighter in our arsenal that is superior to the SU-30s is the F-22, so it may very well be offered to Saudi Arabia at some point in not too distant future.
It wouldn't surprise me if this starts a middle eastern arms race.

The Su-30's can't do squat without airborne radar and trained pilots. They are really no threat to SA. SA has highly trained pilots and AWACS. The Iranians would lose all their planes in about 5 minutes.

Iran doesn't have AWACS? Wouldn't surprise me if they made a separate deal with Russia for those. Also, they have very long range S-200 SAMs to take out AWACS planes.

 

[Aimster]

Iran has AWACS.

It doesn't matter because the SU-30 would pretty much slap everything in SA inventory anyways.
The reason the U.S is giving SA arms is because they do not want Russia to arm SA.

SA can buy a massive amount of Russian military equipment for $20B. Buying from the U.S allows us to control what we sell them and what we will not.
We basically sell them defensive only military equipment. We sell Israel the full package.

This deal has nothing to do with Iran. It has to do with controlling the power in the M.E where Israel is always number 1.

 

[kage69]

Because Saudi Arabia, as the fiercely prideful birthplace of Islam, is also the only place where the Wahabi sect has much traction. But the cardinal Wahabi taboo never to be violated is a thou shalt not base foreign troops on Saudi soil.

I agree with what you're saying Lemon, but the above isn't 100% correct I'm sorry to say. Qatar is not only a Wahabi state, it doesn't have the taboo you're correctly attributing to the Sa'udis.

Having spent some time out there, I liken the Qatari as proud religious conservatives who for the most part know when to check their beliefs at the door when dealing with current day realities. The Sa'udis on the other hand remind me of hardcore evangelical Southern Baptists, insisting on viewing everything through the lense of their beliefs and pompously regarding all others as misled, at best.
Even though they are both Wahabi, there is still quite a bit of difference between how Qatar's al-Thanis and SA's al-Sa'ud conduct themselves.

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
$20 billion
$30.4 billion

That sort of money could do a lot of good in the world. Sigh.

Except for one main difference, one is being paid to us, while the other is going to be paid by us, ponder that for a little bit too.

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has AWACS.

It doesn't matter because the SU-30 would pretty much slap everything in SA inventory anyways.
The reason the U.S is giving SA arms is because they do not want Russia to arm SA.

SA can buy a massive amount of Russian military equipment for $20B. Buying from the U.S allows us to control what we sell them and what we will not.
We basically sell them defensive only military equipment. We sell Israel the full package.

This deal has nothing to do with Iran. It has to do with controlling the power in the M.E where Israel is always number 1.

It's very true that our government would go bananas should an influential country like SA strikes deals with Russia, Russia would give SA the golden member package before you can say Putin!

Concerning Iran having AWACS, I don't believe so, I know they have been using their F-14's for air surveillance on some occasions in the gulf war but have AWACS?? not sure about that one Aimster ....

 

[Aimster]

They got the AWACS from Iraq.

I think they have 2 as a result of them deflecting into Iran during the Gulf War.
If they are operational or not is another question.

All that is shown is the aircraft sitting in an Iranian airbase (from pics)

 

[DarkThinker]

Originally posted by: Aimster
They got the AWACS from Iraq.

I think they have 2 as a result of them deflecting into Iran during the Gulf War.
If they are operational or not is another question.

All that is shown is the aircraft sitting in an Iranian airbase (from pics)

Well except for one problem there, planes like that require a good deal of maintenance by trained professionals and in addition to parts both electronic and mechanic that I am sure would only be available with the US's consent, and if those planes are from the gulf war era, I doubt they will be operational anytime soon.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

And their despotic rulers are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9-11

Sorry, but the Germans and their barbaric laws and domestic policies are more responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks than SA... and I bet you would not object to selling weapons to the German regime.

What are you talking about - I really am curious.

At least mfs378 is asking the right question! But there are a large number of legitimate ans illegitimate reasons Al-Quida and others are angry about Western policies. And to limit it to just German actions is a wee mite narrow minded.

But the one sure errors is to blame the Saudis because most of the suicide bombers were Saudis. The point is that the Al-Quida leadership could pick and choose a wide variety of nationalities of origin in selecting the personnel it used in 911, and deliberatively picked Saudis to try to screw up the US Saudi alliance. The fact that our leadership was wise enough to see through this somewhat transparent ploy is and remains just about the lone thing the US got correct after 911.

And to a great extent, I don't think we in the US are doing any deep thinking about why we were suddenly attacked after being ignored as a target for yo many years. Unlike Europe which has been catching hell from various terrorists for the past forty years, that is an rather nice position to be in. And more importantly, being ignored as a terrorist target is the position to STAY IN if at all possible.

But at least in my humble opinion, we have missed the two main reasons why we suddenly got attacked on US soil. (1) We ignore the fact that terrorists are extremely unhappy with international trade policy. And more specifically the world trade center who HEADQUARTERS JUST HAPPENED TO BE LOCATED IN THE US. And perhaps, if those headquarters had been located somewhere else, the 911 attack would have targeted that somewhere else. And we also ignore that terrorists carried out many minor and unsuccessful attacks against the twin towers in years past. In short terrorists were attacking the symbol of the world trade policy even if they could not force a change in those trade policies. And on 911, they really killed the symbol. (2) That a side reason to use Saudis and drive a wedge in the Saudi US alliance was a purely personal snit of Ossama Bin Laden's. we tend to ill understand. But the US and the Saudis did an extremely offensive thing and violated a taboo during Gulf war one. And the US somewhat foolishly violated that taboo for little gain. But the sin in question was in violated the prime directive of what amounts to the Saudi national version of Islamic practice. Or AKA whabism which is absolute in its prohibition against BASING ANY FOREIGN TROOPS ON SAUDI SOIL. And Ossama may be angry but not livid at the US for forcing Saddam out of Kuwait. But he was a hoppin hyperspastic mad over the Saudi decision to allow the US to base coalition forces on Saudi soil. And it totally radicalized Ossama.

So I for one am extremely skeptical about this never ending war on terror GWB&co. is trying to sell us. And even more skeptical that they hate us for our freedoms.

And now that the world trade center symbol is now taken out and honor is satisfied on us violating the Wahabi commandments, it would be nice to slip back into being off the terrorists radar screen.

But that is perhaps the big GWB mistake in this whole bogus war on terrorism. We may not have been on the terrorist radar screen pre-911 simple because terrorists had few grievances with the USA. But the hyperspastic over reaction of GWB&co after 911 NOW has to make the USA the biggest blip on any internationals terrorist's radar screen.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
$20 billion
$30.4 billion

That sort of money could do a lot of good in the world. Sigh.

Instead of arming Jihad. Christ, how stupid can we be?

I think that Islamic militant camp in New York state would like some 100 million of that 20 billion. You know, for those ?peaceful? training sessions.