quote:

the Bush administration announced plans last week to sell $20 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations

ChicagoTribune

quote:

There is no hint of a coherent policy. Under the president, 80 percent of nations that received arms from America in 2003 were classified by the State Department as being either undemocratic or having a poor human rights record, which covers all the Arab countries in the new deal. Israel is a democracy, but in its 2006 country profile, the State Department cites a source that determined that 322 of 660 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military "were not engaged in hostilities when killed and 141 were minors."

This latest deal is so over the top that Israel is not opposing the $33 billion to Arab states because it gets $30 billion to maintain its military edge. En route to the Middle East this week, Rice denied that the military package was an attempt to buy allies with bombs. She also denied that the United States was relaxing its standards for democracy and human rights.

But a report by the Economist Intelligence Unit said that "the weak response in the Middle East to pressures for democratization, as well as the experience with imported political change in Iraq, is making a mockery of George Bush's 'freedom' agenda." Reuters this week quoted Paul Salem, director of the Middle East Center at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as saying that the arms deal meant Bush's effort to spread democracy in the region was "more than dead."

Berrigan said, "We've created a black hole in what used to be a country and this is supposed to be the solution? More military aid and more high-tech weaponry? The best case scenario is that Congress exercises its power and keeps this from happening."

BostonGlobe

As always, this is a cash pipeline from the American taxpayer directly to American weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with ensuring peace.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gnarlodious,

quote: "It has northing to do with ensuring peace."

You can say that again

What it really has to do with is confronting Iran. And while the US is arming the Sunni Gulf States (and even more for Israel & Egypt), the US is also arming Sunni militias inside Iraq, much to the consternation of the Maliki-led Shia.

I predict soon a break in relations between the majority Shia in Iraq (a break with their leadership in the Iraqi parliament) and the U.S. The U.S. may redeploy troops out of Iraq, continue to arm the Sunni militias, and then attack Iran.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BrentBoz-Hell,

I posted this on the other thread, but I hope you two can read it.
The US-Saudi arms deal - a view from Israel

I think with respect to Israel vs. the rest of the middle eastern nations, Israel is seen as a more worthy recipient of military aid because they at least have their own military industry. They are not known for the waste and self-aggrandizement that the Arab dictators are known for, and the Israelis are very technologically advanced in their own military field. Because of this, they are seen as a better value, while the Arab nations are simply seen as a market.

In any case, it would defeat the purpose to give weapons to only one party in a conflict.

quote: "In any case, it would defeat the purpose to give weapons to only one party in a conflict."

By this I assume you mean the US is arming all potential adversaries of Iran

quote:

Originally posted by BrentBozo:
quote: "In any case, it would defeat the purpose to give weapons to only one party in a conflict."

By this I assume you mean the US is arming all potential adversaries of Iran

Hmmm. What's the purpose? I had a similar question that I didn't ask, in the "Who wants an escalation" thread. The proposition was something like, "this war may be winnable." And I was wondering exactly what we'll win. Saddam Hussein is history; what's left?

[edit] Here it is; the comment was "a war we just might win."

Well, a militaristic state has to rely on an arms industry remaining profitable and capable of operating at full capacity...including research.

Foreign arms deals do a lot to ensure this. Keeps business booming. How much is foreign policy...how much is subsidy? Who really knows? The more people you arm, the more likely an outbreak of hostilities. Such things tend to keep an arms business thriving.

A country that utilizes its military as an arm of foreign policy has to ensure the productive capabilities of supporting that military.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Kate, stable democratic trading partners.
Did you read the article?

"stable democratic trading partners"

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait?

This deal's ALL ABOUT Iran. Even Bush Admnin. people say the purpose is to counteract increase in Iranian influence. They outright admit it.

Oman?

quote:

Originally posted by BrentBozo:
"stable democratic trading partners"
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait?
This deal's ALL ABOUT Iran. Even Bush Admnin. people say the purpose is to counteract increase in Iranian influence. They outright admit it.

Sorry, but I guess I missed your questions.
First it was in response to Kates comments of:

quote:

And I was wondering exactly what we'll win. Saddam Hussein is history; what's left?

[edit] Here it is; the comment was "a war we just might win."

So Kate was talking about what did we "win" in the war in Iraq. Thus my answer. Your other choices you gave were never our adversaries and thus never fought them at least directly in the near past. I should note that yes we (a multi-coalition forces and paid for by a broad group) fought one war more or less 'over' Kuwait. While this is a far cry from a Democracy it has made steps toward universal suffrage.

So your list is more of stable trading partners classification.

Haven't all the Sunni Gulf States already been trading partners of the US for quite some time?

I think the outcome of the US involvement in Iraq is expansion of Iranian influence through the alliance with the majority in Iraq.

And so this brings us to the (alleged) rationale for the arms deal: it seems to me that the underlying reason must be the bolstering of defenses (mostly anti-missile) of the Sunni Gulf States, in anticipation of Iranian retaliation after a US bombing-strike against Iran.

Does the US seriously believe Iran would launch on any of the Sunni Gulf States as a first strike? I don't think so. Why would Iran do this, when to do so would absolutely guarantee massive US response?

As an adjunct I would pose this: what does the US think Iran can really accomplish in the region, as there's no way Iran can extend influence over the vastly-majority Sunni Gulf States, short of Iranian invasion and occupation of those countries, which Iran knows it could never accomplish as a giant coalition- of-the-willing (led by US) would stomp its army to dust. Iran is not stupid- it knows this.

Same way Iran knows the US would obliterate it if it launched a nuclear weapon at Israel. And Israel is protected enough to retaliate, anyway.

Iran is barely hanging onto its alliance with Syria as Assad's people are in the minority in that country. And there's no way a Shia-sect mafia takes control of a place like Saudi Arabia, merely for the reason of Wahhabism, which is another reason Iran knows it should not attack Saudi Arabia.

So what does the US think Iran is going to do, other than what it is doing right now (partnering with Shia in Iraq and Lebanon)? I think the US thinks Iran is not going to do anything other than that.

Sure seems the US is preparing to hit Iran, though. Maybe the US hopes to install puppets in Tehran and thereby finally gain control of Iraq?